Except the majority didn't put those people in power when we're talking about Texas. Texas is not majority Republican. Most of the Democrats are concentrated in the urban areas - Dallas/FW, Houston, Austin, etc. Nevertheless, there's a nearly 50/50 split in population affiliation. However, the Republicans control the state through a combination of voter suppression and gerrymandering. And, of course, the independent wildcards.

Point is, it's not the majority who are keeping the state red. It's the majority of the people who are allowed to vote when calculated in such a way as to make Republican votes count more than Democratic votes. The state is rigged to keep Republican control regardless of the actual majority.

So they're saying we need a steeper exit tax too? OK, let's goooooooo

Nobody is going to make you vote one way or another, but please recognize the following:

The United States is currently a two party system. It sucks. We need to push for more ranked choice voting, as well as direct popular vote.

However, until we're able to achieve something that makes this parties viable, we will continue to have issues with the right wing getting undue influence in our politics.

Vote with your heart, but make sure that you're okay with another Trump presidency of you decide not to vote for Biden.

Keep in mind as you do so that more than one state had enough votes for Jill Stein that if they had gone to Hillary, Trump never would have become president.

We should have viable parties outside of the two not great to horrible parties we have now. But that's simply not the way our government works as it stands now.

Last thing: you've become a single issue voter. This is the lefty equivalent of only caring about abortion and ignoring literally everything else. Politics is complicated, and I personally find single issue voters incredibly shortsighted and lazy.

LOL, "I'm willing to listen to reasoning, but only if you format it in a way that I'm willing to read."

For real, though, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. The whole 'then only outlaws will have guns' is really a myth. Statistics have shown over and over again that the vast majority of criminals who purchase guns do so legally. If they can't purchase one locally, they just go a state over where the laws are lax. The whole 'black market' gun stores thing is just a false argument.

The idea that a 'good guy with a gun' will make everyone safer is also pretty well debunked. Just look at John Hurley - the 'good guy with a gun' who was posthumously branded a hero after he was shot by the police.

Guns are inherently unsafe. We're never getting rid of them in military applications, but any reasonable restrictions for private ownership should be a no-brainer.

All the arguments for 'private gun ownership makes us safer' fall apart under any scrutiny. So does the constitutional argument. The only real, provable argument you have is that your personal freedom to own a killing machine is more important to you than public safety.

I take your point, but Madoff and Bankman-Fried are the quickest to come to mind. It's rare, but it does happen, and usually because of financial crimes that affect other billionaires.

Is it brainwashing and indifference, though? Could also be fear of a hostile government. Russia isn't exactly known for its fair treatment of protesters, dissidents, and activists.

I think this is a cultural difference. In the US it's not uncommon for common sense health regulation to get ignored - such as the amount of sugar in soda - because people cause an uproar about freedoms being taken away.

But if you say it's about the health of sweet, innocent children... well then suddenly it's a lot more palatable for the public.

So here in the US, you can want everyone to stop smoking, but make the case that it is for the benefit of children in order to help achieve that goal.

She pays good money for a PR team. Should at least get her money's worth.

As pointed out, he is appealing. Also, it states that the prosecution requested the maximum sentence.

I think you misunderstood what they are trying to convey.

Yes, it's quick and easy to install (privacy respecting alternative). But to even get to the point that you recognize that you need that alternative is a time commitment as well. They are so busy trying to stay alive and support themselves that they don't have the extra mental registers to devote to keeping up with privacy implications of popular software.

Not to mention, some software now suffers from IE6-itis, except this time with chromium. So if a user encounters one of those issues on an important site, they're more likely to drift over to the chromium side again. That friction alone causes more hardship for a person in their situation than simply giving up some privacy for convenience.

They're also not even making excuses. They're simply telling you what the point of view is in their world.

Your current approach presents a holler-than-thou attitude that is rude and off-putting. Ultimately, it's not your job nor mine to chastise them for their choices. If they're reading this thread, that shows interest in the topic.

Allow them to discover it for themselves (with guided encouragement and assistance if requested) instead of being guilted into a decision. That will have a much more long-lasting impact.

I see the method you attempt all over the Internet, and it always has the same effect of contributing to a toxic, elitist culture. IMHO, that needs to stop if we have any chance of changing more minds to be privacy-aware.

Lol, that's not even close to true.

Problematic politicians are reported on all the time. Recently we have Alito, Gaetz, Pelosi, Thomas, among many others.

The difference is that the left rejects corruption and undesirable politicians within their party. Remember Anthony Wiener? Gone. Remember Al Franken? He pushed himself out (wrongfully so I'm his case, IMHO - a true acknowledgement and apology for the wrongdoing paired with steps to bring something good from it would have saved his career).

Trump is currently the topic of conversation because he's under multiple indictments while in-fighting with his own party and trying to campaign all at the same time. As much as I hate hearing about that asshole, it's news. Huge news. Historic news.

So yes, the former president of the United States is getting more coverage. That's because he's the former fucking president of the United fucking States. But if you actually, y'know, go past the "front page," you will find that there's plenty of reporting on others.

You could say the same thing about other distros that hide the difficult bits, tbh. Is Endless Linux? What about Elementary?

The thing about Linux is that it's extremely flexible, and there's a lot of choices about interface and user experience.

So what is it about ChromeOS that makes it not Linux? Is it that it doesn't have GNOME, KDE, XFCE or the hundreds of other DEs? Is it that you don't need to use the terminal for anything? I mean, it's not the kernel or the userland or even the compiler...

So what is it?