Medicare For All comes immediately to mind as a broadly popular policy.
For starters, because this isn't actually true.
The latest findings, from Gallup’s annual Health and Healthcare poll conducted Nov. 9-Dec. 2, 2022, show 57% think the government should be responsible to ensure coverage for all Americans, while 40% say it should not.
Currently, 53% of U.S. adults prefer a private system, while 43% support a government-run system.
Leftists often drastically overestimate how popular significant healthcare reforms actually are. The government merely offering a public option is more popular, and if I recall, was something Biden actually supported, though it wasn't ever going to the last Congress, let alone this one. Full-scale socialization of the medical system à la the British NHS is far less popular.
Edit: downvoting me for reporting
data does not change the truth, but if anyone has an actual point to make I'd be more than happy to hear it.
That is entirely the point. They'd rather maintain their own sense of ideological purity and don't care who gets harmed in the process.
Being able to focus on rigid ideological purity is an incredibly privileged position that you can only take if t you know the consequences won't actually hurt you.
Outside of explicit and clearly labeled parody and satire, I'm starting to settle pretty securely on the idea that it should be illegal to use someone's likeness in a convincing manner without their permission.
There are absolutely a huge number of idiots who would take up arms over a drepfake of Biden announcing some kind of crackdown on Trump supporters or some idiotic bullshit like that.
I mean, this is just false. He's essentially the last remnant of the old Southern Democrats that have since been nearly entirely replaced by Republicans, but they absolutely did exist. Hell, god damn Missouri had a Democrat Senator and Governor not that long ago. Louisiana still has a Democrat Governor. The party used to have a pretty substantial conservative wing that was actually competitive in the South. They clashed with the rest of the party constantly, but they also played a key part in allowing major Democratic victories like the ACA to pass.
I would imagine the military is considering all of these factors. If there is actually political pressure to electrify vehicles in contexts where it's truly not appropriate, that would be alarming, but I haven't heard of any evidence of that happening at all, so I wouldn't say it's a meaningful concern.
It feels like all the mainstream centralized social platforms and search engines (Google) are censoring any updates on reddit's status to maintain a status quo.
Consider taking the tinfoil hat off mate. Try to think about this logically - what seems to be the more likely explanation as to why you haven't seen many articles? That there haven't been any significant developments - which is simply true - and thus there haven't been many news stories about them, or that Google has decided to actively censor stories that do not exist about events which have not happened.
I'd love to understand your reasoning; it seems very interesting.
Exactly this. As someone who grew up in a rural Missouri town that, in 2020, brought out Confederate flags and mimed lynchings at a 15-person Black Lives Matter protest, I know very well that there are a lot of people in this country that want this kind of stuff. Their entire conception of politics is the wielding of power to hurt those that they think deserve it.
Liberals that grew up in Blue suburbs of coastal cities often are comically unaware of just how unfamiliar they are with huge swaths of the country. While there aren't a crazy huge amount of truly fanatical conservatives, those that do exist are extremely loud and extremely politically active. If they're not opposed, they win.
Or, and I know this can be a difficult concept to grasp, some people may simply disagree that blanket defederation is absolutely necessary.
I'm certainly skeptical of Meta's intentions, and if they do start federating, I'll probably make an account on a non-federated instance as well, but this idea of "Anyone who disagrees with me must be a shill" really isn't an attitude that's particularly alluring.
Genuinely, are you asking why people like social media in general?
For one reason or another, they find the platform to be some combination of useful or entertaining and a good way to connect with people they care about. If you don't otherwise have significant personal issues about advertising, it's not an unreasonable position to think that the pros outweigh the cons, even if you have different priorities.
I wouldn't say it's force-feeding for a news site to report on the highly successful launch of a new social network by one of the largest tech companies in the world that's also directly aiming to compete with a platform owned by a very controversial and frankly entertaining megalomaniac.
If anything, I'd say they're a poor news organization if they didn't cover it.
I don't really see the constituonal basis here. Racial discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, so there's an obvious angle for calling affirmative action unconditional. That doesn't really exist with legacy admissions.
It's still stupid and shouldn't be a thing, but it's not the job of the Courts to ensure an optimal college admissions system. Saying that it's de facto racial discrimination is a pretty big stretch.
To be clear, there is zero fight to be had. The composition of the Court can only be modified by Congress. The GOP led House is not going to pass a bill allowing the Democrat President to add new judges to the Court.
Given that reality, there's simply nothing Biden could do even if he wanted to.
