On this particular topic the two parties basically just throw lawyers at the system they created for themselves in order to fight each other. For example, they made networks take down some reruns of Trump's shows during the last election. As if that would matter when the networks give him infinite free coverage, lol.
Third parties have little recourse both because they don't have the cash to throw around and because the two major parties just constantly put up barriers to entry, usually needing to exceed an arbitrary percentage of votes in the last election (an arbitrary percentage that the two parties increase whenever a third party gets close).
This country is basically just 100 capitalists in a trenchcoat making us all fight them and each other and people overseas over all the problems caused by the system that keeps them in power.
The spirit of the law doesn't mean anything. The law itself barely even means anything given how it's enforced. I'm not exactly seeing equal access for third party candidates. This is just the ruling class negotiating via the two parties.
Imagine getting paid to write articles like "right wing TV network hosts content favorable to right wing party candidates and not content unfavorable to them".
And then discovering that masses of people are both surprised and engaged.
Why does it need to be a scripting (by this I assume interpreted) language? For your requirements - particularly lightweight distribution - a precompiled binary seems more appropriate. Maybe look into Go, which is a pretty simple language that can be easily compiled to native binaries.
Trump isn't a fascist. In action he is actually a pretty standard reactionary liberal. You will notice that Biden has continued the salient policies that made liberals call him a fascist, such as extreme and horrible border policies (Dems actually outflanked the GOP on this from the right), anti-China policy, and extending militarism (like maximum pressure on Russia via Ukraine).
He's mostly just openly racist whereas the political class usually wraps itself in polite jargon bullshit before it fucks with a bunch of brown people.
The main ways you're exposed to microplastics is through ingestion and breathing it in.
To limit ingestion, yes the main thing to do is to avoid food and drink that comes in plastic containers. Reducing your consumption of processed foods will help with this. Eating mostly produce is a simpler way to approach this. Even though produce may often be transported in plastic, if you wash it before consumption you'll have done pretty well. Ideally you would also have a reverse osmosis filter at home, as your water probably has microplastics as well (but less than bottled water!).
To limit breathing it in, yes avoid frequent exposure to busy roads. They are often full of tire dust that is getting kicked up. This is cumulative, though. Walking by a busy street once is no big deal. Walking along one twice a day may add up.
Overall, however, to address microplastics we will have to control the production of plastics and the use of plastics in the first place. For example, there would be a lot less tire dust if we used more rail to get around. And there would be less need for bottled water if water fountains were ubiquitous and so were standardized stainless steel water bottles. In addition, we could use biodegradable plastics for more packaging so that they don't accumulate in bodies or the environment.
But this last point, despite being the only real solution, will literally require the overthrow of capitalism. I'm for this and am happy to talk about it more, but it is a lot.
Quick hint, I never said Kamala good or that I'd vote for her.
I am only being against Trump in my comments.
Absolutely false. You did not, "yes and" the person criticizing Kamala's support for genocide. You said this: "But Trump won't commit genocide? Grow up."
So, obviously a dismissal of the criticism of Kamala by deflecting to Trump, as I've said a few times. And insulting the critic at the same time! I don't think this is something I really need to explain. I think you know what your words mean.
But in case you just plain miscommunicated your sentiment (while being condescending!), I would recommend that you be clearer and more concrete in your statements.
You read in what you like.
What am I supposed to take away from this next quote of yours? "I'm still going to do what I have to for avoiding making everything exceptionally worse by further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior, until such time as a better realistic solution is made available." This was you trying to defend your deflection and insult. How are you "avoiding" "further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior" by dumping on people critical of Kamala for her support for the genocide of Gaza?
Again, I think you know what your words mean. Can you not stand by them?
I'm just sick of the twats deciding to vote for Trump as some protest over Kamala/Biden Etc and was calling out the shit attack ad for what it was.
First of all, if you think PSL wants you to vote for Trump, you have absolutely no clue what this poster is about. Perhaps you should investigate more before believing you have a right to speak, let alone condescend.
Next, you are doing exactly what I said, lmao. You perceive any criticism of your Dem genociders as violating your lesser evilism stance on Trump.
Insult wasn't deflecting, I did address the topic.
Of course it is deflecting. You tried to shift the conversation to Trump and lesser evilism. You did not address Kamala's support for genocide. Your deflection is a very common line from Dems for decades, it is meant to terminate criticism and keep you nice and complacent. It even makes some people go out of their way to police others using this thought terminating cliche. Can you believe it?
Genocide bad, m'kay?
Then oppose it rather than defending those carrying it out.
The insult can stand alone if the person addressed to was going to vote Trump.
When Kamala was criticized for her Zionism during an ongoing genocide, your only reply was to insult the critic and go, "what about Trump?" Deflections like this are very common when someone doesn't want to address a topic. Why don't you want to address the topic of Kamala being a genocide supporter?
Genocide is bad.
Then why did you deflect when a public figure was criticized for supporting it? Wouldn't the consistent thing to do be saying, "yeah you're right"?
I'm still going to do what I have to for avoiding making everything exceptionally worse by further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior, until such time as a better realistic solution is made available.
So you are confirming exactly what I just said in my last comment. Lesser evilism support for genocide while telling yourself it isn't. But when people who actually materially oppose it criticized the genocide-supporting candidate you've decided to support in the last two weeks, you deflected and insulted them.
"Never again" except when it disagrees with vote shaming lesser evilism, eh?
A citation is source information for a claim. This is why I'm offering to help you source, I.e. verify, any claims here you are having trouble doing so yourself.
I've offered this to you and two others. So far, nobody seems to actually be interested in sources. Hmm.
Growing up I was told genocide was the most serious crime and we must ensure it never happens again.
Now liberals are trying to do lesser-evil genocide.
Personally, I think we should actually materially oppose it based on consistent principles. Perhaps liberals feel that Trump gives them the green light to be open, bloodthirsty genociders? I'm glad I don't associate with them anymore.
He's just like me fr