Plenty of red outside the cities, though, and if they figure out why they're suddenly paying more for electricity, it may change a few minds about Republicans.
Of course, they're more likely to just blame Democrats for it, but one can hope.
Before Wind Waker was announced, Nintendo did a reel showing off the power of the GameCube that included a "realistic" (for the time) fight scene between Link and Ganondorf. So when they announced a new Zelda game, people were hyped for a gritty realistic Zelda, and when the first trailers appeared, people hated it.
For years after its release, Wind Waker's art style was dragged on by people, but today, it's remembered as one of the most iconic Zelda games from that time period and a major influence on the aesthetic of many Zelda games after it.
Today, its art style looks just as good as it did when the game first launched, while most other games from that time period - especially those that went for high fidelity and realistic graphics - look outdated.
A good art style is timeless and will always age better than trying to push the envelope on graphical fidelity or realism.
One thing to note, though, with the current situation in the US is that people are deciding against coming here for work in many of those sectors. From science and engineering to doctors and college professors, I've heard multiple people saying that their European colleagues have turned down jobs in the US.
Canada has been fighting a war on science almost as long as the US (I remember hearing about issues with the conservative government in Canada back during the 2000s), but this is a real time of opportunity to bring smart people in.
I absolutely agree, though I know of at least one other place that tried it and had issues because nobody knew who the candidates were or what their positions were, but IIRC, there was some context to it that made it a "well, of course they had problems" situation instead of people just being too lazy to read up on the candidates (though that is a very real but solvable issue). Like there were 10 districts on the ballot with 6 open seats in each, and they had about 30 candidates per district or something crazy like that.
But thanks to the two party system, what effect does it have? And I'm specifically talking about the voting day of the presidential election here, not primaries or other elections. Because that's where those efforts will have the most impact. Not that the Dems deigned to give us even the illusion of a primary this election (or in 2016, truthfully), but so many of these people seem to shake their fist once every 4 years and then go to sleep like cicadas awaiting the next presidential election.
I don't blame people for hating the weak candidates that the Dems consistently push forward to maintain the old guards' leadership positions, but I do blame them for looking at the alternative and saying "I'm okay with the possibility of that man winning if I don't vote or vote third party." The chance of a Trump victory and all that it entailed was a line in the sand that they were willing to cross.
As a trans woman, I blame them for saying, "Your life is not worth biting the bullet for."
Yep. Every time they've pulled farther right and lost, they've blamed the leftists for it for being too extremist in their policy demands or claiming that their issues aren't as important, like in the case with Millennials and housing costs, student debt, climate change, etc. Despite trying to make some headway on those issues, they've always refused to campaign on them.
Inaction is still a choice, though. I totally understand the sentiment behind that choice and even agree that we shouldn't be forced to choose genocide, but the alternative that we got is a man who not only wants the same genocide, but wants to accelerate it, put American boots on the ground to assist in it, and then turn the bloodied ground into resorts while also wanting to worsen life across the globe. So, by refusing to act, they didn't oppose that man getting into power. They cared so much about genocide that, ironically, they enabled making that genocide worse by not acting against that possibility.
The biggest issue, though, is with the people who couldn't be bothered enough to vote. Some, what, 40% of Americans never vote? Of course, there's plenty there who can't due to things like gerrymandering, but there's a huge swathe of white suburbanites who simply prefer the status quo to actually improving things.
No, they were never going to do that. They've already said that they learned their lesson, and in 2026, they're gonna double down on the losing strategy that they've been running since Clinton was in office and run on building the wall on the Mexican border and deporting immigrants to court the moderate Republican vote that doesn't exist and never would vote for them even if it did.
By the Presidential election, it's already years too late to force them to actually do good things. Protest votes and withholding your vote have done nothing to stop the slide that led to Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney in tow in the 16 years that I've been voting. If you want change, it's only going to come by threatening the position of the people in charge of the party and replacing the old guard with people like AOC. Whoever gets elected President does neither of those things. Unless Krasnov declares the Democratic Party a terrorist organization and has them all arrested as political prisoners. But then we won't have to worry about voting ever again, just like he promised.
They use recession because they're afraid of using the big D and admitting that we've had several since, like in 2008, which was only not a depression on what is effectively a technicality, IIRC.
I don't know the 5 9s reference, but the two 8s is 88, a Nazi dog whistle for Heil Hitler, as H is the 8th letter of the alphabet.