This would share a ton of design space with the psychic stuff they added in Royalty, so I would be surprised if this is it. It would also just feel like a bit of a departure from the theme of rimworld, which has always tried to err on the side of scifi over fantasy.
I was just discussing with my partner though and I have no idea where they go from where they are. Ideology was already so massive that it's hard to think of something outside of that box.
I don't think we're in disagreement? Biden has nothing to lose by playing up his decency factor, because it is Trump's primary weakness. Why would you ever not appeal to potential voters (regardless of political spectrum) by playing up a factor you planned to stress anyway? I only brought up policy in response to commentors saying Biden is kowtowing to the GOP to court Haley voters, which I just do not see happening right now. You would have seen a much more moderate budget proposal (which to be clear, is also optics, because presidential budget proposals are basically just wish lists that don't come true) if that were the case. He's courting the left, if anything.
The only policy proposal I see being affected by Haley voters is Ukraine funding, because Trump's isolationism is a common complaint from her crowd. Democrats were going to support that anyway, so I'm just not seeing it.
I don't think he's been appealing to Haley voters on the policy front at all. His new budget proposal is anathema to the republican way of thought, even the less crazy sections. He is appealing to Haley voters on the decency front, which he absolutely should. Even if you are a conservative, Trump should drastically frighten you. Not because he's not a conservative, but because he is a destructive demagogue. Biden is appealing to voters with a distaste for that because he is not that, simple as.
Edit: Can someone help me understand how I said something controversial here? Does anyone have any examples of the Biden campaign making policy adjustments to gain Haley voters?
Guess this one just hit close to home since I am one of the aforementioned runners. I do think that if someone is in the position to be able to contribute their vote in an area where it will make more impact, they should do so. I guess I just also understand not wanting to dictate so much of your life for a minor bump in a political cause, imperative as it might be. It's a hard situation all around.
I'm not exactly going to fault persecuted people for fleeing their homes. It's not always about "amenities" as much as it is safety and belonging. I'm not against the idea that this dilutes our political power in our system, but I'm also not sure that it's the front I'm going to choose to fight on.
If you're building a military, de-individualization makes sense and builds cohesion. If you're building a society or a relationship, de-individualization is gross and abusive when used with intent.
Generic Democrat/Republican beat their respective candidates quite often, actually. It's easy to be appealing as a literal non-existent entity with no baggage that represents an average of one of the two most common voter groups. Not really interested in arguing with you on any of the rest of it, but that piece is not as supportive an argument as people are making it out to be.
Not to mention that the resistance is immensely fractured. I'm still not sure that we've seen an event heinous enough to galvanize the opposition past ideological boundaries. For many, stopping Trump is not yet enough to delay their potential political gains. Populism rides on the strongest human emotions, the easiest and vaguest enemies, and the simplest (wrong) answers. It's going to take a united effort, the sort that was brought about by the geopolitical situation in the FDR era, or I worry that we fail.
Not arguing that the FBI hasn't suppressed completely valid movements in the past, because that's well-documented for anyone to see. I just think that if I was a professional writing a handbook in this situation, I wouldn't go to the trouble of redefining the context each time either. Because of that, I'm not sure that this is demonstrative of their stance.
I would read this as "Of the types of violent extremists, the 'Anarchist' type are those who... ". As a really dumb metaphor, if I have a pokedex, I don't need to restate that they're all Pokémon in there each time.
I sure hope so, but the SotU has pretty minimal impacts on approval, historically. Clinton got a bump of ~10 points in 98, but otherwise it's been less than 5 points in the last 30 years. It was a fantastic speech though, and we are in a unique situation with the age dilemma. Here's to hoping!
I don't see how this is the case? All conservatives have their heads lodged in their asses on some level, but Trump's failures are not ones of conservatism, but on a more base level. The attacks on democracy, the isolationism, and the corruption/decency factor are all considerations that the left has been asking for conservatives to give a shit about for years. While I still think this group is conservative, and thus has the whole head-in-ass problem, I don't think their choice of Biden over Trump makes a statement on anything but Biden's "decency" compared to Trump's.
I'm not arguing that Biden is some super leftist, he's obviously not. I just don't think this event reinforces that.
You'll need a constitutional amendment or a radical change up in the Supreme Court to abolish PACs. That's considered a free speech issue. I am not sure I have high hopes of a constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes.
I'm not shaming you trying to get your vote. Your vote is yours to strategically use as you see fit. I'm just trying to make you see your best and most pragmatic option. If you're not interested, all good with me. Fact of the matter is, you can withhold your vote, vote for Biden, vote for Trump, or vote for another option. Only one of those options has the chance to make improvements for Gaza, assuming they're still standing by then, as you say. A lot of people make "sitting out" to not be a choice, but it is one, and if Trump wins, Gaza and the idea of a Palestinian state are toast for the rest of our lives. I'll be voting for Biden, and pressuring/negotiating for Gaza in the meantime. Nobody is asking you to sit down and shut up along the way.
Darn, guess the conservatives will get in and... propose turning Gaza into a parking lot for the new Jerusalem mega church. You want your ends achieved with Gaza? You want actual progress made and not just moral soap boxes to stand on? Then consider which avenue available to you actually gets closer to that end: negotiating with democrats to harshen Biden's stance on Israel (which I heartily endorse and is already happening) or to try to somehow work around/with the GOP? Or do you have some secret third avenue for magically handing progressives more political power than they've ever had to do something about it? That's reality. Feel free to sit it out for your ethics, but that's a choice too, with impacts for Gaza, the entire middle east, and the rest of the world.
Exactly! I'm not anti-progressive, and consider myself one. It's just not pragmatic or honest with ourselves to act as if we have any leverage to make demands. As a coalition, democrats can be strong, but all factions involved will need to give and take. Progressives, look at what you have earned from this admin. Compare it to the Clinton era, or the Obama era. Work with your allies and let's use our collective power to achieve more on the things we agree on collectively, and negotiate on the things we don't.
Push him, fine. Convince him. Advise him. Let's be clear though: progressives are in no position to make demands. We don't have the power or the leverage. It's foolish to make demands and set expectations for ourselves that are just entirely unrealistic. Biden's first term was positively impacted by progressives doing meaningful work and building bridges. Right now, we are a coalition. That means compromises and allyship should be our North star.
This would share a ton of design space with the psychic stuff they added in Royalty, so I would be surprised if this is it. It would also just feel like a bit of a departure from the theme of rimworld, which has always tried to err on the side of scifi over fantasy.
I was just discussing with my partner though and I have no idea where they go from where they are. Ideology was already so massive that it's hard to think of something outside of that box.