Election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that there is "no credence" to the notion that the Democratic Party could not legally replace Biden on the ticket, as he is not the nominee yet -- the nominating process generally takes place during the Democratic National Convention.
I think you are misunderstanding how the election system works. It is the Democrats vs Republicans and nothing else until a third party can get big enough to overtake one of the two and then it's still just two major parties.
Save your energy for reforming the election system and then advocate for what you want. We have to be realistic here.
My take on the down votes is that it is dangerous to spread ideas about voting third party in a democracy with an election system that mechanically only supports two parties.
Even if you're in a "safe" state, people from states that are more in the margins may hear the sentiment and want to participate out of principle. It makes the opposition more likely to win.
If we want the Democrats to win in the end, it's safer to be pushing for engagement on all fronts. That's what the Republicans are doing and they can actually be trusted to vote.
I'm not ready to encourage this because anybody can get pissed off for any reason. There is very little that a politician does that makes everybody happy.
Fast, normal, and slow are not clear either, I think. We see here that the "fast" term needs to evolve because it probably feels pretty slow now. Wattages are pretty clear reference points when users come to understand what they mean, especially over time.
I agree with you, but I want to point out that this conflation is a direct result of our election system because it mechanically cannot support more than two parties.
Any other political interests need to merge together into one big entity that is nearly impossible to disentangle from the rest, so now maga = conservatism and we lose a lot of nuance in or political decision making and ability to be represented.
I'm pushing for Election Reform this election to move past First Past the Post voting.
Sure, that's true, but using Lego boys and Lego girls and just Lego people in general works too and is simpler, right?
I'm sure explaining that "Man is more like human in this case and not a gender or sex" is fun sometimes but ideas are evolving with more people and eventually it will just look too much like "Man is dogwhistle for subjugating women under men by calling them men".
Is this bad connotation that more people will see over time worth holding onto the word Man as meaning everybody when we could just evolve our usage of language?
Saying "that boy pussy" might not be about another person, so I'm also not sure this should actually be offensive. He might just be thinking about anal sex while he is in a vagina.
I'm making a big assumption though:
women can have a boy pussy since they also have an anus
Nope, our election system doesn't support it and actually has a spoiler effect because you end up tacitly supporting the other side by not voting for one of the two strongest parties.
Election reform. When third parties are viable options (they are absolutely not now and just create a spoiler effect that works against your side), politics will need to shift to accommodate those interests. Push for Ranked Choice Voting and more!
From the article you linked to: