Did you read the post?

It’s not that kind of protest. I’ve been to plenty of that kind of protest, and this isn’t that kind.

Right? How can one be brave if they’re not afraid? Isn’t the definition of bravery doing a thing even though you’re scared to?

There was a book that came out in 2010 titled Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don’t Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It. It’s an analysis of the insurance industry (not just healthcare, but with a special focus on healthcare) that details how insurance companies operate to delay approvals of insurance claims, deny insurance claims, and defend wrongful denials in court. It basically shows how it is cheaper for insurance companies to not pay lawful claims and fight them in court than to pay out claims.

When Luigi Mangione killed the UHC CEO last year, he left behind 3 bullet shells at the scene of the murder with the words “Delay”, “Deny” and “Depose” written on the bullet shells. It was a pretty clear reference to the book, and was the first indication (before Mangione was caught) as to the motive of the shooting.

So, given that you don’t live near DC, what are you doing?

This is an honest question.

As an ACAB myself, I think we’ll appreciate the sign very much.

Completely agree on that last point. I don’t really expect we’ll see completely fair and open elections in this country for a while, if ever again.

No, we need people. All kinds of people. As many people as we can possibly get. Absolutely NOBODY who is considering attending a protest should be told to stay home.

I attend protests all the time. Ever since my early 20s (which was over 15 years ago) I’ve made it a point to attend at least 1 protest every month. For the past 8 years that’s been closer to weekly than monthly. I have plenty of experience at protests. My question here is solely about the phrasing for my sign.

I’m not a liberal. Thanks.

I appreciate your optimism, but I do not share it and have seen no evidence to support it.

I do protest in DC. Often. I was at one last weekend. I am unable to go into the city this weekend. I have about 2 free hours while my kids will be in a class, so I’m trying to use that time to participate where I can.

I don’t need a lecture. I know what I’m doing and when and where I’m able to participate. I am solely looking for advice on whether this one sign might lead to problems or not.

Research what working in those fields is like and choose the one that has the highest pay for the least time commitment. Whichever requires you to actually be at work the least is your best bet.

In every single conversation about which fictional character can beat the other in any competition, this is ALWAYS they correct answer.

I think this is a factor of your media echo chamber. I’ve personally attended protests nearly every week since January. I’m going to one tomorrow. They are all over my news feeds.

Ranked choice is fine, but it’s never going to end the two party system on its own. We can already see in some states (Alaska and Maine) and in some smaller municipalities in the US, and in countries outside the US, which have switched to RCV after having a 2-parety system that it doesn’t end the 2-party system. At best, it makes campaigning a little less negative.

People tend to simplify the concept of 3rd parties when thinking about RCV. They get it in their head that everyone who dislikes the 2 major parties would all vote for the same 3rd party as a first choice under RCV. In practice, that’s not how it works. Most people still vote for one of the major parties as their top choice. Among those who don’t, they are extremely divided in which 3rd party they pick. People who traditionally vote Republican but don’t really like them may be willing to vote Libertarian, but their never going to vote Green. Likewise, someone who doesn’t really like the Democrats but typically votes for them might prefer the Green Party or DSA or something, but they’re not voting Libertarian or Freedom Party.

When RCV is implemented in a 2-party system, what almost always happens is that the first choice 3rd party vote gets split among a number of different 3rd parties, giving none of them enough votes to win. When those get dropped in the first round of instant run-offs and those votes switch to the 2nd choice, one of the 2 major parties almost always wins.

If you want to get rid of the 2-party system, you need to get rid of single-member congressional districts. Switch to multi-member districts with proportional representation. Say a state gets 5 Representatives to the House. Each party (including 3rd party) puts forth up to 5 candidates all running in the same race. Everyone votes for either their preferred candidate or preferred party (you can even implement RCV here to rank candidates if you want). Then seats are allocated to each party based on which proportion of the vote they get. If the Green party gets 20% of the vote, they get 1 seat. If Republicans get 40%, they get 2 seats, etc, etc. The specific candidate(s) who wins from each party would be whoever got the most votes within that party.

This almost eliminates strategic voting. You don’t have to worry that your party is small with nowhere close to a majority support because you don’t need a majority to win a seat. Nearly everyone gets the representation they want.

My younger daughter’s 3rd birthday is next week. That’ll be pretty fun.

We’re also going on a family vacation this summer across the country. We had been planning to fly, but after comparing prices we discovered it would be cheaper to rent an RV and make it a road trip. I’m looking forward to doing that with my kids.

For headline sports programs like football and basketball, sure. But a lot of scholarships for stuff like lacrosse, track and field, virtually all women’s sports, etc come from the Department of Education.

I can’t picture myself in 5/10 years from now and can’t even imagine what type of job I’d love, bc everything seems out fo reach and impossible

You’re approaching this with 100% the wrong view and attitude. You sound like you’re trying to define your life by what job you have. Your job should just be the way you fund your life.

Find out what you want out of life. Do you want a family? Do you want to travel? Make art? Build community? Learn what hobbies you enjoy, how you want to spend your days, who you like to surround yourself with. Then figure out what you need financially to make that happen to the best of your ability. (Nothing will ever be perfect, and you shouldn’t expect that.) Then find a job that can fund the lifestyle you want.

Who cares what the job is? That’s not what life is about. That’s just how you pay for your life. Most people don’t love their job. Hell, most people don’t even like their job. It’s just how we get food and shelter.

OK, buddy. You’re wrong on like every point, but you go on believing whatever you want.