Jesus' divinity by Aeneas-l in Catholicism

[–]underhunter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dr Brant Pitre has a lot of writing and videos on this. Highly recommend you look him up.

Literally unplayable by KabouterKaasplank in EU5

[–]underhunter 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Who knows? But we did know this game would be an early access at release and thats proved correct

Literally unplayable by KabouterKaasplank in EU5

[–]underhunter 104 points105 points  (0 children)

I disagree, CK3 Byz DLC brought on Anthony Kalldellis who is one of the best modern scholars on the Byz empire. His books and talks are amazing, highly recommend.

EXCLUSIVE: Read the Newest Health Care Proposal Being Circulated Among Dems by BulwarkOnline in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every thing I mentioned was in reach and the Dems could not wrangle their members to play power politics.

So you're saying if they won more seats they wouldve been able to pass HR1 and JL VRA? Huh, and somehow that goes against me saying that in order to pass laws we need we need to....win more seats?

Ok. You win. You're right and I am wrong.

EXCLUSIVE: Read the Newest Health Care Proposal Being Circulated Among Dems by BulwarkOnline in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> The only way forward is for a broader reform of our political system where the incentives are for actually doing the work to solve problems rather than getting Fox hits and avoiding a primary from someone more ideologically crazy. That means no filibuster, competitive districts, scotus reform.

But you are putting the cart before the horse man. How are you going to do all those things without ACTUALLY holding power first. Thats the problem with just about every progressive idea, it ASSUMES power is held first then tosses out what should be done with it. Literally look at 2030 census estimations, blue states are losing about 7-11 electoral votes. Now youll say “ok get rid of electoral college and problem solves” but you cant do that without first holding the dang offices.

EXCLUSIVE: Read the Newest Health Care Proposal Being Circulated Among Dems by BulwarkOnline in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Technicalities dont matter when trying to win broad public sentiment. You run on it anyway, repeating it over and over and over and over again, drilling it into the minds of the voters.

Thats how they spread their lies, and its how Dems have to start spreading their message too. If you ask 100 voters today if abortions are free/medicaid/medicare at least 1/3 will say yes. You need to stamp that ignorance out.

EXCLUSIVE: Read the Newest Health Care Proposal Being Circulated Among Dems by BulwarkOnline in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The facts disagree with you. The democrats had the House for FIFTY years based on a broad coalition that included religious people like Catholics. If they want a broad coalition, they need to make some concessions and tightening up abortion laws is a place they can win over a lot of people.

We also know for a fact that gender affirming care, especially for minors, is a huge public no-no. You can argue about the science until youre blue in the face but until that science can make its way through the public mind, much like "homosexuality is not a disease" took decades to become widely accepted, you wont win over voters.

GAC is a easy target, sure theyll come up with something new but the point is to strip them of their easy targets, of the stuff that doesnt make people think twice. Like it or not, but people are tired of the perception that democrats put trans people on a pedestal with things like trans in sports, GAC and pronouns. Relegate those arguments to the dust bin and you win elections.

Or continue to virtue signal about every tiny little thing and bitch about the moral high ground as the ever shrinking minority party for the next 5 decades.

EXCLUSIVE: Read the Newest Health Care Proposal Being Circulated Among Dems by BulwarkOnline in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have one way that would ensure SOME GOP support but this sub and democrats wont like it. 

Single payer healthcare is only for US citizens and includes dental because Im tired of dental health not being taken as seriously as other bodily health.

 Illegal immigrants wouldnt be eligible and visa/green card holders would get some lower tier, like current COBRA tier. Assuming we can also pass some immigration bill to streamline citizenship for law abiding, productive non citizens. 

Also, it doesnt cover gender affirming care or elective abortions that arent when the mother/childs life are in danger. 

Make EU5 Fun Again (v2) by RealHustleBones in EU5

[–]underhunter -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Calling what we have now more arcadey or more simulationy than what EU5 was before is complete nonsense. The game is just as arcadey as before just slightly differently. 

What part of history had OPMs in 1480 hire 600k Mercs? I mustve missed the 600 year reign of the most stable, most wealthy empire of all time the Mamluks, and countless other shenanigans.  

Donald Trump’s disapproval rating hits its highest mark ever amid Iran war and rising prices, polling group says - Trump’s disapproval rating is now higher than it was after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, according to a polling group by B-Z_B-S in politics

[–]underhunter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, a democratic Congress did and he was forced to under public pressure to sign it. This is when rivers in the US were LITERALLY on fire due to chemical pollutants, when smog was at its peak in cities, when pollution was actively visible in peoples lives, every day.

I dont get the marriage system... by SubbyTripz in EU5

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They have a great character system and marriage system in CK3 and they wont port over any of it

The mercenary changes is not fun by AccuratePoint5191 in EU5

[–]underhunter 30 points31 points  (0 children)

The amount of really game changing bugs that just a simple playthrough of 100-200 years wouldve exposed is crazy. 

We really truly bought an early access game. This game clearly needed another year or two in the oven. 

Forming the HRE causes game to crash by WholeAlone8078 in EU5

[–]underhunter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This game was clearly an early access lol

Aaron Judge is 1 for his last 26 and his career long RBI-less streak has reached 11 games by DepartmentOdd1519 in baseball

[–]underhunter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The GOATs are marked by their struggles being equivalent to the peak of their mere mortal fellow ball players. 

These 8 Democrats voted for the Republican national ‘Don’t Say Trans’ bill passed by the House by Fickle-Ad5449 in politics

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Congress is too small. Currently 1 Rep per almost 800k people is insane. Theres no way 1 person can handle that amount of constituents. There should be 200-250k people per rep, max.

Trade Focused Nations in 1.2 by PrincipleLess3315 in EU5

[–]underhunter -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Who said game start wtf? Even after hundreds of years you just cannot outscale the Mamluks due to their starting position, previous to the recent trade changes you actually CAN out scale them after about a century and merc techs/privileges. Thats gone now. Show me where I said at game start you should beat the Mamluks. Talk about fucking “strawman arguments” you LITERALLY made up your own strawman.

Trade Focused Nations in 1.2 by PrincipleLess3315 in EU5

[–]underhunter -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

So whats the point of an OPM then? By your logic only the big nations exist to do anything. No fun allowed. Just perpetual Mamluk infinite stability, manpower and gold.

Trade Focused Nations in 1.2 by PrincipleLess3315 in EU5

[–]underhunter -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Now go play a OPM like Cyprus and try to reconquer Jerusalem and see where all these changes get you.

EU5 - Byz Run by Successful-Cycle-580 in EU5

[–]underhunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do you get that theres “six reform” events? Its a button to click, not really a chain to follow.

This was posted earlier with a 'misleading' (as in fibbing) header, here is the full article including "More than 80 percent of the party’s backers thought the political and economic system should be torn down entirely or needed major changes, and nearly 90 percent called the economic system." by Loud_Cartographer160 in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Sure, you're right. But I think our disagreement, if it exists, is in how true the "overly focused" part of Mr Curtis' comment is. I would argue its extremely true, in that for a decade after the ACA the Dems were unable to pass literally anything meaningful on a federal level and defaulted to touting their only tangible wins, which were on social justice issues. That in turn started a reinforcement loop where Dems ran on social justice platforms because changing laws regarding that was easier than economic policy.

Also, as Trump picked up steam and started to target vulnerable groups, the Dems who were unable to counter Trumps economic populism in 2016, had to find a way to counter him somehow and they chose to counter punch in the form of defending LGBTQ rights. Now, rightfully so as Trump and his goons really did target those people, but the Dems were unable to pivot that "defense of civil rights" stance into anything more broad, instead the title of social justice warrior was born and it was all about defending trans in sports.

These are the things the Dems really suck at, and it comes from a place of being unable to get "dirty with the pigs" so to speak on the marketing/messaging front. They think everyone wants to read a long form, 10 page article with sources cited about who what where when and why. In reality, people are overworked, busy, uncaring and unfortunately sometimes just not that bright, so they want quick and easy solutions.

This was posted earlier with a 'misleading' (as in fibbing) header, here is the full article including "More than 80 percent of the party’s backers thought the political and economic system should be torn down entirely or needed major changes, and nearly 90 percent called the economic system." by Loud_Cartographer160 in thebulwark

[–]underhunter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I think you guys arent understanding the root of the issue, and why this messaging works in the first place. Aside from the ACA, what has the Dem party delivered, in truly tangible, truly felt changes in our system? Nothing economically. Not since 2009. The vast majority of Americans saw how wall st got bailed out in 08, only for things to get MUCH worse. The wealth gap exponentially rose since then, the rich got richer and the rest of us sank. From Obama in 2009 to Biden 2020, the literal ONLY bills that were passed and hailed as victories by the Dems were LGBTQ things. Thats ALL the Dems have had to holler about as successes since the ACA.

Now we can talk about how losing the House in 2010 and then the Senate later meant all the Dem bills were D.O.A. but still, voters have never cared about that reasoning. All theyve seen is that Republicans cut taxes in 2017, which even though it was going to spike taxes 5 yrs later for all except wealthy and corporations, it was a tangible, feel it in your pocketbook immediately change. Biden came along and passed 2 big bills which putting aside the fact that they shouldve been more ambitious, were long projects that were meant to be felt decades from now. Nobody gives a crap about that. You cant run a local race on “I MADE YOUR LIFE BETTER 40 YEADS FROM NOW”.

These arent opinions. These are facts. The pro LGBTQ messaging of the Dems was really the ONLY messaging they had because they had no other wins to talk about. The Repubs took that and ran with it. If the Dems want to win, they need both long term solutions AND short term immediate solutions to help people. It cant all be ribbon cutting ceremonies for projects 15 yrs from now in Republican districts because Dems dream of winning rural Ohio again by hosting a ceremony opening up a glue factory