@megatonmike.bsky.social
I am serious, and don’t call me shirley.
December 31, 2025 at 8:27 PM
I am serious, and don’t call me shirley.
I agree with this, and it is an absolute national emergency, especially with the sale of Dominion to right wingers. No obvious solution, but taking back congress and doing investigations would be a start. Individual states attorneys general could also perhaps do something.
December 31, 2025 at 2:55 PM
I agree with this, and it is an absolute national emergency, especially with the sale of Dominion to right wingers. No obvious solution, but taking back congress and doing investigations would be a start. Individual states attorneys general could also perhaps do something.
??? Nobody here blamed women, or black women. You misunderstand the argument completely at best, or intentionally mischaracterize at worst.
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not” Michelle Obama, November 5 2025
She, nor I, are blaming women for anything.
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not” Michelle Obama, November 5 2025
She, nor I, are blaming women for anything.
December 31, 2025 at 2:49 PM
??? Nobody here blamed women, or black women. You misunderstand the argument completely at best, or intentionally mischaracterize at worst.
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not” Michelle Obama, November 5 2025
She, nor I, are blaming women for anything.
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not” Michelle Obama, November 5 2025
She, nor I, are blaming women for anything.
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not”.
Michelle Obama November 5, 2025
Don’t hate the messenger, or call them misogynists. It is pure dispassionate game theory.
Unless you like what we have now?
Michelle Obama November 5, 2025
Don’t hate the messenger, or call them misogynists. It is pure dispassionate game theory.
Unless you like what we have now?
December 31, 2025 at 4:14 AM
“You are not ready for a woman. You are not”.
Michelle Obama November 5, 2025
Don’t hate the messenger, or call them misogynists. It is pure dispassionate game theory.
Unless you like what we have now?
Michelle Obama November 5, 2025
Don’t hate the messenger, or call them misogynists. It is pure dispassionate game theory.
Unless you like what we have now?
No, demonstrates exactly the other point. Democrats also have to overcome the electoral college IN ADDITION to racism and/or sexism.
December 31, 2025 at 4:05 AM
No, demonstrates exactly the other point. Democrats also have to overcome the electoral college IN ADDITION to racism and/or sexism.
It’s ok, he lives. He’s coming back to play Dr doom in the next die hard/mcu fusion
December 26, 2025 at 2:54 AM
It’s ok, he lives. He’s coming back to play Dr doom in the next die hard/mcu fusion
The Last Unicorn does not approve
December 24, 2025 at 11:53 PM
The Last Unicorn does not approve
*more mutually exclusive
December 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM
*more mutually exclusive
Dude is moving near the speed of light, he’s going to be massive regardless. Skinny and jolly seem somewhat less mutually exclusive.
The smiling Buddha is the fat one.
The smiling Buddha is the fat one.
December 24, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Dude is moving near the speed of light, he’s going to be massive regardless. Skinny and jolly seem somewhat less mutually exclusive.
The smiling Buddha is the fat one.
The smiling Buddha is the fat one.
And then apply that same standard to military funding? And farmers? And police departments?
December 24, 2025 at 6:54 AM
And then apply that same standard to military funding? And farmers? And police departments?
Really have to “both sides” this shit in the last sentence?
December 23, 2025 at 8:40 PM
Really have to “both sides” this shit in the last sentence?
Does every action to cover up or conceal a crime, alone or in a conspiracy, reset the statute of limitations for the prosecution of the original crime?
December 21, 2025 at 9:21 AM
Does every action to cover up or conceal a crime, alone or in a conspiracy, reset the statute of limitations for the prosecution of the original crime?
I don’t see you offering a solution yourself…
This is a conversation the Democratic Party needs to have.
Unless you like what we have now?
Don’t hate the messenger, it’s just game theory.
It brings me no joy to point this out
This is a conversation the Democratic Party needs to have.
Unless you like what we have now?
Don’t hate the messenger, it’s just game theory.
It brings me no joy to point this out
December 19, 2025 at 10:33 PM
I don’t see you offering a solution yourself…
This is a conversation the Democratic Party needs to have.
Unless you like what we have now?
Don’t hate the messenger, it’s just game theory.
It brings me no joy to point this out
This is a conversation the Democratic Party needs to have.
Unless you like what we have now?
Don’t hate the messenger, it’s just game theory.
It brings me no joy to point this out
No, the answer is ranked choice voting. Unless you see an easy way to reduce racism and sexism in America? Michelle Obama said it herself on nov 5.
Don’t misread me, I’d love to see a woman president.
I’d also love to see an atheist president, would I suggest running one? Fuck no, they’d never win.
Don’t misread me, I’d love to see a woman president.
I’d also love to see an atheist president, would I suggest running one? Fuck no, they’d never win.
December 19, 2025 at 10:21 PM
No, the answer is ranked choice voting. Unless you see an easy way to reduce racism and sexism in America? Michelle Obama said it herself on nov 5.
Don’t misread me, I’d love to see a woman president.
I’d also love to see an atheist president, would I suggest running one? Fuck no, they’d never win.
Don’t misread me, I’d love to see a woman president.
I’d also love to see an atheist president, would I suggest running one? Fuck no, they’d never win.
And the answer is ranked voice voting
December 19, 2025 at 7:15 PM
And the answer is ranked voice voting
Sadly, being a good person, a potentially better president, or having solid principles is not enough.
For example, a nonpartisan voting commission as a fight against gerrymandering is in principle good. But then only democratic states do it and unilaterally disarm.
This behavior loses the game
For example, a nonpartisan voting commission as a fight against gerrymandering is in principle good. But then only democratic states do it and unilaterally disarm.
This behavior loses the game
December 19, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Sadly, being a good person, a potentially better president, or having solid principles is not enough.
For example, a nonpartisan voting commission as a fight against gerrymandering is in principle good. But then only democratic states do it and unilaterally disarm.
This behavior loses the game
For example, a nonpartisan voting commission as a fight against gerrymandering is in principle good. But then only democratic states do it and unilaterally disarm.
This behavior loses the game
You dont know me, how I vote or understand a simple argument, I never said any of that.
“You’re not ready for a woman, you are not.” -Michelle Obama Nov 5 2025
Care to argue with me
Or Michelle?
“You’re not ready for a woman, you are not.” -Michelle Obama Nov 5 2025
Care to argue with me
Or Michelle?
December 19, 2025 at 9:55 AM
You dont know me, how I vote or understand a simple argument, I never said any of that.
“You’re not ready for a woman, you are not.” -Michelle Obama Nov 5 2025
Care to argue with me
Or Michelle?
“You’re not ready for a woman, you are not.” -Michelle Obama Nov 5 2025
Care to argue with me
Or Michelle?
No need to argue on this, we’re on the same side. But to argue that electability is not an argument for or against a candidate is political malpractice. I’ll be voting for who can actually win.
You seem kinda angry that racism and sexism exist and some of them vote. You’re misdirecting that at me
You seem kinda angry that racism and sexism exist and some of them vote. You’re misdirecting that at me
December 19, 2025 at 9:42 AM
No need to argue on this, we’re on the same side. But to argue that electability is not an argument for or against a candidate is political malpractice. I’ll be voting for who can actually win.
You seem kinda angry that racism and sexism exist and some of them vote. You’re misdirecting that at me
You seem kinda angry that racism and sexism exist and some of them vote. You’re misdirecting that at me
Oh ya, it was easy to say, because it’s true, at least statistically. Overcoming electoral college, racism and sexism gives a candidate an automatic (estimate) 10 point deficit nationally.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a woman president, but not at the expense of consistently losing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a woman president, but not at the expense of consistently losing.
December 19, 2025 at 9:18 AM
Oh ya, it was easy to say, because it’s true, at least statistically. Overcoming electoral college, racism and sexism gives a candidate an automatic (estimate) 10 point deficit nationally.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a woman president, but not at the expense of consistently losing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see a woman president, but not at the expense of consistently losing.
Don’t put words in my mouth, I argued none of those points.
Are you arguing that America is free of racism and sexism? I would argue that it is not.
Are you arguing that America is free of racism and sexism? I would argue that it is not.
December 19, 2025 at 8:59 AM
Don’t put words in my mouth, I argued none of those points.
Are you arguing that America is free of racism and sexism? I would argue that it is not.
Are you arguing that America is free of racism and sexism? I would argue that it is not.
She specifically said that as a main reason for why she wouldn’t run.
December 19, 2025 at 8:50 AM
She specifically said that as a main reason for why she wouldn’t run.
No shit! Watching it now, read you post and laughed. I forgot how well done it was. Engaging the whole series through
December 19, 2025 at 7:58 AM
No shit! Watching it now, read you post and laughed. I forgot how well done it was. Engaging the whole series through