FriendlyBeagleDog

Is this that shocking? Ocasio-Cortez seems to be the only politician left of tired milquetoast liberalism with both the public profile to sustain a campaign and demographic profile amicable to the position.

I understand the fear. It's hard to live with the knowledge that who you are might mean you're rejected by even the people you assumed would love you unconditionally.

But on the other hand, what's the value in being loved for the character you play? Wouldn't you prefer to know how they feel about who you actually are?

I saw from your other comment that you're dipping into presenting more like you feel, and that's great - there's no rush.

I'm two years into hormones and my life has been so much better for it, despite being reluctant and uncertain at first - only in the past year or so have I really been telling people. Cis people are spectacularly unobservant and you'd probably be able to hide that anything's changing for a while.

I would maybe suggest focusing less on labels, and more on what you actually want out of life substantively? You can associate more with women or things traditionally aligned with femininity if you want to, and regardless of gender identity.

But also, if as your post implies you want to be and for people to see you as more feminine - then I think you should consider taking steps to pursue that? In all likelihood, we only get one life - and it's too short to spend miserably living a lie longing for something else. There's no need to begrudgingly degender yourself if that's not something you actually want to do.

If physical changes are something that you actually want, less the social stigma - you can see about quietly beginning gender affirming care without publicly announcing any change to your identity. It's also not something that you have to stay the course on if it turns out not to be right for you. You might find that it slots some things into place though.

I meant security less in the armed conflict sense, more in the less vulnerable to disruption sense. It does make sense to retain a food production sector, and a manufacturing sector for important goods like pharmaceuticals - because countries are likely to prioritise themselves in times of scarcity or crisis. I agree that interdependence is good for avoiding conflict.

It's so bleak watching entire demographics of people being more-or-less openly categorised as expendable. Alerts intended to spur action in response to an impending disaster should be available to as many people as possible.

Even a selection of generic translations with a time inserted would be better than this, and it's heartwrenching that they're not even willing to put that tiny amount of effort in.

To imprison somebody at all is disgusting - but to use people's incarcerated status to coerce them into fighting, killing, and putting themselves at risk of being killed is one of the purest forms of evil.

I do understand the allure of "we should make things again", and the security implications of maintaining a local manufacturing capacity and workforce - but I think people from advanced economies are incredibly myopic about what it actually looks like to develop that capacity back.

It'll be difficult for the US to compete on price with countries like China, which have a much better developed manufacturing sector and lower wages / cost of living, even with steep tariffs applied to inflate the prices of imported goods.

They'd probably have to subsidise production in the short-term, and invest heavily in capital to automate production to the greatest extent possible so as to avoid needing to ask Americans to accept lower living standards to stand a chance.

It's an effective two-party system with unfair weighting utterly colonised by some of the most well-invested in propaganda efforts in the world.

People who report that they're Republicans very frequently flit wildly on whether the country's on a good economic trajectory based on whether Republicans are empowered, seemingly completely independent of any other metric.

I guess that's what happens when you're rich enough to spend your life surrounded by sycophantic yes men who'll lap whatever you say up for proximity to money and influence.

Man has insulated himself from ever experiencing the sincere social cues you need to develop and refine your communication skills.

Even setting aside that it's so unnecessarily huge, imagine having the utter contempt for others and self-importance necessary to park up on tram lines like that.

It's honestly so wild that these types thought Trump had some cohesive master plan that would all gel together nicely.

Like he told you the whole time that tariffs was basically his whole plan on the economy, and you thought there might be something more to it? From the guy who can barely complete a sentence? Be for real.

Yes, but sometimes producing for the public domain is their job. Sponsorships, grants, and other funding instruments exist for people who do work which is committed to the public domain.