Step 1: Think of a viable alternative.
No-one has yet achieved step 1, which makes subsequent steps harder. It’s easy to get your hands on people who will answer with magical thinking, but a system that will actually work and isn’t capitalism has yet to be invented.
Do you have to support all of a nation’s laws in order to support said nation? E.g. can you patriotically protest a law you think is unconstitutional?
Cities are trash now, this will only make them worse because corporations are stupid. The new process will look like this:
Chiropracty isn’t “scientific”.
We could always embrace capitalism by getting rid of corporations, like as a concept. They’re a fundamentally anti-capitalist idea.
That’s not true. You don’t have to ask someone to stop committing defamation before suing them for defamation.
Does it count as a tell when it’s irrelevant? Everything Trump says is a lie. You can tell he’s lying because his lips are moving. The addition of the word “Sir” doesn’t change anything.
It’s fine, provided it’s not a plot hole - i.e. your fantasy setting needs to not have abolished blindness as a realistic malady, which some settings do. E.g. LOTR 100% has blind people, while the Harry Potter universe only has very poor blind people, since solving blindness is as trivial as a polyjuice potion, even if nothing else works (and something more effective is bound to work).
The government can ban tobacco, but it’s undeniably tyrannical to ban a drug because you don’t like the consequences people are choosing for themselves.
He couldn’t remember if he did or not, is the joke.
Speaking as someone who knows the definition (or more accurately, that there isn’t one), it is not a first amendment issue.
They do, in fact, have a legal leg to stand in. As shareholders, they can sue their board of directors for mismanagement.
Gerrymandering is legal, as is mentioned in the article. What’s not legal is racial gerrymandering. If all a court does is find a map to be gerrymandered, it won’t send it to anyone to be redrawn.
Banning specific guns is pure theater, even if it passes. There’s zero real safety in it.
You’re agreeing with the rich people in this case when you say that. They got none of those things in this case. They’re being taxed on money they could theoretically get.
deleted by creator
There is roughly $2.6 trillion dollars in untaxed earnings being held overseas in order to avoid taxation.
This is false. There are zero dollars in untaxed earnings.
Lemmings in several subs, this one included, seem to reliably comment on content they haven’t actually read. It’s bizarre.
It is making mistakes, not lying. To lie it must believe it is telling falsehoods, and it is not capable of belief.
Capitalism with a strong safety net sounds like you’re avoiding the question. The question is how to replace capitalism, not how to improve it.
How are you defining democratic socialism? Usually when I ask people to define socialism they answer with capitalism with extra undefined steps whereby the set of employees of a business is legally forced to be equal to that business’s set of owners. I’m not familiar with “democratic” as a modifier to the term, though.