![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
It works in that show because the entire family are losers, and they all get mocked by all the others, regularly.
True equality, lol.
Bad word choice, what I meant is that I’m not interested in voting for President unless that particular vote also came with one/both of those things ‘attached’.
President is just one of many things you’re voting on.
Uh, yeah, that’s why I specifically said “voting for President”.
Plus this whole thread is specifically about the Presidential race.
I don’t live in a swing state. Voting for President is literally pointless for me.
You can get me to the poll if the vote is for abolishing the electoral college, or if ranked choice/instant runoff becomes the method used to determine the winner.
Not going to bother otherwise.
They said two candidates, not two terms.
Two consecutive candidates. As in two different people, who run under the same party. Not two terms.
Austin’s Central Library
centered around that idea.
Checks out.
Slate is not known for its nuance. Not that it doesn’t have a lot of company in that regard, but since this OP is a Slate article, well…
That is one horrendous logo, lol