Mandate all new laws and bills can only be a maximum of 3-5 pages, that's it. Is it really that stupid that all you need to do is limit the printer so that they can't flood you with paper trying to hide things?
This was brought on from the recent omnibus bill and if it's just because they flood the system late that they keep getting things through.
I don't think so. I think it is possible to win an election if you reduce the enemy's control of the narrative.
I mostly don't believe in the fraud narrative. The difference between polling and results in the mid-terms is easily explained by over-optimism over what women's vote would come out as.
Sure, AZ is corrupt as shit, Kari Lake might have squeaked out a win in reality, but I don't think that the huge difference in what was expected and what happened is much more than hubris coming back to bite.
The whole focus on TERF bullshit, running women in most seats, didn't do anything for the vote totals because they don't understand women. Whoever promises them hatred is who they vote for. Look at how women are a stable voting bloc for the UK Conservatives.
Every single leader for them lately has sold out to keep that train rolling, Rishi the latest with the absurd support of Braverman's ridiculous "keep women safe" bullshit, including such gems as making it illegal to walk too close.
That security might change in the future because Labour are heavily doubling down on encouraging women's hatred.
You'll be able to "win an election", but you will not be able to get anything done, as we saw with Trump. And why is that?
Say, did you ever explain why you claimed that "women stabbed the nation in the back", even though their vote swung towards the GOP?
Considering that GOP underperformed almost everywhere, except NY and CA, I don't think there was any AZ-specific fraud. But then again, I think they legally rigged the election as in 2020.
One wonders how you shoehorn all your betes noires into the conversation.
Didn't I tell you that you would turn on Rishi almost instantly? I guess now you can use his wife or whoever she was as 'puppeteering' him.
Say, you claim that "women" are against troons, and yet Labour is so pro-troon that it refuses to say that only women have a cervix. So by your standards, Labour is heroically standing against the woman menace.
Because he didn't clear out the previous "women are indisputably better than men" admin's trash.
Because a three point swing when inflation is 10% doesn't exactly show they care about others. They cared more about killing babies.
They were just too optimistic.
I wanted to give him a chance. I did and he disappointed.
You still think that's a real fight?
The actual trannies might be in a real one, but the two sides of policy certainly aren't.
https://communities.win/c/feminism/p/16ZX7ykVpm/nothing-illustrates-how-pointles/c
In two months? You are literally insane.
If we cloned you right now, and put your clone in that position, you'd be "disappointed" by yourself. There is simply no pleasing you.
LOL @ you citing Proudman.
Fire them all day one. That's what I'd do.
Probably. What I'd do with power is different to what I think should be done, purely because you can't shatter society to pieces to right wrongs, no matter how obvious they were. The problem is that they keep escalating to the point that it might be necessary to shatter society purely to give their victims closure.
I cited two sides of the same debate quoting the same book. I know she's pro-trans. That's my point. They disagree on one thing, whether it's worth risking harming girls to harm more boys and men.