reddwarf

Well, as long as they forgo on the principle of Wabi-sabi as we do not need that mindset in space and your life depends on it.

Trump voters are dumb but I have to say, people voting for this woman are an unholy mix of supreme arrogance and supreme stupidity. Trump voters are right up there but I still give the edge to Jill Stein voters.

This is because of their conviction and belief that they are on the right side of the spectrum and will deny anything thrown at them to show what she is and what her purpose is. This is the arrogance and stupidity combined. Heck, the campaign spoke person even said it out loud; Jill Stein is there in the mix to prevent a Kamala win. Yet they still close their eyes and ears and vote for that russian stooge. Incredible.

Thanks! I think @lemonmelon explained it well. Seems I was skirting the definition by a whisker and got away with it but still failed as a joke or pun should be understandable without having to pull out a Latin dictionary 😀

Thanks for the extensive, informative and complete reply! Very helpful in trying to understand the nuances of the English language.

Question: I thought to 'transpire' could mean 'shedding moisture' and/or 'things that happened or are revealed'

English is not my first language though so there's that

Sweat shaming, never did I think this would transpire here…

Isn't it his constitutionally right to bear arms though?

I'll get my coat..

"shut up about it, I'm talking"

Please cite or quote the outlet where this was recorded, I want to see proof that she said this, like literally.

If you cannot do this well then....you are a liar. Why you would do this I have no idea (but I can speculate and see red hats in my crystal ball).

Don't let anyone call you antisemitic

That ship of having the phrase have any meaning has sailed decades ago, at least for me. It is a sign you are on the right side of truth as this line of 'defense' is always used to cover up something morally wrong which Israel is being called out for.

Voting for the party which does not want to worsen the status quo might not work

This might be the case, this is the 'hope' part I mentioned but it might work.
But you can bet on your life and those you care for that the other party will try everything in their new found power to make things absolutely worse.

I get the dilemma and voting for any party in this scenario is tough but I would still opt for the party of hope and which displays signs of change for the better.

Ok, so if both of these hypothetical parties fully and completely, without reservation, support the invasion (or let's call it what it is, war) then there is not a lot you can do.

But it turns out one party has no problems with that invasion/war and supports it. Heck, they even tell others who protest the invasion to just accept it all as a fact and just deal and live with it. Also calls to surrender parts of your land because the leader of the invasion is having a certain 'grip' on the party leader.

The other party is lacking in action to change this outcome but has shown signs that they do not like the invasion but need to get/stay in power to try and stop the madness. But to get elected they cannot come out and say "we will stop the invasion" because that is a death-knell to their goal to be elected and in power.

As you see or can probably understand, you are not dealing with parties per-se, you are dealing with the populace who get to vote for either party. Navigating that populace to get elected is a tricky and a risky thing, before you know it you blew you chances and the other party wins.

This is truly the case of voting for the party who has some semblance of being able to do the right thing, even if it is late or voting for the party who has clearly signaled to be 100% against what you hope and stand for.

Best bet in this case is to vote for hope and possibility, not the surefire way the other party wants to dig a much, much deeper hole which will be infinitely more difficult to crawl out of.

There is no easy solution, only thing we have is choosing the ones who show a flicker of hope in doing better. Good luck!

hard to support a party when it condones the killing of one's family.

So I suppose you would vote neither party?
Party A is not doing enough to stop the killing and 'condones' (I disagree with that word and characterization) Party B has messaged that the killing isn't going fast and hard enough and will give wider support to the killing once elected

Party B also wants to deport people of a certain heritage (multiple groups, not just the one) and perhaps you fall into that bracket? I really hope not.