empathy is a double edge sword, often causing more suffering than not. empathy has no morals.

This makes no sense. People have moral systems, empathy is often a component of that.

compassion is love without conditions.

No it isn’t. Compassion is about sympathy and pity, and also is without morals. Unconditional love isn’t a thing, and people can act compassionately without loving someone. It also doesn’t require understanding which is vital to resolution.

compassion does not require feeling what others are feeling in order to understand their suffering.

Empathy doesn’t require you to feel their suffering, but to simply understand and appreciate it.

compassion is the goal, empathy is the shitty tool that sometimes achieves the goal.

Not my goal, seems shitty. Empathy appears to be superior.

Definitions:

Compassion: sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Why should it be taxed? Not “Why it shouldn’t”.

Because income is taxed. We have a progressive tax system, so the first small amount is untaxed, the next is taxed at a low rate, the next is taxed at a slightly higher rate, and so on through the tax brackets.

You’re now saying that salary and hourly employees wages should be taxed, but not tipped income. So my question remains, why shouldn’t it be taxed? Why create an inequity between different sources of income.

Imo, income tax should only affect the rich, and they aren’t working tipped jobs.

Not taxing tipped income doesn’t achieve your stated goal. The majority of low and middle income wage earners are still taxed. Altering the tax brackets would be more fair, and come closer to achieving your stated goal. Exempting tips remains a terrible idea.

Why would compassion be better than empathy?

It being a bad idea makes it a bad idea though. Why would this source of income be exempt from taxation? Why is that a good idea? Why is a salaried or hourly employee less deserving of having their income exempted?

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats…

So it’s the Democrats fault that people who aren’t Democrats don’t support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you’re ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you’re right. That’s pathetic.

Since 2012, the Democrats haven’t held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you’re uninformed. In fact, so much so that you’re a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one “they don’t have 60” excuse.

You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.

If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.

Dems haven’t shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker’s rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don’t do anything. It’s a tired refrain.

I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?

Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven’t had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.

They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn’t SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?

They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans’ attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

And SCOTUS wouldn’t gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate…you know, where it failed?

Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

No they couldn’t. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don’t do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don’t have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.

Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn’t overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the “times, places, and manner of holding elections”. Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.

What actions by Dems do you see as “coasting towards” fascism?

They’re both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.

I think we’re living in two different realities. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not sure how you even wrote this post.

Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn’t reasonable given our current system.

Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.

Personally, I hate when people say X should do something. What’s the something? If you don’t know, maybe there isn’t anything that can be done. If you don’t like the options, then why do you want him to act. Politicians aren’t magic, they can’t divine a mystical solution, choices are tough and every option has its drawbacks.

If he’s that dissatisfied with Blinken he can fire him. But if that’s not palatable then he has to stick with him. I assume they talk and Biden has given him direction, so that’s what’s left.

Typically, Parliamentary systems employ a prime minister as the chief executive, so tend to be fundamentally different from the American system.

Moral of the story: Don’t listen to anyone, just get out and VOTE!!!

Biden tried to delay the support. There’s just not much he can do short of locking down the entire government. The president does not hold absolute authority, and if the parliament and secretary of state are being bitches…

He has sufficient authority to curtail aid to Israel. He can also fire the secretary of state. Congress, not Parliament. He’s angry behind the scenes but unwilling to take action, which may have to do with the ongoing election.

… but we shouldn’t act like there aren’t groups of people who might think we all deserve whatever we get, regardless of it affecting them as well.

Either Harris or Trump is going to be president come 2025, so pick the better candidate, or the lesser evil, however you want to look at it. Anyone who casts a protest vote or withholds support because of a single issue, is an idiot and I’m not going to handle them with kid gloves.

I’m not shocked Biden isn’t doing anything, and I’m not shocked Harris isn’t outspoken about it. I’m hopeful she takes action when sworn in. But people need to care about politics everyday, not just once every four years.

What’s the dilemma? Elect a candidate who isn’t great on the issue of Palestine, or the candidate who would be apocalyptic? Hmmm… decisions… decisions.

Additionally, there is nothing Harris can say on Palestine that would benefit her candidacy, either way she loses voters. I’m hopeful that she’ll be better in office, but even if not, I know Trump would be worse.

Have Dems taken your rights to anything away? They’ve expanded rights for same sex couples and healthcare. Under Republicans my rights constantly get reduced. Abortion is the most recent example.

Also, every election is important because the shitty people who want to screw everyone over never take an election cycle off. Sorry if showing up once every two years is too much to ask.

Here’s what I said:

It literally doesn’t matter. She’s still going to lose all the red states. She’s not swaying any Trump voters with that message, they’ve already decided, for the most part, to vote against their own interest.

I’m obviously talking about the general election currently happening with Trump. 2016 Democratic primary is irrelevant. I’m sorry you’re so confused.