Right, and this isn't rhetorical combat. You are correct, and I was continuing the train of thought.

Is that why quite a few progressive ballot initiatives and referendums also passed?

I don't think that MAGA is an existential threat to democracy, or to Americans' lives. If it were, Pres. Biden would do something about it, right? Like, maybe, lock them up. Or at least say so. He certainly wouldn't be planning to just hand over the reins and walk away.

(P.S. If you can't tell if the above is serious, then why couldn't millions of voters actually think this way?)

He's 78 and displaying moderate dementia symptoms. I wouldn't worry about a third term.

Heck, people are still producing new games for the Commodore 64.

Still not great from a messaging perspective. Better ways to reach people who aren't politics nerds or policy wonks:

Medical care will be affordable, so you can go see your doctor any time you or your family need to. If your kid gets sick, you can be there for them and help them get better without worrying about how to pay for care. You'll get paid better, no more of the "boss gets a dollar, I get a dime" crap. No more stress about setting aside a college fund for your kids. They'll be able to go to school, guaranteed. Strong American morals mean we're not going to send our tax money to fund war and atrocities on the other side of the planet. If you lose your job, the government will have your back with enough money to survive on until you get back on your feet, no questions asked.

Goddamn, why can't Democrats say this stuff, instead of word salad like, "Launch a National Health Equity Initiative to address health challenges that disproportionately impact Black men." WTF does any of that even mean?

How's that tactic of browbeating and blaming voters working out for ya?

There's a germ of a good idea in there, but they've got it backwards: Big cities like Chicago need to "secede" from their states, like the free imperial cities of the Holy Roman Empire. "Secede" here being a colloquial metaphor; the real, legalistic action would be declaring Dillon's Rule void, and taking state-like sovereignty for themselves.

It makes sense on many levels: Cities are where lots of people live close together, and their infrastructure, services, public health, and governance needs therefore are very different than rural areas. They are the economic powerhouses of the world, and we need to let the city leaders nurture that power by responding to their local needs. The political polarization divides largely on urban/rural boundaries, and our antiquated political system dilutes city-dwellers' votes and influence.

Lastly, our political system is broken, and can't be fixed entirely within the system. But tearing down the system will definitely lead to chaos. (See: actual secession in 1861.) As I see it, this would be a radical move by the cities, but it would solve a lot of issues in the political system without tearing it down. It's unlikely they'd get representation in Congress the way that free imperial cities had representation at the imperial diet, but even just getting out from under the thumb of state legislatures would be a huge step.

Watch the Not Just Bikes video, if you have the time and interest. The short answer is: yes. The trucks are enormous because they carry all the equipment for any sort of emergency, so they send the big trucks to every call. Not every fire station has an ambulance unit, so the trucks can get to many locations more quickly.

It's ridiculous.

Why would they want to be the target of a bukkake circlejerk?

Here in 'Murrica, they send something like in the second photo when grandma falls in the bathroom.

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but not by much. The truck in the first photo is smaller than the trucks my city fire department has. There's a retirement community not far from where I live, and they send a ladder truck for medical emergencies there several times a week. I'm not really sure what use 4,000 liters of water would be when somebody is having a stroke.

The single-dimension left-right paradigm is stupid and overly-reductive. I mean, that's pretty clear even in this election: Voters gave Republicans the whole federal government, and voted for abortion rights. How is it possible that they could move right and left simultaneously; or, is there maybe some other principle in play?