Not necessarily, depends on which party is in favor at the time (assuming democracy is still a thing and all that). Pennsylvania is a swing state, so if the political climate is right he could very well run as a Republican and win.
more like nudity is a null solution to the problem of setting dressing rules.
I understand that, but ultimately the assumption being made here is that arguments about nudity and arguments about, say, hijab are coming from the same place when they're just not. The nudity people and the "clothing I don't like is bad" people are running on fundamentally different logic, so there can be no one response to both. For starters, it's not a coincidence that the latter usually get riled up about Muslims. The solution is to address the relatively uncontroversial subject of nudity as the local community sees fit and address the "hijab (and similar) is bad" problem by getting people to stop being bigots. To repeat, these are two different debates and there's no reason to expect one to apply to the other.
Nope. Whether nudity is acceptable and whether clothing I don't like is acceptable are two different questions, not two sides of the same coin. In particular the latter seems to be always rooted in xenophobia, which makes it more or less independent of how one feels about the former.
Yes. In many parts of the world most Western women's dress would be immediately tagged as sexualized clothing (which, tbf it was originally; it just got normalized).
We could then have an armed uprising, since openly subverting what's left of this democracy would require widespread treason. I think a great deal of the population is holding their breath until the midterms.
If that's the case, where's the preparation for that armed uprising? Because there's a lot of stuff that needs to happen before the fascists fully seize power to enable this sort of counter-escalation. The lack of such preparation betrays the lack of will to take such drastic action, which brings us back to my point: The necessary preparations to make the votes stick need to be made before things get that far, because otherwise the fascists will win.
and their priorities would become national priorities.
Or the ruling class will subvert/overthrow democracy to prevent that from happening (see: Bernie). There's a reason Marx calls it the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not the democracy of the bourgeoisie. Democracy just happens to be the best tool for the rich to rule the imperial core most of the time; when it's not they tend to pivot to fascism. That is to say: Just voting isn't enough; worker organization is necessary to make the voting stick.
Okay there's one thing I don't understand here: Over the past year we've heard about Democrats winning this or that special election, so how do Republicans still have a majority?
Okay that sounds shady (specifically the Indian medicine bit, everything else is frankly not a big deal), but not in a way that's relevant to the contents of the video or the top comment. Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason, or in other words: What's the ulterior motive?
Pure ad hominem, and unsubstantiated ad hominem at that. The man in the video makes an argument and backs it up by evidence (and, you know, his decade of relevant professional experience). There's straight up zero substance to anything you said (except the reprimand bit, but then you have to explain the contents of that reprimand and why they're relevant here).
That isn’t what most people would consider a source.
From my long, long experience arguing with people on the internet, the words of a practicing, licensed professional with relevant experience absolutely do count as a source, at least enough to establish a baseline for debate. At this point the burden of (dis)proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that says otherwise.
What was provided is a YouTube video of an entertainer who livestreams.
Most intellectually dishonest thing I've read today. You know that the contents of the video are meant to be backed not by the words of "an entertainer who livestreams," but by his education, over a decade of relevant professional experience and all the statistics and papers he keeps citing in the damn video.
Give me something peer reviewed, not a video of him spouting his platform.
Okay three things here: First, "spouting his platform" of going to therapy but with a disclaimer that might help some people get more out of it? Like, this isn't exactly a bombshell, nor does he say "screw therapy pay me." There's no perverse incentive or anything of the sort here. Second, I've never ever seen anyone start off an internet argument with "give me something peer reviewed." This isn't an academic paper. If you want something peer reviewed, you'll have to start off with something peer reviewed first. Third, by that standard all media for non-academics is a no-go, which is not how any internet argument I've ever seen went. If that's the standard you want to set then sure, but you don't get to enforce it on other people.
Downvotes aren't an "I disagree button," y'all. This person makes a well-articulated point with a credible source; if you don't like it either explain why or move on.
You underestimate the dedication of the rich to fucking over everyone else. They'd just rethink their strategy and try again. Not to say it's hopeless, but that the givesomefucks is being too optimistic about the fate of neoliberalism. Even if progressives become dominant in the blue side of Congress, there's still value (if you're evil and actively trying to impoverish people) in maintaining spoilers to deny them a majority.
Not necessarily, depends on which party is in favor at the time (assuming democracy is still a thing and all that). Pennsylvania is a swing state, so if the political climate is right he could very well run as a Republican and win.