Aceticon

They go to the same parties organised by the same billionaires and their kids go to the same schools and marry each other.

Well, bud, it helps to make it clear that you're talking about people when talking about American politics if you actually use "the people on the Left" or "Lefties" (and similarly to the Right) rather than "the left" and "the right".

Sadly "the left" and "the right" in American politics are commonly used to mean Democrats and Republicans, when none of them is actually Left-of-center politically, probably not even anywhere near the center of the Left-Right axis, though on the Liberal-Authoritarian axis it's a different story as their main differences are along that axis.

My point still stands that Moral Liberalism is hardly an exclusive of the Left, though when it is on the Left it arises naturally from the broader fight for Equality, whilst on the Right it is at times (like in the case of the US) just a way to display a strong political difference from the other party roughly in the same place on the Left-Right axis, which is the point the OP was making.

(In countries with more parties that the American power duopoly this is often more obvious because you end up seeing parties which call themselves Liberal and are both Rightwing on Economic Subjects and Morally Liberal alongside parties which are both Leftwing* on Economic Subject and yet just as Morally Liberal as the "Liberals")

So, no, in the US context not all of the right "are trying to deny trans people rights" - half of them are and the other half want equal oppression for all non-elites, trans or otherwise.

There is no Left in America except for a handful of Democrat Congressmen like Bernie Sanders and political thinkers like Chomsky,

Identity Politics itself isn't Leftwing, it's moral Liberalism, which is on a political axis which is a mainly orthogonal axis to the Left-Right one, thus the thinking of Identity Politics is something which can be part of the Leftwing when it's just an element of a broader fight for Equality and treating all people fairly (so in there it's not really a separate Identity Politics), or part of the Rightwing when the equality it fights for is narrowly defined so as to exclude the greatest inequality of all with the most widespread and impactful discrimination of all - Wealth Inequality - were it serves a sort of marketing function of "differentiating the product" of that political offer from that of other Rightwing political offers.

The later combination (Moral Liberalism + Rightwing) is Neoliberalism and is almost entirely all of what you have in the US with merely a handful of notable exceptions.

The US doesn't have a Leftwing and a Rightwing main parties, it has a Morally Liberal Rightwing party and Morally Illiberal Rightwing party.

Por qué no los tres?

They make money from people's mistakes and/or desperate situations.

As in: if a customer doesn't pay one of the payments exactly on time they turn into loan sharks with "penalties" vastly exceeding the loan price.

They're not "hoping the customers pay it back", it's almost the opposite - they want people to miss a payment or two and end up paying way more than the actual loan.

This is how they make money. It's the only way they make money. The Maths of their business model don't work out if people don't make mistakes and thus don't end up paying penalties.

So they have a huge incentive to do everything they can to make it easy to get into their scheme (hence they treat sellers well so that going through them as a payment option is as seamless as possible), to make it more likely that customers make mistakes and to make it hard or even impossible for customers to leave that scheme without going through the full minefield: they're basically enshittifying the seller's website, making it similar to providers with subscriptions who make it hard for people to cancel those subscriptions.

It's really not worth it to get into that shit as a customer and, if people who get stung by those practices also blame the seller, it's probably not also not worth it for a seller selling low value items as it might add but a handful of sales from the few customers that do need a loan for that, whilst damaging their own brand name by being associated with what are basically modern loan sharks.

Humanity is far more likely to be wiped out by Natural Stupidity.

I literally have two machines running on always on VPNs, one my personal PC and another a home server were a torrent service is running, and have no such problems.

I think maybe the mistake you made was spending most of the time with it OFF and then turning it ON once in a while, whilst mine just goes ON as soon as I boot my machine and stays on.

Granted, I'm not using it for getting around geo-locked websites, I'm using it for having a bit more privacy and for safety when sailing the high seas so once in a while I have the opposite problem (that I'm blocked from accessing sites in my own country because the connections appear to be coming from a different country).

Well, at least Israel made the sure the Hospital was a Terrorist Base, it's just that they did it after they took over rather than before.

Ju$tice

Any other good in comparison

Arguing good option bad...

The second line doesn't logically follow from the first - you're talking about a relatively better option all the way to that top line and then you switch from "better than other" to "good" - it's like going about how in a choice between being knifed twice versus being knifed just once the "just knifed once" is good in comparison and then jumping from that to saying that getting knifed once is good.

Even beyond that totally illogical jump, the other flaw of logic is treating each election as a unique totally independent choice whose results have no impact on the options available on subsequent choices - I.e. that who the Democrat Party puts forwards and who the Republic Party puts forwards as candidates in an election isn't at all influenced by how the electorate responded to previous candidates they put forward in previous elections - it is absolutely valid for people to refuse to vote for Kamala to "send a message to the Democrat Party" (I.e. to try to influence the candidates the party puts forward in subsequence election) and it's around the validity or not of risking 4 years of Trump to try and get an acceptable Democrat candidate in at the end of it that the discussion should be (and there are valid points both ways) not the hyper-reductive falacy you seem so wedded to.

Choices in the real world are a bit more multi faceted and with much more elements and implications than that self-serving "simpleton" slogan the DNC pushed out in its propaganda which you are parroting.

Same "logic" as saying that "no one is forcing you to eat".

In reality those who do have an option to not drive are in certain professional occupations (basically office jobs with remote working) and/or live in certain places (such as city centers were housing costs are much higher).

The forcing to drive isn't done via a clear explicitly written law that sets penalities for people who don't drive (clearly the only level of extremely painfuly obvious limitation that certain people need to identify it as an imposed choice), it's done by removing choices from people or artifically making other choices be very negative, for example by giving so much room to cars and such weak penalties for running over cyclists that cycling becomes very dangerous, by outside city centers not having proper pedestrian walkways or by how Land Property laws inflated the price of housing - a life essential - to such level that many people can't afford to live near work and have to commute to it, which they can't do with public transportation because no such thing is provided or is laughably inadequate.

The "forcing" isn't don't in a "so painfully obvious that even a simpletion gets it" way, it's done via removing of making unviable choices at multiple levels and isn't equal for everybody - generally the less well of you are the worse it gets (for example people whose bank of mommy and daddy paid for their higher education so that generally they earn enough to have access to the kind of housing and/or be in a profession were, unlike the others, they do have a real choice not to drive).

(I actually don't drive, and I've chosen not to drive because I can and I do think more people who do have a choice not to drive should do it like I do and walk or cycle to work, or even work from home, but I also hail from a poor working class background and don't run around with well-off middle class delusions that my somewhat priviledged situation is typical rather than atypical)

If the insurance didn’t create the atmosphere of territorial turfing, prices would be naturally set by competition. They would be much more accessible.

Healthcare suffers from several very competition distorting Economic effects.

• The so called "expert advantage", which is the situation were the buyer doesn't have the expertise to judge the quality of the service the seller is offering.
• That buyers are willing to pay just about anything to survive, so unlike pretty much everything else the upper limit to prices is incredibly high (basically, everything a person has plus how much debt they can take in).
• As somebody else pointed out, healthcare service provision is geographically constrained for a lot of things, the more urgent the situation the worse it gets, so for example if you have an accident and your life is in danger, if there is only one Hospital in town that's were the ambulance will take you, so you literally have no choice.
• The cost and time to train medical professionals as well as of the equipment, means that for anything beyond simple clinics there is a high barrier to entry into that market.

Unlike the ideological pseudo-magical fantasy bullshit that some politicians spew about the Free Market in order to defend certain choices of theirs that benefit those who given them millionaire speech circuit fees and non-executive board memberships (namelly to justify privatising things that are in low competition or even natural monopoly markets), Free Market Theory only works for a few markets where there is a natural tendency for competition such as, say, teddy bears or soap, not for markets were there are multiple factors reducing choice and the ability of buyers to judge the quality of what they are buying before they buy it.