What does that have to do with Lebanon?

Imagine if Mexico launched rockets at the US in 2003 to protest our pointless invasion of Iraq. It would not end well for Mexico.

He is similar to popular non-Americans like Berlusconi, Meloni, Le Pen, and Kickl. Americans aren't unique in that regard.

arbitrary interpretation

They aren't as arbitrary as they seem, it's just that the media don't go into the full detail.

For example, key 2 is actually "The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes", which is clearly true

Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether scandals have "lost meaning".

Why should they be forced to allow other retailers to sell Steam keys at whatever price they want

Because those other retailers already paid Steam for those keys.

If Steam doesn't want to compete against third party key retailers then the solution is not to sell keys to third party retailers. Once Steam takes their money, they have to accept the competition.

Why is that reasonable? Storefronts don't get free keys from Steam, they have to buy them. After they pay Steam, they should be allowed to sell them at any price they want.

Imagine if Ford said you couldn't sell your car for less than what Ford dealers charge for used cars.

all media

Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.

And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.

The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.

No, that's not what I said.

Having more money provides an advantage, but so do many other things like media endorsements, union endorsements, incumbency, etc.

Plenty of candidates who outspent their opponents went on to lose their elections.

That's not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.

One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren't neutral.

Money is a necessary part of politics. Which means that if you want to win, you need donors. And if your opponent wins over more donors than you do, that's on you. Do you think it's unfair that people are way more willing to donate to Harris than Trump?

No, they are trying to reach people who are not sure if they are going to vote.

They are not trying to reach people like you, who have decided not to vote.

The circular part is where you wonder why nobody is doing anything to help Palestinians.

I'll give you a hint: after the election, pollsters will ask people who voted what the most important issues are to them. Since people like you aren't voting, very few voters will answer "helping Palestinians". Politicians will look at those polls and simply maintain the status quo regarding Palestine, since voters have little appetite for change. And the status quo is sending arms to Israel.

Again and again, the left shoots itself in the foot.

I mean, what you're describing is simply politics. Who gave you the idea that media are supposed to stay neutral in an election?

When the Michigan Chronicle and Houston Defender endorse Harris and say Trump is dangerous to democracy, that's politics. On the opposite side, Fox News has been portraying all Democrats as fringe for decades. They are not merely allowed to do that, that's what we expect the media to do in a democracy.

Hillary won her voters by campaigning. That is how you win voters.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to do with it, because she doesn't have a mind control device.

Are you saying that the DNC has mind control powers over 4 million Americans, making them vote for Hillary despite themselves?

Because if that were true, Hillary would be president.

The reason HRC won the primary is that she got 17 million votes and Sanders only got 13 million.

"The best strategy is to stay silent on Gaza. Because if everyone is silent on Gaza, then politicians would be forced to ask us: Hey, what are you thinking about Gaza?"

Of course the Silent Treatment strategy won't work. Refusing to vote is the same strategy.

Yes, their job is to convince voters. The people who will actually vote. They are not trying to convince nonvoters. Nonvoters don't matter.

How many Harris campaign commercials are playing in Paris? Zero, because Parisians can't vote. Harris isn't trying to court Parisians, and for the exact same reason she isn't courting American nonvoters. You've been written off as irrelevant to this election.

Politicians see Gaza as relatively unimportant because American voters generally see Gaza as relatively unimportant. Poll after poll shows that voters are far more interested in affordable housing and women's rights. And by "voters" I mean the people who will actually vote, so that doesn't include you.

When voters think Gaza is more important than affordable housing and women's rights, politicians will too.

It's not the same result. Politicians have to appeal to voters, they are free to ignore nonvoters.

If you're not voting, then you're not voting for Trump as well as not voting for Harris. Are you surprised that Trump isn't courting your vote? You shouldn't be.

But Harris has no more reason to court your vote than Trump does. You're a nonvoter, so they are both ignoring you.

It's not on me, it's on the candidates and parties to court my vote.

You completely misunderstand politics.

Voters aren't consumers. Politicians aren't companies trying to maximize market share. All they need is 51% of the people who actually vote. If you don't vote, then you literally aren't part of the equation.

"It's on parties to court my vote" is like "It's on Starbucks to court my filling out a comment card". Starbucks doesn't care at all if you fill out a comment card or not. They just want the people who do fill them out to write positive comments.