That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.

I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.

Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.

I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:

Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.

Unless, of course, you expect to rely on that permanence for archival purposes, in which case the internet is a fleeting, ephemeral fart in the wind.

I’ll just pull it up on this display that’s more than 9 feet away from the source…

Furthermore, I believe this cartoon is an adaptation of a Russian story/cartoon from 1948 called Little Grey Neck. It doesn’t take place in a city, but the premise is very similar, where a young duck misses its migration and has to befriend the other winter animals to survive.

Unwavering support for whatever Israel wants has been status quo for the US for decades. There’s plenty of people who don’t like it, but the unfortunate truth is that we are too broken and divided to fix it right now.

Trump is a literal existential threat to democracy. Assuming he becomes the republican nominee next year, our only chance of ever having a voice in US foreign policy in the future is through a second Biden term.

No candidate will ever be perfect and no vote will ever be without moral baggage, but when you consider all of the issues together and look at what Trump has already said he would do if reelected, there’s really no other choice on the table anymore.

Zebra F701

I guess it depends on what you’re using Mint for, but I’ve been getting a lot of use out of Empower (formerly Personal Capital) for tracking all my accounts in one place. No subscription or anything, just some pressure, sometimes including phone calls, to use their financial advisor services.

I’ve had an account with Credit Karma for ages and I’m not sure what service they offer that would be comparable, but they were bought by Intuit a few years ago, so I’d find it hard to recommend them for much anymore.

That Hammond A-100 is pretty sweet, too