ESC

I think this was just one issue of many that led to her loss, but to answer your question, it’s somewhat simple:

There are 2 viable options. Voting for one shows support for their platform. But if the 2 options stand together on an important issue and the voter is on the other side of it, the voter cannot support their stance by voting for either option. Voting for either would only serve to erase their opinion which is counter-productive.

If a voter’s opinions cannot be expressed by voting for either option, then it leaves one final recourse to be heard: To not vote for either of them.

This shows up as a drop in turnout. A substantially poor turnout means that there are voters that can be picked up next cycle if either party cares to cater to them. If any parties do this, then the non-voters have successfully exerted influence.

Maybe you disagree that this is a logical strategy but consider this:

Some citizens tried this and lo and behold, their voices were heard. The whole internet is up in arms! All that remains now is to see whether the politicians listen.

They probably won’t, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if people turned out to vote against their beliefs on the matter. Which means that, on this issue, the strategy of withholding votes has already been more successful than any outcome that could be arrived at through voting (because, again, those outcomes would only serve to silence these potential voters).

Then they could just show their passport stamps.

Still probably pays taxes to them.

Also you’re racist remark contradicts your first bullet point - are you just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks? Most of those are pretty awful excuses.

Israel has mandatory conscription and reserve enlistment.

If he didn’t have ties to the army, he could have simply provided documentation of his imprisonment.

So, what, hotels in Kyoto must serve war criminals? Where is that in the law?

If you met some these execs, you’d probably run in the opposite direction. They’re a weird bunch.

Stacking wasn’t perfect but even with stacks of doom it allowed for a balanced variety of viable playstyles. You pretty much have to cheese a min/max urban sprawl (iirc - it’s been years) on Civ5 to beat the higher difficulty levels because of the differences in action economy, which undermines replayability. Replayability is the heart of Civ.

Some changes in G&K seemed like they were designed to patch the economics to a degree.

I was poor and didn’t want to have to pay for a patch, so I ended up getting tired out on vanilla and didn’t get into G&K much by the time I could justify buying it. But from the discussions I’ve seen the issue was too fundamental to simply be patched over. It’s still a good game but Civ4 reigns as king imo.

California is already draining itself to cater to tax breaks for property owners, and capping insurance increases would rapidly accelerate the current flight of insurers out of the state.

And you want that in exchange for a rent hike cap on 51,700 rent-controlled units, in a city of 4 million? Seriously?

Governments pulled their financial support because projected costs were exceeding what was contractually promised, mostly due to pandemic-related supply chain and inflation issues.

The higher rate environment for the first time in many years couldn’t have helped much either. Debt is more expensive now, and the higher rates now will increase projected costs through the lifetime of the project.