|
A lot of people are undecided between "I should go vote for the side closer to me" and "but both sides are the same, maaan, why bother?"
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
davecrazy posted:https://twitter.com/KenTremendous/status/1586911834807754752?s=20&t=3-LAgIrHKt3McNi8L1nAAw At the high end, it looks like there are 400,000 verified users. If every one of them pays $20 a month, that's $8 million. To give a scope of how much this first big project means for his $44B company.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
selec posted:Sinema has said other senators hide behind her, so I suspect (but am willing to be surprised) that the type of obstructionist role she played will have one or two senators jumping in to help. Leaving aside what others said, why is "Person criticized for unpopular stance claims to be only one brave enough to say it out loud" ever evidence of anything but that person wanting to avoid blame?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:As soon as you carve out 1 exemption you're going to need to go all out and get everything done during that term. Gay marriage, DC statehood, all the laws you can because dems will get 1 shot at it all before republicans will take that carveout as a reason to get rid of it and then pass their own agenda. If Republicans ever end up in a position where the filibuster is in the way of passing something the party wants, whether Democrats have made carveouts before will have absolutely zero influence on whether they do it. They just haven't been in that position: even with the trifecta under Trump their constant challenge was hitting 51 votes on anything big. It's not even one of those "but if Dems pass a law to do a good thing SCOTUS will declare it super illegal and also that Trump is still President so why bother" sort of calvinball claim. It's just that eliminating the filibuster via the same channels that created it will have no real blowback in itself from either voters or the remaining party moderates. The laws they want to pass by eliminating it might, but they're already past that point. That said, I agree that if you cut one carveout you might as well go all the way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Part of the problem is that there's an extremely high likelihood that the laptop isn't even Hunters. Or in the worst case scenario may have even been essentially a bunch of forged and cherry picked data ripped off of a stolen private email stash amongst other things which was set up to look as incriminating as possible by a mix of foreign agents and Republican propaganda agents working together. Or to put it in a shorter way, "Everything about it pointed to a Gawker style revenge porn cloud leak attached to documents of unknown provenance and no real evidence of crimes involving government officials. For some reason attached to a convoluted story about how no really this is actually came from an actual physical laptop that we legally purchased." That's 100% enough to explain why even Trump--friendly media outlets treated it as radioactive with no conspiracies needed. Good job, Peter Thiel! (unironically)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Yeah all evidence suggests it was just more hacked data put onto a laptop like the world's most clunky thumbdrive. It doesn't necessarily mean any of the information was fake, and certainly not the dick pics and drugs that were clearly intended to become the social media shareables that they did. But it means that all that, of a private citizen, was legally dodgy for mainstream outlets to treat as a breaking news story. Fox would have been salivated and jumping on it if it was less outright weird, but they didn't. Also since it comes up in circular arguments in every laptopghazi discussion,unless the whole leak had been 100% fabricated including the dick pics, it would have been intensely dumb and counterproductive for any of the Bidens to have done a line-by-line refutation of any of its contents. Far dumber and less productive than Obama releasing the long-form birth certificate as though that would shut up any conspiracy theorists. Dumber even than Warren's blood test. Was any of the leak altered, whether the original source was cloud or laptop? Who knows! Certainly not any of us, and the Biden camp's reaction provide zero evidence one way or the other. There's room to interpret fishy things in the content of the leak. The behavior and of and story from those who leaked is absolutely weird. But claims of some sort of suspicious coverup, whether by mainstream media or SA forum mods, really feel like grasping at straws.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2022 09:49
|
|
|
In addition to national security harrumphing, the right's absolutely talking about how we need to tighten up those laws and the drug law hypocrisy and all the rest, and they're even happy to put a thin left-wing veneer on some of it to boost signal. But they haven't been convincing many people that picking Hunter Biden as the poster child of nepotism or unequal treatment under law is honest concern about those things or that they really plan to do more than sink an enemy and move onto another crime to be Very Concerned about. We went through this when the worst thing about Hillary was the idea of generational elite born into wealth and knowing that they would one day become senators or governors like their families. But even the people who wanted to take the Clintons down understood no one playing the American Aristocracy argument about them was actually interested in that part.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:Back in the day, the first type used to be referred to as "Going Postal". And it's not like they ever went away or like school shootings didn't already exist. But boy oh boy did Columbine change media engagement with mass shootings thanks in part to the rise of the 24 hour news era. Which also matters given copycat effects on mass shootings in general.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Florida is also kind of the the last nail in the coffin to the idea that covid itself sank Trump in 2020 and not his incompetency. Florida didn't get wrecked by COVID, and DeSantis and others were able to create a false narrative of Florida even was being particularly outstanding (It wasn't). Trump being the only idiot populist in the world who wasn't able to get a boost out of covid is in itself remarkable. As it was, he lost by pretty much what all the 2019 head-to-heads against Biden said he would.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2022 18:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:It is endlessly infuriating that Donny's greatest sin isn't any of the many terrible things he's done, rather it's that he's an uncouth nouveau rich presenting rear end in a top hat. Like, he could have done absolutely everything he's done and it would have all been OK with the USA, if he'd just been somewhere between 10% and 20% less of a gloating rear end in a top hat about doing it. Though it's hard to say really. A lot of people backed him because he's all that, and even a lot of people who hated his real policies spent so much time in "lol Trump" mode treating it all as a big joke.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As an example, the Virginia Walmart shooter a couple days ago shot six people and then himself. The same goes for most mass shootings, which are a lot more common than the few media darling cases that stay in the news cycle for more than a day or two. The Parkland shooter trying to escape was more of the exception rather than the rule; mass shooters usually kill themselves, continue to fire until they're subdued or killed, or give themselves up to the police without any serious effort to evade them. None of which is really incompatible with setting stretch goals of surviving, thriving, and leading The Revolution. Especially the fiction you tell yourself is that the real death would be doing nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Impossible to say no matter how small-d democratic or not you think the process is. Did anyone expect Biden in 2018? He was on pretty much every serious predictor's short-list of nominees for Trump's whole presidency, with the biggest question being "will he run?" He wasn't a lock: a lot of people thought some rising star would captivate the party or that Bernie had built a much larger base than he had in 2016. He was just one of the big contenders. And out of potential candidates he performed at/near the top in matchups vs. Trump, so "electability" wasn't a question, for what the term is worth. Pretty much the only people in 2018-2019 who thought Biden getting the nomination/presidency to be really unlikely were those (like myself) who had been sold on naw, he's clearly senile and rapidly decaying already to sustain a campaign, or that he was only polling well at all because of name recognition and would sink as other people became household names.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Russiagate gets called 'Liberal Qanon' for a reason. While this is true, the reason is "Because some people want to draw a false equivalence between something that's highly exaggerated but based on actual evidence with adenochrome cannibal cults and JFK Jr."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Some states have state laws about who sets the primary dates/when the primary must be held. Georgia requires the Secretary of State and legislature to change it. New Hampshire has a law requiring the Secretary of State to schedule the state's primary before any other primary. More broadly, that's the difference between caucuses and primaries. Caucuses are actually run by the party and are the successor to the old system where party insiders picked candidates with little public input. Primaries are run by the state, even if the party decides date and eligibility.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
It's certainly believable that money and status had an effect on which traveling American got a ten year drug trafficking sentence right when Russia needed a big new flex on the West. It certainly feels like a larger factor there than on how much the US would try to get a symbolic prisoner back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The calculation from Sinema is pretty clear to me. She knows she hosed up her future with the party. I think that in 2024 she is now going to run as an independent and threaten to split the Dem vote. She probably wants to have the same deal as Angus King and Bernie Sanders where the party agrees to not strongly support a candidate against them. Right, King and Sanders were only ever independents for personal branding/kayfabe reasons; they were never particularly obstacles to party goals or really outside of their tent, and never alienated the party leadership or voting base. And it's not like Manchin where she could plausibly present herself as the only Dem-caucusing politician who can win in her state.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
plogo posted:I think the consensus forecast for most of the cycle was that the dems had a good shot at holding the senate given the favorable map and would lose the house. I think the results we got were kinda in line with a lot of predictions. Democrats did better than polling suggested, but there was a lot of analysis bringing up Democratic motivation and poor Republican candidate quality too. The "Red wave coming, bigger than 2010!" people (both gleeful and panicky flavors) were flat out wrong either way though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Pretty sure the Bernie's not a real Democrat people are very much not the same people who hate Sinema. Most of the people I've seen unironically insist Bernie's not a Democrat were explaining why they'll back him, so it depends on whether the statement is taken literally or not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I don't think Manchin is "better" than Sinema, and god help us all any time we have to choose between the two. Manchin is as corrupt as any of them, and really reacted poorly in the moment to being confronted with it during the never-ending BBB drama by threatening reporters. Yeah, the only real reason to cut Manchin more slack than Sinema is that you can get better Dems than her to win in Arizona (we already have one) but there's really little sign of that in WV after trying both centrists and progressives in high profile elections. That still doesn't make him good. It just means if he fell into a coal mine tomorrow there's as much chance of him returning transformed as Manchin the White than there is of a True Progressive winning his seat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:The catch is that even if it is possible, the fossil fuel industry will fight tooth and nail to stop it from being politically feasible. And odds are they'll do it hand-in-hand with people who don't like fossil fuels but will always accept it ahead of anything with "nuclear" in the name.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:H- isn't real, it's just a concept that is statistically likely!!! Is there a serious reason there would be one inch more than there has been for any other competition to fossil fuels? I'm not saying the people with money in the status quo will like it but that's a what else is new thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Cutting corners on maintenance and upkeep leads to ever-increasing chance of catastrophe, but not in a predictable way, especially with more complex systems. I haven't followed the details of it enough to guess what jobs/tasks are being cut and what aren't, but a negative change isn't going to be a "and this makes the data center shut down in X days." It's going to be making various potential failures more likely, or harder to recover from when they happen. If maintenance and development suffers over time, it gets progressively worse, like not maintaining any other big machine. Particularly if that means working existing staff harder, leaving them fatigued and distracted. Mostly what I'm getting at is that increasing risk leads to outcomes that are predictable in the broad sense, and not in the specific sense. So unless the current trajectory changes it's very likely we get the outcome of what happens when the people who say "Why did the government even HAVE non-essential workers?" during shutdowns actually run a large organization hands-on.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Sim City 2000 advisor screaming “YOU CAN’T CUT BACK ON FUNDING!!! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!” When Elon ticks down the infrastructure calculator from 100% to whatever it is now That's the nice thing about this. They're both real life so once the city's burning you can't reload a save, release a kaiju too for shits and giggles, or just tell yourself they're only numbers without real cost as you dig yourself out of the hole. But unlike people playing federal shutdown chicken, Twitter isn't the place where I live so it being run by a careless idiot is more like watching some LP still.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The point is that if I'm steeling a similar amount of cash, I'm in jail. Not an administrative procedure. Depends on context. If you underpay a bill or overcharge someone for something, some situation where there's actual contractual change of funds involved, it's likely to go through an administrative procedure before it becomes a lawsuit or criminal case. Similarly, if your manager is literally lifting cash out of your wallet when it's in the employee locker room or something, that's gonna be a different path than if they shorted you an hour on your paycheck.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Given that Absolute Unit is metric, we can assume some nutty conversion like 1.445 chnkr to 1 AU. Why are we assuming the Absolute Unit is metric when it was coined by people who weigh themselves in stones?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:DeSantis' problem is that he has little if any charisma, is a coward, and has no ability to think on his feet. The hateful people who are champing at the bit for all of DeSantis' cruelties will jump behind almost any candidate. Despite all of the things that should disqualify Trump from every succeeding in getting even a single vote, the dude is a consummate entertainer who is the embodiment of the fusion of Carnival Barker and Reality TV. The result is that there is a significant number of votes that follow only Trump in the primary, and that gives him a very favorable position that other candidates don't have in most primary scenarios. It's also important to remember that Trump won in part because he was, in legislative history, a blank slate, while simultaneously being a household name already. He was a long-time celebrity of trashy reputation, but he had never served in office, and his promises were all over the place, vague, and it was easy to read him as being anything you wanted him to be. Does he have a health care plan? He says he does. Is the wall talk just red meat for the Republican primary before he mellows out in office? Hell, why not? He was an outsider the party spent the whole primary trying to bury, so can't just assume he'll be another Republican. He spent his campaign throwing things at the wall and repeating whatever got the loudest applause, and you could find news stories saying everything about him. And you sure couldn't show any voting record or signed legislation proving otherwise, since he had none. Either way, he won a lot of votes from people who thought he was a moderate, compared to that known arch-liberal Clinton. Were those people idiots? Well yeah. But that doesn't apply to someone who's party establishment. DeSantis isn't Trump. He's just Jeb or Walker, in a post-Trump Republican party. Could he win? As much as anyone. But he absolutely won't win in the same way Trump 2016 did.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2022 06:37
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Actually, this isn't entirely correct, because there's also an issue of winner-take-all delegates vs. proportional per state, so the party with more proportional states would be more democratic. I've heard this is the Democrats, but don't know for certain. Winner-take-all was only a Republican primary thing last I knew. Democrats don't do that. That was a big part of cementing Trump's lead in 2016 as I recall. When he could shoulder the smaller candidates aside, they got nothing, making it harder to build momentum again. And seriously the Republican 2016 primary was more fiercely fought than Dem 2016 or 2020, and the establishment gunned hard at Trump. They just didn't have a good angle to go after him that both mattered to the voters and wouldn't hurt the party message (seeing as Trump just ran on a Republican platform with less nice phrasing.) And he was good at smacking down any of the others that seemed to have any chance of rising above the pack. And on top of that, they kept clinging past the point of no hope, dragging each other down. It was pretty clear that Bernie 2020 hoped for the same thing to happen for him, but didn't make any real effort to force or capitalize on it. Not that I know how one would do such a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:DeSantis couldn't win a debate against Charlie Crist. He's very bad at actually campaigning since he's only ever actually had to do it once, in 2018. Lots of people could win. If you've learned anything from politics of the last ten years and you haven't taken to heart that big confident predictions usually end up wrong, you haven't actually learned anything. DeSantis is more Walker than Trump, right down to how Walker was the absolute bogeyman to left-wingers in/near his home state, and just sort of "Generic Republican" to everyone else in the country, with him as the most prominent lib-owning governor as the only thing setting him out from the pack. And Walker could have won if some things had gone differently, who knows. But he didn't, and in retrospect it was never super likely, just one of many things that could have happened. I haven't seen a strong argument that DeSantis is any different.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:What's the definition of "modern" here, and what distinguished the "modern" period from the pre-modern? For a little more detail, 2022 turnout seems really close 1960s midterms though conflicting sources make it hard for me to say if its higher or not on a quick google. But that's still before the 26th amendment increased the voting pool by adding (low-turnout) 18-20 year olds. It's much higher than the decades surrounding the 1960s mini-peak though. If you want to to back before then, you're looking at the 1912 midterms, which were when eligible voters were effectively just white men.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2022 16:29
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:I wonder if Santos is one of the many that Democrats worked to get nominated. He wasn't in a contested primary, it sounds, so no. I'm not really a big fan of the strategy since it seems prone to backfiring, but it seems like it both wasn't what the doomsayers kept telling me it was, and yet worked pretty well anyway , so 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Even if it "works", you're still pushing the Republicans further to the right. So congrats, you won by pushing a fascist message and kneecapping what little remains of the non flaming underwear on their head part of the party That's what I mean about how people misrepresented to me what Democrats were doing and how it worked, as others already pointed out. Democrats literally running attack ads against fascists is not pushing a fascist message no matter how much it makes the fascists fasc harder or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2023 01:16
|
|