Don’t bother answering the people who ask that, it’s a gotcha question with an assumed premise. It’s not meant in good faith it’s just supposed to derail any criticism.
Not voting is a vote for the one you agree the least with, so saying that you won’t vote for Biden is analog to a vote for Trump.
I totally agree that Biden is not fit for the presidency, but if I were an American, I would still vote for Biden, just to limit the risk of ending up with Trump back in charge
11 people have to decide if they want to eat pizza or pasta the next 4 years 5 vote pizza 4 vote pasta 2 definitely don’t want pizza, but are not that fond of pasta either, so they don’t vote
Hence those who didn’t vote end up with their least desirable outcome. Enjoy 4 years of pizza
Maybe the least desirable outcome is the Democrats continuing to be ineffectual in anything not hyper focused on corporate profits?
Maybe these elections are actually on the basis of millions of people and it’s the politician’s job to be electable. Otherwise we might as well start the monarchy with a census every two years that includes a pre checked box to support the king.
Maybe the least desirable outcome is the Democrats continuing to be ineffectual in anything not hyper focused on corporate profits?
If that’s your least desirable outcome, then by logic you should vote Trump.
This election is unfortunately not about which president you would prefer, but about which one you want to keep away from the White House
And when I, as a person living in Europe are trying to get people to vote, should tell how much people outside of the US are apprehensive of the potential outcome of this election
I would definitely also prefer the timeline where Bernie won the 2016 election
And I can only sympathize with those that feel both candidates are a bad choice, but in the bigger picture, I would view one a lot worse than the other.
Unfortunately, while I normally would volunteer to canvass and get out the vote, I’m instead going to need that time for planning out how to flee the country
First of all the party doesn’t have to do anything. They literally make the rules of their nominating convention. So the idea that it would just be unfettered chaos is ridiculous.
With that idea firmly in place, yes it’s physically possible to replace him, until the nominating convention nominates him.
As to the idea that it must be an open convention instead of some kind of brokered convention, the earlier the democrats get on this and the more buy in they have from Biden, the more successful it will be. If they aren’t going to pull the trigger though you’ll never hear about anything because it could damage the campaign. So it’s a crossing the Rubicon moment the second they announce they’re going to do something other than nominate Biden.
first of all, some names that have been thrown around-
Newsom, high profile governor from taking runs at MAGA in the media. Was already raising his name recognition for a 2028 run. Whitmer, governor of a key state, bullet bump from the kidnap attempt Pritzker, governor of a key state Shapiro, governor of a key state
Obviously some other people are getting their names thrown around, but the party is not going to take any extra risk in a time like this. So the replacement would very likely be straight, white, male, and photogenic. I wish we lived in a world where that wasn’t true, but they’re trying to reach for every single vote they can and they cannot afford racism or misogyny to pull anything.
Bernie, I love him but we’re not exactly going to say Biden is too old and then nominate Bernie.
How the party does this would also have an effect. If they make it an inclusive process, debates with a caucus or comment period before allowing only the top two or three (according to polls and comments) to go into the convention then they can avoid a lot of the anger over appearing to just throw Biden away. The elephant in the room here is they did not have an actual primary this year. One man’s name on the ballot is not an election. So they’d need to have that sort of atmosphere, but in just the few weeks before the convention. If they don’t try to include their voters then this would fail.
Over all there’s a lot to be said for sticking with the guy versus taking a path with so many failure points. If they approach a candidate and that candidate leaks the plan, they’re worse off than before. If they don’t make the voters feel included they fail. If they allow the convention to become a chaotic mess they fail. If they can’t get Biden to endorse the replacement they fail. If they choose wrong with the abbreviated vetting period and we get another October surprise then they fail. And there’s always the chance that they sustain too much damage even though they do everything right and fail anyways.
But yeah, it’s possible, it doesn’t have to be chaos, and there are people who can step in.
I think the most concerning thing. Is that its so clear with bidens age decline. We have seen this before. FDR, the later term of Ronald Reagan, Dianne feinstein. Its not ok to put up figure head leaders who are just puppets of their cabinets. All the blatantly undemocratic behavior from trying to sue RFK Jr off the ballot, canceling the primaries, trying to block a debate from every having happened in the first place.
I think Donald Trump was wrong about the whole stolen election. BUT. Watching this election cycle one thing is very clear. There is no integrity left in american elections. Our democratic process has already degraded to banana republic. I cannot in good conscience vote for a senile puppet and I cannot vote for a man who is clearly acriminall, not an exemplary american leader, and not a good statesman. There is no lesser of two evils. There are other options and people being unwilling to believe that there are other options is the only reason we are stuck with this bullshit.
I truly believe Robert F Kennedy junior oa the only sensible choice for president in today’s political climate.
when the federal government makes everything a state’s rights issue we get fifty states doing whatever the hell they want
obvious at this point Biden has either lost the reins or is intentionally letting the nation slip
very coincidental that we lost women’s rights and we have a huge surge of religious oppression at the same time a prolife religious right leaning conservative democrat gets at the helm
I don’t know that there is much Biden can do. The Federal government can’t just tell a state no, they have to take them to court and prove that they are violating federal law. And we now have gerrymandered-to-hell legislatures violating federal law right and left and there’s only so much time and so many resources.
I’m not going to tout Biden as the greatest president ever or anything, but I can’t blame him for this. He’s not responsible for putting Ryan Walters in his position and he doesn’t have the power to get rid of him.
Biden has been a career politician longer than been alive or you perhaps
definitely blame him and all Democrats and Republicans
don’t wake up one day and magically become progressive
he always has been right leaning and his party could have been at least shouting to the rooftops about the injustices but instead just deafening silence
did he even mention this at the debates last night? how about cop city? or anything relevant?
when the place you reside in is currently being threatened as is your way of life do expect the leader and chief of said place to put in an effort to say something on any platform he could as if he is our side in all this
Yes, again, I understand that you want Biden to say something the second you learned about that something, but it’s the weekend. That’s just not how things work. If Biden doesn’t say something next week, sure, criticize him. But expecting him to put out a press release or hold a press conference about a non-urgent issue over the weekend is silly.
I’m responding to your instant gratification comment. We’ve given these fossils to much time to change and for the most part they haven’t and never will. But feel free to wait while the planet becomes one paved gas station, and your kids starve, will never own a house but you are thankful at least you are a lucky one and have a job at Walmart and continue to work into your 90s.
You done flew that squid into a cloud of reactionaries who get real uppity if their vision of things doesn’t happen by 3 months ago. A story about what a political twat said MIGHT happen is suddenly priority #1 amongst all the other things the POTUS has to deal with on the daily.
Bro maybe just maybe. Those people who you are calling “reactionaries” have been told “change is coming, it will get better just keep waiting, these things don’t happen overnight.” For the last 4 or 5 decades?
And maybe they’re ignoring things like the civil rights movement, the original implementation of Roe, the progress of the LGBT community and all the other society changes that have happened in that same time.
The civil rights act was 60 years ago. Roe was 51 years ago. They’re saying we’ve had barely any progress in the last 40 or 50 years. Cops are still killing people. Racism, homophobia, and other kinds of hate are still alive and well.
Racism, homophobia, and the like are not a matter that can be solved politically. One can make all the affirmative action and equal rights rules you like but the issue at the root is society and culture based. Educational standards are being fought against in our most conservative states pushing for religious indoctrination and denying historical reality.
You have a wing that actively pushes the militarization of the police over community support and engagement, and those same people trying to turn society back to the ‘traditional norms’ as they existed before the civil rights movement.
Given the realities of the need to actually get votes through, just how would you suggest those things be fixed?
Because you can put in those equal rights laws and enforce them, along with all the various other things like building roads and schools and such. To think you can just outlaw racism and such is foolish though. You would be trying to literally tread into thought police territory there.
Don’t recall where I indicated any of them where controversial, care to point it out? I simply pointed that this complaint of ‘no progress’ is ignoring some pretty major progress over the years.
So a teacher who is blacklisted and can’t eat or pay bills does nothing to the economy? This is exactly obey or starve. But you know I can tell you aren’t a big picture squid.
That kind of attitude lingers dangerously close to the everything-is-a-conspiracy-by-the-shadowy-cabal line of reasoning. Biden’s a Catholic, but it’s certainly not “obvious” that he’s “intentionally letting the nation slip”. You can scroll down barely a page on whitehouse.gov and watch the president commit to restoring the standard of Roe v Wade. It’s under the statements in favor of Pride, committing to combating gun deaths, lowering housing costs, and protecting pensions. Joe Biden’s executive orders have been the most progressive executive action since Roosevelt.
Here’s something a lot of non-religious folks might not know: the evangelical right? They hate Catholics. The MAGAs hate them ideologically, but the ones running the show hate them because the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions. Biden is absolutely not on their side, theologically or otherwise.
I live in Louisiana. It’s not Joe Biden who is making this shit happen. It’s Jeff Landry and the rubber stamp legislature that are making the place into a little Iranian theocracy.
Exactly! In many parts of the country Joe Biden and the federal government in general is the only thing standing between the people and Supply-side Jesus flavored fascist autocracy.
the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions
I generally agree with what you’ve written, but I think you’re assuming more pragmatism here than is actually present. Bitter hostility between Protestants and Catholics is as old as Protestantism (and much older than the institutions you mention).
Also, as a side note, there are plenty of Catholic Republicans. (37% vs 44% that identify as Democrats, according to Pew.)
You’re going to blame Biden for the stance of conservatives? This is totally wrong. Right wing religious conservatives have been wanting to bring christianity back into schools for over 50 years and they have finally forced it to happen through state laws. Republicans want this and are making it happen.
After reading the rest of your comments, you could’ve just saved a lot of time by saying you don’t know how the government works. And if anyone else happens to read this and think, “Hey that’s a good point,” no, it isn’t. It’s ignorant at best, actively malicious at worst. Sounds a whole lot like many of the comments trying to get people not to vote.
Um, no. Biden is pretty solidly in the center, his record is a mix of left and right positions, and his positions have evolved as he’s aged. I do believe he’s religious, but he is not trying to force his religious beliefs on us like some states are currently doing with the 10 commandments bullshit.
I would like to take an alternate view of others, but let me start by saying I’ve done shrooms and I enjoy them and I think they should be legal.
However, the ads selling things like mushroom gummies I have seen on social media are both deceptive about what they can do and are not in any way clear what they mean by ‘microdosing.’ And that’s why my brother went from microdosing to taking massive amounts in the course of a month, claiming it was good for his psychology, and writing that he told his wife to watch him the first time, but she fell asleep and he was fine and now he doesn’t need anyone.
My brother is in his 50s and has no experience with such things. He doesn’t even like weed.
So I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. It could be a good thing if this sort of thing was done under the supervision of a medical professional, but they are selling them via Facebook ads.
Worse, they are also selling ketamine via Facebook ads and also touting its psychological benefits. Again, getting mentally ill people ketamine could be a good thing if done under medical supervision. That’s not happening either.
If you want to do shrooms or even ketamine recreationally, I think that should be your right. But this is like selling people random amounts of lithium and telling them about all the great stuff lithium can do for you.
Yeah, I made a post up thread about microdosing, and how what we know from animal studies is that it’s a really small amount.
Additionally mushroom gummies being sold online are likely not psilocybin. There’s several other species of mushroom that are psychoactive and have other pharmaceuticals in them. Amanita is one, chaga is another. Both of these are common in mushroom gummies and chocolates that I’ve seen being sold in head shops.
They’re not psilocybin mushrooms. Shipping psilocybin across state lines is absolutely illegal.
If you want to pick my brain about any of this squid feel free to shoot me a direct message. I’m a mushroom nerd and drug nerd. And have some college credits in pharmacology.
I’m also a frog. The frog that enjoys reading your posts.
I appreciate the offer, but not only am I his little brother, I’m his little brother by 11 years (I was planned, really). He doesn’t listen to any advice I give him on anything because as far as he’s concerned, I’m still the 5-year-old he left when he went to college. He has a lot of… shall we say interesting ideas about how the universe works lately. It’s not just the gummies, but they haven’t helped.
And I’m not exactly shocked that they aren’t psilocybin. I knew there was some sort of catch here or they wouldn’t be allowed to sell them, but I thought it was one of those legal delta 8 THC vs. illegal natural cannabis things like they have here in Indiana. Some sort of “we made it in a lab, therefore it isn’t the illegal thing” loophole. This makes more sense though.
However, if you can explain to me why everyone I know goes out in the woods and finds baskets full of morels in the spring and not only have I never had the chance to eat one, I’ve never even seen one growing, feel free. They can’t.
Morels have a symbiotic relationship with the plant that they grow with. Most often elm trees.
The colony can live a long time. Depending on the species of morels 100 years, you know like as long as a tree will live. During this time they store nutrients in what is commonly called a truffle, mycologists call that a sclerotia. It’s essentially a knot of mycelium packed full of nutrients, that they will fruit out of once they are separated from their food source, i.e. the tree.
Areas that have been hit by Dutch elm disease end up seeing a lot of morels fruiting, because a lot of trees are dying. Additionally morels like to fruit when the ground temperature is around 50 to 60°. Usually this will be on a south facing hill early in the spring if you are in the northern equator. As well as areas not getting so much direct sunlight later on in the spring.
Aside from that, like all mushrooms they enjoy fruiting after a rainfall. So the best time to look for them is when the ground temperature is 50 to 60°, it’s just rained, and the best place to look for them is in areas with lots of elm trees. Especially elms that are dying from Dutch elm.
That is really interesting! Thank you for all the information! This is a lot more advice than they’ve ever given. I wonder if it’s sort of instinctive on their part since they’ve been doing it since they were kids?
We have ‘muscle memory’ in our visual cortex as well. So, we can train ourselves to spot stuff that is normally pretty difficult to spot with practice.
The morels being brown, and fruiting in leaves from last fall, it makes them pretty difficult to see.
Aside from that, they probably have a good idea of what spots to hit because they’ve been hitting those spots for years. As well as a understanding of good conditions to look for them, without having the knowledge of those conditions that I just gave.
And… Mushroom foragers are usually pretty sketchy about giving up their good spots.
I was thinking about this more just now. I know you use weed for medical reasons. Do you ever get hypnagogic images off it when you close your eyes?
I believe this is the cerebral cortex teaching itself how to see things. I get it a lot when I fall into a porn hole or spend a lot of time staring at mushrooms. I think it’s dopamine reinforcement and neuroplasticity, essentially.
Anyway, you can teach yourself to spot them, is what I’m saying. Smoke a bowl, watch some videos online of people hunting them. Preferably a lot of in nature shots so your brain is learning to see them in the right context. When you start to lose interest, pause a good shot and allow yourself to relax and fall into your breathing. If you do this enough, I bet you’ll start to see morels when you close your eyes before bed.
And when you get out to look for them, they’ll be much easier to spot if you allow yourself to again relax and fall into your breathing and sort of trust your muscle memory.
The weed is optional for anyone else reading. But it does have action on dopamine and can give some people mild closed eye visuals, which helps to verify the experiment.
That does make sense, although I use cannabis medicinally and at this point, it mostly just works as a pain modifier. I basically don’t feel high anymore unless I use a ton of the stuff.
What I really need to do is convince someone to take me with them next year.
Most people microdose way to high. What we know from animal studies on microdosing is the the dose for humans should be like 0.5 mg every other day.
That’s equivalent to like 0.1 g of weak cubensies. And a quarter of that for penis envy or other strong cubansies, and then you can half that amount again for stronger species such as pan cyans.
It really doesn’t take much to promote neurogenesis, and dosing everyday will have negative effects on the heart .
So I have friends in Texas who have lost their license for one reason or another. This has a wider range of effect than most realize. When applying for ANY other state licensing, in any other industry, the fact that your teaching license was revoked, no matter what the reason was (it won’t say why on reports) it’s a mark against you when applying for others. All they see is oh this person HAD a state license and it got revoked so, maybe we shouldn’t grant this other one.
I think people are more afraid that this will function as successful brainwashing than they should be. As someone who went to grade school in OK, there is not a doubt in my mind that the kids won’t stand for this. I fully expect those per-classroom bibles to be systematically stolen and destroyed on a daily basis. I’m honestly a little envious that this didn’t happen while I was in school. It will be interesting to see the outcome, for sure. Don’t underestimate a high-schooler’s penchance for civil disobedience.
The closely-related European Polecat is also native to Europe, North America and Asia.
Fun extra bit of trivia, it’s believed that’s what ferrets were domesticated from because they can interbreed.
Edit: To make things even crazier, I just looked it up on Wikipedia to make sure I was right, and it’s now believed that the domestic ferret was domesticated from a North African breed of European polecat.
If you’ve never had the pleasure of visiting !tenforward, then I’d say you’re missing out. Between !@FlyingSquid and !@ummthatguy, it’s always a party.
Honestly I would like to try microdosing LSD, not mushrooms. Something that can be measured, and my youthful experience with these, the tripping is more comfortable/happy/open.
Also it’s the only drug I’d ever try again as far as recreational drugs go. Well, I tried cannabis but hated the high, so I guess not the only one but the only remaining one that I would like to try again. In particular the very, very minimal microdosing but might be willing to also trip. Since I am hella respectable now, too many degrees away from being able to get the drug, especially in a format I could divide up to microdose, not sure it will ever be possible. But other than the legal considerations leading to lack of access nothing else makes me not want to - other drugs I think physically unhealthy or bad for your cognition as you age, or too addictive. I don’t have those concerns about LSD. I think, like coffee it’s more likely to protect your thinking in the long run, and certainly almost nobody wants to trip often.
Unfortunately, RCV doesn’t end the two party system. It’s better than what we have, but only marginally. My hope is that when voters complain about it, the next step is not to repeal RCV but to evolve into Star voting.
Agreed. But it still encourages strategic voting and discourages third-party spoilers. It’s fptp with extra steps, and it gets worse the more candidates you have. If you don’t pick a frontrunner first or second, there’s a chance your vote isn’t counted at all.
Let’s say there are five candidates - A, B , C, D, and E.
Let’s assume candidates A & B are the most popular.
Personally I choose to rank them as C, E, D, B and then A.
Out of all of them, no one gets over 50% of the #1 vote. Whoever gets the lowest #1 vote is knocked out first. Let’s suggest that this is C. All of their #1 votes and therefore my vote is then transferred to E.
Let’s suggest that after this there’s still no one who has over 50% of the vote between the other four candidates. Let’s further assume that candidate E has the lowest resulting vote after the first round of knockout. My vote is then transferred to candidate D.
Out of A, B, and D, let’s assume none of them still have over 50% of the vote after this redistribution. Let’s further assume that D has the lowest vote of the three. My vote is then transferred to B.
Given there are only two candidates left, one will have to have a majority. That candidate wins.
Under RCV, as long as you mark every box with a preference your vote can never ever be wasted. It will always end up with a candidate that wins or one that loses, but it cannot ever be exhausted and therefore meaningless.
Let’s say E is everyone’s second choice, but nobody’s first choice. E is the first candidate eliminated because E got 0% of the vote.
Let’s say it shakes out like this:
40% A E C B
21% B E A C
20% D E C B
19% C E D B <- You
40 A D 39 D B 21 B D
60 D 40 A
First round, E is eliminated despite being the most popular candidate by far.
Second Round, C, followed by B. D wins.
But if 3% of A voters switched to C, then A would have won because D would be eliminated, sending their votes to C, which would have eliminated B, sending those votes to A. But D and C voters hate A, so it’s in their best interest to also vote for B. And now we’re back to fptp
When considering the quality of a voting system, you want voters to be honest (i.e. not strategic in their votes). Voters should pick the candidate they agree with, not the candidates they think they must support to avoid a catastrophe.
I agree it does not solve our problem but it would make more than just a marginal difference. It would heavily disincentivize going too far politically one way to win your primary.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.