Yeah… We’re all going to vote for him if he’s the nominee… But he’s still going to lose… That’s the point, the point progressives have been making all along. BIDEN. WILL. LOSE. Like the sun will rise in the east, it’s just a fact of nature. They need to nominate someone who will get Gen z excited to come out, so at least there’s a chance of stopping Trump.
We’re all going to vote for him if he’s the nominee… But he’s still going to lose…
The state of the election is such that turnout is going to tank. Libs and Cons are both very worried who the indie voter aligns with, but I’m betting a bunch of people simply don’t vote in November.
If the DNC would get their heads out of their asses (a longshot, ik) and voted in another viable, smart candidate they could turn voter apathy around in a heartbeat.
Too bad they seem to be happy with the power status quo and fail to see the real danger they are in if/when Trump wins … cause he would not be adverse to using guillotines or nooses to fix that ‘problem’.
People staying home historically effects Democrats far more than Republicans. That’s why Dems win when people are excited about a candidate and more people actually show up.
People staying home historically effects Democrats far more than Republicans.
Trump has changed the math, somewhat. High energy elections tend to benefit Trump-y candidates and hurt the milquetoast Dems. Low energy elections favor Bidencrats.
The conspiracy theorists all say Joe is supposed to step down and Gavin Newsom somehow is added to the ticket which then will win. These conspiracy theorists also say that candidates are selected in advance by the powers that be and it’s all pagentry to deceive the gullible masses. If this is true, then someone is already selected.
The court affirmed that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Hillary Clinton.
Wow, what a garbage site that grossly misrepresents what the judge said (and then went on to contradict this in the article). The judge didn’t ‘affirm’ their claims of bias, but just assumed they were true because whether or not they are true makes no difference to the ruling, as they basically claimed it was the wrong place for the suit. They even explain later on that assuming the plaintiffs claims are true is a common practice when dismissing a case.
I am thinking of making themed clothing for my family. Like black and orange stuff for Halloween. What age does everyone think my kids will be too cool for it?
The title is misleading. He didn’t just lie about his dad dying. He literally forged his academic credentials, test scores resume. Everything. He absolutely deserved to get kicked out. That scholarship should go to someone who isn’t such an entitled ass.
It’s amazing how you always know you are on the wrong side of history when it comes to this. Did you ban a book? Yes? Ok you know where you are now.
Like everything else there is wiggle room, or you could have been dealing with a no-good alternatives situation, but this one test is absolute. You can make a moral justification for temporary slavery, say your nation is being invaded by people willing to genocide your population and you really need people to work for the war effort. Slavery is often considered the ultimate evil but there still exists situations where you could argue it needs to happen for a little while.
You just can never find a situation where ideas were dangerous and must be abolished from a person’s head. Heresy is always a victimless crime. It does nothing to anyone else that someone commits wrong-think.
I just find this astonishing. Every other sin of the human race there is some crazy horrible circumstances that I can say it has to be this way because as bad as it is not doing it is worse. Except for one.
Not sure how to react to a neo-nazi book club at the local high school doing membership drives though. There are always going to be people, regardless of society’s guidance and teachings, who are extra susceptible to that kind of shit.
I think free speech absolutism leads to tolerating the intolerant, which just doesn’t work when you are dealing with imperfect primate neurological evolution. People experience the uncaring universe, and our brains struggle to identify the complex and nuanced systems at the root of strife, causing them to look for simpler answers (Jewish space lasers vs. incomprehensible market interactions that over-exploit delicate ecosystems causing droughts). Our brains are set up to tackle problems at smaller scales, and what better way than scapegoating can you reduce a root cause to be more manageable? Mental gymnastics only have to be done once.
You can educate most people to equip them to defeat neo-nazi rhetoric logically, but humans cannot be programmed with the right answers and society will always produce some fuck-ups. Is it easier to prevent a new member of a hate group by banning their ideas, or let them ruin an innocent life and attempt to rehab them after?
Not sure how to react to a neo-nazi book club at the local high school doing membership drives though.
Neither group reads books.
There are always going to be people, regardless of society’s guidance and teachings, who are extra susceptible to that kind of shit.
Well aware. Freedom has a price. There will always be people who will eat or lazy themselves into an early grave for example.
People experience the uncaring universe, and our brains struggle to identify the complex and nuanced systems at the root of strife, causing them to look for simpler answers (Jewish space lasers vs. incomprehensible market interactions that over-exploit delicate ecosystems causing droughts). Our brains are set up to tackle problems at smaller scales, and what better way than scapegoating can you reduce a root cause
Right so you personally know the truth and you have a right to stop other people from reading what you think is wrong because people dumber than you might fall for. Is that a good summary?
That is a perfect summary! I do not trust the general public with neo-nazi propaganda, and have no qualms with banning it. Time has proven that dumb people are going to read it and drag down the rest of us. Nobody should be arguing with them at this point in history. The 1990’s and 2000’s were proving grounds for free speech absolutism for dumbasses, and it has failed miserably with the far-right power grabs that have been happening since. I want a better society, not a perfect one.
Yeah, like what are the stats on 13 year olds actually shooting cops vs. just having toy guns? Like at some point you gotta realize it’s probably not actually a threat and proceed more cautiously.
Rules for thee and not for me? How tf did he get to appeal all the way to THE SUPREME COURT! ffs. Anyway unfortunately it’s only 3 months but in this time he’ll go through the agony of alcohol withdrawal. I hope it’s utter hell he wishes on all of us.
I dont think his appeal moved all the way there, though it was a federal case so it could have. I think this was a hail mary last play for them to intervene and put a hold on things. Either way even they said no
I kinda get it. Boeing may just be trying to improve their image but they’re doing it during an active investigation. Considering just how little they’ve cared in the past this may an attempt to garner sympathy from the public before everything is done.
The rule is there to prevent them from releasing info the NTSB hasn’t done a full analysis on, but that’s not the case here. However, the info was already made public by the NTSB, to the Senate nonetheless.
In what world does it make sense that Boeing can’t repeat the same thing when talking about it? Boeing isn’t even allowed to repeat what the NTSB as publicly said? That’s insane.
A judge would throw this out of court if it came before them, as a ridiculous waste of the court’s time.
No, the NTSB said that Boeing hadn’t provided them with the records, not that orders for the reinstallation hadn’t been made. Boeing is now trying to blame the lack of records to follow-up on on employees, even though none of the work should have been possible without the records existing in the first place.
Boeing absolutely shouldn’t be trying to get out ahead of the NTSB investigation with their own deflecting interpretation of what the NTSB has uncovered and shared with Boeing, which is probably along the lines of the anonymous whistleblower from a few months ago who detailed failings in the record keeping process before the senate hearings revealed that Boeing hadn’t provided the NTSB with the records (which according to the anonymous whistleblower didn’t exist because they were never created)
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.