The key is to become famous and create hype around your gambling bet so other people artificially inflate the value so that you have a “theoretical” $60 billion.
Ah the local redneck business owner. I lucked into a niche where I can sit back and let some country boys work and print money for me. I’ll look down on everyone else in town from my swanky nouveau riche cowboy boots.
There are many reasons to avoid Tesla, regardless of Musk. The complete lack of independent repair was my deal breaker, but you’ll find your own. Their competition is looking pretty good these days, too.
I was talking with a solar company about a solar install with battery storage last year, and they only offered the Powerwall as an option. I literally laughed at them and said there was no way I was tying an enormously expensive piece of home infrastructure to Tesla, because they couldn’t guarantee it’d keep working if Tesla decided to shift direction.
I have rejected every one of the endless stream of door to door solar panel sellers primarily because not ONE would leave me substantial documentation of any kind to decide if I wanted to talk to them - the only thing they wanted was a full “consultation.” My view is that if you can’t give me something that illustrates genearlly what you are about to pitch to me, then you probably just want the chance to apply some shady sales tactics.
Were these door to door guys? Did you go with them? Do you have any opinions on the door to door guys? 🙂
No, this was part of a group buy program in my area, which was designed to reduce prices. I ended up turning them down because it was still more expensive than it seemed like it should be, and they were going with an older single inverter system instead of a newer and more efficient micro inverter system.
I’ve heard the door to door guys tend to massively upcharge. I haven’t had any come through here, though, so I don’t have any direct experience.
Pump the brakes on that excitement. I don’t know how old you are, but let me tell or remind you that voters were this excited in 2016 too, and spoiler alert, he won.
Harris does not have that big of a lead. Let’s get excited after she actually wins.
“It’s interesting how ‘any time, any place’ becomes ‘one specific time, one specific safe space,’" she wrote on social media platform X. “I’ll be there on Sept. 10, like he agreed to. I hope to see him there.”
She’s definitely signaling that she’s going to give him a spanking at the debate. I really hope it happens, and he gets into his defensive mode where he really scrambles.
There’s been a lot of talk about how he’s going senile or whatever.
The fact that we know he says the N word, but somehow he doesn’t say it on mic, suggests to me that he still has his mental facilities. His filter still works. (The fact that he does filter himself should give you pause about what’s actually inside his head.)
You can be pretty senile and still know not to say some things even then when you’re still as able to operate as independently as he is. I know this from my own father who had dementia.
But honestly, I don’t care whether or not he is really senile. This is politics. All I care about is that people think he’s senile.
I think hes just getting increasingly frustrated and flabbergasted, because he spent his entire life in a bubble surrounded by yes men telling him he could do whatever he wanted, and get away with whatever he wanted, and had a constant stream of sycophants up his ass praising him and everything he did.
but since hes got elected president, he… for the first time in his entire life, has met with constant criticism, with constant roadblocks, with constant "NO"s for almost everything he did, does, or tries to do… and its wearing on him. Hes at the end of his rope, he doesnt know what to do or say to elicit the praise he wants from anyone other than the ugly peasant folk that adore him, and that he absolutely detests, and thats leading him more and more to frustrated irrationality and revealing ever more of his true self and opinions.
This is why being “a good business leader” (not that I’m saying he was that either, since he failed at selling steaks and alcohol to Americans) does not equate to being able to run a country. It’s almost the opposite. You lead a business, your responsibility is to run it as you see fit. You run a country, you have a responsibility to take into account the wants and needs of everyone, even the people you don’t agree with.
My step-dad had dementia and died to a self-inflicted gsw during sundown. He seemed to have control of his mental facilities at lunch. I’m not saying he has dementia I’m just saying that having a filter for 30 minutes isn’t evidence he doesn’t.
That legitimate debate is impossible while the media is hyper-focused on everything but. That’s exactly why reporting on racism exploded after occupy came dangerously close to threatening the banker’s cartel.
They’re disingenuously pretending that the media is conflating bigotry with legitimate criticism rather than the far right employing the former much more often than the latter.
Neolibs don’t want to think any more than the MAGA cult. Yeah, it’s the fault of mass media. But, the last thing they want to hear while running in fear of Trump is that they’re a bigger obstacle to progress than Trump. They won’t even accept it from MLK Jr’s letter from Birmingham jail.
So the media shouldn’t report racist and sexist attacks? And can you point us to any sources of Republicans actually making any sort of good faith attempt at an honest debate about the issues? Because i haven’t seen any in a very long time.
When the headlines are about random maga types being quoted calling her “little whore” and n-words - it’s clear that yeah, the -isms are indeed out and about, the media is just reporting it.
The reality cannot be denied, they aren’t deep faking the clips.
The maga crowd dosnt counter her policies, her voting record, her career, her speech, her age, her cognitive function
They go after what she was born with and what that crowd has been indoctrinated to hate.
I will ask you what I asked the person you are agreeing with here: Is calling Kamala Harris the N-word just not agreeing with “the establishment line?” Because that’s what this is about.
I was in disagreement. I removed media from the equation because I believe all the -ists are the real reason these -isms show up no matter the circumstance.
Funny how many racist comments come out in media every time people don’t like the colour of the candidate but never finished school so can’t actually engage with their work.
People have called her and Biden “Joe and the Hoe”, have implied she slept her way to the top, have called her a diversity hire, have invoked the heritage project to oust her. So yes, they’ve gotten racist and sexist very fast.
On the one hand: “you can’t have her she’s ours!”. On the other, she’s out in 26 regardless, and she’s pretty good so maybe we can share with the rest of the country.
You forgot that she’s a POC and there are also tons of racists fucks out there.
Even before getting to her actual credentials (some great, others really not), people will be assholes. I still have hope that she, as a former prosecutor, could mop the floor with the fascists.
Americans divide 46-47% between Biden and Trump if the election were today, almost identical to a 44-46% ABC/Ipsos poll result in April. Among registered voters (though there’s plenty of time to register) it’s an absolute tie, 46-46%.
Were Vice President Kamala Harris to replace Biden as the Democratic nominee, vote choices are 49-46%, Harris-Trump, among all adults (and 49-47% among registered voters). Harris’ 49% is slightly better than Biden’s 46%, although she doesn’t have a statistically significant lead over Trump.
Also possibly key:
Both candidates [Biden and Trump] face a high degree of scorn. About 4 in 10 Americans say neither has the mental sharpness or the physical health to serve effectively, and as many say neither is honest and trustworthy. Sixty percent say Trump is too old for a second term, also a new high, up from 44% in spring 2023. And in a sign of the nation’s political polarization, 50% say that given his debate performance, Trump should step aside in favor of another nominee – although, in contrast with Biden, very few of Trump’s own supporters say so.
You can expect Harris’s numbers to drop given she’s vulnerable to almost every criticism Biden was except age and the fact that the Trump campaign has already been preparing to attack her.
No, they don’t. The Democratic Party can give the donated money to whoever is the candidate. Not sure where people are getting that.
Edit: After reading up, I am mistaken kind of. If Harris is still the VP candidate, the money could be used. Otherwise a PAC would have to be setup to funnel money to the candidate…maybe. Bloomberg was simply able to transfer his campaign funds directly to the DNC since it was part of his campaign money…even though the vast majority of it was his own money.
That’s correct, but nearly none of the money is the direct donation stuff - it’s almost in PACs which are (due to a legal fiction) entirely independent of the candidate.
There are still more restrictions however on spending on other candidates and they would have to act like any other PAC, only helping via donating/running ads in support of (but importantly not directly by) any other candidate.
The $100 million warchest belongs to the Biden/Harris campaign, not the Democratic Party. They are separate organizations, and Biden/Harris only answers to Biden and Harris.
The DNC has its own funds of course, but nowhere near as much. And DNC funds are supposed to be shared with multiple Democrats, not just the one running for president.
And notably even if Biden/Harris were supporting the alternative, they’re an outside group. They can spend like a super PAC, but can’t pay bills or do direct advertising.
I find this so insane. People talk about who gets to keep the money, who has which rich asshole routing for them, which strategy has been successfull in the past, like always setting up the current president for reelection…
We need to focus on who has actually inspiring policies and ideas. We need to focus on these, because that is what the Reps lack. All they offer is “not the Dems” while the policies they propose are actually unpopular with many of their base. And the whole “Not Trump” strategy of Biden just fell apart.
Is there noone in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?
Is there no one in the Democratic party who can actually come up with a coherent vision of the future and inspire people to follow it?
This is why I think Pete Buttigieg should throw his hat in if they do have a primary. He just had a Bill Maher interview that just went viral because he knows how to talk to the common people. I think his visions are inspiring, he’s done a lot of work for his department, and he isn’t afraid to walk across party lines and go on Republican shows to talk about the real problems. He’s smart enough to smash Trump in a debate, calling out all his lies, and even if Trump is too scared to debate him, he has no problem laying out Trump’s lies elsewhere coherently and cognitively.
Half of America lost it’s mind when Obama was elected, and we’re still dealing with the fallout from that lovely dose of racism. There’s no way Kamala could win in this country.
She aint “black” as much as “brown.” Its an incredibly stupid hair to split, but indians are generally considered a “model minority” by racists, so it will likely hurt her but not as much as you may think.
Obama won. And then won again. Stop pumping up the reactionaries as some unstoppable force. They’re a minority and have been on a long term losing streak.
I don’t particularly like her, then again I detest nearly all politicians. That being said, I’m more motivated to vote, that’s for certain. I didn’t mind Biden, but it felt like elder abuse lol. He’s been better than anyone in my lifetime. Good God, I’d rather have her than Hilary as the first woman in the spot. Biden was just hard to watch and that position needs someone that will have to live with the consequences of the decisions in office. Will be curious to see who else puts their name in. 4 years ago he said he wouldn’t run again and he seems to be keeping that promise too. If they were clever, they’d put Biden as VP or as an advisor.
Hmm…not bad. Not amazing name recognition, but that could be remedied.
Having Gabby campaign for/with him, especially after the DJT assassination attempt, could be beneficial, too. (Or could look like a disgusting political plot, but that’s really all our politics.)
Buttigieg and AOC ticket? That would be the youth candidacy. Kelly and Buttigieg or vice versa would be more centrist but probably be the most robust candidacy.
I hate to say it, but in this political climate and with the threat of Trump, the best shot is probably two young-ish white guys.
Gavin is probably the least popular option of any names floated. I don’t know who likes him, apparently some people do, but it’s not anywhere near a majority of the country.
On top of that, you can add that there is no advantage to getting a candidate from California. This is why I never understood Harris as the VP pick. Ideally, you get someone from a swing state like Whitmer.
Literally any straight white man center-right democrat born after 1968 would wipe the floor with trump.
And before anyone jumps down my throat, that’s not what I want. I want president Cortez. But presidents are chosen by money and by about 10,000 generically stupid swing voters in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Realistically… from a foreigner . They shouldn’t …really… Have to…
Anybody that votes for trump wants a king. Plain and simple.
Provided America has a functional education system, the Dems should easily be able to coast against someone that actively tried to retain power in the ways that he did. You can listen to the cals yaknow.
The 250th anniversary of the signing of US declaration of independence will be in 2026.
The state is also requiring a four-paragraph “context statement” about how the commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries”.
Technically, that’s English, Dutch, French, and Spanish history, not to mention Native American history. And the Native Americans certainly were not influenced by Christianity, except for the part of it that killed the shit out of all of them.
Only if you define American history as that of the current United States government which would exclude events most if not all would consider core events to American history. Like the Pilgrims landing, Lexington & Concord, and Bunker Hill. If you define it as the history of those who lived on the land you arrive at a different conclusion.
only 2 of those 3 are American history, and not even exclusively. the first is English and Native American, and the second and third also include the English. expanding the last two references to the entire American War of Independence, that also includes, again, the French.
so, really, it seems it comes down to your obtuse cherry-picking of events and American exceptionalism.
The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes. This isn’t American exceptionalism this is recognizing that “French History”, “English History”, and “Native American History” that happen on American soil are American history.
Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.
History builds on itself. The French and Indian War (1754-63) might not be considered by you to be the history of the USA but it was George Washington that sparked off the conflict. And it would inform the relations with native nations down the line. It also created the terrible economic situation that lead the taxation of the colonies. But for that war we wouldn’t have the America we have today.
And that war would have been much different if not informed by earlier conflicts like King Phillips War. There’s no fine line to be drawn.
The history of the land is the history of America. My “cherry picking” is just pulling events that every American student gets taught in k-12 American History classes.
Some of it, conveniently leaving out the parts which conflict with your point of view. That’s the definition of cherry-picking…
Trying to divide the history as being that of a government rather than a land is impossible to do as the histories of governments are interwoven.
yet i easily did it
save the mental gymnastics for the Olympics in a few weeks, and just admit that you’re wrong.
You did it wrongly as well. The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold. If the English never colonized MA there would be no Lexington & Concord.
Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous. You imply such without supporting you claim with a single point, as if there was a sea of evidence contrary.
What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.
The protestants arriving was critical in establishing Massachusetts as an English stronghold
my point exactly. funny how i’m “wrong” but you reply by explaining how i’m right.
Claiming that citing supporting evidence is cherry picking is ridiculous
proving you wrong isn’t ridiculous, it’s just inconvenient for you. claiming that is ridiculous is ridiculous. besides, your “supporting evidence” proves me right. again.
What about the French Indian War? Is that American history under your fine line model? How about the Boston Massacre? None of the involved parties there would have even considered independence at the time.
From Wikipedia:
The French and Indian War (1754–1763) was a theater of the Seven Years’ War, which pitted the North American colonies of the British Empire against those of the French, each side being supported by various Native American tribes. (source)
…
The Boston Massacre (known in Great Britain as the Incident on King Street[1]) was a confrontation in Boston on March 5, 1770, in which nine British soldiers shot several of a crowd of three or four hundred who were harassing them verbally and throwing various projectiles. The event was heavily publicized as “a massacre” by leading Patriots such as Paul Revere and Samuel Adams.[2][3] British troops had been stationed in the Province of Massachusetts Bay since 1768 in order to support crown-appointed officials and to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.
In the 18th century, Boston was the capital of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, an important shipping town, and along with Philadelphia and present-day New York City, one of the most influential political, economic, and cultural cities in the Thirteen Colonies of pre-Revolutionary British America. Boston also was a center of resistance to unpopular acts of taxation by the British Parliament in the 1760s.[5] (source)
im enjoying your tantrum and your attempt to speed-run the Kubler-Ross model.
you’re still wrong, though. try getting your facts straight next time :P
So you honest to God believe that the Boston Massacre isn’t an important event in American history? Just as the the French-Indian War which had it not occurred the Revolution wouldn’t have happenen?
My supporting evidence only has served as a platform for you to hang your own argument off of. If you needed to go to Wikipedia to learn about the French-Indian War just now you’ve no place to qualify American History as solely that of the English.
Your opinions are irrelevant to the facts, which I have provided with sources. How you feel about that is also irrelevant.
I’ve proven you wrong several times; now it’s time for you to get over yourself. Cherry picking and moving the goal posts or whatever other logical fallacies you wish to employ is not going to change that.
If you start with the founding of Harvard in 1636 and go to SCOTUS deciding that laws requiring the 10 commandments in classrooms are unconstitutional in 1980, then you get almost 350 years.
What I read is that a lot of them claimed to be “deists.”
I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that “deist” was an 18th-century euphemism for “atheist, but in the closet about it so as not to offend the normies.”
Yeah, probably an older form of agnosticism. But they were very clear in their opposition to a religious state. It was why England separated from the Catholic church, and why many groups emigrated to the US - freedom of religion (or freedom from it).
This is good news, while it wouldn’t be enough to sway diehards, it will sway the undecided who don’t want to see the nation become a shell of its former self. Conservatives who are trying to distance themselves from their most desired plan will make mistakes and screw up enough to hopefully get caught out. Here’s hoping at least.
Not enough people get triggered enough by maga policies though. Enough are concerned about abortion maybe but transgender rights, marijuana, Ukraine, climate change, nah. I fear that too many people would rather vote for the candidate everyone wrongly belives is going to improve the economy than any of that stuff, not that I agree that’s the right choice.
This “don’t want bad things to happen to you? Simply don’t be trans/gay/poor/different” mentality that so many people believe in needs to stop.
Though, TBF, the NPS, who admin that thermometer, admit it’s in a very hot location next to the ranger station, and they keep it there for bragging rights.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.