Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)MA
Posts
5
Comments
661
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Harris is going to be far less familiar to voters, particularly the undecideds that aren't as tuned in to politics. I suspect it will be a lot easier for her to potentially win undecided voters than for Trump, who people have had a lot more time to develop opinions about.

    And threats to democracy showing up as the number two issue in WI and PA is another good indicator for those states.

  • I wanna say they specifically called out property destruction as being against the rules. And overpaying as well iirc, so you can't offer someone millions for a sandwich that you then eat.

    Plus, if we're being pedantic, burning the money isn't spending it, which is what he is supposed to do.

    The movie also has the advantage of having a contract that presumably covers any other loopholes the audience thinks of, but which they don’t explicitly address in the script. Once you take it out of a movie and start treating it like a challenge to be solved, you can no longer hide behind some unseen fine print.

  • It's taking the premise of Brewster's Millions, which required that he not only spend the money, but that he has to have nothing left at the end, including assets. So, buying a house doesn't work because you still own the house.

    Obviously there are still plenty of ways to drop millions on stuff without having anything to show for it. Hell, it's probably easier now than ever before. Just become a whale for a mobile game and you're there.

  • Funny how anti-woke is always synonymous with anti-freedom. The government doesn't approve of your opinions, and therefore must use the force of law to punish you.

    The good news is, I wouldn't expect these laws to survive in the long term. The federal government could easily preempt them since they obviously involve interstate commerce. And I suspect there's probably some blatant viewpoint discrimination baked into the laws, but that would come down to the specifics of the wording. But even if they are content neutral, I'd argue that they violate the first amendment, which thanks to citizens united would have to be applied to financial institutions too.

    And that brings us to the bad news: until congress and/or the courts are no longer held by nutjobs, I wouldn't expect either to do anything to fix this.

  • 32 percent of Americans believe a military regime or authoritarian leader (described as a strong leader who can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts) would be a good way of governing the country.

    They didn't agree with a statement that explicitly endorsed authoritarianism or military dictatorship. They agreed with a statement that is being interpreted as the equivalent of supporting those things.

    And the question itself is very open to interpretation. Does "strong" mean decisive and principled or cruel and dictatorial? Does interference refer to the normal balance of power between the three branches of government, or is it referring to extreme dysfunction, or even unconstitutional actions taken by courts and/or congress that violates constitutional principles.

  • Right, it's not about whether they are America's friend or foe, it's only about their relationship with Trump. And unfortunately, Trump seems to be better at relating to dictators.

    And it probably doesn't help that democratically elected leaders from countries that have longstanding relationships with the US tend to expect America to live up to it's obligations. They aren't coming in and kissing the ring in exchange for favors, they're putting the burden on the president to, you know, do his fucking job. "What's that, Ukraine wants the defense funding that congress allocated for them? Well what will they do for me?"

  • Obviously the only poll that matters is the actual election, and that's months away, and anything can happen, and everyone needs to do their part no matter what.

    That said, I would expect Trump's numbers to slide a bit from time to time as we get closer to the election. The closer we get to November, the more we'll see independent and apathetic voters start to pay a little bit of attention, and there is just so much not to like with Trump. The MAGA-dominated GOP is incredibly myopic about how their views will be seen by the average American living outside the right wing echo chamber.

    And as much as it would help them, I don't think Republicans will be able to pretend to be moderate or sensible, even for the sake of the election. There is a perverse incentive to be as extreme as possible in order to gain support from other extremists and win influence on the right, but that behavior drags the party as a whole down when it is seen by anyone who isn't already part of the base. For example, MTG gets national support and tons of media attention despite being a representative for a little rural district that no one gives a fuck about, all because she is a loud and controversial extremist. Anyone who moderates their tone or stops themselves from saying the quiet part out loud will lose influence to those who proudly proclaim their awfulness.

    None of this is to say that victory is assured. Hell, I'm not even saying it's likely (nor am I saying that it's unlikely). I'm just saying that I think that there's good reason to expect Trump's poll numbers to dip from time to time.

  • Trump is an idiot and a coward. He doesn't give a shit about global security, he doesn't get that abandoning allies only makes us look weak and unreliable, and he has no principles which could compel him to take a stand. He will decide things based on his own emotions and ego, doing whatever he thinks makes him look good. And his idea of looking good is less about being a leader or statesman and more about pretending to be a tough guy that gets respect by rewarding friends and punishing enemies.

    Remember, this is the guy who, when faced with a choice between showing leadership in the face of a pandemic or downplaying the disease so that it wouldn't be associated with him, went with downplaying the disease. If he can't be trusted to make the right choice in a conflict between a virus and humanity, why would we ever expect him to make the tough call to defend an ally in a difficult conflict.

    Honestly, I think if Trump had been president in 1941, he would have downplayed the significance of Pearl Harbor and would have used it as an excuse to stop aid to our allies. But I'm sure he'd still be all for internment, it's very much his style.

  • I don't think a fake assassination attempt makes much sense at all. He's not losing to the point that he needs to take a big risk. It's not close enough to the election for one big stunt to have a good chance of influencing the outcome. And it didn't even happen at a time and place that would maximize the visibility.

    The only thing I can think of that could explain this would be the recent trending of project 2025. But even then, if you need a distraction, the convention is next week, there's plenty of opportunity to shift the narrative there. And hell, if you want to stage an assassination attempt for your own benefit, that's the venue to do it at.

    On the other hand, faking it requires conspirators who can make it happen, all of whom have to be able to keep it quiet. There will be an investigation that he can't control. The smaller the conspiracy, the harder it is to pull off, but the larger the conspiracy, the harder it is to cover up. And unlike all his existing criminal cases, there would be no connection to his time as president in any way, so the immunity he just got handed by the supreme court wouldn't apply. And obviously the shooter has to not accidentally kill Trump while he is shooting at him and killing an innocent bystander. Plus, you have to have a shooter willing to die for the cause, or a patsy who can plausibly take his place, which raises so many more questions and carries a whole new set of risks.

    By comparison, someone looking at Trump and saying to himself "Well, if no one else is going to do this, I guess I will" is just a lot more plausible.

  • Well shit, I'm open to being his vice president too. Why wouldn't anyone take the job? Now that being president surrounds you with a bubble of legal immunity, the vice president is free to grant himself a good old fashioned Klingon promotion. Stab him in the neck with a pen, sign some papers with his blood in an official act, and all the evidence is inadmissible.

  • If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it's fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn't have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.

  • 4x games tend to be functionally infinitely repayable, since a single game often takes an eternity and there are usually many factions to play.

    I particularly like sword of the stars 1 & 2. Honestly don't remember which I preferred but I know I got an insane amount of time sunk into both of them.