Nollij @ Nollij @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

978

Joined

2 yr. ago

There was a time, a few decades ago, when there was a real demand to get away from the negativity of most campaigns. Everyone says they wanted it, polls clearly showed it, etc.

But then there was another study which analyzed the effectiveness of campaigns (i.e. if they won) vs how negative they went.

Negativity was clearly proven to be the winning tactic.

Ignoring how meaningless the statement is in the first place, obligatory XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

I really doubt he will agree to another debate. But the best way for it to begin would be at the beginning, when they thank everyone for making it happen, if she thanked Trump for his donations to her previous campaigns. She wouldn't be there if it weren't for donors like him.

It would immediately piss him off for the entire event.

IANAL, but I don't think the PAC can give money to the candidates/campaign. However, they can (independently, and without coordinating) work on the candidates' behalf.

You bring up a valid point. There are many facets of life and a left/right divide, and some of them did shift left.

But compared to the 50s (which is when many right wingers idolize), particularly starting with Reagan, we've seen:

1. Push for theocracy
2. The war on drugs
3. Less "society" and more individualism. This is especially true regarding regulation of harmful activities for profit, such as corporate pollution
4. Reduced enforcement of those laws that we do have, as long as it's a corporate entity and/or for profit
5. Massive consolidation of all industries. Competition is now mostly an illusion.
6. Strong push against workers' rights. Reduction in union protections, minimum wage laws, OSHA powers, etc
7. Active, planned takeover of media. This was started by (IIRC) Roger Ailes that if the right controlled the media, Nixon would not have been impeached. He went on to found Fox News with that philosophy, and proved it correct with Trump. See also: Sinclair
8. While this mostly happened at a state/local level, it has been nationwide. Government was intentionally ruined as an effective organization, and now provides way fewer/worse services

These are just a few ways that the country has shifted right, but they are so impactful to the average person's daily life.

Fun fact, there are (were?) 6 of them, and only 12 people per year get to drive one. It's a pretty exclusive club.

Working class Democrats like Sherrod Brown (D-OH) do very well in most of the swing states. The problem is that there are very few of them running in the swing states.

"Hackers" (rather, malicious actors) rarely look to take down IT resources as their goal. Instead, they want to access it for their own purposes. The closest example would be ransomware, where it gets taken down as part of the threat/punishment. But if the victim pays, their resources must be restored.

Plus, I would be surprised if Crowd Strike doesn't have any protections on its own files. I also expect there will be additional verification checks (hash/etc) on their updates going forward.

Their claim is that the country has been ruined by the left, and they want to restore it to its former glory. It requires ignoring the fact that the country has taken a hard right shift since the time they are idealizing.

As for the cognitive dissonance, Stephen Colbert (during The Colbert Report) played around with this self-contradiction. His book is titled "America Again: Re-becoming The Greatness We Never Weren't"

Edit: autocorrect

Not true- she can serve 2 full terms, plus up to half of a term if she were to assume the remainder.

Trump voters largely don't care about policy or scandals. They do, however, care about racism and sexism.

The average lifespan of a car is 200k miles, not 300k. While it's not uncommon to see cars going higher than that, it's rare to see them get to 300k. I've had 2 Toyotas that died between 230k and 260k. There are more citations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity

Given that 300k km is ~186k miles, I think OP made a pretty reasonable comparison.

As for robustness, how do you even define that? Repair costs per year/mile? Frequency of repairs needed? In either case, there's a much bigger gap between a Jeep and a Toyota than between ICE and BEV.

Holy shit, I hadn't even realized it. I can distinctly remember each recent president laughing (at least mildly), except for Trump.

TC's video is specifically about North America, particularly the US. Here, we currently have 3 (well, 3.5) connectors. They are Chademo, j1772/CCS, and Tesla.

Chademo is already dead on new cars, and was never very widely adopted. Tesla is of course the connector used on most Teslas. J1772 (Level 1/2 AC) and CCS (Level 3 DC Fast) charging connectors are used on everything else. J1772 is electrically compatible with level 1/2 Tesla, requiring only dumb/passive adapters. CCS and Tesla supercharger is more difficult. This is the standard for almost all new EVs that aren't Tesla.

BUT, there been a more recent development! The Tesla connector has been standardized as the North American Charging Standard (NACS). Most major manufacturers have already signed on.

Which means aside from a transition period with adapters, the future here is a clear standardization on NACS.

ETA: He also has a later video where he covers why that ends up being a good thing.

It hasn't even been 12 hours. It's way too early to be expecting results.

But, we have some anyway. Currently up to $55m

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/21/joe-biden-drops-out-election/actblue-biden-harris-donations-00170174

The term frequently means narrowly avoiding a bad outcome, regardless of how it happens. Often it's nothing more than Mr Magoo-ing out of the way.

There are remarkably few people in the world who can actually dodge a literal bullet. Everything else is just luck or escaping.

Who do you think runs those servers? What do you think those companies run on their Linux servers?

While all of those are bottom-line results, it all comes back to a central theme.

We all know he flubbed the debate. But what's worse is how badly he's flubbing the response and aftermath. He said it was just a bad night. If that was true, he should've been on every news, opinion, political, and talk show the very next day, or at least within a week. Not just the usual and friendly shows, either. From Maddow to Gutfeld to Fallon, he needed to show the world that he could still do it. And he used to be able to.

Waiting a week to give a single lackluster interview, then 2 more weeks while there's clearly a fire burning? He has to know that's not an acceptable response, or else he's too insulated.

That said, this isn't the kind of thing you can publicly contemplate. You have to smother it, until you embrace it. You can't walk back from that.

I do suspect there are a number of backroom discussions, and possibly even deals being made. It won't be acknowledged until its unveiling, when he officially steps aside.

Can you define terms more specifically? Is AOC more popular in her district than others are in their districts? Or is AOC more popular across the country? I suspect the latter isn't true, as she fills a relatively small niche. The former could be true, due to her district and how unpopular most politicians are.

As for Bernie, he might've won the primary, and possibly beaten Trump. But he would've been eaten alive by a Rubio or Christie, which is what everyone expected them to land on. Trump was widely regarded as a joke candidate that would disappear by election day.

Georgia would beg to differ. They went blue last time, and are at a dead heat.

Florida would like you to wrestle gator before you can vote, just for the chaos.