paddirn @ paddirn @lemmy.world

Posts

16

Comments

2,318

Joined

2 yr. ago

Human existence in general is pretty weird. The “normal” state of affairs for humanity is being weird. We’re just all individually weird. So to deny that they’re weird, is actually kind of weird in and of itself.

That’s obviously Morocco, pfft, everyone knows that.

I supported the ACA (though would’ve preferred a public option), but the one time I actually needed to use it, was for my Dad when his private insurance from his job kicked him off after retirement, the rates and coverage seemed bad, like it was just such a hassle with no great benefits. It’s only when I realized my Dad could still get Tricare that I switched over to that and that was a million times better (even more reason for govt-funded healthcare). I have no idea why my Dad hadn’t been using it the whole time either, he probably wasted tens of thousands of dollars getting private insurance. I still think ACA is a step in the right direction, BUT public option still needs to happen, Fuck Joe Lieberman for blocking that.

You might even say they’re sieg heiling this victory.

The values of Muslim voters don’t even necessarily align with Democrats anyways, since alot of Muslims are pretty hardcore against LGBTQ+ and place a greater emphasis on religious values than most Democrats would probably prefer (though obviously there’s going to be exceptions). Democrats are more welcoming of Muslims though, just due to a more accepting attitude towards immigrants in general. The Democratic leadership is oddly still Pro-Israel, despite most Democrats probably being against the genocide.

If not for the white nationalist racism and Islamophobia of the Republican party, Muslims would probably be more at home with them (similar to Latinos), but most Republicans probably hate their guts and wouldn’t have a problem bombing Muslim countries or letting all Palestinians die.

So Muslims in general in the US don’t really have great options if Israel/Gaza is their main issue.

Ok, so they produced at least one, we know that for sure.

I grew up playing FPS shooters like Doom, Quake, Tribes, Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, etc, but I had avoided Fortnite for awhile because it just seemed like a kid’s game, whatever. Then my oldest son started getting into it and we’d play matches together, and suddenly I felt out of my element. The addition of building mechanics adds in a whole other element that you don’t really have to think about in other games. Granted, it’s not realistic being able to build shit that quickly, but whatever, it’s a game. And seeing some of the skill involved with these people running/gunning/building elaborate forts and the sort of battles that play out between two people gets insane sometimes.

Another interesting aspect of it is all the cross-marketing that goes on, you’ve got almost every major franchise represented in some way, shape, or form. It reminds me of Ready Player One. It sounds dumb, but Fortnite is probably the closest thing to a Metaverse that we currently have. I mean, hell, Emperor Palpatine somehow returned in between the movies in Fortnite (a dark day for Star Wars fandom).

That seemed like the entirely right answer. It was a bullshit question that didn’t need dignified with a response.

My Dad had one when we were growing up, so it’s definitely ≥2.

Pretty sure if he hasn't been busted for the classified documents thing, he's getting off scot-free for this one too.

Who could've predicted that fascists would act like such Nazis?

I think the World in general would be better off if Trump loses.

He was ok, seems like a nice guy, but just not much of a presence, it seemed obvious that Clinton didn't want anybody that was going to overshadow her, just kind of lukewarm, which seems completely opposite to what Harris did bringing Walz on board. I think alot of people are wishing Walz was the presidential candidate instead, but it is what it is and he seems like a decent enough guy that it'll good just to have him in the Oval Office in any capacity.

That's what I had always remembered. She was one of the top candidates in 2020 up until that debate, then that one little exchange seemed to kill any traction she had. And it's weird, because I just watched that clip from that debate again the other day, and it didn't seem as bad as I remembered it. For some reason I remember her being deer in the headlights in her response, but it was more just not answering the charges, which is just what politicians do alot anyways.

Part of me is glad that she's gotten as much traction as she has after Biden dropped out, I would've never guessed she'd do as good as she's been doing, though another part of me is annoyed at the all the people who were perfectly willing to let the fascists take over just because they weren't excited enough to vote for an old white guy. There's not going to be any serious change in policy with Harris becoming the candidate, it's not like the Democratic party has changed overnight, it's still the same policies, just a new face. I guess it's cool if she wins, regardless of why people vote for her, but if the only reason Democrats win is just because they changed their mascot out, people are stupid.

Underneath the surface, we’re all Lovecraftian horrors on the inside.

Real science or faked science?

And almost 50% of that is from drug offenses (according to a few stats I saw).

I hope to do this on somebody's grave site some day when they've died of natural causes. Potentially urinate too.

I didn't care for her, but Clinton I would say had more than basic competence, though she didn't really have much charisma, is pretty unlikable, forced out Bernie Sanders, chose a completely forgettable running mate, was running as an establishment candidate in a "change" election, and has a blatant desire for power. It all worked against her, though she did still win the popular vote. Still fairly competent though.

I would argue Harris is in a similar situation as Clinton, though she apparently had the sense to at least pick someone more likable than herself and her almost invisible tenure as VP actually may work to her advantage. Otherwise, she's not incredibly charismatic on her own and could be in trouble at the debate with Trump, though his elderly, stroke-addled brain may help her out.

But if it gets into the same sort of thing like in his debate with Biden, where Trump is just throwing out BS bombs left and right, and all Kamala does is just uselessly flail around trying to address his BS points one by one, I think she'll be in trouble. She needs to cut through the BS and present herself as the adult in the room, and make Trump seem infantile and ridiculous.

We've only had 46 Presidents in the history of the country, chances are history will be defied every election in one way or another.