I don’t think it would prompt some kind of vindictive vote. That side of it is only going to energize those who were vehemently republican anyway. Republicans would hammer on any and all sympathy they can eke from having their candidate assassinated (regardless of the truth they will say it was the left, and at best people will think the guy was just crazy), and the average person only half paying attention will eat it up. Dems would be even more hamstrung in their rhetoric against the GOP considering the gravity of an event like that. Even with that aside, they’re now running Joe Biden against whichever face the GOP tells their voters to line up behind – who you can bet will be all in on the kind of stuff that will do even more lasting damage to our country. Biden is not a strong candidate, and without the uniquely unlikable personality and character of Trump I’m not sure there’s enough motivation amongst voters to carry him to another term.

But all of that was a lot to type, so I just said it would give them a massive boost

I tentatively agree. The man himself I have no sympathy for, but an assassination of presidential nominee would have made everything even worse. GOP would get a huge boost, and could replace Trump with someone that is actually competent enough to fully implement their 2025 treason-esque bullshit. Not to mention how much that would have inflamed an already looney tunes level of political discourse.

It’s also just not how we should do things in America. Call me a hopeless patriot, but we should try to live up to the ideals we espouse.

I agree with this. I use the phrase essentially as “this is the reality” to either set a baseline, or just a different way to say c’est la vie. It frustrates me when people say it’s always a dismissive phrase, because when I am dissmive with it I’m not doing so in a negative way. There’s something to be said about letting little inconveniences lie and fade away.

Maybe a bit, but there would have to be a ton of pressure. Consider the fact we have to use a tourniquet to cut blood flow typically, and those hurt like hell.

I could see it working as an animated “job of the week” sitcom style show about a team of DRG miners. There’s nothing about DRG that ties it too strongly to the concept though. You could just make a show about space dwarves without any mention of DRG, might even be easier without whatever “lore” the game has in place (I like the game a lot, but if there’s a story I haven’t found it).

I’m pretty sure “did we have a moment?” got me out of a minor ticket once.

I don’t get this. I was raised by a cop, and I’m very comfortable with firearms. Flashing your concealed weapon in public is immature at best. I can think of zero reason to flash a concealed weapon in public (unless you intend to defend yourself with it, right there in that moment), even if someone is asking to see it the answer is, “It’s not a toy”. It’s an object designed to kill, the threat is inherent in revealing it.

Not calling out you specifically, but the irreverent attitude of the loud pro-gun group has pushed me way further left on gun control than I used to be. Actions like OP tell me the leaders advocating for it do not have a healthy or mature view of firearms.

They didn’t specify it would be floating in the water…

Silicon Valley. Great show, gotta love Mike Judge.

That’s been the GOP M.O. for a while, but according to the info presented in the article the Dem appointed judges have actually been slightly more lenient (sentenced less than what prosecution sought 92% of cases, against the Trump appointed 90%).

I’m sure there’s more nuance to it if you look at it case by case, but it seems like across the board judges are handing out lenient sentences for Jan 6.

It’s worth a watch, but for the theory itself essentially the effort/resources required to colonize planets that are not earth-like is unsustainable. A lack of a self-restoring cycle for resources and general ecological needs would inevitably lead to one of a variety of possible collapses. This would lead most intelligent life to avoid extensive expansion due to the heavy cost. Issues brought up with the theory in the video was stuff like tech advancement improving the practicality of life in free space as well as the possibility of differing biological needs (i.e. if a species went more mechanical or used AI/machines they could bypass the need to terraform or transport basic biological needs).

A lot more and better explained in the video, but that’s the gist

Ridiculous. Human Ted Cruz is only one being, and not several.

I think it was the Logan Act I was thinking of! Thanks!

Disappointing that it’s never been enforced. While this scenario is not the makings of an diplomatic crisis, it seems a pretty cut and dry example of what the Logan Act seeks to block. It’s a U.S. rep blatantly pushing acting against US diplomatic interests.

I think it would be utter chaos, but I’d love just a single solid year of throwing the book at obvious illegal behavior no matter how trivial. Put the fear of God in some of these morons.

Walberg explicitly encouraged Uganda’s leaders to resist opposition to the law from the U.S.

Can US representative just blatantly undermine US foreign policy, or is this one of those things where it’s wrong but won’t be pursued in any official way?

It’s a skill issue. It’s takes intelligence to conceptualize an issue or idea without accepting it. Seems many people talking about Israel/Palestine (in terms of everyday people) just aren’t bright enough to break it down for themselves.

The whole thing is a legit clusterfuck. Israel has been commiting war crimes against Palestinians for as long as I’ve been alive, and Palestine’s de facto government is a legit terrorist organization who has done some unforgivable things. In the middle you have everyday people suffering for no reason beyond being born in the “wrong” place, and being further radicalized by unconscionable IDF actions. There’s no good guy on either side (in terms of those capable of taking action on a collective scale), and that breaks the brains of some. People ignorantly want a cut and dry solution, and a bad side to rail against, much more than they want to actually understand the issue and it’s causes.

I’m not sure the comment calling for regulation is a corporate shill. It’s a pretty level-headed look at things imo, because the truth is YT cannot afford to operate for free. We live in a system that just doesn’t allow that, for better or worse. Unfortunately, the way we went about funding things on the internet (outside of ridiculous amounts of capital flowing to startups for years, which doesn’t really apply to YT/Google) was ads, and they have gotten wildly out of hand. This is on top of an insane amount of data harvesting. We have to face the reality that any major, data-heavy platform like YT is going to need significant revenue.

We need a solution to either lower the cost of (opening things up for individuals to host), or more efficiently fund, services we like if they’re going to stick around in the current state of the world. Even if we say “google can eat the cost” we’re still putting all our faith in the goodwill of an entity that is designed to do the opposite of what we’re asking. That’s begging for issues.

Peer-to-peer stuff is the best solution I’ve seen, or self-hosting. I’m far from an expert, but from what I understand the tech just isnt there yet for it to become the norm. All that data has to go somewhere, and storage is prohibitively expensive at a certain point.

Coequal branches of government, that’s well below an 8th grade civics understanding. Crazy that people genuinely believe the Supreme Court is untouchable by congress and the executive, who do they think appoints them?

You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.

In a lot of cases that limbic system is the only shot you have at changing their minds. A massive number of conservatives don’t believe the way they do because they’ve sat down and thought about their worldview. It’s cultural, and has become an identity for them. In many cases it has become directly tied to Christianity, which only worsens the shitty blurring of lines. You’re not going to logic that out, and most need to have their worldview shook pretty damn vigorously to even begin to see things differently.

Some of these people live in a totally different reality. You can’t even begin to find common ground to jump off from without directly challenging their worldview. People turn emotional the moment that happens. Even if you get so far as to present opposing facts they will be mostly ignored/rationalized, and anything accepted will be conveniently forgotten shortly after the conversation. For as many complaints as we see from conservatives about “indoctrination” they made a fine job of doing as much with their base. It’s a much bigger problem than people give credit to – I wonder if that’s due to ignorance of the issue, or if we’re just afraid of looking directly at it.

The number of people who are politically disengaged is staggering. What better to motivate those people than to prompt some anger over an issue and hope they care about it enough to stay angry and vote. Also important to note this stuff is never done alone, there’s other outreach happening at the same time. It’s a numbers game, and those few disengaged folks you got fired up with a stupid ad could make or break you.

That said, I think most attack ads are damaging to political discourse by nature of demanding a concise, pithy message. Never going to get genuine criticism out of that.

Ibuprofen all the way for the flu. I think its a more effective antipyretic, and it will help with the inflammatory response that causes the body aches.