For the sake of argument, let's just say sure, both sides gerrymander just as egregiously (which frankly, they do not.) This would makes it a wash balancing out pros and cons of either choice as it relates specifically to the 2024 presidential race. Which leads us back to the world of pragmatism. Which candidate is liklier to encourage greater voter turnout and representation if elected? Probably not the guy who represents the party that is removing scores of names from voters rolls. Probably not the guy who opposes mail in ballots. Of the two options, which candidate would benefit more from voter suppression? Probably the guy who won the election for just the fifth time in our countries history while simultaneously losing the popular vote in 2016. Probably the guy who called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure them to "find 11,780 votes" and overturn the state's election results from the 2020 presidential election. Of the two candidates in the 2024 presidential race, only one of them stands to benefit by more votes being cast and counted in subsequent elections. Therefore Harris is once again, the likeliest hope for improvement.

If you wish to find out, I recommend voting for the candidate that is most interested in preserving the democratic process, rather than the one who idolizes dictators, doesn't support the peaceful transfer of power, and who's party is held together by gerrymandering. Furthermore , if you wish to improve our democracy I recommend the ticket discussing ranked choice voting, and who are interested in eliminating the electoral college.

The fact that one is the worst does in fact mean that the other one is better by definition. We aren't voting to fix western civilization in one fell swoop, we're voting for the 2024 united states president. The pragmatic choice is the best available candidate, which is probably the one who doesn't discuss shooting people on 5th avenue, or grabbing women by their genetials, or mock reporters with disabilities, or make reference to "shit hole countries", or salute the dictator of North Korea, or get convicted of 34 felonies, or say that Israel should just "finish the job", or who isn't 78 years old. Call me crazy.

I don't know what this article is about, and I'd rather not engage with this segment of society to find out, but from a quick Google images search it seems like she recently (?) caught flack for a Valentino dress, which was very sheer and through which her nipples could be seen. But anyone who's been paying any attention to fashion at all would know that sheer is very much "in". The latest Yves Saint Laurent line is a prime example of this. As for the quality of her body, which seems to be an unusually frequent topic, why's it anyone's business? Can a woman exist anywhere on this planet and not be objectified and scrutinized like livestock?

Here's a thought experiment. Between the two likeliest candidates, who would you rather assemble some ikea furniture with, Trump or Harris? Who would you rather go on a road trip with? Who would you rather be stranded at sea with? You can keep escalating these scenarios until the stakes get higher and higher. At some point it should dawn on you that Trump cannot fend for himself. He is unpleasant to work with. And that he is untrustworthy as a teammate. On a fundamental level he is the worst person of the two. Handing him the keys to the country is suicidal.

Wait until you hear about the prison industrial complex.

Maximum. It would be like book burning, but with people.

Historically I still "lose" these types of arguments as my willfully ignorant interlocutor spams potential strawman and ad hominem "arguments" until they feel sufficiently convinced that my pesky facts and I are safe to ignore.

In my experience there are very few people worth arguing with, as there are very few people willing to argue in good faith. Most people see arguing as a battle to be won or lost rather than a mechanism by which to vet assumptions. How can you expect to argue with a person who is unable to argue with themselves?

Well, we've tried convicting him with felonies and playing actual tape of him describing rape, which he is guilty of, and no one seemed particularly swayed. So, facts and evidence seem to be out. If it takes a more abstract, personal approach to break the spell he holds half the voters in the country under, then so be it.

Wordle 1,214 6/6

Man, today's word was shithouse 9000. Even with playing easy mode my last guess was a cointoss. My condolences to all the hard mode players today.

At company, we're lke family. This is your home and family now. Who needs to retire when you're with your family? And a family doesn't unionize.

You're right, a startling number of political comedians seem to betray progressive ideologies and become mysteriously conservative. Must be a coincidence.

Believe what you want. But while you're watching six TV shows, conservatives are positioning themselves for an actual coup.

If those people cultivate a posture of victimhood as a tool for propoganda, then yes, pointing and laughing at them justifies their outrage and is a help to them.

I will quote from a comment I made a while back on a different thread:

[The problem with the conservative base is] self esteem. If you feel powerless, or worthless, or rudderless, any group that makes you feel powerful, valuable, and effective is going to be very appealing. Conservatives (read: fascists) prey on this. They make it seem like joining them is brave, and important. And since their followers lack identity and purpose, their self worth becomes entangled with [in group], be it closeted fascism such as the American GOP, or flaming fascism such as Q/proud boys/whatever. And since their identity and value depends on the perpetuation and proliferation of their in-group, they willingly accept lies and falsehood. And attacks on their in-group become attacks on them. Pretty easy to gaslight someone who's encouraging it.

Then when they wear their symbols of hate, or make shocking claims, or in anyway troll and grief society, up to and including dismantling democracy, they get a reaction. They've exerted their will on the world around them, and as such they feel powerful. The insidious bit is, even if the good guys win, with all their high falutin factual arguments and social programs, it just makes these sad people angier and feel worthless again. So they go right back to their pimps for some more sweet lies and marching orders.

The conservatives have weaponized fact checking. Every time we slam dunk on them, they just get angrier and burrow deeper into denial.

It may feel good to laugh at them, lord knows they deserve it, but it is not effective in combating them. First and foremost it is most successful as entertainment, and entertainment is only as successful as it is profitable. And this ecosystem is dependent on Trump being relevant. He is a cash cow, a hideous, demonic cow, but the left and right alike are at his greasy teats just the same.

I'll even go one further and say that the catharsis we feel from watching a comedian humilate Trump releases pressure in the audience that might otherwise build into an actual revolution. If we can't tune in to our favorite funny man and get some appeasement about the sickening cognitive dissonance we suffer through day after day, we may be forced to direct that energy outward and actually get into the streets. In short, humor may be pacifying an otherwise powerful people.

In the Emperor's New Clothes, it is the emperor, his men, and the townspeople who are being conned by the weavers. In real life the mainstream media is more like the emperor, we're the townspeople, and Trump and Cheung are the weavers, who in the tale successfully escape with the money for the nonexistent clothes.

I don't take exception to talking about him. I take exception with people being entertained by him. Even as schadenfreude.

The media legitimizes him by summerizing his statements. By hypothesizing what he meant instead of what he actually said. They give him the benefit of the doubt, time and time again. Age is no longer an issue, grabbing unconcenting women by their genetials is no longer an issue, felonies are no longer an issue, debt and taxes are no longer an issue, anything that has become boring is no longer an issue. It's all about new new new.

They push this bilge about fairness to justify giving him a platform, but really they just need a heel for their wrestling spectacle.

He didn't falsely claim, he lied. He didn't accidentally reference facist rhetoric, he used it. He doesn't deny climate change, he profits from it. Etc.

Even when he's "a dipshit", the attention he garners legitamizes him as a candidate. Attention is the whole game. The Michael Jordan of "no bad publicity." The entertainment you describe is just a different form of rubbernecking. And Trump attracts droves by regularly providing a new car accident to gawk at; and doing so on a fairly steady, news cycle friendly basis.

This right here is the problem, why he gets favorable treatment by the media, why he's the Republican figurehead. He's "fun to watch".

Here's what will happen: Harris will release her clean bill of health, he'll deny their veracity, he may then make an unsubstantiated boast about his own health, he may then also call into question the qualifications of Harris' doctor, he may then close with some sort of jingoistic non sequitur, or some nugget of misogyny. He will do these things in an almost robotically simplified way, that is at once instantly digestible and yet difficult to directly quote without editing. If anything he says proves the least bit problematic, Steven Cheung will claim that this editing proves malicious intent by the media, and that Trump was unfairly taken out of context. Meanwhile his thralls will either ignore the whole interval, or accept Cheung's version of events and redouble their support of a man who is not only unqualified, but it's actively a national liability. This will register surprise, shock, anger, any number of strong emotions, and viewership/readership will keep coming back, generating impressions and ad revenue, desperate for the new episode, to see what happens next, as if it were a show on HBO and not real life.

I'm going to play the law of averages and assume they mean the Falkland Islands.

I have read your comment and have nothing else to add. Please forget having read this comment.