They were joking about you being a serial killer in Chicago and this being how you admit it.
I personally think that shared interests are far less important than shared values (as in equality, for example), and while it's fun to have a partner who has shared interests I don't necessarily think it's a prerequisite. If you enjoy spending time with them and they're a good person, that's all that matters if you ask me.
She'll be 60 by the time of the election though.
edit: it's not a bad thing, she's still a lot younger than both Biden and Trump so it's a huge step in the right direction, I'm just pointing out that she won't be under specifically 60.
McLaren is on fire today and Sainz is having a pretty good showing, I'm excited about this!
Yeah, the northern parts of the gulf of Bothnia tend to freeze up during the winter.
Maybe he was an even bigger extremist who thought that Trump's legacy would live longer if he was martyred. Let's not speculate on why he did it without any actual information.
While the US campaign cycle is more extended than other countries', even then the people who are going to be the main candidate for their respective parties (party leaders for example) are usually known well in advance and have managed to build up a reputation with their constituents before they even start campaigning. In this situation, you'd have to start way further back.
I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, but everyone should be aware that changing candidate to someone completely new this close to the election absolutely won't be a cakewalk.
There are third parties, they just don't have any support and the FPTP system is exactly why. If a third party with more leftist ideals form, they'd siphon most of their voters from the Democrats, which means that Republicans would have a bigger bloc and win. So to mitigate the worst result, it is strategically more valuable to vote for the one of the two biggest parties that you hate the least.
Proportional representation and the popular vote would make it easier for more parties to gain influence and in turn get voters.
Why are you so certain that people would instantly vote for a new candidate more than the incumbent president? I have only seen polls saying the exact opposite.
Regardless, time is ticking out. If a new candidate is gonna have time to build any sort of support or momentum, they need to get started yesterday and hit the ground running, the election is just getting closer.
The problem is that the previous accumulation of capital has centralized a lot of power in actors who have a financial incentive to stop renewables. If we could hit a big reset on everything then yes, I think renewables would win, but we're dealing with a lot of very rich, very powerful people who really want us to keep being dependent on them.
A third party won't fix the issue, as long as you've got FPTP voting it's gonna be a two horse race. You need the popular vote and you need proportional representation, and the only way to get those is by working from the ground up.
Wouldn't that mean it's a smear? Like, the Turing test is a test, not a Turing.
Actual question: What the hell is this comment? It reads like an LLM trained on Trump speeches.
I mean, not for lack of trying, they did stage a coup and plant the Shah of Iran as the leader for a while
The horizontal position of the solid colored circle is the percentage (further to the right means higher) and the opaque color band is the margin for error.
I think most western governments aren't totalitarian dictatorships that are willing to burn through public funds in order to gain geopolitical advantages over their adversaries.
Do note that if China gains a market advantage, the price will likely go up to reflect the real cost of production.