I wonder if a big part of the reason is just the whole phone call about Biden and subsequent impeachment, and how Zelenskyy wouldn’t play ball and the whole thing damaged Trump’s ego in a big way. So even if it’s politically advantageous in every way to say you want Ukraine to win, Trump is incapable of doing so.
They admire more than that. But, like, there’s an implication in the fact that you are posting on Lemmy that you believe people should assign a nonzero value to your perspective; why is that? I would assume that you make your arguments and believe they have value based on their own merit, regardless of the fact we have no idea who you are. Well, Taylor Swift made a post where she stated her position and gave arguments too. Is there any reason her perspective should not have any value but yours and mine should?
Furthermore, if someone does know who she is and wants to also take into account that they admire her music and songwriting, her personality, her perspective, and/or her various life accomplishments, why shouldn’t they? We’re talking about politics here, where everyone is making it up as they go along. She’s not trying to use her celebrity status to get a paper published in a physics journal or something.
I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.
The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.
It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!
When I have it integrated into my development environment a la Copilot, predicting the next block of code I’m going to write (which I can use if it is relevant and ignore if not), I find it to be a huge timesaver.
I think the very important point you’re missing is that schools did not exist in fear of school shootings before Columbine. There were no lockdown drills and crazy security measures for entering and leaving the building. So making a big loud noise would not make people instantly think someone was shooting up the school like it very well might today.
I used a service that had password validation on the “current password” field when you update your password. My password had stopped being valid due to a change in their password policy, but I couldn’t fix it because the “update password” form kept saying my current password was invalid. I know — you told me to change it!!!!
It’s because the two-party system is a systemic problem. Our winner-take-all voting system always punishes similar candidates, so if similar groups don’t form a coalition and choose a single candidate to run for them, they will cannibalize each other and surely lose. So, you inevitably end up with two parties each representing all the factions on one side of the spectrum.
As a result, anybody on the national level who decides to run as a third party candidate (a) doesn’t understand our voting system, (b) is just doing it for the publicity, or (c) is out of their mind.
If we had a different voting system that did not punish similar candidates (like ranked choice), not only would quality third parties be possible, they would be inevitable.
She skipped Netanyahu’s speech in protest and called for an end to the war afterwards.
“The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time. We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent,” Harris said.
The reports [from Israeli media] appear to reflect worries among Netanyahu’s inner circle that the emergence of Harris as the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate might herald a tougher US line on the conduct of Israel’s war with Hamas.
I’m not in any way arguing that she’s doing everything right on this issue. I think she should go more strongly, although I can also acknowledge that someone at this level is walking a tightrope.
However, if anything, her choice to skip the speech in protest associates her with the protest going on outside, and so she went out of her way to separate herself from the actions at the protest that went too far.
You can argue over whether or not some protesters did go too far, or what else she could say and do that would actually help and be effective, I’m just asking for people to strive for accuracy when making claims. This is an important election, in which I genuinely believe that Harris winning the election will lead to a better outcome for Palestinians than any other outcome. I want to be vigilant about what she says but I also don’t want to look for some excuse to paint her with the same brush as everyone else and write her off.
I wasn’t in anyway even trying to imply that these actions weren’t carried out by protesters. That wasn’t the point I was making. Can’t you see the difference between “I think it was wrong to do XYZ at the protest” and “I don’t think there should be a protest”?
I just watched the video and it didn’t say she denounced the protesters, it said she was one of the officials who strongly condemned the graffiti, flag burning, and raising the Palestinian flag. Specifically those actions. Not the protesters themselves or the fact that they were protesting at all.
If your statement was based on that segment alone, then I would say you mischaracterized the situation in a way that makes Harris come off worse.
Every single person who grew up in the US in the 80s, for starters.