Being a doomer is bad if you're stating theories as facts while giving no supporting evidence. For example:
Why would withdrawn international relations result in right wing voting? Isn't it more likely to fuel populist voting (not strongly attached to regressive or progressive policies)? What historical trends are you looking at? Just pasting the American flag onto the Weimar Republic based on vibes?
What makes you think the polling is temporary? Putting aside the topic of fair elections, voters who have been subjected to this administration's chaos and are consistently polling negatively will turn on their heads and lick boots because of... Saber rattling? A weak passport? An (even more) destroyed economy? 300 million cases of Stockholm Syndrome? I'm really scratching my head here...
1% by what metric? The collapse will drag out for 100 years? Wealth? The USA will be using stone age tools by the end of it? Population? Deaths? Quality of life? Deportations?... It surely can get worse but 99% in almost any metric is absurd.
I can't even agree or disagree with you because your comments are so shallow that they can't hold up to a discussion; ergo bad.
True, but if it was a truly excruciating habitat humans weren't likely to live there or would have an adapted lifestyle. For example your community is only active around dawn/dusk or travels to better climates in certain seasons or is restricted to coastal villages.
Climate control has convinced us it's totally normal to build homes in hell-scapes where humans have no business living. Like Death Valley CA or anywhere in Ohio.
When you don't live in constant AC you can tolerate a surprisingly wide range of temps. Houses were also built to have better airflow and adaptability (removable shutters, awnings, textiles, isolated room heating, etc...). There was also more emphasis on personal temperature regulation: layering, hats, airy/sun blocking robes, heated stones, hot water containers, etc...
Outside of extreme weather events, people were probably just as comfortable but with more inconvenience.
I mean, what would you suggest instead? Some system where a simple plurality can elect your fringe candidate? We could give the seat to whatever candidate Passes the Post First?
What you're describing has nothing to do with the voting system. If your candidate is so far to the fringe that they can't overcome the gravity of the primary center then they should probably be in their own party. If the voting public wouldn't rank them above all other weak moderates in the general then that's a problem with your electorate and election funding rules.
Weird-ass thing to get on your high horse about. If you're so concerned about phone numbers, get a burner and a sim card with cash. Or, you know, use a communication method designed with anonymity in mind.
Would it be better to have anonymous sign up? Sure. But if you're on a Google or apple device and got Signal from the first party store, your app usage is probably already enough to fingerprint you.
Signal was never about anonymous chat, it's built for secure e2e chat between known parties. If you have a different threat model then there's other options for you.
Have looked into this more and nobody has said much of anything. And yet somehow two noncommital sentences from her and Mamdani have turned into a leftwing smear frenzy that would rival any high-school drama.
To my knowledge, Ossé's entry wasn't planned and he had previously indicated he wasn't running or wouldn't run without DSA endorsement. And even now his statement is he's "exploring" a run. And AOC/Mamdani's statements were basically "I don't think it's a good idea for him to run" which is a neutral phrasing covering any reason (good or bad), and certainly isn't an endorsement of Jeffries if the primary were to actually happen.
But if you were to read axios [parent company donated at 70% republicans/30% to establishment dems] or vox [owned by Jay Penske, son of MAGA mega-donor Roger Penske, with ties to Saudi money and Trump's Whitehouse] this is a show a fealty to the corrupt Democrat cabal and requires unrest and dissent on the left.
Good lord people, why bother with this obvious bait...
Lmao do you have nothing better to do? This is worse than streamer drama. Nothing in that milquetoast clip has anything to do with policy, a change in stance on any issue, or even an endorsement.
But he's now besmirched because he's not in a blood pact with a council member most of America has never heard of? A fellow [Big Tent] DSA member who has only been paying dues for a handful of months?
If he's changing stance on Gaza, publicly or in policy, I'm concerned and want to hear about it. If he's stumping for establishment Dems and scaring his constituents away from a challenger, I want to hear about it.
If he's disagreeing with the concept of a person running, who hasn't put out any platform that I've heard of, before the race has even started... don't bother me.
Maybe this candidate has a great platform, maybe his platform will be garbage.
Maybe he has a good platform but Mamdani genuinely thinks he doesn't have the political chops for the big leagues.
Maybe Mamdani is focused on the political landscape he has to navigate and simply doesn't want a major player disrupted without good reason.
Maybe Jeffries is internally unpopular and could serve as a lighting rod for building a voting bloc from current officials.
Maybe he thinks Jeffries is too big a fish and that there are other candidates he'd like to primary.
I don't know unless he comes out and specifies and it doesn't benefit me to speculate on anything so intangible.
I'll let the new campaign run it's course, I'll listen to the new platform, and I'll judge what happens when it happens. Maybe this will fracture the DSA between left and farther left, but I wouldn't care because both sides are light-years better than our current politicians.
More contrived rage bait about one of the handful prominent elected officials with something approximating a progressive platform. Spinning an uninformed reaction and one offhand remark into a full headline and story.
I guess par for the course when you consider that the Axios is majority owned by Cox Enterprises who, at a glance, donated at 70% for Republicans and the rest to establishment Dems.
Democrats might be a controlled opposition, but it helps to paint real opposition with the same controlled narrative.
I mean, companies avoiding self hosting isn't just about being cheap. Cloudflare/AWS might cost $100 per mo and only have 95% uptime but you know what you're getting. Self hosting inherently introduces risk.
That 5k machine might pay for itself in half a year OR it might self destruct in 3 months. The man hours and downtime needed to unfuck that mess might cost more than multiple years of flaky cloud hosting. Alternatively, a change in data retention regulation requires hardware redundency, then next month the revenue stream from that hardware drys up and you're stuck holding a $10k loss instead of canceling a $100 payment.
doesn't explain the purpose of that meeting, why the specific endorsers are here (other than they're Jewish for some reason?), doesn't even name a specific meeting date
vague paraphrasing of Adler's comments on anti-zionism
even more vague paraphrasing of the reply. no indication of it's phrasing, it's tone, it's content, it's length, the speaker, etc...
"I CAN TELL YOU FOR A FACT HE'S IN THOSE ROOMS TELLING THEM TO STOP"
Uh... Can you? Give me a quote, give me a source, give me context, give me anything... If you can't do the bare minimum then why are we even sharing this clip/anecdote?
I think reinforced digital isolation is a big part of the problem. This is something that could be solved by calling the service phone number or asking at the library or a help group, a doctor's office etc... It might be extra hoops to jump through but there's not any physical or communication barrier completely blocking her. Instead she clicks a button and gets a form and automatically feels completely helpless.
A 20 page form should take like ~30-45 minutes with help, it's not a huge ask and doesn't require as strong of a support network as some people in this thread are claiming. She's got a phone and can read and talk, the only thing that could lower this hurdle further is support information being stapled to the front of the form.
Now it's a different issue once the bureaucracy requires multiple followups, workday visits, transportation for evaluation, etc...
Being a doomer is bad if you're stating theories as facts while giving no supporting evidence. For example:
I can't even agree or disagree with you because your comments are so shallow that they can't hold up to a discussion; ergo bad.