No. If you have hair, it needs to be covered. If you don’t cover it, then you ought to shave it. But women shouldn’t shave their heads. So they should wear hats. But if you don’t have hair, you shouldn’t wear a hat.
No. If you have hair, it needs to be covered. If you don’t cover it, then you ought to shave it. But women shouldn’t shave their heads. So they should wear hats. But if you don’t have hair, you shouldn’t wear a hat.
The thing is, placebos can actually be pretty effective. Hell, they’re effective even if you know they’re a placebo. And the more elaborate and similar to what you think would be involved in curing you, the more effective. So people going to chiropractors might actually be getting real results even if the things they’re doing are junk.
You can do ivf without that. It would just be very costly, very time consuming, and very frustrating. You just make one embryo at a time. Implant it without testing its viability. If it doesn’t take, do it again. One at a time. It’s an absolutely idiotic way to do it. But it is possible.
The power to select the speaker of the house. They really did make a mess of that. Twice.
He was not found guilty of an attempted fascist takeover. This is the falsified business records case. It’s the most trivial case against him. Going after the jurors who convicted him in this case is going to be chilling on the juries for the cases that matter so much more.
deleted by creator
MI went for Trump in 2016 and broke for Biden by less than 3% in 2020. If those “noncommitted” voters didn’t show up, it would be a problem for Biden. Whereas if the Haley voters didn’t show up in Nebraska and Maryland, it would not be a problem for Trump.
Maryland is blue and doesn’t matter. Similarly, Nebraska went for the republican candidate by more than a 20 point margin in 2020.
If you want to use that argument, how many people voted for “noncommitted” in the Michigan democratic primary? People don’t even have another option but are going out to vote “not Biden” in an actual swing state.
Do you happen to personally know a bunch of 2020 Trump voters who are voting Biden this time around? I have no idea where you’re getting this confidence from.
With how unpopular Trump and Biden are, it’s probably easier to lose as the sitting president. I don’t know anyone happy with the state of the country, and that’s generally blamed on the president.
They don’t have to be the majority. They just have to show up to vote in some swing states where Biden voters don’t bother. President isn’t based on who has the majority. It’s based on a) turn out and b) electoral college. It doesn’t matter if everyone and their mom turn out to vote democratic in California. It matters if about 20,000 people in Wisconsin who voted Biden last year decide it isn’t worth the trouble this year.
No one is going to vote for Trump over Gaza. They’re just not gonna vote. And you must live in some kind of bubble if you think Trump supporters have changed their minds over the last 4 years. Some of them have since 2016. But if they supported him in 2020, they’re supporting him now. Trump doesn’t need anyone new to vote for him, just for a small percentage of people who showed up for the record turn out election in 2020 to not this time around.
What makes you think that? Trump voters love him. Between the economy and Israel’s actions, Biden voters are pretty damn disaffected at this point. It was close last time (he won the tipping point state by a mere 0.6%), so it doesn’t take too many people staying home to result in Trump winning.
Alcohol and tobacco are specifically not scheduled. They don’t even fall under the same regulatory agency. They get their own special one with firearms of all things.
I think that’s always going to be the case. I’m not sure how to fix that beyond direct democracy, and even then, you generally still have to have some group drafting the laws and most people only get to decide yes or no. Trying to govern a large group of people on a large number of issues is just a hard problem.
If we’re shooting for the stars, for election reform, I think we might need proportional representation. First-past-the-post is only one problem in our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system.
Don’t forget about the settlement funds most people need to have.
I was so curious how boolean logic was about to play into things haha
The problem with your analogy is either the people of the religion need to view it as botulism or the vast majority of society needs to view those people as botulism.
The people of the religion are at best going to see it as tobacco. I hate tobacco; smoking isn’t pleasurable, it just makes me feel sick. But there are people who love it. You and I may see their religion as devoid of anything good, but to them it’s good. They are often born into it and want their religion with the negatives you and I see. It has nothing to do with liberal Christians.
And it is not liberal Christians that make it so we don’t reach the threshold of the vast majority of society not tolerating the bad Christians. The bad Christians are a sizeable enough part of society on their own to guarantee that. And as a society, we’re fairly geographically sorted. So even if they were only 5% of the population, they’d still often be surrounded by like-minded individuals and be able to wield political power. Plus, they’re still people. Even the most evil people generally have some redeeming qualities.
The problem is “a candidate dem voters want” doesn’t have any obvious choices.
Like Harris isn’t that popular, but the optics of skipping over a black woman when the VP would typically be the heir apparent? You think Gavin Newsom would be a good choice? Californians don’t have a lot of good things to say about him right now. I haven’t seen a lot of other names floated.