TheSanSabaSongbird @ TheSanSabaSongbird @lemdro.id Posts 0Comments 960Joined 1 yr. ago
True, but it still amounts to a vote for Trump, due to the electoral college.
Newspapers were a very different beast in Jefferson's day.
Yes it is. I guarantee you that someone who regularly reads a reputable major daily is going to be better-informed than 90 percent of the public. Your attitude is part of the problem too. The vast majority of Americans are functionally illiterate when it comes to news media and don't have any idea of how to evaluate credibility and accuracy.
I mostly blame the Internet for trashing the signal-to-noise ratio, but I also blame our education system and the profession of journalism itself for not giving people better epistemic toolkits.
The Biden administration is quite possibly the worst administration I've ever seen when it comes to messaging, and I am in my 50s. Someday in the future someone will write a PhD dissertation on why they are so dysfunctional in this respect, but for now I just don't get it. They are singularly inept when it comes to publicizing and taking credit for their wins.
The last week or so it's been Too Much Too Young by The Specials. It was on the radio, once, last week and for no good reason I've been stuck with it since. Thanks brain.
As a longtime SAR guy --I'm in my 50s-- I always tell people to carry a gun in the backcountry if that's what makes them feel safe, but just know that you're far far far more likely to get in trouble from things like weather, terrain, rivers, meltwater, falling, exposure, hypothermia and just the elements in general than you are from any animal. The risk profiles aren't even remotely close. This is true even in places like Alaska where almost everyone is armed. As far as I'm concerned, a gun is dead weight. Lose it and concentrate instead on carrying the ten essentials and knowing how to use them
Among the world's economically developed democracies, it absolutely only happens in one nation. This is not up for debate; it's an objective fact.
How we choose to address this fact is up to us, but being in denial about it is not a sane option.
Said "horrific response" hadn't even started yet when this protest happened. That's a little telling if you ask me.
TBF, we aren't even remotely close to the scale of international conflict seen in the 2 world wars. You have to be deeply ignorant to think otherwise. Again, we're not even close, not even like a tiny fraction in terms of scale.
That's a pleasant fiction. In reality Iran is a military dictatorship with Islamic window dressing. The Iranian regime is not some benevolent force acting out of humanitarian considerations. To the contrary, it's a tyrannical and authoritarian rogue nation seeking wider regional hegemony through dozens of little proxy wars.
The use of "fire-boats" for example, is such an old tactic that its origins disappear into the mists of prehistory.
Well, at least you are confidently wrong. I have a kind of weird grudging respect for the confidently incorrect bozo, like yourself.
At least there's entertainment value in it, right?
My healthcare comes out of my total hourly pay-package, as does my pension. But that's all in addition to my take-home pay, not out of it.
Correct. And even the bad answers are a source of information.
Reputable pollsters have an incentive to be as accurate as possible. It's naive to think that being able to accurately gauge public sentiment isn't a valuable commodity that various entities will pay a lot of money for.
While that was part of it, the 2nd was specifically inspired by Shay's Rebellion, which was not a slave uprising.
The current interpretation of the 2nd only dates back to the 20th century. It was not interpreted at all the same way in the 18th and 19 centuries and in fact, in contrast to today, was scarcely even thought about. It just wasn't really an issue in anything like the way it is now and it was entirely uncontroversial that municipalities could outlaw the carrying of firearms within city limits. It was actually pretty common in frontier towns especially.
That's just the current reading of the 2nd though. The court, as Dobbs clearly shows, can easily reverse precedent. What's interesting is that the conservative side of the SCOTUS is currently so wedded to originalism and "historical practice," which puts them in a bit of a bind since the 2nd as an absolute right to bear arms in self-defense is purely a 20th century doctrine with little or no real antecedents in the 18th and 19th centuries. I expect they'll find a way around it regardless, thus further lowering their legitimacy in the eyes of the American people.
There's no such thing as an adolescent silverback. A silverback is a fully mature dominant male. They don't gain the silver coloration until they are mature, so the entire premise is a contradiction in terms.
It's older than that.