Yeah. I think it was the biggest issue and was easily solvable, but the campaign was a fuck up through and through.

Across Biden and Harris they kept trying to steal a sliver of the conservative vote instead of just taking from the huge infrequent voter slice. They didn’t do anything to try to get that slice to vote for them, they just threatened them with Trump if they didn’t get out to vote.

Trump didn’t get any more votes than last time.

He won because the Democrats lost.

The Harris campaign turned out great initially.

They fucked it up immediately by saying they weren’t going to be any different from Biden on Gaza and that was one of the wedge topics that had been created about Biden.

Rather than compromise with the electorate to get people out to vote, they tried to use Trump to bully voters out of the house saying he’d be worse.

It’s not even close to half. Republicans are a quarter to a third of the country.

It’s voter suppression and Democrats being the biggest possible fuckups they could be at every fucking opportunity.

Tell that to Volkswagen, BMW, Messerschmitt, Audi, Deutsche Bank… And all these guys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

This is a good example of keeping your mind so open your brain falls out.

No. The article doesn’t explicitly say what party he planned to vote for. That’s right.

Almost all instances of election violence have been committed by the same party - even the attempted assassinations. I’m sure there could be examples of violence from the other party but I’m genuinely struggling to think of any.

So if a reasonable person hears someone in an election line was violent they’re not going to think “well there are crazies on both sides, so yaneverknow.”

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=2016+Clinton+pied+Piper+strategy

Something like “I don’t like to chat at work”.

The other suggestions seem far too inviting for follow-up or could be perceived as sidelong attacks.

That phrasing is hard to follow-up on, though not impossible, and focuses only on you. I suspect you also don’t chat with others, so they probably can’t say something like “But you chat with Johnny?”

Talking about what they’re doing that annoys you opens a conversation about them feeling attacked or maybe trying to find alternate ways to talk to you etc. You don’t need to explain why you don’t want to chat because that will open other conversations. They probably will try to follow up or redirect, but calmly insisting that you prefer not to chat may work.

HR is generally a bad place for employees to take issues since their stated job is to protect the company from liability their employees might incur. If you have a union or some other third party resource go to them first, then go to HR if they advise it. Since HR is interested in protecting the company from liability created by employees you may be able to aim them at the other employee, but you need to be sure that’s what they’ll do before going to them, otherwise they may view you as the liability.

EDIT: And you don’t need to wait for them to ask if you’re OK. If your issue is that they’re talking about non-work and that’s not why you’re there, just bring that up immediately.

And also be clear they can still talk to you as long as it’s work related, and that you’re not refusing to work with them. Otherwise you become an HR problem.

Harris chose to do something immoral because “it was the law”, or it benefited her, or whatever - and you can expect her to continue doing that.

You still have to vote for her, but you also have to be realistic about who you’re actually voting for.

Republicans are the party who holds their candidates up without criticism - and Dems put up Kamala now exactly because Democrats were criticizing Biden - and even though she’s one of the worst candidates they’ve put up in years, she’s still far more electable than Biden.

So yes. You need to both vote for and criticize Harris. It’s the least immoral choice.

Try PB&B on warm toast.

Definitely not an every day treat.

This is also why you vote in the primary of the party with the candidates you like least.

If you view any candidate in party A as better than every candidate in party B, you need to vote in party B’s primary so the best candidate for you will make it to the general election. Then even if party A loses the general election you still get the candidate you like most from party B.

This was a key strategy for black people in the south to get the least racist Democrats into office. It’s basically ad hoc ranked choice voting and it reduces the power of extremists.

Jareth seems at least a little ungay considering his infatuation with Sarah.

As for Bowie: https://youtu.be/xxIBftflGvg

I have left-hand threaded fittings on a few things and always say to myself aloud “This is reverse-threaded” before I attempt to turn them then still fuck up first turn. It doesn’t stop me from fucking it up the first time - it just helps me remember why.

When I train new people on this equipment I tell them to say it aloud, show them, still fuck up the first turn, then they laugh.

Then I have them do it in front of me including saying it aloud - and they fuck up the first turn…

When you’ve been doing something unconsciously for decades it’s really hard to break.

“Those against making Election Day a federal holiday argue that such a large focus on one day is misguided, since almost 70% of ballots in the 2020 presidential election were cast before Election Day.”

___

While sedation is also accurate, I suspect you meant sedition.

When you inflate a balloon with your breath is it more bouyant?

That is exactly the difference between weight and mass. And yes, that would be weightless and objects like balloons have negative weight until they reach an altitude where they’re neutrally bouyant and then are weightless.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

Weight is defined as a force and has a direction. That’s what causes the movement. If the weight didn’t change there would be no movement.

Outdoors are generally not protected by right to privacy, even if on private property.

Someone standing in their own front lawn can be recorded with both video and audio without their consent.

This is what makes it legal to record police.

The problem isn’t just that it will be thrown out in court, it’s that it itself is illegal.

Which doesn’t necessarily mean don’t do it but you’re limited in how you can reveal how you know things are being stolen etc.

They’ll probably be this take on Gaston.

https://youtu.be/9DDN5nhCUUU?si=URyqTw3dfpIkxqTr