Using scaled sorting really helps with getting smaller communities on the front page. I still see the political and news communities but I also see communities for cities and niche hobbies.

No elector may vote for 2 people from the elector’s state. If the ticket is Harris Newsom then no elector from California can vote for that ticket. Dem’s cannot win in the electoral college without California.

Until and unless someone steps up to challenge her and we know who is willing to throw their hat in the ring we can’t really support a specific candidate. All we have is speculation and who I’d like. Blind loyalty and immediately falling in line obscures the true picture for how much support she has and makes it less likely that a challenger will step forward. We need a real conversation about Harris’s candidacy and to know if anyone will challenge her for the nomination. Elizabeth Warren is who I want with Bernie as my second choice but I don’t see either of them as a real possibility because of their age. Let’s see if someone closer to them is willing to fight for the nomination before falling in line.

So what you’re saying is that you already knew she was a problematic and unpopular choice but you are going to accuse anyone who voices that of supporting baby rape because you think any attempt to find a better candidate helps Trump. I think forcing a bad choice without any level of discussion helps Trump but I still don’t think you support baby rape.

I gave 4 potential candidates I would support.

Trying to help the Democrats not immediately latch on to a bad candidate. We have until the convention to find someone better.

I’ve been shitting on her the same way since Biden picked her for VP. I was hoping for Stacy Abrams then. I don’t have a specific candidate I like right now because I think Bernie and Elizabeth Warren both have the same age issue, a younger candidate probably has a better chance. I wouldn’t hate Hakeem Jefferies as the nominee, I think Mark Kelly has a good chance of beating Trump. I like Cory Booker and think Tammy Duckworth would be an interesting candidate.

Wanting a progressive Dem nominee is pro Trump?

Honestly I super disappointed in Cheney. Don’t get me wrong, I never had much of a positive opinion about him, he was Darth Sidious hiding in the shadows and wielding all the power in the service of evil during the Bush presidency, but I did believe he had some version of family values. When, as a former VP and respected elder of the party, he didn’t step up to support and defend his daughter after she became a MAGA target I lost what little positive regard I had for him.

Yep, bad choice and worse choice. She hasn’t been nominated yet though so there is a slim hope for the Dems choice to improve. Hopefully there will be people vocal about finding someone who’s record is more progressive before the convention.

She covered up that a state crime lab employee was falsifying evidence leading to hundreds of false convictions. She opposed police reform including opposing body cameras. Her office, she claims without her knowledge, argued that prisoners eligible for parole shouldn’t be released from prisons so overcrowded that a judge ruled them cruel and unusual because it would reduce the availability of prison labor. She argued on two separate occasions that prisoners who had had their convictions overturned on the basis of actual innocence shouldn’t be released from prison because they hadn’t filed the motion for release quickly enough.

Her record is staunchly pro establishment and she has participated in acts of overt corruption to maintain the status quo.

She wasn’t carrying the black vote when she ran in the 2020 primary. Her record shows her to be staunchly pro establishment. She wasn’t progressive as a prosecutor or as Attorney General, she opposed and obstructed police reform in California when she was in the best position to get anything done. Maybe black voters will ultimately back her if she gets nominated but her support among black voters isn’t a good argument for nominating her because it isn’t strong.

The first time I watched a true crime documentary it scared the crap out of me. I was eight, I think, and it was about Jack the Ripper. I watched it in a small dark smokey lounge in the back of a funeral home with some other kids of similar age and then had to run out to the car alone probably around 10:30pm or so.

Anybody else remember the dozens of stories about how a car is a deadly weapon and the cop was completely justified in killing the driver?

Chinese is a tough one but those restaurants that are just a counter and a table or two in the back of an ethnic grocery tend to be where the really good food is.

Thanks, I downloaded it and am messing with it. It’s missing some nutrient data on a few of the ingredients I am looking for but it’s the best I’ve found so far.

We used to have laws that decentralized control of media. An entity could only own a certain number of newspapers, tv stations, or radio stations. There were incentives for smaller news companies to insure that there was competition in each market. Congress kept chipping away at those laws letting larger companies buy up more and more of the market, allowing mergers that restricted competition. Now radio is nearly a monopoly, TV and newspapers are oligarchies. The Internet fell into an oligarchy disturbingly quickly.

The only way to get the media serving the people again is to break up the big companies and restore the guardrails that protected and supported small local companies.

deleted by creator

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, did not have wmd’s, and was the only major Sunni power in the region. Saddam Hussain was not a good guy by any means but he actively worked against Iranian influence and was a stabilizing presence on the middle east after the first Gulf War. Pre-invasion Iraq was good for US policy. The invasion led to the growth of Iranian influence in the region and the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization. We should not have attacked Iraq.

I was in support of attacking Afghanistan at the time and still think military action to go after Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Ladin was warranted. The diversion of resources from that conflict is another reason we shouldn’t have attacked Iraq. We probably should have extended that conflict into northern Pakistan where we knew Al-Qaeda’s leadership and the bulk of their fighters were hiding.

We definitely should have invaded Saudi Arabia. They provided training, equipment, travel, and money to enable the 9/11 attacks. 9/11 would not have been possible without Saudi Arabia’s support. Saudi Arabia was(is) in the curious position of publicly allying with us while plotting terrorism against us. Curious because by siding with us publicly they gave up Iran’s advantage of attacks against them potentially leading to conflict with Russia. Iran had some part in 9/11 but between their having a lesser role and the risk of Russia coming to their defense it would not have been worth it to attack Iran. Saudi Arabia had our backing instead of Russia’s. When they used proxies to attack us we should have leveled their royal palace. So far we haven’t even pulled our support.

I’ve never been much of a social media user outside of reddit and lemmy and I’ve never had an Instagram account so maybe it’s my lack of familiarity but does that page list some really unimpressive stats? The original post had “more than 3,000 likes in less than three years” and for the second Instagram post it says"Within seven months, the post gained over 4,000 likes." Do Instagram posts continue active participation for years? I felt pretty good the few times I’ve posted something that got thousands of likes but it’s more personal achievement 'than this is going to be bigger than two broken arms".