Flat Earth conspiracy theorists believe that anything NASA does is just CGI. If they don't believe footage from the ISS, I'm not sure HD moon landing footage will convince them.
I was clearly referring to Biden putting the final nail in the coffin of international law
How was that clear?
Speaking of misrepresentation, you cherry picked one line, ignoring the fact that the next line was "Anyone who refuses to vote for Biden because of Gaza is helping Trump."
I can't really tell what your position is on purposely hurting Biden's chances as a way to send a message about Gaza.
I am open to the argument that a Trump victory might be necessary to shock Democrats into becoming more ideologically consistent and moving to the left. I disagree (I wish Dems would compete for the center instead), but I respect the honesty of this viewpoint, at least.
Some people appear to believe that Biden would be more likely to win if he advocated cutting aid to Israel and imposing harsh sanctions. It seems clear to me that while this might win him more votes in blue states, it would doom him in upper Midwest swing states (again, the only ones that matter).
Sure, if all you care about is winning. With the steady slide the US is taking into fascism that will firmly fall to the category of winning the battle but losing the war.
So Trump defeating Biden will help slow the slide to fascism, somehow? That's a wild take.
And yes, this year, all I care about is winning. I would vote for Biden if he were in a vegetative state. I hope he steps down so I don't have to vote for him, but I don't see that happening. It's not about an ideal outcome, at this point. It's about harm reduction.
The only people calling this a "genocide" are those on the far left. The polls I linked clearly show that you are in the minority.
A genocide involves the systematic elimination of an ethnic group. If Israel wanted to simply kill as many Palestinians as possible, the death toll would be closer to a million than 50,000 by now. Why isn't the IDF bombing the West Bank (where even more Palestinians live)? Seems like a very inefficient way to ethnically cleanse.
Most voters recognize that Hamas is a threat to Israeli civilians and that the Israeli government has a duty to eliminate Hamas, even if Hamas choose to use innocent civilians as human shields. Hamas brought this on the residents of Gaza, not Joe Biden.
Where was all this outrage when Saudi Arabia was killing 150,000 Yemeni civilians (also using US weapons)? I remember one or two medium-sized protests, versus the hundreds that erupted as soon as Israel was involved.
Complete disregard for international law was enough to cause outrage against Bush II
Yet Bush won reelection.
Anyone who refuses to vote for Biden because of Gaza is helping Trump. Something tells me the guy who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem won't be advocating for a ceasefire (something which Biden has done on multiple occasions).
Gazan genocide
Do you have a source for the claim that this is a "main factor" in the election? Gaza didn't make the top 15 back in February. The closest match "foreign policy" was ranked as the most important issue by 1% of voters.
I suspect you may be in an information bubble when it comes to this issue. Most voters don't care, and when asked, they tend to lean toward support for Israel.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1362236/most-important-voter-issues-us/
The "Genocide Joe" nickname is mostly a thing on lefty social media and among the youngest demographic (the least likely to vote). Most democrats either lean towards supporting Israel, or don't see Gaza as a top-10 issue.
Support for Israel is risky for Biden (Muslims in Michigan, for example), but support for Palestinians is even more risky, because swing voters are turned off by pro-Palestinian protests.
The past two elections were decided by around 100,000 swing voters in a few states. Biden's only chance is to win over those voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. States like Georgia, Arizona and Nevada are looking increasingly out of reach.
It doesn't matter if left-wing voters in solid blue states stay home or vote 3rd party because they don't like Biden's stance on Israel. The Biden campaign is betting that swing voters either don't care about Gaza or are pro-Israel (or are smart enough to realize that Biden will be better for Palestinians than Trump).
A majority of Democrats don't want Biden to run. If Biden is not replaced, Trump will almost certainly win in November.
The problem is that Biden himself has to make the decision not to run. For Democrats, it's risky to attack Biden and point out that he is clearly incapacitated.
If the criticism works, and Biden's inner circle is able to convince him to step aside, the gamble will have paid off. If Biden decides not to step down, then all you've accomplished is providing sound bites for future GOP attack ads and given Democratic voters a reason to stay home or vote 3rd party.
Biden won the primaries. He has over 3,900 delegates, and all other candidates managed only around 50, combined. There are few options available to force him out if he is not willing to step down voluntarily. Biden appears to believe he just had a bad night, and will be fine if he gets more sleep going forward. A deluded person is often the last to admit their delusion.
There's always the 25th Amendment, but Biden probably isn't quite incapacitated enough to make that a viable option (although it would likely be invoked at some point if he were to win a second term).
1970s stagflation was the result of a flu pandemic?
Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t imply causation. Why not blame disco?
Good point. We just moved back to Seattle in January after four and a half years in Michigan. I haven't been past 65th on Aurora since we returned (we're on Mercer Island now).
When we came back to visit during the pandemic, Seattle looked like something out of Mad Max. Things have improved since then, but it's still much worse than in 2019.
The solution is legalization, IMO. Hookers should be part of the gig economy.
They claim they track anyone who only comes to the neighborhood only at weird times. I suspect they will catch a few innocent people visiting friends here and there.
My friend tried to give a prostitute a ride back in the early 2000s.
He was fresh off the boat from Australia. First month living in Seattle.
It was rainy and fairly chilly out. He saw a woman on Aurora who seemed to be trying to attract his attention. He felt bad for her and offered her a ride.
She didn't say where she wanted to go, only "do you want to party?". He immediately realized his mistake and dropped her off. To this day, we make sure to point out hookers to him in case he's still interested.
Good luck to them, but I can't help but think they knew what they were signing up for when they moved next to Aurora Ave.
When my wife and I were looking for our first house together, she really wanted new construction. We moved from Phinney Ridge to a tall skinny house on 79th St, two blocks from Aurora.
I clearly remember walking with the stroller past the sign that said "Prostitution and Drug Impact Zone", on our way to walk around Greenlake. I said to my wife, "you gotta admit, it is convenient". She didn't seem amused.
Never had a problem with prostitutes (we were south of the worst area). We did get robbed burgled a couple times (my nice camera, an Xbox and a lawnmower), but otherwise it was fine.
We used to call this location "Taco Time Global Headquarters" because of the mirrored glass.
If you manage to make it to 4 super bowls in a row, you are by definition not a bad team.
Very true. However:
OP said any/all measures. My main metric is fan misery. I feel really bad for Buffalo fans.
I would much rather be a Cleveland Browns fan, and never have any hope, rather than reach the highest heights just to get kicked in the balls four times and then return to mediocrity (until very recently).
I say this as a Seahawks fan. They are 1/3 in Super Bowls, but that's fine. At least they won one. Nobody can take that away.
I don't think you understand how good the Bills were in the Kelly era.
I clearly remember the Bills coming back from 35-3 to beat my Oilers in the playoffs. I'm not saying they weren't really good.
OP said any/all measures. My main metric is fan misery. I would much rather be a Cleveland Browns fan, and never have any hope than reach the highest heights just to get kicked in the balls four times.
Ignoring the losses in the big show
That's not how it works. Nobody outside of the home city remembers a great regular season 30 years later. They remember a Super Bowl win (or loss), though.
Meanwhile, this tax falls on the "working rich" like my wife and I.
My wife is sitting on around $4 million in stock options that she will be able to exercise in a couple years.
This is a nice problem to have, of course, and we can afford the extra tax (we're still better off overall than in a most states with an income tax).
I suspect that this was targeting billionaires in particular and they should have seen this coming. Inslee should remember that there are always unintended consequences and people will react to financial incentives in predictable ways.
I would argue the Buffalo Bills.
They have had recent success, but I can't imagine the heartbreak of losing four Super Bowls in quick succession.
My Seattle Mariners have to be high on this list, as well, based solely on this statistic:
The franchise has five playoff berths in its 47-year history, which is equal to the number of testicles its players have ruptured during that time (there are five of each).
The team has reached the postseason exactly once in the previous 22 seasons.
Just say "Ukraine".
"The Ukraine" was the Soviet term (which Putin is trying to reinstate).
And yes, I hope they're doing OK.
I think the broad strokes still have relevance, but a lot has changed since Marx's time.
Marx could have been describing the "gig economy" when speaking about factory workers and other laborers during the industrial revolution, but some other distinctions have become more muddy, at least in advanced economies.
The line between bourgeoise and proletariat has blurred when it comes to the top 20% of people (excluding the top ~1%) in many rich countries (especially the US).
I live in a fairly well-off area and all of my neighbors work. Almost all of my neighbors have significant stock holdings, both in 401Ks and stock options granted by the companies they work for.
Yes, the top 1% have outsized stock holdings, but the top 20% has largely de-coupled from the economic troubles of the bottom 80% precisely because they have substantial stock or real estate holdings. They are still workers, but they probably wouldn't side with the "proletariat" on most issues related to finance or union membership, as they are on track toward financial independence.
Below this level there are members of the proletariat who are paid well enough, and have enough employment options, that they can't be considered "exploited" at the level that Marx observed in the horrific factories of the industrial revolution.
Factories in the US today employ 30% fewer workers than they did in 1980, but they actually produce more output than ever before (due to automation, mostly). The remaining jobs tend to be higher-skilled, less repetitive and better paid. There is a much higher ratio of engineers and technicians to grunt-work positions than in the past.
Yes, inequality is still at levels that Marx would recognize, but today's inequality is due more to the net worth of the uber-wealthy shooting into the stratosphere, versus a big increase in poverty. In fact, poverty levels are far lower than during the industrial revolution while standards of living are considerably higher.
Workers during the industrial revolution had little to lose by overthrowing the bourgeoisie, so Marx's idea of a proletarian revolution was appealing to a large portion of the population (at least those aware of his writing).
Such a revolution might be a tougher sell these days. The bottom 10% (maybe even 20%) might be better off under any system other than capitalism, but the rest of the workers might not be so quick to sign on. Again, I'm speaking of rich countries in general, and the US in particular. Many poor countries would be much more recognizable to Marx.
Any revolution might go bad and be appropriated by corrupt or incompetent totalitarians. A large percentage of workers risk dropping down from a fairly high position, historically speaking, if things go wrong. This is why revolutions tend to happen when the poor people are skinny, not when they are fat.
Yes, it would be great to have a time machine, but Bitcoin's historic run-up is not a great argument for buying in now. You would be better off trying to guess the next SOL or SHIB.
Bitcoin has gone from under a penny to over $70,000 (briefly), but it has become constrained by its own success.
At current prices, an 80X run would make Bitcoin more valuable than all stocks traded on US markets. Where is this money coming from, and how would there be sufficient exit liquidity if you want to cash out?
If BTC increased 400X (a fairly boring run compared to past performance), it would suck up all the money in the global economy. This includes all government assets, all real estate, all stocks and bonds, all consumer goods, and all precious metals.
I should state that I have no idea where Bitcoin will be in five years. It could be a five or ten bagger, or it could go back below $10K.
What I am saying is it's not going to go up 1,000x or even 100x ever again. If you are expecting those kinds of returns again, you need to look elsewhere.
I'm not sure humans can be said to have "instincts", as we have more highly adaptable minds than most animals. There are strong tendencies and common behaviors/values, however. These are especially notable when observing humans in a state of nature (hunter-gatherers, mostly).
Humans evolved to live in small tribes or villages. In these groups, cooperation and sharing (similar to communism) seems to be the default setting. The need to take down large animals (which were often much stronger and faster than a human), strongly encouraged cooperation, communication, and tight social bonds.
The down side of these tight-knit communities was often (but not always), suspicion of outsiders, often to the point of violence. Similar patterns of behavior can be seen in Chimpanzees.
The real problems arose with agriculture and later, industrialization. These advancements allowed for much larger populations than humans were evolved to handle, and social controls like complex government and law enforcement were now required to keep people in line.
Capitalism works (in part) by "bribing" people to cooperate at a minimal level. Say you work in a factory making a car for someone that you might dislike if you met them in real life. But you are getting paid to do so, which makes it OK.
Capitalism also incentivizes monopolistic behaviors, inequality and exploitation (among others), which require state intervention to mitigate. Some countries (Sweden), manage this balancing act better than others.
Socialism/communism kind of assumes that if the exploitation and inequality of capitalism are eliminated, then humans will revert back to their default state of cooperation and sharing. The problem is that a large country is too big for humans to care about all of their fellow citizens. Research suggests that humans can only maintain around 250 meaningful relationships at a time.
Note: This comment is partly based on parroting ideas from the book Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari, which I highly recommend. Also, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race, by Jared Diamond
Who else was waiting for an alligator to grab it?
Florida is wild
funny