The UN is not meant to be a world government. It’s meant to be a forum that allows all countries to maintain a bare minimum of diplomatic relations. The overarching goal is to prevent nuclear war and prevent WWIII.
It’s predecessor, the League of Nations, was meant to prevent WWII and had some teeth to help enforce their decisions. The result was that it collapsed quickly and did very little to prevent another global conflict.
And in Colorado, police blew up somebody’s house because a shoplifter broke in and refused to leave.
Trump is a clear supporter of the genocide. He wants Israel to destroy Palestine and he wants the US to do more to help them accomplish this. Harris is nowhere near as bad as this. She’s not going to withdraw support for Israel, but she’s at least going to try to rein them in and return to the pre-war status. Not great, but realistically the best that we can hope for with how supportive our politicians are of Israel in general.
These are the only two people that have a chance at the White House. If you don’t want to support the genocide, don’t waste your vote on somebody that is absolutely, without a doubt, going to lose. Instead, use it to vote for the one candidate that is possibly able to win over the person that is explicitly, unequivocally supportive of the genocide.
In my eyes, not voting for Harris is supporting the genocide. Anything that allows Trump into office is supporting the genocide.
For me it’s, “I shouldn’t be doing this. I’ll never find it again. This is an awful place to put this,” as I commit to setting something down in the abyss.
It’s not physical damage to her brain. She has schizophrenia and developed symptoms of it at an abnormally young age. She didn’t have a clear grasp on what was and wasn’t real and that ultimately led her to stab her friend nineteen times. It’s clearly a condition that has presented itself as very dangerous for her, and it needs to be under control before she can be released.
When it comes to lead pipes, it is possible for them to safely carry water without the risk of leaching lead into the drinking water, but it relies on the pipes being properly maintained and the water being properly treated. This is where the issue came with Flint.
Prior to 2014, the Flint River was a backup source for drinking water with the primary source being Lake Huron. However, Flint was facing a financial crisis and decided to switch their water supply to the Flint River. When they switched, they also chose to save money by not treating the new water source with the additional anticorrosion materials that would be necessary for the different properties of this water. This caused the existing lead pipes to corrode through the protective layer that had naturally formed previously, allowing lead to leach into the water supply.
Aside from the dangers of lead contamination for the human body, there is another concern when it comes to water treatment. Lead reacts with chlorine, and chlorine is added to drinking water to protect against harmful bacteria. Since there was now a significant amount of lead leaching into the water, a notable portion of the chlorine was now bound to the lead and was not available to kill harmful bacteria. This created the initial problems that were identified by residents in Flint, MI, and it was later discovered that the water supply now had detectable levels of lead.
So Flint exemplifies the issue well. Lead pipes are dangerous and should not be used, but that danger isn’t absolute. Because lead pipes can be safe, we’ve let this problem fester for decades. However, it takes a lot of care and attention to keep using these pipes safely, and, as can be seen in Flint, it is very easy for those precautions to be tossed aside. When that happens, it becomes a major crisis very quickly.
I can see his attractiveness to some extent, but I think it’s mostly that he’s an average looking dude of relative youth in comparison to his colleagues in the Senate. Put most men in a well-tailored suit and you’ll set at least some hearts aflutter. Give him time and his lich core will take over.
And yeah, she looks like your typical Fox News broadcaster who has been chosen primarily due to their pretty face and ability to spread vitriol with reckless abandon.
Your assertion is that Biden has not tried to contact DeSantis to offer help. You were provided with an article that says otherwise and dismissed it as false. What evidence do you hand that supports your claim that Biden has not attempted to contact DeSantis? Other Republican governors have said that Biden was quick to reach out in regards to Helene, so it’s hard to believe that he hasn’t tried to contact Florida.
Yep. The two main arguments were that the ACA would create death panels and that people would no longer have a choice in their healthcare providers. But both of those were, and still are, the status quo with private, for profit health insurance providers being involved in care.
That’s the big reason why I loved Diablo II, but was lukewarm on the following two. The skill tree was fixed and a had nice synergies between the skills. I used to keep a notebook with plans for different builds that seemed fun and was primarily interested in the skills rather than items.
In Diablo III, the skill tree was much more limited, and you could swap things out at any time. So planning out a build and starting a new character was pointless. You could just swap the active skills.
It also didn’t seem to have any hard spots. If you followed the main quests, your character improved just fast enough to keep the challenge throughout consistent. So I never really felt a need to grind. I mean, I hate games that are all grinding, but I also like it when there are walls that you have to spend some time and effort to move past.
Diablo IV was even worse for this as the areas adapt to your level. So no matter where you were, the challenge was the same.
Neither of the two were awful, in my opinion, but they dropped the parts that made Diablo so exceptional to me. So I really didn’t spend too much time with either of them whereas I played Diablo II for about 10 years.
In case anybody is curious about the claim that October 23 is too late, I updated the Wikipedia page listing the past debates to include the date.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_debates
In general, the first debate takes place in late September or early October, and the final debate occurs in mid to late October with two or three debates being the norm. The first debate occurring in June is new this year as the debates normally start after the nominations are complete.
So, unsurprisingly, Trump’s argument has no historical basis and complaining that the debate is too close to the election is nonsense.
And following (or preceding) that, there is: preantepenultimate and propreantepenultimate.
And his advisor on, and ambassador to, Israel literally wrote a book promoting a one state solution where he said that the US has a Biblical obligation to help Israel win. His ultimate plan is to set up an apartheid state where Palestinians do not have the same rights as Israelis.
At the national level, that’s true. The candidates are usually quite distinct and very well known, so holding a particular endorsement is unlikely to change anything.
However, I do find them useful in local elections. In those, the candidates are usually (but not always) pretty closely aligned, so it’s hard to make a decision based off of what their campaign is promising. They also frequently involve candidates that are fairly new to politics, so it can be difficult to learn more about their past outside of what their campaign puts forth. So I’ll usually learn something worthwhile from an endorsement that can help me make a decision. I also have a good opinion of some of the local magazines that make me more willing to trust their recommendations.
I actually had written an answer about the effects of the 12th amendment on the politics StackExchange that details how the original elections worked (or failed) under the old system.
The interesting thing to me about this is that after Washington, there had always been running mates, and the problem wasn’t that the President and Vice President may be political opponents. The problem was the old system was open to gamesmanship that thwarted the will of the voters.
1796 did not end with an Adams-Jefferson administration because Jefferson came in second. If things went as planned, it would have been Adams-Pinckney instead. But Hamilton preferred Pinckney over Adams and tried to sway the electors for Jefferson-Burr to vote Jefferson-Pinckney instead, which would have led to a Pinckney-Adams administration despite Pinckney campaigning with Adams as his presumptive Vice President. However, his plan didn’t work out, and Jefferson ended up getting the second most number of votes. This led to an Adams-Jefferson administration which was not supposed to happen. This was bad, but the shady dealings happened in the dark, and Adams was at least elected President in accordance to the popular vote. The politicians at the time thought that they could just sweep this under the rug as they now had a better understanding of how to manage their electors.
But, that turned out to be false. In 1800, they planned to be smarter with allocating the electors’ votes, but the Democratic-Republicans failed and accidentally cast the same number of votes for both Jefferson and Burr. Under the Constitution, a tie is decided in the House, and the makeup of the House meant that Federalists had the advantage. They preferred Burr over Jefferson, so they tried to subvert the election and appoint a Burr-Jefferson administration rather than Jefferson-Burr. Hamilton ultimately convinced the Federalists to relent and give the election to Jefferson. This was now the second time that Hamilton intervened to orchestrate the results of the election, and this time, it was all out in the open on the House floor. Furthermore, in both of these instances, Hamilton’s actions screwed over Burr, leading to the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel that left Hamilton dead and Burr disgraced. So not only did the election show that this Constitution was failing in the democratic ideals of the revolution, it also led to the untimely downfall of two of the country’s top political leaders.
So yes, the 1796 election exposed a pretty major issue, and the 1800 election showed that that issue could not be ignored. However, if you’re suggesting that the 1796 election led to the 12th Amendment because it showed the problems that arise when the President and Vice President are not politically aligned, I’m not so sure. It’s possible, but I don’t think that was a revelation to them. At the very least, the parties at the time were always trying to fill both offices with specific people, even before the 12th Amendment. The biggest problem they were trying to address was the way that the old system could be gamed by political elites.
Also, sorry for the big wall of text. I just find this to be a very interesting topic.
It’s not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.
After that, they realized that it didn’t make sense to use one slate of candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That’s essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.
deleted by creator
He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a 12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn’t, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn’t stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.
So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant age gap. I don’t know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn’t just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There’s a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.
Also, he’s never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he’s said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He’s much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren’t really relevant to his case because it doesn’t appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He’s merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.
“Jones” is an American slang word meaning to be addicted to something, so “jonesing” for something means to crave something very strongly, and generally very vocally.
“Breve” is a coffee drink that is commonly made with half-and-half, which is a product that is equal parts cream and milk. I assume that people have taken to using the term to refer to half-and-half itself, but I’ve not personally heard that.
So the sentence is saying that their cat was addicted to half-and-half and would act like a junkie doing anything to get their next fix.
This article is from 2018, halfway through Trump’s first term in office.