Now that is just plain stupid. One can make a moral argument for not wanting to vote for genocide, since the situation is similar, but not the same(!), as the famous Trolley Problem. But actively voting for the other pro-genocide option because you believed him to be a peace candidate? … This is something that needs honest analysis and reflection. Both by these voters as well as by the Democratic Party. How the hell could Trump with his abysmal record be perceived as the peace candidate by so many? I do expect though, that all the involved parties will learn the wrong lessons from this.

With all the blame, shaming and hate towards Muslim, Arab, African and Latino Americans we should also not forget: The only ethnic demographic from which Trump got a majority is: White voters.

Oof, yeah I was about 23 and wanted to help my now wife to get some of the correct size, which was an almost impossible ordeal. Wanna hear the story? Fine:

Taking the two measures was the easy part (and doing it again during her period, because of course the size changes during the cycle, anything else would be too easy). Then I read that the cup size is the absolute difference between bust and band measurement no matter the band measurement. Furthermore since the material is elastic, for a good support, the band should be a tad below the measurement*.

So far so good, went to the store and there are only A-D cups everywhere, E if you’re lucky. So basically no matter what exact measure they take between the cups, you’re ok if you’re thin and have small or somewhat big breasts, or you’re a bit fuller and have tiny breasts. Everyone else is automatically screwed. If you’re lucky enough to fall into those categories you then have to try on so many to sift through different positioning and forms of breasts until you find one that is comfortable. We had to order some all the way from the UK because it wasn’t possible to get anything coming near the correct size here.

*women who wore normal cloth bras before and continued wearing the same size have felt that the elastic hasn’t made things better necessarily. Can’t find the source for that one right now though.

Yeah neither do I. Especially with Trump’s track record on the matter while he was in office. His proximity to Sheldon Adelson is believed to be the reason that led to Trump unilaterally declaring the Golan Heights (Syrian territory) to belong to Israel. Furthermore he moved the embassy to Jerusalem. And the criticism of the Abraham’s Accords, that they were leaving out the Palestinians, was met with the answer of it being the point. When American journalists got murdered by Israel it got even less repercussions than Saudi Arabia for doing the same without consequence.

We just had an instance a few weeks ago, where I do believe there to be a material difference in handling between Biden/Harris and Trump. Remember when Israel attacked Iran? And did NOT attack Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities? Speculation of course, but that has to be because of the limits set by the U.S. I’m pretty sure Trump sets the limit for such actions differently and we might be in a more open and direct world war like situation (including Russia and maybe even China). Another is his proximity to and donation ($100 million IIRC) from Miriam Adelson, which is rumored to be based on the wish to fully annex the West Bank. His announced appointments do make this seem likely and should once and for all dispel the myth of Israel’s actions being defensive in nature for anyone still believing that.

edit: American journalists

Two take-aways from your post:

1. I read a lot of “would” and “possibly” there. And in the end the implication is that she still wouldn’t have won.
2. Calling out a government for its role in the crime of crimes is now considered far left. Gotcha.

Until now I haven’t seen a single thorough analysis, with absolute numbers especially compared to 2020. You know, so we can base our assumptions and opinions a bit more on reality. Most I’m seeing are opinions (including my own) and if I’m lucky, then an article highlighting a single isolated aspect, that might or might not be a relevant factor.

Other than this meme ridiculously implying that if only the pro-Palestine vote would have gone to Harris instead of Trump, then Harris would have won (two ridiculous claims not backed by the reality of the data): Can we please stop with that notion, that the Democrats are trying to stop what’s going on in Palestine and finally see it as the US foreign policy that it is? Who has the power in that relationship? Without the US, Israel has a fraction of its weapons, billions of dollars less for their own civil programs and no shielding from international law. Don’t act like the Biden administration has been genuinely trying to stop a genocide, when they:

• are supplying weapons (Biden even circumventing congress in at least one case)
• continuing payments
• are spreading debunked Israeli propaganda even after they’re debunked while ignoring or actively delegitimizing information to the contrary
• actively bomb the Huthi’s who attack ships headed for Israel (also with weapons)
• vetoing or threatening to veto anything that furthers international law on that matter in the Security Council
• diplomatically and threatingly shielding Israeli threats to the ICC and ICJ
• actively delegitimize the ICJ and their decisions openly
• are threatening countries with sanctions if they don’t adopt outrageous laws and standards redefining anti-semitism and cracking down
• are pressuring countries to tow the line with zionist support
• … (list is not extensive)

This behavior isn’t new. International law didn’t matter, when the US offensively brought death and destruction to Afghanistan and Iraq and as a result again in Iraq and Syria. Or when they did the same with the EU in Lybia,. Or when they supplied Saudi Arabia with weapons and support for their genocide in Yemen, and are supplying Egypt with weapons and support for their water war in Sudan, which has seen atrocity after atrocity in its wake. This isn’t even an extensive list of just this century.

They aren’t trying to stop it. All the public lip-service is but theater as are the negotiations. Which should become clear at the latest, when Israel assassinates their negotiating partners and then the US claims, that there is no one from the other side joining the table…

Look, I get what you are saying and even agree to a certain degree. Yet, the premise here is that one of both parties is opposed to genocide, which is false. For the affected voter group, who are getting shamed for making the crime of crimes their litmus test, both people are trying to make more holes albeit of different sizes.

So, what would you do? I would probably throw both of them over board ;)

I’m familiar with First-Past-The-Post voting and the spoiler effect. I’m also familiar with choosing to vote for whom you’d prefer to fight when elected. We are dealing with the crimes of crimes here and I can absolutely understand anyone whose family is affected to not want to take an active role in their killing. Especially since the campaign has not signaled to that voter block, that they are seen or heard. The best example is denying a Palestinian-American a shortened and cleared speech at the DNC. It could have been only a ceremonial thing, less weight than lip-service, but they opted for exclusion instead, i.e. the opposite.

My main point though: How can this party not be clearly ahead of that menace to democracy and its institutions? This one voter block should not be the deciding thing. Overlooking the agency of the Democratic Party in this and putting full blame on the people rubs me very anti-democratic. Implying them to be immature and other forms of voter shaming is not making a good case either.

I did say that I live in a democracy with more parties, not that it does not include elections where there is the “first past the post” principle, so I’m familiar with the spoiler effect.

Trump is worse on genocide Although that might be true in some sense, please try to understand the people affected here. If your family is the one affected, it doesn’t get more dead, than dead. I’m not saying, I would vote the same way, but I can understand not wanting to actively vote for killing your family.

I get the logic you put forth. Yet as someone who lives in a more diverse democracy (although it has been getting dangerously more polarized in the recent decades), I’m always baffled by this presumption that a candidate deserves someone’s vote by default.

In this case, let’s say there aren’t any other parties on the ballot other than the Democrats and Republicans. In Michigan specifically you have a voter group, that says that they cannot vote for genocide especially if it is against their own families or people that look like them. And both parties are either promising the continuation thereof or have been engaged in it and have been excluding anything related to addressing it, or people representing that voter group, from their campaign. So the presumption, that if there wasn’t a Green Party to vote for that they would be coming out to vote for the Democrats is imho just flawed. They might just as likely stay home.

What I find even more baffling is that this party can’t seem to clearly outperform the even more clearly dangerous candidate to democracy. The Arabic or Muslim population in Michigan should not be this decisive for the outcome, if the Democrats were able to actually persuade voters to turn out by delivering an attractive policy plan, thereby earning the votes, instead of just arrogantly thinking, they’re entitled to them.

Many reasons. One major factor imho is the belief or illusion to be living in a meritocracy. Which would mean, that someone who’s rich has to have earned it and therefore criticism must stem from envy or jealousy. The same belief fuels the ideology of thinking of poor people to just be lazy leeches on society.

Never have I ever watched/read anything relating to Lord of the Rings.

To be fair, business development wasn’t the main hangup for many of the people I know. The two main reasons I heard (and partly raised myself), was firstly the detrimental effect on expanding solar- & wind-energy-production. And secondly overreaching, i.e. not limiting the protection to the environment, but also include townscape protection and historical sites, essentially further restraining residential development (including changing them into more dense usage) in a time where living space is scarce and expensive.

When the pro-side has its reservations, then of course it doesn’t help that the executive (Federal Council) is dominated by pro-corporate ideology and have brought forward arguments of “damaging the business location”. But making it out to be the only reason is just dishonest.

Generally yes, but I believe it is best done on a case by case (meaning type of sports, level and skillset) basis.

Generally on the recreational level, the differences between the sexes are much smaller than the differences within one sex. The best example that comes to mind is Tennis. Although it is physical in that it requires a lot of high-speed strength, which theoretically should be an advantage (on average) for young men, the skill difference between a man and another is far greater than that between an average man and an average woman. Go to a public court and you’ll see a non-ignorable amount of women outplaying men (if they even dare to play each other) and what’s even more baffling, older people beating younger people. On the absolute elite level though, they seem to almost play a totally different sport. Ball speed, running speed, ball spin and variety in spin on average are very different on the WTA compared to the ATP and therefore similar but different tactics and even technical styles are employed in the two. The difference within the Top 100 ATP or Top 100 WTA is much smaller than the average Top 100 WTA and average Top 100 ATP. So on that level, imho the segregation is merited.

As some others have already suggested, there might be better criteria to judge this separation on, like with weight class for martial arts. It is not always clear where that divider should be, though. As for tennis: Is it body weight or height? Maybe your fastest or average first serve? Maybe your fastest or average ground stroke? 30m Sprint time? Wherever you put that line might change the nature of the game played in that group and not even eliminate the de facto separation on sex or age, but in turn make it unattractive for some people to engage in a competition in the first place.

Which comes back to my initial statement of judging it case by case depending on the average difference between sexes and the difference within sexes.

edit: replaced gender with sex. Didn’t think of it because in my native language this distinction isn’t made.