People looked at what Biden did for the last few years and that didn’t help them.

This is dumb. Thinking economic policy has immediate effects is dumb. Trump’s good economy was largely a result of Obama’s economic policy. The inflation during the Biden years was a result of Trump’s economic policy and COVID. It takes years to dig out of that hole. Everyone knew (or maybe not, people are dumb) that COVID stimulus was going to be inflationary; it was just a gamble that it would be less painful than a more 2008 style financial crisis. The whole world was experiencing inflation and Trump’s tax reform did not help the situation. Thinking tariffs will help fix the economy when the number one complaint is high prices is dumb.

No. The outcome is Trump is president.

I can’t imagine doing it as a parent. My kids drowning is a pretty big, realistic fear. Maybe for a teenager? Even then though…

That isn’t an outcome.

What’s the other outcome of the US election?

There are the words straight out of Trump’s mouth. If you believe that Democrats will kill more people than Republicans, that’s a completely different conversation. Though it still mostly boils down to: genocide or worse genocide, pick one, and if you don’t pick, you’re likely to get worse genocide.

More people than the Republicans would. And then I would vote Republican. Because that’s the choice on election day.

Edit: if all you’re doing is not voting, you do nothing to help anyone. If you are actually helping in meaningful ways, then voting to pick the easier opponent does not undermine your work.

Pretty sure absolute criminal immunity for the president would be as well.

It’s a stupid question. But that’s the reality. So genocide or worse genocide? If you say neither, it’s probably going to be worse genocide.

That’s pretty much always what the polls say for the presidential election. I don’t know why people expect pollsters to have crystal balls. The election is mostly decided on who is going to actually go vote, and a lot of people don’t know the answer to that until election day.

I don’t think that’s an example. People housing others in their own homes isn’t an example of the perfect solution to homelessness. I don’t know if we have a name for that fallacy but it’s kind of a “put your money where your mouth is” fallacy. If you aren’t willing to give up a lot for the solution, you must not really believe it is a problem/solution.

People being against the ACA because it isn’t single payer health care is an example of the perfect solution fallacy. Or people being against a $15 minimum wage because it really should be $25 now.

Uh, pronouns are just words. They don’t have some innate quality that means they had to exist when the entities those pronouns describe began. He/Him is likely about as old as he/him.

That last line tips into “has to be sarcasm” territory. I don’t think anyone believes America doesn’t meddle.

The immunity thing only protects the president from criminal prosecution; it doesn’t grant them additional powers if they say it’s official. Attempting to pardon people you didn’t have the authority to pardon is not a criminal act. He’d have to go hold a gun to the governor to get that pardon signed or similar.

That’s not who you voted for but that you voted in the election.

They phased out back scatter x-ray like a decade ago. They only use millimeter wave, which doesn’t have ionizing radiation.

The problem is that it takes months (in the absolute best case) to years to fix hardware bugs. And every piece of hardware has bugs, just like all software has bugs. So does everyone always have known compromised computers?

The timelines for software vs hardware are just so different. After they both figure out the problem, find a viable solution and test that solution, there’s still so much time left for the hardware fix to come out. With current pocesses, it’s like 4-5 months to get silicon back. And that’s if you’ve already reserved the time for them to make the masks and the new chips. And that’s just to get the first chips back. You still have to get them to consumers.

Grammar rules exist to make communication clearer. If they’re getting in the way of that, ignoring them is usually fine.

deleted by creator

The swerving at them was when coming back off the curb into the road, I think. If there was a curb between them, there’s no way the cyclist was preventing him from passing.

Edit: crappy drawing