I don’t know if this is true everywhere, but I can say my elementary school kid and friends all say “search it up”, and although they have school-issued Chromebooks and use Google for search, I can’t actually recall ever hearing them say “google it”.

Except more disgusting

I can definitely see the appeal of going that direction too. But for me personally, the current guy James Austin Johnson nails the “Trump is a rambling stream-of-consciousness insane liar who doesn’t even use English correctly” angle so perfectly that he’s the one I’d opt for.

Tbh right now they have a way better Trump impersonator on SNL than Alec Baldwin anyway. She should legit go on SNL and do a fake debate with him. But I don’t think NBC would actually allow it.

She skipped Netanyahu’s speech in protest and called for an end to the war afterwards.

“The images of dead children and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third or fourth time. We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies. We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent,” Harris said.

The reports [from Israeli media] appear to reflect worries among Netanyahu’s inner circle that the emergence of Harris as the presumptive Democrat presidential candidate might herald a tougher US line on the conduct of Israel’s war with Hamas.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire/index.html?cid=ios_app

I’m not in any way arguing that she’s doing everything right on this issue. I think she should go more strongly, although I can also acknowledge that someone at this level is walking a tightrope.

However, if anything, her choice to skip the speech in protest associates her with the protest going on outside, and so she went out of her way to separate herself from the actions at the protest that went too far.

You can argue over whether or not some protesters did go too far, or what else she could say and do that would actually help and be effective, I’m just asking for people to strive for accuracy when making claims. This is an important election, in which I genuinely believe that Harris winning the election will lead to a better outcome for Palestinians than any other outcome. I want to be vigilant about what she says but I also don’t want to look for some excuse to paint her with the same brush as everyone else and write her off.

I wasn’t in anyway even trying to imply that these actions weren’t carried out by protesters. That wasn’t the point I was making. Can’t you see the difference between “I think it was wrong to do XYZ at the protest” and “I don’t think there should be a protest”?

I just watched the video and it didn’t say she denounced the protesters, it said she was one of the officials who strongly condemned the graffiti, flag burning, and raising the Palestinian flag. Specifically those actions. Not the protesters themselves or the fact that they were protesting at all.

If your statement was based on that segment alone, then I would say you mischaracterized the situation in a way that makes Harris come off worse.

Source?

It varies by state. In some states you can register on voting day and still vote.

That’s not actually what has happened. What has happened is that we have a very real border problem going on, and we have a divided Congress, and Congress is the government body that can actually do something about the border.

Despite the divide, a bipartisan border bill was drafted and was set to go through, and at the last moment Trump told the Republicans (publicly) to tank the bill because it would make Biden and the Democrats look good.

So, with that hope dead, but with the border crisis worsening, Biden had a few not-good options for things he could actually do as the executive branch. But doing nothing was probably worse, so we ended up where we now are. Don’t let the GOP ploy of shutting down progress to make Democrats look bad be a success.

I agree, it’s not like she can cross-examine Trump in a debate. She can say her piece during her allotted time (hopefully uninterrupted depending on the format), and Trump can ignore all of it, make up whatever he wants, and speak just as much as her, without any requirement to respond to anything she says.

So while her skills are certainly relevant, I don’t think the debate is necessarily the situation where I would say it’s her specialty. (Doesn’t mean she won’t do great, and I hope she does, but debating with Trump is definitely a “wrestling with a pig” kind of situation most of the time.)

I spelled “capitol” instead of “capital” in my elementary school spelling bee and I’m still bitter about it

I’ve been saying for years that the movie franchise should have been called Uncle Ben feat. Spider-Man

I think Don-OLD Trump is simple and effective.

There are a thousand things more important, and yet our country managed to have a streak of electing only men for hundreds of years, despite the fact that there have always been just as many women in the country. It shouldn’t matter, but it does.

It makes perfect sense if you don’t think about it

People who already would vote Democrat need to be alarmed into making sure they vote their asses off

When there is literally one alternative and it is the Trump administration? I do not think it is cultish even to say that I will literally vote for a grilled cheese sandwich for president if that grilled cheese sandwich has the current team continuing to run the executive branch instead of Trump and his horrible people.

It’s not a cultish obsession with the candidate you want to win, it’s a desperate desire to avert disaster.

If a person is convinced that changing the candidate at this point in the race lowers the chances of winning, they may be wrong about that premise, but if they then say they will vote for Biden even if he’s in a coma, it doesn’t mean they are obsessed with him.

While I agree that it would certainly be ideal if a speed limiter could account for the context that the car is in, you’ve missed a lot in drawing your conclusion that it would be useless without being able to do that.

Hitting a pedestrian is not the only type of accident. If you rear end a car going 25 mph at 70mph it is not a guaranteed death sentence for all. Especially if the driver brakes, which some do not, but some will. And this is ignoring cases where there isn’t a tremendous mismatch in speed. Like, even if it reduced residential deaths by 0% but it reduced overall deaths looking at all situations, it would be a net gain with literally nothing lost. We are looking at the aggregate here. So, it isn’t relevant if you think of one specific situation where you believe 70mph isn’t better than 90mph or whatever number.

Reaction time and braking distance are affected by speed. In some cases, the person going 70 might be able to slow down enough to have the collision be non-fatal. Reaction time goes down and braking distance goes up as speed increases. If a speed limiter gives just enough time to occasionally make an accident non-fatal, then in the aggregate you have fewer fatal accidents.

In fact, taking braking distance into account, I don’t think you can even say that over the millions of miles driven, that a speed maxed at 70mph isn’t going to, occasionally, lead to a situation in a residential area where someone was able to just get out of the way in time because the car covered 30% less distance between the time the pedestrian reacted and the time the car reached that spot (or an even larger difference if the driver noticed and braked at some point as well). But again, it doesn’t matter if it’s few to none in this specific scenario, because a speed limiter of 70 will certainly reduce fatalities overall.

You can certainly kill someone going the maximum legal speed in a place where the speed limit is much lower. But the likelihood of injury and death still does increase with the increase in speed. So if, say, 5% of accidents involving someone going 70 are fatal, but 10% if the person is going 90 (these are made-up numbers), then if cars are not even able to go above 70, you end up saving lives.