Knesset votes 68-9 for resolution against Palestinian state
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz Posts 10Comments 1,027Joined 2 yr. ago
Ranvier @ Ranvier @sopuli.xyz
Posts
10
Comments
1,027
Joined
2 yr. ago
Yeah, I get the joke, but this map does not show what people are implying it does, if grindr is even down at all.
No, a population heat map means it's darker over the cities. There's more reports in Chicago than say, middle of nowhere Montana because there are more people there to report. This map is reporting the locations people are when they report it is down. And the circles get bigger and darker the more reports from that area. So if it was down everywhere, you would see the biggest circles over the biggest cities, and smaller circles in smaller cities, just like in this map. You see NYC, Boston, Chicago, San Fran have the biggest ones, and then smaller cities like Minneapolis have smaller ones.
Uh, that just looks like a population heat map, and Chicago would blend in with Milwaukee on this.
I get the joke, but it looks like it's just having problems everywhere.
Very broad you're right, here's the cdc info on it:
Age alone is enough to qualify.
You don't need to be hospitalized to get all the antivirals. In fact, that's the whole thing paxlovid is supposed to prevent. Anyone with risk factors can take paxlovid, and it's very effective at preventing severe covid. It should be started as soon as possible, not waiting until someone's already hospitalized. Even in unvaccinated people, if taken early in the course, is 90% effective at preventing severe disease.
Remdesivir is the one that's generally only for hospitalized patients, though even that can be used pre hospital too.
Anyways point is, if you get covid, and have risk factors for severe covid, call your doctor or urgent care to get paxlovid to take if you can, especially if you're unvaccinated.
And yeah between getting diagnosed quickly, getting paxlovid I'm sure, and being immunized, Biden will very likely be fine.
Edit: yes he started paxlovid https://www.npr.org/2024/07/17/nx-s1-5043814/biden-covid
Talking about it won't make it happen. But political action can't happen if it's not talked about! We're again at this impasse where according to your view point, no one is allowed to stake out a political position unless there's already a certainty for it to pass. How is anyone supposed to build consensus and improve support for something like that? More people from any party, whether that's democrat republican independent or a third party, supporting your position is a good thing and makes it more likely to happen. Running on a platform and popularizing it is political action. And "republicans don't like it" is generally the obstacle when you're talking about democrats passing a law yeah. Because they get elected to congress too and can vote against it (or worse the president). I'm not claiming every democrat supports it, obviously that is not the case. But getting more and more people to adopt the position is how you get to the political action. Politicians staking out a position and then people voting for the ones whose position matches your own is how this whole thing works.
Yes, that's true. The poll averages themselves haven't moved much either though. And the reliance on the fundamentals forecast has me nervous, but they definitely do it for a reason. When they developed the models and looked at poll history the pattern they found was the fundamentals had a big influence on what the polls would look like closer to the election and the eventual result. Polls closer to the election are more predictive than the fundamentals. Polls farther away from the election less so. There's at least some reason to think things have changed enough maybe the fundamentals aren't as fundamental for this race, but I guess we won't know until afterward.
Yes and Medicare, Medicaid, the children's health insurance program (chip), the affordable care act, all passed by Democrats. And there's now three states with their own public option, all passed by Democrats.
I don't understand why you don't want politicians talking about things you support more. I wish the public option and Medicare for all were brought up even more. Talking about it less doesn't make it more likely to happen, even if you're not sure if the votes will be there to do it I the next cycle. If politicians who support Medicare for all keep doing well in elections, other politicians will see that and adopt that position too Then hey maybe enough someday will finally get elected they can get it all passed together. Politicians love passing stuff, it makes them more likely to be re elected. FDR didn't get re elected four times by doing nothing.
Okay, so if the goal isn't accomplished in 4 years, politicians are no longer able to mention it again, got it.
And he can't do either of these things congress would be require for both. Neither are promises.
I don't think Sanders and AOC would be pushing so hard for Biden to stay the candidate if they didn't think he was the best way to get policies they approve of in action.
So according to you, politicians aren't allowed to express their opinions on any issue or propose any policies, unless they have the ability to foretell the result of all the upcoming elections, to know exactly who will be elected and if there will be enough support from the other 535 people needed for making laws. Got it.
So we will run on nothing and say nothing about any possible policies until we already know it has happened after the election, just to be safe. Dems will win in a landslide for sure, running on this message of we won't say.
And I assume you are upset with every politician who ever proposed something that then didn't happen. Bernie, AOC, how dare you mention single payer and then don't make it happen.
Look, breaking a campaign promise would be if a politician is running for a position, that position has the power to do something and then they don't do it. The president cannot make a public option out of thin air. It must be passed as a law. They have some influence for sure. But a broken campaign promise would be congress passed a public option, sent it to Biden's desk, and then he vetoed it. That would be a broken campaign promise.
Exactly, I think because races have been so close lately, and the probabilities are ending up close to 50% often, people sometimes unintentionally conflate them with poll numbers. 53% to 46% would be a massive poll lead. For probabilities though in this situation it's the same as saying they have even odds of winning. Look at those massive 95% confidence intervals, the race is in a statistical dead heat. It's kind of remarkable how steady it has been despite all the wild events that have happened.
I have another good one very applicable to the teamsters union, Biden and democrats saved their pension fund.
Pensions that 360,000 retired teamster union workers were relying on.
I really doubt Republicans would have lifted a finger. Probably would have just laughed as one of the largest unions in America collapsed.
Heck here's some more good union news from Democrats. The new regulations and pro labor leadership of the nlrb have helped increase union election success rate to 74%, it's highest level in at least 15 years. It brought back over 8,000 workers that had been unjustly fired from their work places as retaliation for unionizing activities.
The contrast with Republicans couldn't be starker. Project 2025 recommends firing general counsel and leadership of the NLRB "day one," purging existing civil servants so they can hire their own anti union sycophants, and passing new regulations to make it easier to dissolve unions and harder to form them.
He knows that Biden and democratic policies have been good to unions, heck the teamsters pension fund was even bailed out by them in 2022, preventing large pension cuts to 350,000 union workers.
Going to be a real leopard ate my face moment if Trump wins and fills the national labor board with anti union officials again.
It's especially inexplicable because in straw polls Biden has a clear lead in support among teamster members.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/teamsters-trump-biden.html
“But you know,” Mr. Palmer added, “you can pick up a snake and play with it, but if you play with it enough, it’s going to bite you eventually.”
It does bring in some things for democrats, like really obvious attack ad ideas. Just play JD Vance's own comments about Trump, over and over again.
That could certainly be the case, I was trying to get at that with the second part of the comment. I'll link the poll below directly for people where that can be seen easier. I wish we had some more people who already could poll better though. I was also hoping that Trump's support might drop some with some of the other choices though, with some moving to the not sure category when a different democrat was proposed. Unfortunately it was looking like the "not sure" people are mostly coming from the previously Biden category, with Trump staying locked in at 40 like he is with Biden, or even higher for some of them. Michelle Obama was the only to get that to drop, and only to 39%.
The "wouldn't vote category" also dropped by a percent or 2 for some of them, so a few voters at least might be pulled of the sideline with a new candidate if they can manage to keep all the Biden voters. It was pretty impressive for Michelle Obama again, lowering from 8% to 4% not voting for the poll-takers in the case of Michelle Obama. She seems to pull her extra support over Biden from the current "won't vote" and third party voters. Some of the other potentials also peeled off a percent or two from the third party voters too into the not sure category. These are the people that really need to be convinced if we're going to beat Trump, and some of them at least seem to at least think about it when a new democrat is proposed.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/only-michelle-obama-bests-trump-alternative-biden-2024
Is it okay if I still vote for both of those things at once? Because she's been shockingly incompetent in cases that have nothing to do with Trump too.
It's obvious she's a Trump's stooge though. First supreme court nomination by Trump if he wins for sure. No surer way to fail to the top of a fascist kelptocratic system then by doing favors for the boss.
I envision the higher courts slapping it down a few times, then an eventual appeal up to the supreme court, who then if four justices are willing to go along with it, put the whole case on ice until next Summer while they argue this. Just like they did with the January 6th trial and presidential immunity rulings.
Cannon's ruling is going to be appealed. If it gets appealed all the way to the supreme court, again (and Clarence Thomas has specifically asked for this in one of his prior rulings), and the supreme court holds with them, then any charges brought by a special counsel in any case are gone. Her ruling invalidates special counsels in general. The office that is pressing charges against Hunter Biden will no longer exist.
The scary part about this is it means that if Trump were to win he would have every excuse and cover from the judiciary to hand pick his own justice department attorney hires to go after people with no semblance of independence. After all, special counsels aren't even allowed to be used anymore. So you're of course right, it does fit into a larger fascist plant, and I certainly don't mean to imply that it doesn't or this isn't all for Trump's benefit.
I just wanted to point out that the current move would also be able to get Hunter Biden off the hook on the off chance that it gets anyone blindly supporting Trump immunity to stop and think for a second that maybe this isn't actually a good thing (since a lot of them seem to have some pretty extreme beliefs about Hunter Biden going to jail).
Some more important context for people.