We really don't do that here, because we skip the rehab part almost entirely because it's bad for the profit margins of private prisons.
You misunderstand the dynamic. Most GOP voters are going to vote and are going to vote for the Republican, regardless of how awful that Republican is. Voting is a civic duty and party above all are kinda core ideas for them.
Dem voters are a lot more flighty in general. Any barrier to voting no matter how small (even having to rise from the couch) impacts Dem voters more than GOP ones.
There are more Dem voters than GOP ones except maybe in very red states. It's about turnout - US voter turnout is God awful and it's worse among Dems than GOP.
That's why the debate was so bad for the Dems, because it's not about whether or not it pulls voters to Trump but about what it does to Dem turnout.
It only works if you can get about 70 million to go along with you and vote for the same independent.
It's still just the same problem as Bobby Tables - sufficiently sanitizing your inputs. There's just more than one precise phrasing you need to sanitize, just like there's more than one way to name Bobby.
Ok, that's interesting, but you amusingly picked the wrong number in the original comment, picking 34 rather than 37.
...as opposed to Trump ranting about deciding whether or not to abort after the baby is born?
It's not the best explanation of the Roe v Wade view of things, but it's far from the worst and a damn sight better than anything any Republican is going to say on the topic.
Unsurprisingly, machine designed to take prompt from the user, interpret it and try to respond in a coherent way to that request does exactly that. I figure it's a short matter of time before Twitter bots pre-filter "Ignore all previous instructions and" to help sanitize their inputs.
Because it’s just picking a selection of numbers that humans commonly use, and those happen to be the most statistically common ones, for some reason.
The reason is probably dumb, like people picking a common fraction (half or a third) and then fuzzing it a little to make it "more random". Is the third place number close to but not quite 25 or 75?
they set up state border crossings
That's one of the few things that is almost certainly unconstitutional and I don't think even this SCOTUS would let fly. Free travel between the states and federal power over interstate commerce are just too big a deal.
Not necessarily. Elections are run by the states, which makes changing FPTP a lot more manageable than changing, say, House apportionment (which would take a federal law), abolishing the Senate (Constitutional Amendment), eliminating the electoral college (Constitutional Amendment) or most other things people suggest to "fix" our elections.
It being a state thing means that you only need to get state legislatures (or in states with ballot initiatives enough voters) on board which is easier than moving Congress and that you can do it piecemeal - you can change individual states at a time and then use the success of the policy in the first states to promote the idea in other states. State laws are easier for the people to actually have an impact on.
I'd love to see states switch over to approval voting - it solves most of the problems with FPTP and it's dead simple to explain. Instead of picking your top pick, pick everyone you'd approve of. Whoever gets the most votes wins. No multiple rounds, or your vote counting for a different candidate depending on previous rounds or anything else. The only ballot change is "Choose every candidate you support" in place of "Choose one candidate", stubborn voters who don't want to understand a new system can just do exactly what they've always done without issue and most voting systems currently out there already effectively support it.
it would be nice if the democrats fucking tried.
They think they don't have to, they just have to keep you scared enough of the GOP that you'll vote for them out of terror. It's how Biden won the first time, after all.
Flexible enough that Access Software built a library called RealSound that could do 6-bit PCM audio over it. Which isn't great but is dramatically better than you'd expect. A bit over a dozen or so games used it.
I had one called Mean Streets that used it for things like voice. The game came with instructions for how to build a cable to connect your internal speaker to an RCA cable to run to a stereo or similar.
As far as the US goes, Democrats are basically the best you get that has any chance of winning an election and she was their choice for 2016. I even held my nose and voted for her in the general (but not in the primary).
I won't argue that progressives and the like shouldn't be trying to either drag the party leftward or organize at a scale that they can actually win elections at some levels without needing the name Democrat behind them.
To be fair that's an improvement over the previous test since you could reuse the frogs while you had to kill the rabbit. Even older ones involved peeing on grain. We've known that there was something different about the urine of women when they are pregnant for a shockingly long time, but couldn't explain exactly what in any real detail until fairly recently.
And I absolutely believe you’d hear some folks joking around about “coming for their children.”
I strongly suspect if he ever responded with a source it would involve a carefully trimmed clip from that SF gay men's chorus piece that caused a stir a while back, found a link for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArOQF4kadHA
An entire piece built around the lines "we'll convert your children" and "we're coming for your children" that's pretty prone to having unfortunate clips cut from it to scare right wingers.
“LGBTQ+” is not an organization. It’s not a religion or a creed. It doesn’t “say” anything - and, in fact, isn’t even an “it” in the context you’re using!
It’s a term for a group of people that have nothing to do with each other, other than some shared traits. In your comment, replace “LGBTQ+” with another word for a group of unrelated humans. “Blondes,” maybe, or “women,” “men,” “dark skinned folk,” “humans,” etc. You can’t put something like “Americans” or “Christians” in that sentence, because those are too specific.
Can you see the problem now?
Except in that case you can't exclude anyone from "the LGBTQ+ community" provided they are not straight or not cis. See people talking about Milo Yian-etc back in 2014-2020, or people's reaction to radqueer shit.
It's not that the left has bad messaging or unpopular ideas
Good ideas, but terrible messaging. For example, imagine you wanted to sell Appalachia on the idea that the coal market is in decline so we should look at expanding other market sectors in the region so the entire region doesn't increasingly resemble dead mine towns as time goes on. What's the single worst possible way you could try to express that idea to those people?
"I'm going to put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business" - Hillary Clinton, 2016.
I'm fond of this one in particular because "They're putting chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay!" is both one of the craziest sounding things Alex Jones has said, one that was literally memed on for years as THE example of how nuts he is and also one that's technically true.
Because it's not in rainwater, it's in runoff from cities and dairy farms. The chemicals in question are basically synthetic estrogens and their metabolites and frogs are just more sensitive to those in the environment than mammals.
Now-now it's Reddit - he might have posted on one of the subs that people monitor with bots and silently autoban you from other subs for having ever participated in the offending sub. So he might very well have been Perma banned from 7 other subs for the comment, whether it was up voted, downvoted or totally ignored.