Coming into this comment thread relatively late, but I briefly wondered after reading the headline if this was a rebellion against the views his family instilled in him.

Obviously, it’s a heck of a rebellion if that idea holds even an ounce of water, but I could see rebelling against parents, coupled with the existential frustration that most folks feel about the current political situation, paired with the inexperience/poor decision making of youth, or even the beginnings of schizophrenia leading down this path.

Definitely filing that line of thought into the “complete speculation, and almost certainly not what really happened” bin, though.

The Jungle is what radicalized me when I read it during high school.

I know the takeaway for so many people is that food back then was tampered with and that was horrifying. At least, that seems to be all anyone ever talks about.
The story of the family hit me so hard, though. The food impurities thing seemed horrible, but sort of remote. We have laws about it now, and at that age, I didn’t realize that food handling is still pretty bad, but the risk of eating human fingers or sawdust in ground meat is probably not a certainty.
What rocked my world was watching that family get used up. They came in search of opportunity. Capitalism and a cruel and uncaring society ate them piece by piece, until they turn to addiction and begging/prostitution to cope/survive.
It’s a soul-crushing novel. Would recommend.

Just the poison in our food and environment, lack of safety controls in our jobs, complete lack of liability from corporations, and no social support when we’re inevitably ground into the dirt.

*golf claps* Well played.

Sir. You seem to have forgotten about inconsolable hopelessness.

I had a whole exchange yesterday with folks about it, and they + the research I did along the way really made me question of it was as impossible as it’s being made out to be.

Link to thread

My takeaways from that whole thread are basically that the only states it may prove legally problematic in (at this point, today), are Georgia and Nevada.
(Georgia because while he can still drop, the deadline to add candidates has passed. And Nevada because other sources say it will be a problem, but I can’t figure out the actual rules!)

But, for Biden to drop, he has to be willing to drop. And he has to do it before he’s declared the nominee by the Democratic Party. And (regardless of their merit) the lawsuits and any injunctions that happen due to those lawsuits must be cleared before the states run out of time to print ballots. Time is rapidly ticking away for that option, if it’s even possible.

As far as both actual candidates go, they’re both different flavors of Zaphod Beeblebrox.
They could just roofie me for 4 years and assign me to the party that wins, and it’ll be the same outcome. The real leadership comes from their donors, the cabinet (and their donors), the political party (and their donors), and their advisors (and the donors for the think tanks they represent).
Shit, maybe that’s why the parties keep running neurologically impaired old men.

In a strange quirk, it was actually every city in the U.S. named Arlington at the same time.

_{Disclaimer: I am lying.}

Well, someone pointed out that the Nevada statute quoted was for their electoral college candidates, not the president. (I had noted the word elector, but figured it was goofy legal terminology.)
I couldn’t then figure out what the actual Nevada statute for presidential nominees are (it seems they’re different depending on whether the nominee is part of a major political party).

Nevada may still pose an issue but I can’t argue they are with as much confidence. I just can’t figure out the actual laws around it with my own eyes and brain.

That’s the problem with the patchwork of laws.

Ohio has a law that says the candidates must be declared by August 9th, but the DNC isn’t until after that. (But Ohio cleared the way for that, as you noted.)

Nevada, however, requires that the political parties submit their candidates when the state convention is held by a given party, and does not seem to have an actual cut-off date.

Each major political party shall, at the state convention of the major political party held in that year, select from the qualified electors who are legally registered members of the major political party: (a) A nominee to the position of presidential elector; and (b) An alternate to the nominee for presidential elector.

I’m actually somewhat confused on this one - the Democratic Nevada convention was May 18th, but the article I posted above says their cut-off was June 28th. Both dates have passed, mind you. But I wonder where the June 28th date came from.

The deadline for Georgia was July 9th - yesterday.

My information for both Nevada and Georgia came from Ballotpedia. The page also notes that many states have their filing deadlines before the DNC, but it’s my understanding that the Democratic Party plans to deal with this by nominating him via conference call in advance of these deadlines - so I think the clock is about a month shorter than people may consider, when looking at the date of the DNC.

I don’t know why the first article I posted mentions Wisconsin. I think you’re right - if Biden withdraws and releases his delegates before the nomination deadlines/conference call to make it official, many states (such as Wisconsin) won’t be an issue. I’m unclear if democrats can submit an alternative candidate in Georgia, and I think they can only offer up the alternative candidate they would have specified during their convention for Nevada.

Nevada is fairly reliably democrat-leaning, and Georgia has been changing a lot lately, with expectations to swing democrat again. Even if democrats did lose Georgia, the state would still be a battleground, which saps resources from the republican presidential effort. (Side note: If that played out and democrats couldn’t field a candidate. I would expect third party or write-in candidates to get an outsized proportion of the vote. That could be a great opportunity for third parties to perhaps get legal recognition and benefits that comes with that.)

It does seem like slightly less of an issue now that I’ve dug a bit deeper into it. However who knows how things will go in states without defined laws - that could be a boondoggle if injunctions get filed.
But there are legal issues already, and those will continue to grow as time goes on.

I don’t know, man.

Honestly, I hate the situation, but I haven’t heard any compelling arguments for alternatives.

By compelling, I don’t mean appealing. I’d love for any number of other candidates to just swap in. But because the U.S. got “Weekend at Bernie’d”, and primaries were held (with no realistic opposition candidates), or cancelled in the case of Florida and Delaware, and the dates for holding a primary have passed in every state, I just… don’t see how another candidate can be swapped in.*

And I know that John Stewart specifically called out other nations who were able to call entire elections within a few months, but the U.S. electoral system just doesn’t ‘do’ that. The focus on states rights means that every state has its own laws that are fairly rigid and cannot be overridden by the federal government. And even if the states could be overridden - well, I guess I don’t know if it’s possible for the federal government to do that.
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of that suggestion as being even a remote possibility. I’m left with the belief that it is not legally permissible.

In fact - the Heritage Foundation said they would mount legal challenges to prevent this from occurring - but only in certain states. It’s very likely those challenges could not be resolved before the election, which would lead to at least two Democratic Party candidates, and certain defeat for both of them. The only way that Biden could drop out is if the states that have laws prohibiting candidate changes repeal or modify them, and that itself might be the subject of lawsuits.

*The only way I see for Biden to drop out and not ensure certain defeat is to die. That’s the only path I can think of that’s workable.

If I truly believe that Trump will end democracy and I must do everything I can to prevent his election - even if it compromises my better judgment and morals, and I know that Biden will not use the powers he was just granted to ensure that Trump is brought to justice before he can assume dictatorial powers, then… well, what’s the option but to be a shill? That’s not a rhetorical question. I legitimately feel trapped and hopeless by this shitty system, and I cannot see a way out.
I feel like I’m damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.

These days it’s all “Glock in a rock”

The march of technology is really bringing down the level of charm, if you ask me.

Also, that’s my next public art exhibition, so nobody steal that idea while I work on becoming a famous avant-garde artist.

Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.

It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.

Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times

Those prongs must be alien metal to not have oxidized away.

That’s also highly valid, and not something I factor heavily into my thoughts about the future of U.S. support.

Shit. Huh. I gotta rethink that.

Support your claims.

Edit: With like, actual sources.

And I didn’t call you stupid. I insinuated that your motives were suspect and that you are dishonest. But I am beginning to think you lack the ability to actually make supportable claims or debate people - which would probably mean … eh. *shrug*

Oooh. I attracted a 1-day old account that conveniently doesn’t know about U.S. statecraft toward the Middle East for the last 70 years, doesn’t know about the long history of arms transfers to Israel, doesn’t know about the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish terrorism against Britain and Palestine until Britain left the area, or the genocides that happened as soon as Britain stopped offering protection to the Palestinians. You conveniently seem to fail to understand geopolitics in any meaningful contexts.
And then you “Source?” my (very well informed) opinions.

lol. No. Don’t waste my time.

Yeah - it’s about regional control, and defensive positions.

This comment is sort of a continuation of this one, but not exactly. (Sorry about the link to my instance, I’m new and don’t know how to do the thing.)

The U.S. has long needed a bully in the area to prevent the Middle East from being too unified, so the west can get relatively inexpensive access to its oil.

The state of play right now is that the U.S. actually produces enough petroleum for its own needs, but our western allies do not, and supplying them with enough oil will raise the cost to an unacceptable level/a level where they’ll have to channel money to the Middle East (which hates the U.S. for its meddling, or to Russia, which also hates the U.S.)

In about 10-15 years, technology and renewables will advance to a point where oil demand is going to have decreased to the point where the U.S. can supply all of its needs and those of its western allies without jacking the price up.

That means the U.S. won’t need a bully. But it will mean that the U.S. will cut funding to Israel, and more or less stop coming to their defense. Israel’s plan is to push out every non-Jew, using Zionism as an excuse for awful statecraft, and they’re going to push their borders to easily defensible geographic areas.
Once they do that, they’re going to basically become North Korea of the Middle East - armed to the teeth and hard to get into. Because if they don’t, everyone they’ve been bullying for the past hundred years (yes, this started before the declaration of statehood), is going to wipe them from the map - potentially leading to them launching the nukes they keep pretending they don’t have, so they don’t have to undergo international monitoring.

Assuming, of course, the plot by other countries to destabilize the U.S. fails and U.S. is still major player by the time Israel’s plan is accomplished. If the destabilization effort succeeds, we may see a full scale war against Israel before their aims are achieved.

That’s my take on it, anyway. They won’t stop because they don’t think they can stop, due to how horrible they’ve been. (At the behest of the U.S., who will begin dropping them once their usefulness has ended.)

If I’ve had a vasectomy, do I still get to participate?

I’m fine wearing a vest that says “Training Staff”.

^hehehehehe

His doctor was like “Hey man, you gotta take your turban off and put on a motorcycle helmet.”
And he was like “Nah, bro, what if I just wore a bigger turban?”
And his doctor was like “Dude, you’d need a turban that’s like 100lbs to offer you the same protection as a good helmet.”
Avtar: “Bet.”