They’re not the worst people in the world, but Cybertruck owners have to be among the most broadly unsympathetic.
Regardless of how true this particular story is, there’s no reason to believe that Trump and Musk can work together. Neither of them is particularly good at working with anyone. Trump is the president for the next four years whether anyone likes it or not, so at some point in the not too distant future, Musk is going to get bounced, ghosted, scapegoated, etc. and most people will memory hole this whole thing.
I could be wrong, but I would be shocked if Musk stays in Trump’s inner circle for more than a few months, and would not be shocked if he were out much sooner.
She’s got a lot more name recognition now. Her next primary campaign might actually make it to the voting part this time.
The games seem to be well-received, but I don't get the appeal. 4 years between games in a fully-planned trilogy feels indulgent. I assume Square-Enix is using these games as tentpoles to stretch out the franchise as much as they can so they can sell mobile games and merch and other nonsense.
As I said:
The right is always going to lie and obfuscate and misdirect to get what they want, and if you're going to let their messaging stop you from making efforts to change things then you'll never accomplish anything.
My point is that of course the deficit myth is going to be selectively applied, but if that’s going to stop you from organizing around an issue then good luck finding any issues to organize around. The economic case for healthcare makes itself. If you can’t make a convincing argument around people getting better care for less money then I don’t know what politics is even supposed to be for, or if it can be said to exist at all.
This is a lazy opinion to the point of being a thought-terminating cliche. Why doesn't that same message work when arguing against police funding? Or military funding? Or border security funding? Or funding for prisons? Or subsidies for big business?
The problem obviously isn't "taxes" or people would also dislike their tax dollars going to shitty things they hate, and it would be easy to make the case for, say, defunding the police. If people only think about "taxes" when it comes to some issues and not others then it's not the taxes, it's the messaging, organizing, and lobbying efforts around those things that makes them politically feasible or infeasible. The right is always going to lie and obfuscate and misdirect to get what they want, and if you're going to let their messaging stop you from making efforts to change things then you'll never accomplish anything. There's a clear economic and human case for healthcare, and making that case is only going to get more compelling as people get poorer and sicker and less able to access care.
That makes way more sense to me than that he just forgot to destroy easily-destroyable evidence with several days to do so, not to mention the opportunity to prepare in advance. Might be that he wanted to hold onto proof that he was the guy so that he could get the credit and have the spotlight. This is also a good way to get taken alive. They have to take him into custody for verification, at which point they aren't going to have the opportunity for a cop to gun him down in the street.
If he was trying to maximize earned media, he executed perfectly. I'd also buy the idea that he's terminally ill and doesn't care one way or the other. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
While Reddit mods and admin try to keep up with the site's "no violence" terms of use
There are redditors posting right now with impunity about how great it is that people are dying in Ukraine, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, etc. Reddit could very cheaply buy itself a sliver of integrity if they just let folks have a little fun for a week before moving on, but they can’t help themselves. The narrow, incoherent, and utterly vibes-based mainstream definition of violence must be upheld at all costs, lest people start drawing logical conclusions.
$50,000 is the perfect amount of money to offer, imo. Just enough that they can pretend they’re taking it seriously, but not enough that they’re going to get overwhelmed by scammers and nutjobs trying to get a piece of the pie.
I’d go to the NYPD and tell them I saw this very weapon being used by a poor person to kill another poor person. After they politely took my statement and told me they’d look into the matter, no one would ever see that gun again.
He executed his plan perfectly and he has near-universal support for his actions. This is already his best-case scenario. I hope he’s enjoying the circus from somewhere safe.
The West talks about North Korea the way some people talk about cryptids or UFOs.
It’s not like they can keep their senior management a secret. Probably just trying to mitigate harassment from the general public while the heat is on. Anyone who has any interest in identifying these people would easily be able to do so.
Guaido should declare himself president of every country one after the other. It's a numbers game, he'd eventually become head of state somewhere.
It’s more about comparing his audience to toddlers, but I see your point and I submit myself before the court of online discourse for judgment.
Flirting is showing or reciprocating sexual or romantic interest in a way that is intentionally ambiguous. It’s a way for people to gauge interest with one another without obligating either party to make any sort of direct commitment or statement of interest. Any party can choose to not reciprocate or disengage without needing to make it overt, and thus avoid embarrassment or misunderstanding.
Eventually someone has to make some sort of overture to either establish mutual interest or rejection of interest, but flirting is sort of the quantum superposition between interest and non-interest (look up ‘Schrödinger’s Date’ for the most extreme example of this).
Foreplay is the build up to actually engaging in sexual intimacy of some sort. Unlike flirting, mutual interest has already been established. More importantly, foreplay happens after, or in the process of, some form of mutual consent. Without consent it’s just assault/harassment, obviously. Depending on your relationship dynamic, flirting might be part of foreplay.
Phone sex is purely contextual. It’s either flirting or foreplay depending on whether or not it leads to sex, whatever your definition of “sex” is.
This observation has been made many times over the years, but Chris Hayes acts like he’s learning everything for the first time every single day. What’s worse is that there are people who watch him every day and go “wow, he’s totally right!” He’s Ms. Rachel for cable news libs.
That does make me more sympathetic to the person who died.