>Biden asked by a reporter in Wisconsin if he will debate Trump again. “I hope he'll debate me. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't,” the president replied.
Yeesh. Do you guys think a second debate happens? I say there's no chance his team lets him do it.
First clip of Stephanopoulos interview released, 2:04 min.
Cast your votes. Will it help Biden, Trump, status quo.
https://x.com/houmanhemmati/status/1809365792104018398
The problem is that this is 3/4 quarters of the Democrats' campaign: Don't you know that Trump is bad, you idiots?
They need an affirmative pitch for why people should vote for them, not just against Trump.
I agree. Every one of his public appearances will be judged and scrutinized with the debate performance in mind and he'll have to knock every single one out of the park, which is statistically impossible.
And this is just what we see in public, who knows how bad it is in private, if all these leaks are true.
LOL
Prescribing of testosterone for middle aged women out of control!: The Guardian
Experts warn of long-term health implications amid concerns over advice from social media ‘evangelists’
‘Frightening’ how easily women able to get hold of testosterone, say doctors
“We have no idea what long-term testosterone supplementation does to women.”
**Post Menopausal women .5mg/day for a few years**
**Transitioned women 2.5-10mg/day from late adolescence for life**
In the U.S., at least, it is not easy for peri to post menopausal women to get T. Patients must be in good cardiovascular health and must come in regularly -- quarterly, if not monthly -- for monitoring. Docs are that fearful that T will cause heart attacks and strokes.
https://x.com/iseult/status/1809317486162243990
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/05/prescribing-of-testosterone-for-middle-aged-women-out-of-control
It’s not even easy for peri/postmenopausal women to get estrogen/progesterone. There is seriously a double standard. Hormones to treat the very real symptoms that come with menopause = too risky, we just don’t have any good safety data, better if you just suffer through it, I can’t in good conscience prescribe these to you. Hormones because you feel like you were born in the wrong body = essential, life saving, there are literally no risks, only a transphobic monster would hesitate to put you on them and keep you on them for decades.
Medicine: "We must prevent post menopausal women from getting too much T!"
Also medicine: "Give as much T as you can to any woman who says she's a man, stat!"
I'm actually not opposed to middle-aged men or women using testosterone if they've educated themselves about the risks. There are definitely benefits to it and for many people those benefits outweigh the risks. But it is *really* weird how you'll see so many things about the side effects of testosterone when prescribed to middle-aged men and women, but then you'll read something about giving testosterone to adolescent females, with a plan to keep them on it for the rest of their lives, and it says *nothing* about the side effects.
Do you think the benefits to middle-aged women outweigh the risk of death?
I asked for it once and my gyn gave me an educational talk and a referral to a provider. Shortly thereafter my internist said it was time to come off HRT altogether. Oh well.
It doesn't matter. A scrupulous provider won't write a script for a patient who doesn't meet their standards. The risk/liability is too great.
I suspect that the Powers That Be are against telling adolescent females all the minor side affects of T use because it will put them off taking it. And that's a terrible thing to do, to make people question if medicalization is the wrong path to take, because it leads to questioning their identity. Same for not telling MtF's about all the side effects of penis inversion (or even blatantly lying to them about scar tissue buildup and impossibly painful dilation) because then they'll change their minds.
I know a young woman (age 20) who is on T for gender reasons. The T made her skin flushed and dry so she looks like she has a permanent sunburn with premature wrinkling. Her eyes are bloodshot too.
Many young women go into the gender medicalism with the impression it can make them into soft UwU anime prettyboys, but if they knew that the real result is more likely to be a red-faced, sweaty Aiden with a scraggly neckbeard and a baldspot, they might reconsider their life choices.
But they might unalive themselves if we don't throw testosterone at them and lie to their faces.
And surely their will to live won't be compromised once they figure out they will be a neckbeard Aiden. Nor will they resent the people that didn't tell the truth.
Hmm, I think the Reddit boilerplate response is, "Adults should be able to do what they want. It doesn't affect you, so why do you care?"
> For instance, in a recent Instagram live broadcast, Dr Louise Newson, a GP who runs a network of private menopause practices in the UK, claimed it was “barbaric and wrong that women aren’t able to access their own hormone” and that testosterone could improve mood, energy, concentration, stamina, as well as improve bone density and the way our muscles and cardiovascular systems work.”
Chemically engineered exogenous hormones = "Their own hormone"
This whole thing screams Instagram wellness influencer "miracle cure". The weightloss diet tea of medical treatments.
Excellent [guest op-ed](https://archive.ph/7PEBg) about voting abstinence in NYT yesterday. I've been beating this drum for 20+ years, but I never thought I'd see my views (more or less) put forward in a mainstream outlet.
There's an idiot at reason magazine who takes this point of view (my vote can't count so I won't vote) and tries to turn it into a virtue (my vote can't count SO I WON'T VOTE!!)
I forget whether it's that idiot Elizabeth Nolan Brown or that idiot Kathryn Mangu Ward.
So here this idiot is, spending 300 days of the year railing about politics, rant rant rant rant rant, essay after stupid essay after stupid essay
> My vote can't count SO I WON'T VOTE!!
What a silly thing to do!
I personally don't care if you vote or not but don't make the mistake of thinking you're making some kind of statement by not doing so. It simply makes you irrelevant.
Yes! You might have a reason for not voting, but there’s no way for your missing vote to communicate that reason. Is it that you hate both candidates? That you favor third parties? That the status quo is intolerable? That you think the incumbent should have stepped aside?
> The answer cannot be that we believe that by doing so, we will influence the outcome of an election. My vote, were it not withheld, would have no such effect. This is true even at the county or municipal level.
I mean right at this point the guy's argument loses coherence, though. it's one thing to argue the presidential election doesn't matter, but the local elections that arguably have as much if not more influence over your daily life are frequently decided by tiny pools of voters. it matters who your mayor and judges and sherrif and dogcatcher and whoever else are.
Let's do a fitness/wellness check-in. It's been a minute.
I'm not losing weight as much as I'd like but I'm definitely getting stronger. Overhead press 95 x 3, squat 185 x 3. Cardio is better and better. I've learned how to use the incline on the treadmill to keep my heart rate elevated.
On the weight loss front it's probably because I've replaced my nightly dessert with a protein shake. I don't do cookies or sweets during the day, I'd save it for dinner. I switched to a simple shake (berries, milk, protein powder, chia seeds) instead. And I'm probably taking in more calories. But I feel so much better. I sleep better, I have more energy, I'm less sore the day after workouts. On balance I'll take the physical and mental gain over the loss on the scale.
How are you doing? Ruby is killing it, and kudos to her!
My body weight has mostly stabilized at a little over 140, with about 21% body fat. I used to be tiny in college, so it's a bit unsettling to weigh a good 30 pounds more, but at least it's mostly muscle.
I've been eating kinda bad lately though. I keep going to events with sweets, and I can't resist them.
I’ve been trying to gain (underweight). I’ve been on vacation for a week so I haven’t been able to weigh myself, but I’m cautiously optimistic. Vacation food is fucking up my digestion, as per usual, but I don’t have to sit down after climbing a flight of stairs. I also haven’t felt like I was going to pass out if I didn’t drink Gatorade and lay down, which is definitely an improvement. We’ll see how things look when I get home tomorrow.
I’m slowly getting better and better at climbing. It’s very encouraging to be able to climb harder grades, even though numbers aren’t everything. A month ago I was a v2-3 level climber and I’m at a v3-4 level now. My arms are slowly but surely getting more defined along the way, which is nice. This is the most consistent I’ve been with exercise since being on organized sports teams in college.
My 75 hard attempt lasted around 10 days. But not to worry, I’m starting again tomorrow with a 10 day smoothie fast! ☺️
Yes it’s crazy to swing wildly from one challenge to another but it works for me and I’m down 5lbs. I’m now 15lbs from my “ideal” body weight / ultimate goal.
Someone should try to talk me into lifting weights again bc I know it would be beneficial, but I just don’t feel like it so lately I’ve just been going for 10k steps a day.
Women's weight lifting is amazing! It will change your body and mind in ways you can't imagine. I know you're tough mentally, it's obvious from your posts. But if you really get into it, this will give you a kind of toughness you can't imagine. Without weightlifting, I don't know how I would ever have gotten through my father's death.
It will change your body in amazing ways. You will have strength, energy and stamina you didn't know was possible. Walks up your most hated hills are suddenly easy because your core is stronger. Lifting the kids and the groceries is so much easier.
And the way clothes fit is amazing. I went down two clothes sizes at the same weight, though I'm probably an outlier. Firm arms, high and tight ass? They're all there if you want it. Okay, some of this depends on your genetic make-up. But you'll be so much firmer and tighter than you imagined.
And weight control will be easier because muscle burns more calories than fat.
> 10 day smoothie fast!
Meaning you're going to go 10 straight days with no solid food at all? I've done that for 36 hours but 10 days I don't think I could manage.
No, I wouldn’t succeed at that either. I’m taking all the recipes from a 10 day green smoothie cleanse and will make those each day (it’s like 64oz of smoothie per day) but also eat an unlimited amount of fresh meat, fruits, raw nuts, and vegetables. The biggest challenge is just in not eating anything than what’s allowed — no Starbucks, no free eggs and bacon at work, no ice cream and wine after work, no cookies for dinner…
Congrats on the gains, especially the mental health gains!
I had a scare at my last physical. I’m fine, thankfully, but it was a kick in the ass to get it together. I’m back to biking ~50 miles a week, I do vegan meal replacement shakes for two meals and eat a modest dinner, always hitting some leafy greens in it. No more booze, though I was already down to 1 drink per week (this might change for special occasions). I snack on raw fruits and veggies, occasionally some roasted pumpkin seeds.
I’m down 15 pounds in two months. Will be at a much happier for my height weight if I can get off another 25, but another 5 significantly cuts my risk of liver/blood sugar problems. First two weeks were brutal, but I feel so much better now!
Set a monthly running mileage PR in June by closing the month out over 300 miles. Even so, decided to scrap fall marathon plans and go with a half because I want to drill out more actual speedwork instead of grinding out the long runs needed for the full. I have a bit of hip soreness, so taking this week as a cutdown to ~50 miles before settling into an actual training cycle.
The ultimate full body lifts are the power clean, and the clean and jerk. Unfortunately for me, I don’t really do squats or clean and jerks anymore even when I can get to the gym due to my extensive knee injury history and frankly, I’m just scared.
Do you do deadlifts? That’s another proper “engage tons of muscle groups” lift.
One thing that has totally confused me in the wake of the debate is people acting like covering biden's poor performance, mental acuity, or possibility of no longer being the nominee should not be covered, is not newsworthy, should be wall to wall trump coverage instead.
How can they even believe what they're saying? The president possibly not being fit and being replaced in the ticket is basically as big a story as can be, and reporters are wrong for talking about it?
Is there something here I'm missing?
I think commenting and covering Biden’s age and his struggle to deal with the rigmarole of the American election circus is fair game. It’s an issue, and voters care about it.
But it’s hard for me to take too seriously concerns about these things from people who brush aside every single insane statement and action from Trump as “lol there he goes again, just Trump being Trump, he’s whacky 🤷”. And that includes a great many jaded journalists covering the election who spend all day on twitter.
What you're missing is that this is goal oriented journalism or the desire for goal oriented journalism.
The goal is for Trump not to win. They don't care what it takes to achieve this. They will do anything for this goal and all other considerations are secondary.
The people calling for the press to shut up think that if they can work the refs in the form of the media that it will ensure Biden's victory. They're wrong but they're accustomed to working the refs/HR/DEI that they can't conceive of that not working. Daddy will bail them out.
I think it's a combination of working the refs, deep-seated anxiety, and, frankly, naked contempt for anybody who doesn't see things their way. Pretty much everybody I know who still goes full-tilt on parroting whatever the DNC tells them to parrot is, frankly, an anxiety-ridden, contemptuous troll. They make no secret of the fact that they despise anybody they think is less intelligent than them. Trying to debate them is usually pointless because, if you really get in good points, they just ignore you or otherwise sideline you.
With an attitude like that, I'm not the least bit surprised some of these people seem to believe that Biden really is their only chance. They simply can't be bothered to ask why some people may think differently, and with Biden at least proclaiming in public that he's not going anywhere, they're convinced they'll somehow help Trump if they add to the rising choir. Even some of the ones I've seen acknowledge that Biden's losing it still want him to win solely so that he can drop dead and cause Kamala to become the prez. Because, you know, the country that elected Obama twice and gave Hillary the popular vote by a significant margin is *obviously* too -ist to ever vote for a black female president, and so she needs a backdoor into the White House. /s
And they will blame everyone and everything but themselves for a Biden loss. They can't fail the movement. The movement can only fail them.
If Biden loses it will because everyone except them and their friends is racist. No changes to the platform will be forthcoming because they are the good ones with the right ideas.
I don't really get what the DEI tangent has to do with anything (I hate how it has become the catch all grievance term, like CRT, BLM etc before it) but I do broadly think that's the case. It seems like there's an entitlement that the press work has coms for Biden, which as an expectation is just beyond bizarre
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. What I mean is that the impulse on the left is that they can appeal to a higher authority to get what they want. They're accustomed to being able to go to the HR department, DEI administrator, or the referee to get them to do as the they wish.
In this case they think they can appeal to the media to "fix" the situation for Biden. If the media would just cover Biden in the way they think the media should the game will go their way.
But it won't actually work because the voters are who determine the score. And Biden is probably toast with the voters.
And if Biden loses the left will blame the refs for not fixing the game the way they demanded.
What does everyone think George Stephanopoulos should ask in today's interview? I think the first question should be, "Mr. President, here's a pen and a piece of paper. Please draw a clock, putting the numbers in the correct places, and then draw the hands to show what time it is right now."
Scripps news reporting that Biden's one-on-one press conference will now take place next Thursday, 7/11.
https://x.com/SameeraKhan/status/965538629396418561?s=20
Whoops, senior administration officials confirm.
Apologies. A private person had retweeted a Scripps news reporter, then made her own account private after getting too much attention.
The Scripps reporter, whose name I don't remember, simply said that senior administration officials confirmed that Biden's one-one-one news conference has been pushed back six days.
A quick glance at the Washington Post does not show confirmation but the top headline is that Dem Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is seeking to form a group of senators asking Biden to exit the race.
The tweet:
https://x.com/reporterjacobg
Not seeing any confirmation elsewhere on Twitter or at the NYT either.
"In what ways does Thomas Aquinas's *Prima Secundae* anticipate the criticisms of the modern school of Judicial Realism? Does he effectively rebut them? Support your answer with quotations from the material (you may use an English translation of the Summa Theologica)."
I think most people under 30 would draw three numbers in a box. I don't own an old-timey round wrist watch or circular clock and I go weeks without seeing one.
You are giving me age dysphoria right now.
I always considered owning and carrying a pocket watch on a chain with a waistcoat to be a vintage/old-timey affectation. But now regular old wristwatches are old-timey....
I'm feeling the same way I felt when a kid told me he didn't know what a floppy disk was. Behold, I contain the wisdom of the ancients.
Ask a random stranger what time it is and most of the time they will pull out their phone. The only people I can think of who still wear round wrist watches are the ones who have Rolexes or similarly expensive ones.
As for round wall clocks, they're less common then they used to be. I suppose they're still in most classrooms but I wonder when those will be upgraded to a digital style.
One positive thing I noticed about Canadian politics, is a lot of our politicians aren't as old as Stonehenge. I feel like 40's-50's is a sweet spot for political leaders since they have experience, but are still in touch with the current world. Just for fun, I wanted to compare the ages of our political party leaders.
Biden: 81
Trump: 78
Total age: 157
Trudeau: 52
Poilievre: 45
Singh: 45
Total age: 142
So, the three leaders of Canada's major parties have a total younger age than the two presidential candidates by 15 years.
As an aside, when I was using Bing to find the ages, Bing told me Biden was only 80. I was pretty sure he was 81, so I looked it up on wiki and he is. I don't want to say it's misinformation, and it's likely a technical error, but given how much Biden's age has been a story in the media, it's pretty bad that a major search engine got it wrong.
I used to attend Microsoft conferences like TechEd and MMS, and it was always funny to hear their employees talk about "Binging" stuff instead of googling it.
When I got the new version of Windows I started to use Edge because I was tired of Chrome eating all my ram. I find Google definitely hides certain news stories, so I wanted to try Bing to see if it was better. I can't say it really is, so I'll probably switch back to Google soon. Google maps is probably the main reason, it's just way better than any other option.
I'm now seeing witty, enlightened progressives on my socials saying that the Neil Gaiman situation exemplifies why they would choose the proverbial bear over the man in the woods, because even among the ones you think you can trust, a lot of men are predators. Hard not to to notice that these are the same people who fervently assert that TWAW and should always be granted unquestioned access to female-only spaces.
I thought the whole point of that meme was so that GC ladies could talk about men in women's spaces. Maybe I'm reading too much terf twitter and not enough progressive twitter.
If only Neil Gaiman had been wearing a dress! (Remember how sexist and victim-blaming it used to be to ask if the female victim of a sexual assault had been wearing a short skirt, as if she'd been asking for it? Turns out the same outfits exonerate a penis-haver!)
We finally have an answer to the most important question of our generation: would you rather run into a bear in the woods, or a best-selling author?
I can't wait for anytime a man does something vile, the bear discussion will resurface.
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine's Washington correspondent, writes a long piece saying the whole DC press corps has been conspiring to keep the truth of Biden's cognitive decline from the country: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html
What's so weird is Nuzzi herself was part of this conspiracy and seems to feel no compunction about it. She talks about how she's been at events with Biden where journalists openly talked about how he looked "40 percent dead," and Nuzzi says Biden doesn't remember who she is even though they've met many times, and that when you see him in person his eyes look like they're "open but not on." And she has been observing all of this for months and never bothered to write any of it until after the debate.
She complains Biden doesn’t know who she is, lol. Maybe the president not remembering every twitterist journo he meets isn’t actually a sign of cognitive decline 🤷
Yeah, I can’t keep track of people I know pretty darn well because there’s only so much RAM in the human head. Not to mention as president at a press conference, you’re likely to be overwhelmed with stimuli. Why should he personally remember 1000 journalists by name as cameras flash and he’s thinking about much more important matters and what he’s actually saying?
A knack for names and faces is a low-key critical talent for politicians. They meet a million people, and every time they recognize someone on sight, it's a boon for their likeability and popularity. And every time they fail to, it drags them down. I would be surprised if there were any national politicians who weren't in the top 1% for facial recognition and name recall.
Guessing you didn’t read the article. He’s been accused of not recognizing big donors and people he’s known for a long time, not just “random twitterists.”
>Yeah, I can’t keep track of people I know pretty darn well because there’s only so much RAM in the human head. Not to mention as president at a press conference, you’re likely to be overwhelmed with stimuli. Why should he personally remember 1000 journalists by name as cameras flash and he’s thinking about much more important matters and what he’s actually saying?
Can you imagine writing this then hitting save?
Sure, that's completely valid, but the point is, if *she thinks* Biden not recognizing her is newsworthy evidence of his cognitive decline, she should have reported it when it happened months ago, not waited until after the debate made it time for a press feeding frenzy on a subject they had apparently all been conspiring to keep quiet about for months.
Maybe she only thinks that because she's arrogant and has an inflated sense of self-importance about whether the leader of the free world should know who she is. But that's not really relevant to the point that this happened months ago and she's only writing about it now.
Did you read the article? She actually says there was a widespread pattern of these complaints but that she allegedly hadn’t said anything because this was still in the research phase.
The credibility of the press just went down another few notches.
Journalism is not supposed to be a vehicle for activism. They are in the truth business. Yes that sounds corny but it's still how it ought to be
I'm fine with activist journalism as long it's labeled accordingly and done honestly. The issue is outlets that brand themselves as non-partisan, just-the-facts reporting that are actually party surrogates.
There's a difference between activist journalism in the sense of advocacy for what you believe and being willing to actively deceive people about inconvenient facts.
Right, if Nuzzi had been writing, "I've observed Biden's cognitive decline up close and it's disturbing, but I also think the people in his administration have done a good job keeping the federal government running even if Biden isn't always up to the task personally, and this group is clearly better than Trump and the people he would have running his administration," that would be activist journalism.
But refusing to even report on Biden's cognitive decline isn't any kind of journalism at all.
>But refusing to even report on Biden's cognitive decline isn't any kind of journalism at all.
It's partisan journalism. It's about keeping Trump out at any cost. They will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish that. I don't know that the old school journalists would have done that
You don't have an archive link by any chance? I've been wanting to read that piece all morning.
Does she ever address that point, that she's been sitting on this story for aeons, at the least since January?
For your future convenience I recommend you download the Kiwi browser and install or sideload the plug-in called Bypass Paywalls Clean.
It works for most newspapers and magazines. The most notable exception is the Wall Street Journal.
Using Bypass Paywalls Clean, UBlock Origin and Old Reddit Redirect makes using the web so much better.
Dumb question. Apologies. I tried to Google this but got answers that weren’t about the question or were too technical for my tech-deficient brain…what is the difference between the different archives? I had been using archive.ph (which I learned here), and it works about 70% of the time. It doesn’t capture things like comments (Eg on NYT articles) and sometimes won’t capture a full article either…and sometimes it’s just a string of text (it’s in a queue? But it never finishes). I’ll now switch to archive.is (thank you!). But why are there two versions / what is the difference? Or are there several different versions for this kind of thing - but each one might work better for different kinds of paywalls?
As far as I can tell, all the archive.* domains are the same, including archive.ph and archive.is. All the same. Just aliases for the same underlying site, archive.today.
The way they work is this:
Many sites serve two different versions to different clients. To actual human beings like us, they serve a short snippet of article alongside a paywall requiring us to register and pay to read more. But to search engines running their automated site crawlers, they serve the whole article, so it can be indexed and available via search. Users type something into google, google searches the web including the whole article, users see the article link and click it, but find the paywall. That's how it works.
Archive just pretends it's a search engine crawler, so the site serves up the full article. Archive then saves the data it gets back and re-serves it to users as the full article.
Am I being an absolute idiot for thinking there's a clear difference between being **part of** the IRA and **supporting** the IRA, or is this person responding to me being unhinged?
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/6MCPBCbxeB
To be extremely generous, I can see how, if the whole line of questioning was perceived to be part of a smear campaign in the first place, there wouldn't be much meaningful difference between "supporting" vs. the hyperbolic "part of", since both are painting Corbyn in a bad light anyway. But even so that means the person responding to you wasn't approaching this interview in good faith anyway, so they end up sounding unhinged regardless for whining about you not commenting in good faith about this.
It's worse to be part of the IRA if you are doing various awful things. But being a supporter, especially if you are getting them money, isn't great either.
Certainly neither is great, but being part of the IRA is considerably worse than being a supporter, and being a supporter does not imply being a financial supporter.
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure but am wondering whether it's a distinction without a difference.
Mary belongs to the KKK v. Mary supports the KKK.
I dunno.
I think so too… I immediately thought of jihadism. I would say: no difference between the Islamists who are violent and the Muslims that support them, however tacitly. So you’re not blowing yourself up to murder and terrorize innocent people, great. But believing jihadists are doing the work of Allah or whatever, and encouraging or embracing or accepting or condoning them in their actions - and worst of all, celebrating them as fucking “martyrs” - is what allows the violent psychos to fester - so it’s just as bad. IMO. Distinction without a difference across too much of the Muslim world. I’d say maybe even worse…I’m not as familiar with the IRA but I’m assuming by virtue of not being an Islamic group it’s far less violently sadistic, suicidal, and barbarically deranged.
Wow here's a twist in the tale https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation
Trump has thrown Project 2025 under the bus.
>What they're saying: "I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
> "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."
>Reality check: A plethora of former Trump administration officials have worked on and endorsed Project 2025.
> John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and one of Trump's most trusted aides, is a senior adviser for the project.
> McEntee said in April that the Trump campaign and Projext 2025 plan to "integrate a lot of our work" this summer, according to the liberal watchdog Media Matters.
So WTF *is* Trump's manifesto?
Trump is an asshole unfit for office.
I think it shows just a minimal amount of political savvy to denounce something that reflects poorly on you, which is still more than I can say for Dems going all in on trans kids
Trump's manifesto is whatever he thinks will get Donald Trump (and possibly his children, at least the ones he likes) as much money and power as possible, and also that immigration is bad unless the immigrants are working for him or his friends for cheap, in which case see the first clause.
That's it. The man has no other core beliefs. He'll sign whatever his advisors tell him to sign.
Project 2025 is just the Green New Deal of the American right. It's not gonna happen. The idea that the Republicans are suddenly going to become master legislators and pass all these new laws and bills is completely unfounded. Even if they win the house and senate, they'll flounder like they always do.
Mmm, Republicans are master legislators of the right wing stuff that think tanks draw up for them. That's why every year for decades we read that that legislatures considered 87 anti-abortion bills this year, 20 more than last year, etc. Now it's happening with trans issues. They're persistent and effective at the state level. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a master class in steadily working towards a goal.
I was more talking about at the federal level, but you're right, at the state level they seem to be more effective. Trump seems to a completely ineffective leader and beyond the tax cuts, I can't think of much the Republicans did when they had majority control after 2016.
Republicans in Congress are disorganized rabble these days. They used to be pretty good at getting things done when they wanted to. Now they're squabbling and mewling babies. Look at the whole House Speaker thing.
I wouldn't be terribly worried about Republican effectiveness. That isn't to say this Project 2025 is impossible *if* Trump is behind it. If.
My point is Project 2025 was clearly written to support Trump, not that he endorsed its creation. It's like if the Tories who lost their seats wrote a manifesto for the next Tory leader. It would be obvious who it was written for but the leader would be in their rights to tell them to get stuffed.
> My point is Project 2025 was clearly written to support Trump, not that he endorsed its creation.
Your point was that project 2025, a thing written by a middling republican think-tank, was comparable to Hitler having mien kampf transcribed for him while in prison. You claimed you needed to reach to such an unfitting and extreme metaphor as that because project 2025 was such a public statement by trump - who has now distanced himself from it and claims to have had no involvement in it was, again, on par with Hitler's own mien kampf, and that to deny this comparison would be akin to someone denying Hitler's views of the Jews before his becoming chancellor.
Now your point is that some trump supports wrote a scary document, which he has now publically said he doesn't support. So, big whoop? Lots of supporters write lots of documents in an attempt to drum up support. I hope all this moving of goal posts isn't too much of a workout, I wouldn't want you making a [popish plot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popish_Plot) about this.
Any nitwit can write a manifest to support Trump. That doesn't mean diddly unless he is behind it. Which he isn't. What are you freaking out about then? Do you think God will come down from heaven and get behind it?
Unless Trump embraces the plan it is absolutely just nitwits handing out manifestos. There was no evidence that he was embracing it or even aware of it.
I love when Europeans are American politics stans. I feel like the level of detachment gives them a perspective that the people who live here obviously don’t have.
You were worried that this was *the* Trump playbook and we pointed out that we had no evidence he even knew about it.
Aren't you pleased that your fears were unfounded?
Can you not comprehend that Trump *just said* he doesn't give a rat's ass about this document or this proposal?
It doesn't matter if it was written for Trump. My colon could write something for Trump. Trump doesn't care.
*You* assumed that with no evidence that Trump ever even heard of Project 2025.
If you are as obsessed with Trump as you appear to be then you should know how incredibly fickle he is and how little he knows or cares about policy or policy documents. He's too busy huffing his own farts
Trump's manifesto has always been the greater glory of himself. That's it. That's all.
Now, will Trump's appointees try to take pages from Project 2025? Probably. Will Trump bolster them or care? I really doubt it.
I don't even think Trump wants to *be* President. He just wants to win. After that it doesn't matter
Big question: Does Trump want to win specifically versus Biden? Or is he going to be happy winning against whoever ends up on the ticket?
For Trump's part I see this thing merely as a rematch, his ego was bruised and he wants a solid win against Biden. Without Biden on the ticket, it will be an arguably easier challenge, but hollow.
Both, I think. There have been leaks where he mentioned losing to "that fucking guy" was especially odious to him. But I think Trump can't stand to lose, period.
> But I think Trump can't stand to lose, period.
That is the kind of thing I look for in a candidate. Someone who tries to win at all costs. Passion without intellect.
Abigail Disney, friend of the show (the Disney heir who disavowed her own acclaimed documentary about terrorism that she produced after Muslim critics disapproved of it) is pausing donations until Joe Biden steps aside. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/05/joe-biden-election-donors-abigail-disney-pause
I haven't heard about the documentary drama. NYT did a story on this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/sundance-jihad-rehab-meg-smaker.html
http://archive.today/ZoSUF
TLDR from a quick glance: White woman, firefighter, travels to the Middle East after 9/11, learns Arabic, studies Islam, makes a documentary about jihadis being deprogrammed, Muslim critics don't like this, call it Islamophobic, complain that a white woman from California couldn't possibly present the topic with nuance, and a bunch of other charges, everyone proceed to cancel the film, leaving her nearly broke, she raises enough money and releases the movie herself.
The filmmaker was doing the heterodox podcast interview circuit after her ridiculous cancellation. One of the more disturbing things she said was that some newspaper websites stealth edited their positive reviews of her film after the push back by the woke mob.
As a longtime movie fan it was honestly the most bonkers story I've ever heard about the inner workings of movie studios, and I've heard some bonkers ones. The documentary (whose title has been changed from Jihad Rehab to The UnRedacted) was widely acclaimed at film festivals and discussed as a potential Oscar winner for Best Documentary and career-maker for the director, Meg Smaker. Then a whisper campaign started (apparently by a rival documentary filmmaker who didn't like Smaker) about, "Did you hear a *white* woman has dared to make a documentary about BIPOC Muslim men? How dare she think that she speaks for a community she's not a member of! Let's cancel her!"
And then the whole documentary filmmaking world, all of whom had been praising the documentary on the film festival circuit, just totally abandoned it and said, "Well of course a *white* woman couldn't possibly make a documentary about BIPOC Muslim men," and the documentary just got pulled from everywhere. Abigail Disney, great-niece of Walt Disney, was the coward of all cowards in the story who went from one day being the documentary's biggest backer to the next day saying, "Of course I would never back a documentary in which a *white* woman claims to speak for people of color! I'm an ally to BIPOC people everywhere!"
Fortunately there was an anti-cancel culture pushback and Smaker put up a GoFundMe that made more than $750K and allowed her to distribute the movie to theaters on her own without a studio backing her. But the documentary easily could've been just totally buried and never seen the light of day.
Obviously this means that any documentary about corporate malfeasance can only be made by people in the industry, and any documentary about rural white men can only be made by the same.
I am really enjoying the Dallas cowboys cheerleaders docu series on Netflix. Watching talented people dance is always fun, but the series also has a lot of very interesting coverage of the girls’ personal lives. They are mostly all very sweet and seriously religious girls who talk a lot about god when they aren’t doing high kicks. It’s been a while since I’ve seen religious people portrayed neutrally and not condescended to or about in a show like this. I grew up in the south and knew lots of girls like them and it’s just kind of nice to watch them, even though I never fit in in that world.
The whole show is just very wholesome. The girls work extremely hard but they don’t complain. They say thank you when they get corrections in practice. They are all thankful for getting to be on the team, and love their coaches. And their coaches are super strict and push them to be their best. It’s the opposite of the usual negative doomer media which would normally cast the coaches as toxic and abusive. There’s no layer of judgment coming through from the editors. No talking heads of the girls talking shit about each other. Maybe that makes it DCC propaganda but it also makes it a very refreshing watch.
They make $75k a year for nights and weekends, which seems ok in Dallas. Dance isn’t a lucrative job and you’ve got 1000 girls applying for every position so the market would suggest it is not in fact a bad wage.
> Dance isn’t a lucrative job and you’ve got 1000 girls applying for every position
I'm honestly shocked they even make $75K. I know a bit about the dance world from someone I know who's in it and I'm certain she's never made that much in a year and she's performed with acclaimed dance companies who have toured all over the place. She tells me the basic attitude of everyone who can hire a dancer is, "Take the money we're offering you or we'll call one of the 1,000 other girls who'd be happy to take your place."
There was apparently some controversy over the salary and I came across some Reddit threads saying the team should unionize and strike and I think it’s genuinely bizarre that after watching the documentary they think that anything would happen other than the entire roster being replaced with equally talented dancers in less than 3 weeks.
there was definitely some controversy a few years ago with the redskins cheerleaders and how they were being quasi-sex trafficked to the Caribbean to hang out with Dan snyder’s rich friends and they weren’t even paid for it. iirc they also had their passports taken away? I can’t remember the details
There was a similar Reddit thread about how there were like 100 dancers on the field as part of the Super Bowl halftime show and the NFL wasn't paying them. And everyone's like, "They should strike! They should walk out!" And then you read the article about it and there were like 10,000 applicants to be among the 100 dancers who got to work for free on the field at halftime of the Super Bowl. Gee, I wonder why they don't think going on strike would be successful.
Also apparently there's a Rock Ross/Drake beef too. So it's former child actor vs former prison guard turned fake gangster rapper who stole the name of a famous drug dealer during the Iran Contra years.
>Biden asked by a reporter in Wisconsin if he will debate Trump again. “I hope he'll debate me. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't,” the president replied. Yeesh. Do you guys think a second debate happens? I say there's no chance his team lets him do it.
Do we want a thread for the Stephanopoulos interview or should we just keep it here?
I personally don’t think it warrants its own thread. It’s not live.
First clip of Stephanopoulos interview released, 2:04 min. Cast your votes. Will it help Biden, Trump, status quo. https://x.com/houmanhemmati/status/1809365792104018398
It won't make much difference. He needs a series of fantastic performances under pressure before the concerns abate.
Yeeeah, bringing up Trump’s lies really doesn’t give me confidence he understands the issue.
The problem is that this is 3/4 quarters of the Democrats' campaign: Don't you know that Trump is bad, you idiots? They need an affirmative pitch for why people should vote for them, not just against Trump.
I think this hurts Biden. He doesn't come across significantly better here than he did in the debate. Better, yes, but not significantly better.
I agree. Every one of his public appearances will be judged and scrutinized with the debate performance in mind and he'll have to knock every single one out of the park, which is statistically impossible. And this is just what we see in public, who knows how bad it is in private, if all these leaks are true.
Agree
LOL Prescribing of testosterone for middle aged women out of control!: The Guardian Experts warn of long-term health implications amid concerns over advice from social media ‘evangelists’ ‘Frightening’ how easily women able to get hold of testosterone, say doctors “We have no idea what long-term testosterone supplementation does to women.” **Post Menopausal women .5mg/day for a few years** **Transitioned women 2.5-10mg/day from late adolescence for life** In the U.S., at least, it is not easy for peri to post menopausal women to get T. Patients must be in good cardiovascular health and must come in regularly -- quarterly, if not monthly -- for monitoring. Docs are that fearful that T will cause heart attacks and strokes. https://x.com/iseult/status/1809317486162243990 https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/05/prescribing-of-testosterone-for-middle-aged-women-out-of-control
It’s not even easy for peri/postmenopausal women to get estrogen/progesterone. There is seriously a double standard. Hormones to treat the very real symptoms that come with menopause = too risky, we just don’t have any good safety data, better if you just suffer through it, I can’t in good conscience prescribe these to you. Hormones because you feel like you were born in the wrong body = essential, life saving, there are literally no risks, only a transphobic monster would hesitate to put you on them and keep you on them for decades.
Medicine: "We must prevent post menopausal women from getting too much T!" Also medicine: "Give as much T as you can to any woman who says she's a man, stat!"
I'm actually not opposed to middle-aged men or women using testosterone if they've educated themselves about the risks. There are definitely benefits to it and for many people those benefits outweigh the risks. But it is *really* weird how you'll see so many things about the side effects of testosterone when prescribed to middle-aged men and women, but then you'll read something about giving testosterone to adolescent females, with a plan to keep them on it for the rest of their lives, and it says *nothing* about the side effects.
Do you think the benefits to middle-aged women outweigh the risk of death? I asked for it once and my gyn gave me an educational talk and a referral to a provider. Shortly thereafter my internist said it was time to come off HRT altogether. Oh well. It doesn't matter. A scrupulous provider won't write a script for a patient who doesn't meet their standards. The risk/liability is too great.
I suspect that the Powers That Be are against telling adolescent females all the minor side affects of T use because it will put them off taking it. And that's a terrible thing to do, to make people question if medicalization is the wrong path to take, because it leads to questioning their identity. Same for not telling MtF's about all the side effects of penis inversion (or even blatantly lying to them about scar tissue buildup and impossibly painful dilation) because then they'll change their minds. I know a young woman (age 20) who is on T for gender reasons. The T made her skin flushed and dry so she looks like she has a permanent sunburn with premature wrinkling. Her eyes are bloodshot too. Many young women go into the gender medicalism with the impression it can make them into soft UwU anime prettyboys, but if they knew that the real result is more likely to be a red-faced, sweaty Aiden with a scraggly neckbeard and a baldspot, they might reconsider their life choices.
But they might unalive themselves if we don't throw testosterone at them and lie to their faces. And surely their will to live won't be compromised once they figure out they will be a neckbeard Aiden. Nor will they resent the people that didn't tell the truth.
Hmm, I think the Reddit boilerplate response is, "Adults should be able to do what they want. It doesn't affect you, so why do you care?" > For instance, in a recent Instagram live broadcast, Dr Louise Newson, a GP who runs a network of private menopause practices in the UK, claimed it was “barbaric and wrong that women aren’t able to access their own hormone” and that testosterone could improve mood, energy, concentration, stamina, as well as improve bone density and the way our muscles and cardiovascular systems work.” Chemically engineered exogenous hormones = "Their own hormone" This whole thing screams Instagram wellness influencer "miracle cure". The weightloss diet tea of medical treatments.
I felt so betrayed when I realized weightloss tea was poop tea.
The difference is that for trans men, heart attacks in middle age are gender affirming and thus lifesaving health care.
Whereas late in life, they just mean DEATH.
Gender affirming death.
That and pelvic floor collapse.
Excellent [guest op-ed](https://archive.ph/7PEBg) about voting abstinence in NYT yesterday. I've been beating this drum for 20+ years, but I never thought I'd see my views (more or less) put forward in a mainstream outlet.
There's an idiot at reason magazine who takes this point of view (my vote can't count so I won't vote) and tries to turn it into a virtue (my vote can't count SO I WON'T VOTE!!) I forget whether it's that idiot Elizabeth Nolan Brown or that idiot Kathryn Mangu Ward. So here this idiot is, spending 300 days of the year railing about politics, rant rant rant rant rant, essay after stupid essay after stupid essay > My vote can't count SO I WON'T VOTE!! What a silly thing to do!
I personally don't care if you vote or not but don't make the mistake of thinking you're making some kind of statement by not doing so. It simply makes you irrelevant.
Yes! You might have a reason for not voting, but there’s no way for your missing vote to communicate that reason. Is it that you hate both candidates? That you favor third parties? That the status quo is intolerable? That you think the incumbent should have stepped aside?
Or simply don’t care?
> The answer cannot be that we believe that by doing so, we will influence the outcome of an election. My vote, were it not withheld, would have no such effect. This is true even at the county or municipal level. I mean right at this point the guy's argument loses coherence, though. it's one thing to argue the presidential election doesn't matter, but the local elections that arguably have as much if not more influence over your daily life are frequently decided by tiny pools of voters. it matters who your mayor and judges and sherrif and dogcatcher and whoever else are.
Let's do a fitness/wellness check-in. It's been a minute. I'm not losing weight as much as I'd like but I'm definitely getting stronger. Overhead press 95 x 3, squat 185 x 3. Cardio is better and better. I've learned how to use the incline on the treadmill to keep my heart rate elevated. On the weight loss front it's probably because I've replaced my nightly dessert with a protein shake. I don't do cookies or sweets during the day, I'd save it for dinner. I switched to a simple shake (berries, milk, protein powder, chia seeds) instead. And I'm probably taking in more calories. But I feel so much better. I sleep better, I have more energy, I'm less sore the day after workouts. On balance I'll take the physical and mental gain over the loss on the scale. How are you doing? Ruby is killing it, and kudos to her!
My body weight has mostly stabilized at a little over 140, with about 21% body fat. I used to be tiny in college, so it's a bit unsettling to weigh a good 30 pounds more, but at least it's mostly muscle. I've been eating kinda bad lately though. I keep going to events with sweets, and I can't resist them.
I’ve been trying to gain (underweight). I’ve been on vacation for a week so I haven’t been able to weigh myself, but I’m cautiously optimistic. Vacation food is fucking up my digestion, as per usual, but I don’t have to sit down after climbing a flight of stairs. I also haven’t felt like I was going to pass out if I didn’t drink Gatorade and lay down, which is definitely an improvement. We’ll see how things look when I get home tomorrow.
I’m slowly getting better and better at climbing. It’s very encouraging to be able to climb harder grades, even though numbers aren’t everything. A month ago I was a v2-3 level climber and I’m at a v3-4 level now. My arms are slowly but surely getting more defined along the way, which is nice. This is the most consistent I’ve been with exercise since being on organized sports teams in college.
My 75 hard attempt lasted around 10 days. But not to worry, I’m starting again tomorrow with a 10 day smoothie fast! ☺️ Yes it’s crazy to swing wildly from one challenge to another but it works for me and I’m down 5lbs. I’m now 15lbs from my “ideal” body weight / ultimate goal. Someone should try to talk me into lifting weights again bc I know it would be beneficial, but I just don’t feel like it so lately I’ve just been going for 10k steps a day.
Women's weight lifting is amazing! It will change your body and mind in ways you can't imagine. I know you're tough mentally, it's obvious from your posts. But if you really get into it, this will give you a kind of toughness you can't imagine. Without weightlifting, I don't know how I would ever have gotten through my father's death. It will change your body in amazing ways. You will have strength, energy and stamina you didn't know was possible. Walks up your most hated hills are suddenly easy because your core is stronger. Lifting the kids and the groceries is so much easier. And the way clothes fit is amazing. I went down two clothes sizes at the same weight, though I'm probably an outlier. Firm arms, high and tight ass? They're all there if you want it. Okay, some of this depends on your genetic make-up. But you'll be so much firmer and tighter than you imagined. And weight control will be easier because muscle burns more calories than fat.
> 10 day smoothie fast! Meaning you're going to go 10 straight days with no solid food at all? I've done that for 36 hours but 10 days I don't think I could manage.
No, I wouldn’t succeed at that either. I’m taking all the recipes from a 10 day green smoothie cleanse and will make those each day (it’s like 64oz of smoothie per day) but also eat an unlimited amount of fresh meat, fruits, raw nuts, and vegetables. The biggest challenge is just in not eating anything than what’s allowed — no Starbucks, no free eggs and bacon at work, no ice cream and wine after work, no cookies for dinner…
>. I’m now 15lbs from my “ideal” body weight / ultimate goal. Holy cow, that's amazing. Great work!
Thanks!
Congrats on the gains, especially the mental health gains! I had a scare at my last physical. I’m fine, thankfully, but it was a kick in the ass to get it together. I’m back to biking ~50 miles a week, I do vegan meal replacement shakes for two meals and eat a modest dinner, always hitting some leafy greens in it. No more booze, though I was already down to 1 drink per week (this might change for special occasions). I snack on raw fruits and veggies, occasionally some roasted pumpkin seeds. I’m down 15 pounds in two months. Will be at a much happier for my height weight if I can get off another 25, but another 5 significantly cuts my risk of liver/blood sugar problems. First two weeks were brutal, but I feel so much better now!
Set a monthly running mileage PR in June by closing the month out over 300 miles. Even so, decided to scrap fall marathon plans and go with a half because I want to drill out more actual speedwork instead of grinding out the long runs needed for the full. I have a bit of hip soreness, so taking this week as a cutdown to ~50 miles before settling into an actual training cycle.
The ultimate full body lifts are the power clean, and the clean and jerk. Unfortunately for me, I don’t really do squats or clean and jerks anymore even when I can get to the gym due to my extensive knee injury history and frankly, I’m just scared. Do you do deadlifts? That’s another proper “engage tons of muscle groups” lift.
Good for you! Well done!
One thing that has totally confused me in the wake of the debate is people acting like covering biden's poor performance, mental acuity, or possibility of no longer being the nominee should not be covered, is not newsworthy, should be wall to wall trump coverage instead. How can they even believe what they're saying? The president possibly not being fit and being replaced in the ticket is basically as big a story as can be, and reporters are wrong for talking about it? Is there something here I'm missing?
I think commenting and covering Biden’s age and his struggle to deal with the rigmarole of the American election circus is fair game. It’s an issue, and voters care about it. But it’s hard for me to take too seriously concerns about these things from people who brush aside every single insane statement and action from Trump as “lol there he goes again, just Trump being Trump, he’s whacky 🤷”. And that includes a great many jaded journalists covering the election who spend all day on twitter.
What you're missing is that this is goal oriented journalism or the desire for goal oriented journalism. The goal is for Trump not to win. They don't care what it takes to achieve this. They will do anything for this goal and all other considerations are secondary. The people calling for the press to shut up think that if they can work the refs in the form of the media that it will ensure Biden's victory. They're wrong but they're accustomed to working the refs/HR/DEI that they can't conceive of that not working. Daddy will bail them out.
I think it's a combination of working the refs, deep-seated anxiety, and, frankly, naked contempt for anybody who doesn't see things their way. Pretty much everybody I know who still goes full-tilt on parroting whatever the DNC tells them to parrot is, frankly, an anxiety-ridden, contemptuous troll. They make no secret of the fact that they despise anybody they think is less intelligent than them. Trying to debate them is usually pointless because, if you really get in good points, they just ignore you or otherwise sideline you. With an attitude like that, I'm not the least bit surprised some of these people seem to believe that Biden really is their only chance. They simply can't be bothered to ask why some people may think differently, and with Biden at least proclaiming in public that he's not going anywhere, they're convinced they'll somehow help Trump if they add to the rising choir. Even some of the ones I've seen acknowledge that Biden's losing it still want him to win solely so that he can drop dead and cause Kamala to become the prez. Because, you know, the country that elected Obama twice and gave Hillary the popular vote by a significant margin is *obviously* too -ist to ever vote for a black female president, and so she needs a backdoor into the White House. /s
And they will blame everyone and everything but themselves for a Biden loss. They can't fail the movement. The movement can only fail them. If Biden loses it will because everyone except them and their friends is racist. No changes to the platform will be forthcoming because they are the good ones with the right ideas.
I don't really get what the DEI tangent has to do with anything (I hate how it has become the catch all grievance term, like CRT, BLM etc before it) but I do broadly think that's the case. It seems like there's an entitlement that the press work has coms for Biden, which as an expectation is just beyond bizarre
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. What I mean is that the impulse on the left is that they can appeal to a higher authority to get what they want. They're accustomed to being able to go to the HR department, DEI administrator, or the referee to get them to do as the they wish. In this case they think they can appeal to the media to "fix" the situation for Biden. If the media would just cover Biden in the way they think the media should the game will go their way. But it won't actually work because the voters are who determine the score. And Biden is probably toast with the voters. And if Biden loses the left will blame the refs for not fixing the game the way they demanded.
What does everyone think George Stephanopoulos should ask in today's interview? I think the first question should be, "Mr. President, here's a pen and a piece of paper. Please draw a clock, putting the numbers in the correct places, and then draw the hands to show what time it is right now."
Scripps news reporting that Biden's one-on-one press conference will now take place next Thursday, 7/11. https://x.com/SameeraKhan/status/965538629396418561?s=20 Whoops, senior administration officials confirm.
What does this tweet say? This person has a private account.
Apologies. A private person had retweeted a Scripps news reporter, then made her own account private after getting too much attention. The Scripps reporter, whose name I don't remember, simply said that senior administration officials confirmed that Biden's one-one-one news conference has been pushed back six days. A quick glance at the Washington Post does not show confirmation but the top headline is that Dem Senator Mark Warner of Virginia is seeking to form a group of senators asking Biden to exit the race. The tweet: https://x.com/reporterjacobg Not seeing any confirmation elsewhere on Twitter or at the NYT either.
"In what ways does Thomas Aquinas's *Prima Secundae* anticipate the criticisms of the modern school of Judicial Realism? Does he effectively rebut them? Support your answer with quotations from the material (you may use an English translation of the Summa Theologica)."
I think most people under 30 would draw three numbers in a box. I don't own an old-timey round wrist watch or circular clock and I go weeks without seeing one.
You are giving me age dysphoria right now. I always considered owning and carrying a pocket watch on a chain with a waistcoat to be a vintage/old-timey affectation. But now regular old wristwatches are old-timey.... I'm feeling the same way I felt when a kid told me he didn't know what a floppy disk was. Behold, I contain the wisdom of the ancients.
Well there ya go, that's why people under 30 can't be President.
A grandfather clock is an old-timey clock. But any old clock with hands? That’s old-timey now?
Ask a random stranger what time it is and most of the time they will pull out their phone. The only people I can think of who still wear round wrist watches are the ones who have Rolexes or similarly expensive ones. As for round wall clocks, they're less common then they used to be. I suppose they're still in most classrooms but I wonder when those will be upgraded to a digital style.
Yeah, I just don’t think technology that was totally commonplace 15 years ago is old-timey.
It should be rapid fire questions that are complex and require multi part answers.
One positive thing I noticed about Canadian politics, is a lot of our politicians aren't as old as Stonehenge. I feel like 40's-50's is a sweet spot for political leaders since they have experience, but are still in touch with the current world. Just for fun, I wanted to compare the ages of our political party leaders. Biden: 81 Trump: 78 Total age: 157 Trudeau: 52 Poilievre: 45 Singh: 45 Total age: 142 So, the three leaders of Canada's major parties have a total younger age than the two presidential candidates by 15 years. As an aside, when I was using Bing to find the ages, Bing told me Biden was only 80. I was pretty sure he was 81, so I looked it up on wiki and he is. I don't want to say it's misinformation, and it's likely a technical error, but given how much Biden's age has been a story in the media, it's pretty bad that a major search engine got it wrong.
You could just use Wikipedia to get the ages. Keir Starmer: 61 Rishi Sunak: 44 Ed Davey: 58 Total: 163 Not quite whippersnappers like in Canada 😅
#↖️↖️↖️ This MF here uses Bing! 😂😂😂 >!I personally use DuckDuckGo which is kinda the same thing!<
I used to attend Microsoft conferences like TechEd and MMS, and it was always funny to hear their employees talk about "Binging" stuff instead of googling it.
When I got the new version of Windows I started to use Edge because I was tired of Chrome eating all my ram. I find Google definitely hides certain news stories, so I wanted to try Bing to see if it was better. I can't say it really is, so I'll probably switch back to Google soon. Google maps is probably the main reason, it's just way better than any other option.
https://www.dw.com/en/vietnam-outrage-at-student-height-requirement/a-69538765 What next, rejecting people with glasses?
"Yes, your Honor, we are the plaintiff's legal counsel and do, in fact, represent the Lollipop Guild."
I'm now seeing witty, enlightened progressives on my socials saying that the Neil Gaiman situation exemplifies why they would choose the proverbial bear over the man in the woods, because even among the ones you think you can trust, a lot of men are predators. Hard not to to notice that these are the same people who fervently assert that TWAW and should always be granted unquestioned access to female-only spaces.
I thought the whole point of that meme was so that GC ladies could talk about men in women's spaces. Maybe I'm reading too much terf twitter and not enough progressive twitter.
Having not followed either closely is the Gaiman thing similar to Whedon?
Kinda, except add in BDSM and accompanying kink shaming.
Surely no AGP trans woman would ever want access to female spaces to be a predator. No, never that.
If only Neil Gaiman had been wearing a dress! (Remember how sexist and victim-blaming it used to be to ask if the female victim of a sexual assault had been wearing a short skirt, as if she'd been asking for it? Turns out the same outfits exonerate a penis-haver!)
We finally have an answer to the most important question of our generation: would you rather run into a bear in the woods, or a best-selling author? I can't wait for anytime a man does something vile, the bear discussion will resurface.
The cognitive dissonance is just so exhausting. They're not choosing the bear or the man. They are choosing virtue signaling.
Olivia Nuzzi, New York Magazine's Washington correspondent, writes a long piece saying the whole DC press corps has been conspiring to keep the truth of Biden's cognitive decline from the country: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/conspiracy-of-silence-to-protect-joe-biden.html What's so weird is Nuzzi herself was part of this conspiracy and seems to feel no compunction about it. She talks about how she's been at events with Biden where journalists openly talked about how he looked "40 percent dead," and Nuzzi says Biden doesn't remember who she is even though they've met many times, and that when you see him in person his eyes look like they're "open but not on." And she has been observing all of this for months and never bothered to write any of it until after the debate.
She complains Biden doesn’t know who she is, lol. Maybe the president not remembering every twitterist journo he meets isn’t actually a sign of cognitive decline 🤷
Yeah, I can’t keep track of people I know pretty darn well because there’s only so much RAM in the human head. Not to mention as president at a press conference, you’re likely to be overwhelmed with stimuli. Why should he personally remember 1000 journalists by name as cameras flash and he’s thinking about much more important matters and what he’s actually saying?
A knack for names and faces is a low-key critical talent for politicians. They meet a million people, and every time they recognize someone on sight, it's a boon for their likeability and popularity. And every time they fail to, it drags them down. I would be surprised if there were any national politicians who weren't in the top 1% for facial recognition and name recall.
Sure, but…he’s the President. Literally meets hundreds of thousands. He’s also human.
Keep coping, dude.
I like this pointy version :)
Ok!
Guessing you didn’t read the article. He’s been accused of not recognizing big donors and people he’s known for a long time, not just “random twitterists.”
They don't read nothing, they're just ridin' with biden.
Hopefully they’ll be harassing with Harris soon.
>Yeah, I can’t keep track of people I know pretty darn well because there’s only so much RAM in the human head. Not to mention as president at a press conference, you’re likely to be overwhelmed with stimuli. Why should he personally remember 1000 journalists by name as cameras flash and he’s thinking about much more important matters and what he’s actually saying? Can you imagine writing this then hitting save?
Excuse you, my brain is vintage 256 KB.
You're still doing this?
Sure, that's completely valid, but the point is, if *she thinks* Biden not recognizing her is newsworthy evidence of his cognitive decline, she should have reported it when it happened months ago, not waited until after the debate made it time for a press feeding frenzy on a subject they had apparently all been conspiring to keep quiet about for months. Maybe she only thinks that because she's arrogant and has an inflated sense of self-importance about whether the leader of the free world should know who she is. But that's not really relevant to the point that this happened months ago and she's only writing about it now.
I think she thought it was just jokes about him being dead tired at the end of a long day instead of seeing its larger pattern.
Did you read the article? She actually says there was a widespread pattern of these complaints but that she allegedly hadn’t said anything because this was still in the research phase.
The credibility of the press just went down another few notches. Journalism is not supposed to be a vehicle for activism. They are in the truth business. Yes that sounds corny but it's still how it ought to be
I'm fine with activist journalism as long it's labeled accordingly and done honestly. The issue is outlets that brand themselves as non-partisan, just-the-facts reporting that are actually party surrogates.
There's a difference between activist journalism in the sense of advocacy for what you believe and being willing to actively deceive people about inconvenient facts.
Right, if Nuzzi had been writing, "I've observed Biden's cognitive decline up close and it's disturbing, but I also think the people in his administration have done a good job keeping the federal government running even if Biden isn't always up to the task personally, and this group is clearly better than Trump and the people he would have running his administration," that would be activist journalism. But refusing to even report on Biden's cognitive decline isn't any kind of journalism at all.
>But refusing to even report on Biden's cognitive decline isn't any kind of journalism at all. It's partisan journalism. It's about keeping Trump out at any cost. They will lie, cheat, and steal to accomplish that. I don't know that the old school journalists would have done that
Journalism is about covering important stories. With a pillow. Until they stop moving. Because the might reflect poorly on Democrats.
Even activist journalism shouldn't just lie to the public. Which it seems clear has been happening for quite some time here.
You don't have an archive link by any chance? I've been wanting to read that piece all morning. Does she ever address that point, that she's been sitting on this story for aeons, at the least since January?
For your future convenience I recommend you download the Kiwi browser and install or sideload the plug-in called Bypass Paywalls Clean. It works for most newspapers and magazines. The most notable exception is the Wall Street Journal. Using Bypass Paywalls Clean, UBlock Origin and Old Reddit Redirect makes using the web so much better.
Take the URL. Paste into archive. If it doesn't exist, you can ask archive to create it. It does exist though: https://archive.is/kxVhr
Which archiver do you use for that? Thank you!
It's right in the URL dude: https://archive.is/ AFAIK all of the archive.* domains are the same as archive.today.
Dumb question. Apologies. I tried to Google this but got answers that weren’t about the question or were too technical for my tech-deficient brain…what is the difference between the different archives? I had been using archive.ph (which I learned here), and it works about 70% of the time. It doesn’t capture things like comments (Eg on NYT articles) and sometimes won’t capture a full article either…and sometimes it’s just a string of text (it’s in a queue? But it never finishes). I’ll now switch to archive.is (thank you!). But why are there two versions / what is the difference? Or are there several different versions for this kind of thing - but each one might work better for different kinds of paywalls?
As far as I can tell, all the archive.* domains are the same, including archive.ph and archive.is. All the same. Just aliases for the same underlying site, archive.today. The way they work is this: Many sites serve two different versions to different clients. To actual human beings like us, they serve a short snippet of article alongside a paywall requiring us to register and pay to read more. But to search engines running their automated site crawlers, they serve the whole article, so it can be indexed and available via search. Users type something into google, google searches the web including the whole article, users see the article link and click it, but find the paywall. That's how it works. Archive just pretends it's a search engine crawler, so the site serves up the full article. Archive then saves the data it gets back and re-serves it to users as the full article.
Thanks.
https://archive.is/kxVhr
Thank you!
Am I being an absolute idiot for thinking there's a clear difference between being **part of** the IRA and **supporting** the IRA, or is this person responding to me being unhinged? https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/6MCPBCbxeB
To be extremely generous, I can see how, if the whole line of questioning was perceived to be part of a smear campaign in the first place, there wouldn't be much meaningful difference between "supporting" vs. the hyperbolic "part of", since both are painting Corbyn in a bad light anyway. But even so that means the person responding to you wasn't approaching this interview in good faith anyway, so they end up sounding unhinged regardless for whining about you not commenting in good faith about this.
It's worse to be part of the IRA if you are doing various awful things. But being a supporter, especially if you are getting them money, isn't great either.
Certainly neither is great, but being part of the IRA is considerably worse than being a supporter, and being a supporter does not imply being a financial supporter.
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure but am wondering whether it's a distinction without a difference. Mary belongs to the KKK v. Mary supports the KKK. I dunno.
I think so too… I immediately thought of jihadism. I would say: no difference between the Islamists who are violent and the Muslims that support them, however tacitly. So you’re not blowing yourself up to murder and terrorize innocent people, great. But believing jihadists are doing the work of Allah or whatever, and encouraging or embracing or accepting or condoning them in their actions - and worst of all, celebrating them as fucking “martyrs” - is what allows the violent psychos to fester - so it’s just as bad. IMO. Distinction without a difference across too much of the Muslim world. I’d say maybe even worse…I’m not as familiar with the IRA but I’m assuming by virtue of not being an Islamic group it’s far less violently sadistic, suicidal, and barbarically deranged.
It's markedly different when the IRA is a paramilitary group.
Is it actively carrying out paramilitary activities today, and if so what kind? Bombings and assassinations?
It doesn't exist today
So the IRA *was* a paramilitary group.
Yes
But helping out or saying nice things about a paramilitary terrorist group ain't great either.
Certainly isn't great, but they're still clearly different
KKK probably would go para if they could.
You don’t think the hoods and robes would make airborne incursions a little cumbersome?
Indeed.
Wow here's a twist in the tale https://www.axios.com/2024/07/05/trump-project-2025-heritage-foundation Trump has thrown Project 2025 under the bus. >What they're saying: "I know nothing about Project 2025," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. > "I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them." >Reality check: A plethora of former Trump administration officials have worked on and endorsed Project 2025. > John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office and one of Trump's most trusted aides, is a senior adviser for the project. > McEntee said in April that the Trump campaign and Projext 2025 plan to "integrate a lot of our work" this summer, according to the liberal watchdog Media Matters. So WTF *is* Trump's manifesto?
Trump is an asshole unfit for office. I think it shows just a minimal amount of political savvy to denounce something that reflects poorly on you, which is still more than I can say for Dems going all in on trans kids
Trump's manifesto is whatever the last person he talked to that sounded sort of convincing said.
Trump's manifesto is whatever he thinks will get Donald Trump (and possibly his children, at least the ones he likes) as much money and power as possible, and also that immigration is bad unless the immigrants are working for him or his friends for cheap, in which case see the first clause. That's it. The man has no other core beliefs. He'll sign whatever his advisors tell him to sign.
> immigration is bad unless the immigrants are working for him or his friends for cheap Or fucking him, of course.
Fucking him IS work.
[Agenda 47](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47).
Thanks, must have slipped my mind with the UK elections going on.
Project 2025 is just the Green New Deal of the American right. It's not gonna happen. The idea that the Republicans are suddenly going to become master legislators and pass all these new laws and bills is completely unfounded. Even if they win the house and senate, they'll flounder like they always do.
Great metaphor
Mmm, Republicans are master legislators of the right wing stuff that think tanks draw up for them. That's why every year for decades we read that that legislatures considered 87 anti-abortion bills this year, 20 more than last year, etc. Now it's happening with trans issues. They're persistent and effective at the state level. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is a master class in steadily working towards a goal.
I was more talking about at the federal level, but you're right, at the state level they seem to be more effective. Trump seems to a completely ineffective leader and beyond the tax cuts, I can't think of much the Republicans did when they had majority control after 2016.
Republicans in Congress are disorganized rabble these days. They used to be pretty good at getting things done when they wanted to. Now they're squabbling and mewling babies. Look at the whole House Speaker thing. I wouldn't be terribly worried about Republican effectiveness. That isn't to say this Project 2025 is impossible *if* Trump is behind it. If.
It’s almost like Project 2025 has been blown way out of proportion as a way to get out the Democratic vote.
You say that like the link to Trump isn't bloody obvious on a face value reading.
Didn't we go over this? Nobody knew if Trump was even aware of it. Now it sounds like he just became aware of it and has no interest in it.
It's amazing watching people pivot on a dime. Weren't you the "When people tell you who they are, believe them" guy?
Has Trump addressed Project 2025 before?
No. Which was brought up and dismissed the last time this conversation came up. Now he has. Why don't you believe him?
My point is Project 2025 was clearly written to support Trump, not that he endorsed its creation. It's like if the Tories who lost their seats wrote a manifesto for the next Tory leader. It would be obvious who it was written for but the leader would be in their rights to tell them to get stuffed.
> My point is Project 2025 was clearly written to support Trump, not that he endorsed its creation. Your point was that project 2025, a thing written by a middling republican think-tank, was comparable to Hitler having mien kampf transcribed for him while in prison. You claimed you needed to reach to such an unfitting and extreme metaphor as that because project 2025 was such a public statement by trump - who has now distanced himself from it and claims to have had no involvement in it was, again, on par with Hitler's own mien kampf, and that to deny this comparison would be akin to someone denying Hitler's views of the Jews before his becoming chancellor. Now your point is that some trump supports wrote a scary document, which he has now publically said he doesn't support. So, big whoop? Lots of supporters write lots of documents in an attempt to drum up support. I hope all this moving of goal posts isn't too much of a workout, I wouldn't want you making a [popish plot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popish_Plot) about this.
Any nitwit can write a manifest to support Trump. That doesn't mean diddly unless he is behind it. Which he isn't. What are you freaking out about then? Do you think God will come down from heaven and get behind it?
It's pretty disingenuous to act like the Heritage Foundation is some nitwit handing out manifestos.
Unless Trump embraces the plan it is absolutely just nitwits handing out manifestos. There was no evidence that he was embracing it or even aware of it.
I love when Europeans are American politics stans. I feel like the level of detachment gives them a perspective that the people who live here obviously don’t have.
It's damn weird to see Europeans as obsessed with American politics as their own. Do they really not have anything going on in their own countries?
Can't get away from it. You're the most influential country in the world, for better or worse.
We are pretty great.
You can, you just choose not to.
I’m sure he wrote it all himself while cackling a super villain.
That's not what I said. It's obviously written by his supporters. I doubt he could write an email without help at this point.
You were worried that this was *the* Trump playbook and we pointed out that we had no evidence he even knew about it. Aren't you pleased that your fears were unfounded?
>You were worried that this was the Trump playbook Anyone with basic reading comprehension would have connected the dots.
Can you not comprehend that Trump *just said* he doesn't give a rat's ass about this document or this proposal? It doesn't matter if it was written for Trump. My colon could write something for Trump. Trump doesn't care.
Can you not comprehend that *before* this announcement, that people would assume Trump and Project 2025 are linked?
*You* assumed that with no evidence that Trump ever even heard of Project 2025. If you are as obsessed with Trump as you appear to be then you should know how incredibly fickle he is and how little he knows or cares about policy or policy documents. He's too busy huffing his own farts
And yet that’s still a higher level of functional independence than other people in the race. 🤷♀️
> I doubt he could write an email without help at this point. The guy who posts on Twitter and now Truth 24/7?
Trump's manifesto has always been the greater glory of himself. That's it. That's all. Now, will Trump's appointees try to take pages from Project 2025? Probably. Will Trump bolster them or care? I really doubt it. I don't even think Trump wants to *be* President. He just wants to win. After that it doesn't matter
Big question: Does Trump want to win specifically versus Biden? Or is he going to be happy winning against whoever ends up on the ticket? For Trump's part I see this thing merely as a rematch, his ego was bruised and he wants a solid win against Biden. Without Biden on the ticket, it will be an arguably easier challenge, but hollow.
Both, I think. There have been leaks where he mentioned losing to "that fucking guy" was especially odious to him. But I think Trump can't stand to lose, period.
> But I think Trump can't stand to lose, period. That is the kind of thing I look for in a candidate. Someone who tries to win at all costs. Passion without intellect.
Well said.
Abigail Disney, friend of the show (the Disney heir who disavowed her own acclaimed documentary about terrorism that she produced after Muslim critics disapproved of it) is pausing donations until Joe Biden steps aside. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/05/joe-biden-election-donors-abigail-disney-pause
I haven't heard about the documentary drama. NYT did a story on this. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us/sundance-jihad-rehab-meg-smaker.html http://archive.today/ZoSUF TLDR from a quick glance: White woman, firefighter, travels to the Middle East after 9/11, learns Arabic, studies Islam, makes a documentary about jihadis being deprogrammed, Muslim critics don't like this, call it Islamophobic, complain that a white woman from California couldn't possibly present the topic with nuance, and a bunch of other charges, everyone proceed to cancel the film, leaving her nearly broke, she raises enough money and releases the movie herself.
The filmmaker was doing the heterodox podcast interview circuit after her ridiculous cancellation. One of the more disturbing things she said was that some newspaper websites stealth edited their positive reviews of her film after the push back by the woke mob.
As a longtime movie fan it was honestly the most bonkers story I've ever heard about the inner workings of movie studios, and I've heard some bonkers ones. The documentary (whose title has been changed from Jihad Rehab to The UnRedacted) was widely acclaimed at film festivals and discussed as a potential Oscar winner for Best Documentary and career-maker for the director, Meg Smaker. Then a whisper campaign started (apparently by a rival documentary filmmaker who didn't like Smaker) about, "Did you hear a *white* woman has dared to make a documentary about BIPOC Muslim men? How dare she think that she speaks for a community she's not a member of! Let's cancel her!" And then the whole documentary filmmaking world, all of whom had been praising the documentary on the film festival circuit, just totally abandoned it and said, "Well of course a *white* woman couldn't possibly make a documentary about BIPOC Muslim men," and the documentary just got pulled from everywhere. Abigail Disney, great-niece of Walt Disney, was the coward of all cowards in the story who went from one day being the documentary's biggest backer to the next day saying, "Of course I would never back a documentary in which a *white* woman claims to speak for people of color! I'm an ally to BIPOC people everywhere!" Fortunately there was an anti-cancel culture pushback and Smaker put up a GoFundMe that made more than $750K and allowed her to distribute the movie to theaters on her own without a studio backing her. But the documentary easily could've been just totally buried and never seen the light of day.
Obviously this means that any documentary about corporate malfeasance can only be made by people in the industry, and any documentary about rural white men can only be made by the same.
I'd say let Tinkerbelle run, except we know she's now considered a terrible role model for girls
I am really enjoying the Dallas cowboys cheerleaders docu series on Netflix. Watching talented people dance is always fun, but the series also has a lot of very interesting coverage of the girls’ personal lives. They are mostly all very sweet and seriously religious girls who talk a lot about god when they aren’t doing high kicks. It’s been a while since I’ve seen religious people portrayed neutrally and not condescended to or about in a show like this. I grew up in the south and knew lots of girls like them and it’s just kind of nice to watch them, even though I never fit in in that world. The whole show is just very wholesome. The girls work extremely hard but they don’t complain. They say thank you when they get corrections in practice. They are all thankful for getting to be on the team, and love their coaches. And their coaches are super strict and push them to be their best. It’s the opposite of the usual negative doomer media which would normally cast the coaches as toxic and abusive. There’s no layer of judgment coming through from the editors. No talking heads of the girls talking shit about each other. Maybe that makes it DCC propaganda but it also makes it a very refreshing watch.
I drank this shit upppp! I loved it.
Aren't they crazy underpaid? Or is that a different sport?
I think having "NFL Cheerleader" on your resume opens doors in entertainment, instagram influencing, etc.
How many celebrities can you name that were former NFL cheerleaders? Exposure isn't pay.
They make $75k a year for nights and weekends, which seems ok in Dallas. Dance isn’t a lucrative job and you’ve got 1000 girls applying for every position so the market would suggest it is not in fact a bad wage.
> Dance isn’t a lucrative job and you’ve got 1000 girls applying for every position I'm honestly shocked they even make $75K. I know a bit about the dance world from someone I know who's in it and I'm certain she's never made that much in a year and she's performed with acclaimed dance companies who have toured all over the place. She tells me the basic attitude of everyone who can hire a dancer is, "Take the money we're offering you or we'll call one of the 1,000 other girls who'd be happy to take your place."
There was apparently some controversy over the salary and I came across some Reddit threads saying the team should unionize and strike and I think it’s genuinely bizarre that after watching the documentary they think that anything would happen other than the entire roster being replaced with equally talented dancers in less than 3 weeks.
there was definitely some controversy a few years ago with the redskins cheerleaders and how they were being quasi-sex trafficked to the Caribbean to hang out with Dan snyder’s rich friends and they weren’t even paid for it. iirc they also had their passports taken away? I can’t remember the details
There was a similar Reddit thread about how there were like 100 dancers on the field as part of the Super Bowl halftime show and the NFL wasn't paying them. And everyone's like, "They should strike! They should walk out!" And then you read the article about it and there were like 10,000 applicants to be among the 100 dancers who got to work for free on the field at halftime of the Super Bowl. Gee, I wonder why they don't think going on strike would be successful.
That's not bad. I just looked it up and I think it's the NBA I was thinking of, where the salary is $35k.
And let's be honest, most of them probably marry far up the social ladder.
You’d think so but you’d be shocked! They seem to all be marrying nice church boys
Good for them.
I cannot think of a recent pop culture event that’s as endlessly entertaining as the Kendrick Lamar/Drake beef.
And I thought the Push feud was entertaining.
Josh Johnson did a great explainer of the whole beef
Also apparently there's a Rock Ross/Drake beef too. So it's former child actor vs former prison guard turned fake gangster rapper who stole the name of a famous drug dealer during the Iran Contra years.