The article makes other points than that. Namely "upending norms" which is its own flavor of Teflon.
GBU_28
joined 1 year ago
I am aligned with you here. Well put.
To be clear, I have no love for the dnc or their strategies. I am not championing them as a model. Other commenters seem to think I'm simping for "blue maga" or some other shit.
I've consistently argued for harm reduction in a limited outcome system.
That's fine, I clarified I'm not discussing leftists.
Registered party voters represent millions and millions of voters. That type of "historical" voter is not an anomaly.
Edit but in the spirit of conversation: Biden AND Harris are lame candidates that absolutely only maintain the status quo. As you say, voters are unhappy with that.
Edit restructure
I disagree with the conclusion that OMB isn't valid reasoning. But it's just one dudes opinion that I've laid out in the thread.
Orange man bad was more then enough to pick a rock with a smiley face on it as alternative
People will learn the consequences, regardless of what brought them in our kept them home.
If folks fundamentally can't play out the math on 2 choices in a FPTP where one is a serial rapist, anti abortion candidate, who is on record for wanting to accelerate Gaza, then I dunno what to say on that. "Status quo" starts looking pretty shiny, which is terrible, but the world we live in.
But now we have trump, and a lot of folks get to say "they didn't attract me"
The article is about obesity, which CICO is the chief, immediate topic of significance. Long term organ damage from different sugar sources is a good topic, but not proximal to obesity in the near term.
Eat too many calories, get bigger. Easy to do when the grocery is packed with junk, but good food is available (and affordable) in both places.
Discussion on food deserts and time-to-prepare are also critical, but again I think present in both continents.
Many "normally / historically" Dem voters stayed home. That's the group I'm referring to by "single issue" section.
I don't know who you "us" are so why would I speak for you?
Because you've been so civil in your reply, I'll throw an edit on there just for you.
Is this like a ligma joke or something?
I guess cause when the name was made, a good place for a battle was a big ole field. (Speculation)
Agree. Systems have a way of working things out, in general as long as deciders do so from a pragmatic, not a pre assumptive perspective. I also have not served in a combat role.
As a firefighter, there were several women in my academy class, and several more at my station after academy. They are all as valuable as anyone else on countless calls. But no one is suited for every role.
Only one couldn't complete the training in a satisfactory way, and it was some of the hardest physical things we did. (Dragging a 200lbs dummy through an obstacle course and up a flight of stairs in a certain time, advancing charged 2.5 inch hose as a team, up a commercial highrise stairwell). They matriculated into a backline role as an EMT, studied to specify as a paramedic, and are now an incredible asset. It takes good leadership to get people where they should be.
An important point is: all the other women got that shit done, and are very capable firefighters who have helped the community as such. If they had just be barred from trying, the community would have lost their service.
Everyone is good at something, if they are motivated. There's no reason for people who aren't actually experienced on the topic to be making these decisions. If actual combat leaders make a determination about the requirements to get the job done, that should be the last word on it. (As long as their opinion is grounded in demonstrable examples and transparent training standards)
I bet it's more than that.
view more: next ›
Bro you do words real good. Your closing statement is gold.
Imo that work to build candidates start right now, and to circle back my issue with third party voices, they are crickets until right before he election