SwingingTheLamp

In-progress vs. potential? I dunno, seems pretty self-evident to me.

Well, now that you put it that way...

I'm not familiar with other states' laws. They could also be fucked up, too.

More directly relevant, many members of Netanyahu's government have also called for the extermination of all Palestinians, and they have the U.S. government providing political cover while they do it.

Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I'd get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.

For what it's worth, I'm comparing what's actually happening (genocide and the Middle East spiraling into war) with Democrats in office (tsk-tsking but providing material support to Netanyahu) to what history shows would likely happen with the other guy in office (hot air and bombast, but almost certainly not any greater material support).

Let's break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.

The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It's asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker's moral reckoning. It's a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.

That's a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.

Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.

If it doesn't work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?

Which is which? Like, seriously. Put the recent headlines about Israel's actions against the other guy's vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs. It's not clear at all.

This is how Wisconsin's law is so fucked up: The three men he shot were not working together, were not coordinated, did not know each other. So, on the one hand, Rittenhouse may have subjectively felt under coordinated attack, he was not, but the subjective feeling is what matters for the law.

From Huber:s POV, he was trying to disarm a murderer. Maybe he felt threatened, too? But the law is so fucked, his POV doesn't matter because he's dead. In Grosskreutz's POV, he was approaching an active shooter who'd just killed two men and trying to defuse the situation. When Rittenhouse pointed his gun, Grosskreutz would have been justified under the same law in blowing him away.

In short, the law incentivizes shooting first.

Okay, but I'm not on board yet. We start with the biggest crooks of all, the wage thieves, right?

Love it!

Gotta point out that, though, that most primates don't eat a lot of bananas. The species that really seems to love bananas is homo sapiens. I worked at a grocery store for several years, and saw the sales numbers. Bananas are the biggest seller, and it's not even close. They outsell whole categories of other products.

The boat in the old photo (from 1928, apparently) is casting a pretty good wake, and the man aboard is holding a tiller attached to a rudder. It's impossible to tell for certain with the low-res image, but entirely likely that one of those shapes in the boat ahead of him is an inboard engine.