Did they watch the same debate that I did?

She was born in October; shit, you’re right. She’ll be barely legal in time for the election, and certainly eligible by the time she’d take office. So she won’t be too young to vote for by the time of the general election.

Wow.

The problem is that upvotes serve two conflicting proposes. Upvoting raises visibility, so one use is to say, “this is a post people should see.” In that case, you may not necessarily agree with the content of the post, but rather believe it’s worthy of debate. A good example of this is c/unpopularopinion, where the community rules specifically state to upvote if you agree it’s an unpopular opinion, not whether you agree with the opinion.

The other, conflicting, use is to signal approval or disapproval.

You can’t do both at the same time. It’s a flaw in design Reddit had, which they fixed but monetized. Lemmy did not learn from Reddit’s mistake and instead repeated it.

Two conflicting uses for the same action is terrible UX design.

Yah, absolutely. I’m frankly a little surprised Trump is still alive.

We know who Biden’s running mate is going to be, unless there’s a surprise upset. Trump’s is still up in the air and the weasels are currently fighting for it.

Thank you! So, in that situation, instead of 3 consecutive terms, we could see 4.

Assuming she’s successful, becomes far more popular, and there are no major crises that work against her.

The most reliable way to get re-elected is to be president when a war starts. Like how Bush Jr engineered 9/11 so he could ensure re-election(*). But it tensions escalated with Russia and we got involved, that’d do it.

(*) Yeah, no. I don’t really believe that. It’s just a joke.

2 years and 1 day

OK. This is a specific reference to something about our laws of succession about which I’m embarrassingly ignorant. Can you save me a web search and elaborate?

For sure. But there will be a lot of indirect debate on social media, because Trump can’t keep his burger-hole shut, and Klobuchar’s free to murder him (metaphorically) on public platforms. Even if he only posts to TruthSocial, everything he says gets parroted on X and Facebook, and that’s still where the most eyeballs are.

And old school public media picks this stuff up and repeats it - that’s mostly what they’ve been reduced to -but it still reaches a lot of eyes and ears.

And: Trump refusing another debate, she could just hammer on his cowardice, over and over. That’d be a win.

Klobuchar is tough. If nothing else, I’d love to see that fight. Only slightly less than I’d love to see an AOC v Trump fight; that’d be like watching a skinny junkie enter the MMA ring against Holly Holm. It’d be hilarious. But AOC is too young, and Trump will be either dead or in a home by the time she’s old enough to run. I just hope Bernie is still active enough by then to support her. I don’t know that she could get elected - she’s too polarizing - but it would be a marvelous spectacle.

Anyway, I prefer Yang’s politics, and I’d be thrilled to see Buttigieg in the White House, but I stand by Klobuchar as the best bet.

🙁 🤝

Lemmy really, really needs emoji responses that don’t require and entirely new comment.

Agreed, and agreed.

Why not Klobuchar? She’s got some national recognition from the 2019/20 cycle, politics are acceptable to moderates, progressive (enough), and she’d eat Trump for lunch in debates and on social media. Plus, she’s from the Midwest, and might pick up some folks for regional loyalty, and could play against the “slick New Yorker” which might still work.

The bases are going to vote party lines. I think undecideds and wavering moderates are the pick-up points, and I think Klobuchar could do that.

I like Yang’s politics, but he’s got a popularity problem, and Buttigieg - Trump would just harp on his sexual orientation, and I’m not confident enough that America’s ready yet to vote for a gay president. Hell, we can’t even get a woman into office.

IMO Klobuchar’s the safest bet against Trump.

Why?

Once again, we agree.

Why always with the old white men, when we have prominent politicians like Yang, Buttigieg, Klobuchar? And as for Bernie, if you want a firebrand who’s going to alienate moderates, why not AOC? Well, she’s too young to run, but she’s not the only truly liberal option. Warren is old enough, progressive enough, and a woman. But, no, Bernie Bros gotta Bro.

I’m sorry if I’m repeating some other response; often my Lemmy client can’t load sub comments, and I see you already have 6.

I think we’re voting for Kamala. She’s not running because she can’t win, not against Trump, and probably not against anyone else. She’s even more unpopular than Biden, and the Right would have a field day if she were the front runner.

But, frankly, side by side, Trump looks more healthy and robust than Biden, and it’s saying something. If Biden is elected, Kamala will be president before the end of his term.

I don’t know if that’s terrible; I don’t particularly care for her, but she’s better than Trump, and is on the right side of most of the issues I care about. Also, if she did a decent job and had some luck, she’d be able to run again for a second term, and we could get an unusual streak of three liberal(ish) terms.

As for Biden, a president’s staff does most of the real work of any president; I think of a president more like the captain of a large ship: they take a lot of input from the crew, and make decisions. They don’t gather the information or touch the controls; as long as they have a competent team, I suspect nearly anyone could functionally be president. As long as he’s mentally capable of processing the information he’s given and making rational decisions, he can do his job. I’m just no longer convinced he’s going to be capable of that for a full term, and the way he’s looking, I wouldn’t be surprised if he physically failed in the next 4 years.

So: President Harris. I just hope they’re putting effort into making sure she can step into the shoes quickly. If Biden can even win this election.

Biden, though. Dude’s looking like Lo Pan from Big Trouble in Little China.

Looks like a location in Borderlands. I love it!

I think we’re of like mind on this. It’s possible to realize something is broken without knowing how to fix it.

I’m not sure why Boeing is in space, except for the “me too” factor when they noticed the successes SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin were having. I wasn’t aware they had a military division - what do they make? I mean, outside of repurposed commercial cargo jets. I don’t think spinning off a division that’s simply modifying an existing design for a specific market makes much sense; most of the work is in the original design and manufacture, right?

Yeah. There are lots of areas I think government control is better than private sector, but they’re mostly infrastructure/monopoly areas. Power, internet, roads, etc. Normally I wouldn’t put Boeing in this category, but you may be right. Thinking about NASA, and what we achieved as a country, maybe there are some endeavors that are simply so expensive and important (as in, safety) that they shouldn’t be private.

I don’t know if breaking things up would help, though. Boeing re-uses liners for both cargo and passengers; and there are other companies making smaller planes for other sectors: military, private jets, etc. It’s just those big airliners where the cost of operating is so enormous, and the cost of entry so high, and the market so constrained, that I really can’t see any room for more competition. Do you?

This is a huge point. My wife made an off-hand comment about Boeing looking like a good take-over target for Airbus, and my response was, “never. Then there would be only one airline maker in the world.”

There are exactly two manufacturers of large passenger jet liners. It’s not even a question of too big to fail; it’s far worse than that.

Personally, I think they’re going about this the wrong way. You could prosecute executives for past decisions, but they were just doing the job they were hired for: maximize profits over every other consideration. The ones that didn’t, got replaced by ones that did.

For companies like Boeing, we need a different model of capitalism. One where engineers can be in charge, and the metrics for success are dominated by something other than sheer profitability. I don’t know; it seems as if we used to know how to do capitalism better. We had a functioning, funded, effective NASA, which operated almost entirely outside of The Market and which was a national pride; now it’s overshadowed by SpaceX. Boeing made good planes.

I don’t have a solution, but I can tell that we’ve gotten lost somewhere along the way.

So, which order did they violate, according to the Israeli leadership? Trying to give the guy medical attention?

I especially liked your comment further down, though, about how you immediately characterize the guy, in civilian, strapped to the hood of a jeep like a fucking trophy deer, as “a murderer.” You’ve got shit-all knowledge about this person; they could have been a journalist, a medic, but since it’s Israeli soldiers driving the jeep, he’s immediately a “murderer.”

Your biggotry is showing, there, Rambo.

Doesn’t it steal control flow? More like a break point, except you define where execution continues.

I wonder if it’s a compile error to have multiple conflicting COMEFROM statements, or if it’s random, kind of like Go’s select statement.

How awesome would it be to be able to steal the execution stack from arbitrary code; how much more awesome if it was indeterminate which of multiple conflicting COMEFROM frames received control! And if it included a state closure from the stolen frame?

Now I want this.

A self-perpetuating oligarchy. It’s always money.

It’s a choice between offering higher-ed opportunities to all income levels, or to only rich people. If you’re giving expensive educations to people who can’t afford it and aren’t paying for it, you have to get the money from somewhere. If you’re a public school, the government helps some, with grants and such, but as the stats show, tax dollars are a small percent of funding. If you’re private, you can give a big “fuck you” to poor people and only let the kids of rich people in.

I don’t have a solution for this, aside from saying that someone besides me needs to pay more taxes (corporations, rich people, etc). I’m not rich, so saying “tax the rich!” is basically saying “tax someone other than me more.” And, yeah, I think we need tax reform, and more income equality - the current discrepancy in wealth distribution is nauseating - but I don’t know how.

Things are badly broken, and it’s leading to the end of the American Empire era. I only hope whoever comes after us learns and does better.

You don’t know much about how universities work. I don’t mean that as a dis; I don’t know how else to say it.

Universities very much depend on donors. They depend on alumni. They depend on people going to their football games. This is one of the most succinct charts I could find:

[^1]

39% of a public higher ed school’s income comes from donors and alumns. Someone’s doing the math right now and trying to figure out what percentage of their donors are going to stop their donations to the school; how many of the rich alumni will terminate their grant plans. I doubt if any are expecting [email protected] to step in and make up for the lost millions. And, when they’re shitting down programs because they can’t afford to run them anymore, or they’re giving out fewer grants to kids, those same people will be there to point the finger at the administrators and accuse them of causing the loss of revenue because of this decision.

You can be righteously furious all you want, but there will be a cost to the intuition. Personally, I’m getting sick of people who, like yourself, ignore the sheer power of Israeli lobby in the US. It’s not even a conspiracy theory; Israel, and people who support Israel in the US, have invested a lot of time and effort into building effective lobbying organizations at all levels. And the Palestinians have not. Mainly because Palestine has never been able to afford to, but also since the US is clearly in Israel’s pocket, there’s also not much political will to follow suit.

I hope they make the right decision and hire him, but it’s stupid to think it’s an easy decision. Doing so will likely cost people their jobs. Or did you completely miss the recent furor over university presidents being called to resign because they didn’t crack down hard enough on pro-Palestinian statements on campus? Fuck, even the new outlets labeled it “not taking a strong enough stance on anti-semitism.” Supporting Palestine is being defined as anti semitism.

Christ, take a look around, man. Taking a stand against the genocide in Palestine will you get crucified.

[^1] https://www.case.org/resources/giving-us-colleges-and-universities-increased-125-fiscal-year-2022

Another good source is Statista, but it’s harder to directly relate the categories to donations.