And the locked "knife display"? Here are my knives, I really like knives, I like to display that I really like knives, would you like to talk about knives? Can I talk at you for 30 minutes about sharpening techniques? Perhaps you'd like to visit my katana collection in the other room? Lol. All kept near his fedora collection no doubt.
All in the name of friendly ribbing though, hobbies are cool and often niche. I'm often a little bemused by people's esoteric or nerdy hobbies.
But I'm scared to ask if this dude even has kids, or if he's just storing his kitchen knives in a locked box out of sheer paranoia. There's safe and then there's... whatever this is.
He played like 350 rounds of golf during his presidency. That seems fine to me, but it seems weird to try to minimize that fact. He would regularly fly and play at resorts in Florida, Martha's Vineyard, and around DC. I Googled it, it was pretty well covered.
If that seems problematic to you, think about this: Trump (among many others) loudly criticized Obama for how much golf he played, but then when Trump took office, he proceeded to play twice as much golf.
If you think that's crazy, Woodrow Wilson played twice as much as Trump!! Even during WWI!
It is legally very clear, but not in the way you're hoping. The Supreme Court ruled—unanimously I would add—that individual states do not have the authority to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to disqualify a candidate from federal office. That power lies solely with Congress, which is probably a good thing or we'd have conservative-controlled courts in red states declaring every Democratic presidential nominee ineligible every election cycle.
While the Court left open the possibility for Congress to act, there is currently no legislation addressing this issue. For Congress to disqualify a candidate under Section 3, they would first need to pass a law, which would require 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster and a simple majority in the House. Only then could they decide the specific voting threshold for disqualification. In reality, this is highly unlikely to happen.
In the extraordinarily improbable event that Trump wins but somehow Democrats secure a majority in the House and simultaneously expand to 60 Senate seats—or, in an even more bizarre scenario, they hold only 50 seats, abolish the filibuster, and have Vice President Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to disqualify the candidate who defeated her—they could theoretically draft, pass, and enact such legislation. They could then invoke it to disqualify Trump before his inauguration. With a 17-day window between the seating of the new Congress and the president’s swearing-in, this scenario is technically possible, but politically fantastical.
Such an unlikely scenario, like a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College, would absolutely ignite a political crisis and likely a stochastic civil war in the United States.
Sadly, the fact is, none of that will happen, and Trump appears to now have a slight edge in the electoral college (he's currently about 6% more likely to win the EC than Harris according to Silver's model), it's quite possible, leaning towards probable, that Trump will win the election, get rid of most of the lawsuits against him, purge and/or dissolve several federal agencies, install loyalists at all levels of the government, and begin his deportation and vengeance tour with a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS knocking down any attempts to stop him.
You know Harris's declining probability of winning is sinking in when we're hoping the courts will defy the long sequence of continuous nothing they've done so far and will suddenly declare Trump ineligible.
We'll be told the economy can't afford another lockdown, so people will just have to report to work and risk dying. I highly doubt most countries will do that again in the near future. Let alone people abiding it.
I really feel like that was a moment where we could have seen radical social change, but instead it just ended up being a blip when everyone made Tiktok videos. I always imagine what it would have been like if, for some unknown reason, like a massive EMP flare from the sun or something, made all digital and internet technology die.
I think the best hope for the world at this point might literally be an extremely large and direct solar event/CME. It would cause chaos and result in a lot of deaths, but it seems like the only thing that would actually radically change the suicidal trajectory global society is currently on.
A black venti coffee from Starbucks has almost 450mg of caffeine. 200mg probably isn't "whopping (!)"-worthy.
I have a co-worker that drinks a pot of coffee at work each day by himself. That's about 1,200mg of caffeine, and he has a cup in the morning before he gets to work, so he's probably having about 1,500mg/day. Admittedly that's on the high side.
800mg of caffeine from black coffee per day is actually shown to be good for you. Reduced risk of alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, and Parkinson's. Reduces inflammation. Lowered rates of liver cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Good luck to you and your compatriots. It hasn't done much in the United States. Trump has been steadily gaining for over a month and now Kamala is sliding, so I'm not sure if calling them weird dipshits does much, but it does feel good.
OK. Well, Silver's polling aggregator currently shows Trump with a 6.5% advantage to win the electoral college over Harris, so, you can deny the possibility all you want. That doesn't make it a less real, and at this point even likely, possibility.
I mean, the video shows her talking at them like a politician. I know it's important to criticize republicans, and she did pick one up, but this one didn't seem as obviously misleading as that Virginia guy. She's talking about what she's "done" to protect kids, and she has kids in the ad. I don't think any political ad that has kids in it that aren't the politicians' own means they're pretending to have kids.
There are plenty of political ads showing politicians hugging kids or interacting with kids that aren't theirs -- Biden and Walz quickly spring to mind. There's an entire academic journal article on the topic. I think it's just the super weird Virginia politician thing makes people think otherwise. I don't think anyone would have blinked about this if it came out before the "can I borrow your wife and kids and take a picture in front of a residential home" thing happened.
No one here is saying anything about giving up except you, and I don't really see anyone here freaking out. If anything, yours is the most hyperventilating post in the thread so far. It's simply a fact that there are important factors to consider in this election cycle that extend beyond just the latest round of polling, so that cheap dismissal doesn't take us very far.
First, Harris's declining numbers against Trump aren't just a short-term blip; they've been slowly sliding for over a month. Meanwhile, Trump's numbers are increasing in key areas, making it clear this isn't just a temporary polling fluctuation. This trend is sustained and suggests a shifting momentum, especially in battleground states where the electoral college ultimately decides the race, but it is also reflected in national polling.
Second, while early voting and mail-in ballots are showing high turnout for Harris, it's crucial to remember that the landscape for mail-in voting is significantly different from when Hillary ran in 2016 -- you're talking about pre-covid, which was before the massive expansion of early and mail-in voting. Additionally, Trump has actively encouraged mail-in votes to be predominantly Democratic because it fits into his strategy.
His plan is to challenge these ballots afterward, using claims like "lopsided results" and fraud accusations -- the people standing in polling places dressed as "ghosts" to represent "ghost voters" and the continuing accusations that illegal immigrants are being "allowed" to vote by democrats is part of that strategy. He’s setting the stage to question the validity of those votes, which is an approach that has been openly discussed. And he has actively encouraged Republicans not to use mail-in/early voting, so it's completely expected that they would be overwhelming democratic. That's quite literally what his campaign wants.
Regarding polls and young voters, yes, polls have a hard time measuring younger voters, but polling has been roughly as accurate with young voters' numbers as they have with any other demographic. Additionally, there’s another issue at play: even though young voters are more likely to say they’ll vote, they continue to actually vote at significantly lower rates than older age groups. As an aside, young voters are also most likely to say they voted even when they did not, which is surprising given it's quite easy to show when it isn't true because whether or not you voted is public information. It's a real challenge, and the assumption that young voter enthusiasm translates directly into turnout isn't reliable.
Lastly, enthusiasm gaps are noticeable, but what truly matters is the electoral college. National enthusiasm or filling large venues doesn’t translate into winning key states. Harris's steady decline in critical swing state polls is the bigger concern. It's worth staying vigilant and aware of the more complex dynamics at play, and your blinkered view of the state of the race doesn't help anything.
And the locked "knife display"? Here are my knives, I really like knives, I like to display that I really like knives, would you like to talk about knives? Can I talk at you for 30 minutes about sharpening techniques? Perhaps you'd like to visit my katana collection in the other room? Lol. All kept near his fedora collection no doubt.
All in the name of friendly ribbing though, hobbies are cool and often niche. I'm often a little bemused by people's esoteric or nerdy hobbies.
But I'm scared to ask if this dude even has kids, or if he's just storing his kitchen knives in a locked box out of sheer paranoia. There's safe and then there's... whatever this is.