No worries. I googled her and thought Missy was going to run for NYC mayor, which would be on brand, but surprising.

I don’t see a Michelle Gomez on the 2021 ballots. Do you mean Kathryn Garcia, or Dianne Morales?

Ok, but let’s not pretend that people didn’t vote for the guy. He should be prosecuted for his crimes, but he won the primary and he won the election. If we don’t like how elections work, we should change that, but acting like he doesn’t represent the will of the people because he took shady money is a retcon. The primary was a RCV that ran through 8 instant runoffs, resulting in every single ballot preference counting, and Eric Adams won by 8,000 votes. If you take his money away, maybe Kathryn Garcia, another moderate centrist, would have won instead.

Authentication tokens - Some heirloom jewelry or letter of permission from the local royal family used to prove you are on their mission.

Gap analysis - when your party finds a crevasse or pit and determines if they can jump across.

Buffer - party member who casts buffs, usually a bard.

Microservices - when you barter with gnomes to repair your gear.

The thing about King is, and he’ll admit this now, he used to do a bunch of drugs and hammer out several novels back to back. He’s an incredibly talented writer, but sometimes his stories are just some cool shit he thought of that doesn’t really go anywhere. Sometimes there’s deep introspection, sometimes it’s just a big scary dog that terrorizes a family.

And Cujo is great. Read it. Read all his books. Just not all at once. The Dark Tower series is another good example, because it does a lot of world building, but also sometimes the story just happens and everyone moves on to the next thing. The Stand has a similar issue. It is well written, meandering, thoughtful, and mindeless all at the same time.

There’s also a loosely connected universe between the Shining, It, The Dark Tower, The Stand, and probably a few others I’m forgetting. These are all good books/series, but my recommendation is not to read them back to back. You’ll start to see the patterns and fall backs he uses as an author when he just needs to wrap things up and publish the book.

You have the right to vote how you want. You do not have the right to my respect.

I respect your decision.

OK, but that’s the answer he gives when he doesn’t know the answer. Are we sure he understands what contraception is?

Removed by mod

It’s not everyone. But it’s not no one, either. It’s hard to separate the liars from the people who don’t know any better.

I think complacency had a lot to do with 2016. So I’m not letting my guard down.

I fully support whatever media outlet wants to boost flawed polls to drive clicks or engagement or whatever bullshit KPIs they use for money. I want Democrats (justifiably) terrified that Trump will win. I want people voting like their lives, their freedoms depend on it, because they do. I want to win the Senate and the House and every Governor’s race because people everywhere showed up to say we’re not going back. I want every attempt at electoral malfeasance to be so obvious that everyone involved is immediately convicted.

And if a bullshit propaganda poll gets the job done, then we can laugh about how biased and wrong Rasmussen was after the election.

And honestly I suspect there is a lot of astroturf trying to make the argument. Far too many people on social media are using the same talking points, eg “I can’t support a genocide enabler.” Which is a valid issue, but it’s disingenuous to think that Trump is going to be better for Palestine. Harris, being a human being with empathy, would certainly want the violence to end. Trump wants the genocide to finish. He’s said that. A Jill Stein protest vote is nothing.

I don’t believe for a second that Trump doesn’t know the situation, but how is that lie better? “Here’s a picture of you endorsing a self-styled Nazi.” Well, I’m out of the loop on that one. “You endorsed him.” Yeah, but they just tell me what to say and do. I don’t ask a lot of questions. “Would you denounce him now?” I’m really not sure what I’m supposed to say here. Let me check with Vlad and see what he wants me to do. I’ll get back to you.

Lol, it would be nice if it were true, but it’s not.

It’s not bullying, it’s simple math. Harris wins or Trump wins. Harris isn’t perfect, but Trump is unacceptable. Voting for neither is a choice, but it’s choice that says you don’t care which one wins. You don’t care if a fascist bigot who wants to abuse his power to control women and line his pockets wins the election. Anyone that’s OK with that is either themselves a fascist bigot who wants Project 2025, or they’re stupid.

So saying you don’t care if Trump wins tells me you might be a fascist bigot, or you might be stupid. If you’re just stupid, that’s fine, vote your conscience. But if you’re a fascist bigot pretending, you might as well admit it to the world and admit you’re supporting Trump.

Either way, it’s not a persuasive argument to make anyone think you have anything of value to say.

At least now they know where to send the data to get it published.

I think you mean “provenance” instead of “providence.”

Moderation is not inherently virtuous, and compromise is not always the best path forward. Have you read Project 2025? As an American, that shit is terrifying, and the idea that we should find a middle ground with Christian nationalists is abhorrent. Trending toward moderation encourages extremism and obstructionism, because you get more leverage on the center from the edges. Look at what is happening in France right now, where they use simple ballots but will have runoff elections until majority candidates are elected. Moderation, cooperation, and compromise on the left led to failure.

Donations can’t be clawed back, but ongoing donations can be stopped. And you’re right that bigger donors exert more influence, and usually get something in return like naming rights for a building or changes to school policies. And that should be transparent, I don’t oppose requiring large donations be made public. My point was just that it’s always give and take. If the school changes the policy the big donor liked, they will shut off the money faucet. If the school does something most alumni don’t like, many of them will stop giving. Recipients of donations always want to keep donors happy, the difference is a matter of scale. How far are they willing to go to keep a donor happy depends on how big the donation is.