It’s bigger than that, because I suspect it’ll strongly affect the down ticket votes as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if an election-changing number of Trump voters would sit it out if they can’t vote for him.

I’ll have to read more about it, but I don’t know what the appeal process would be for this. Gore v Bush meant that SCOTUS wants to be hands off on state election laws. Since that one effectively decided the election (and this one likely would not, as far as president goes), I’d think the bar would have to be higher.

Who knows these days though. I bet I know how Thomas would vote though.

Here’s an article talking about his idea of attacking Venezuela. Here’s one that mentions how Woodward identified people removing docs from his desk because they created national security threats. That one is very short but there are longer and more detailed write ups. The Iran crack plan he ordered is well known, because it’s one of the top secret docs he showed to reporters.

The difference for me comes down to the relative power both men had. If the US had been the sole hyperpower on the planet, Jackson may well have out-Hitlered Hitler. If Trump’s administration wasn’t actively engaged in sabotaging his deranged orders to attack Venezuela and Iran, we’d probably still be at war. Trump exercised authority over 300M people and has, probably for the remainder of our lifetimes, permanently altered politics in the US and around the world, while Jackson’s ability, monster that he was, was constrained that the US was not a significant world power at the time.

You know they physically removed his presidential order to attack Venezuela, and that they’d frequently do similar tactics because he’d forgot that he signed an order that would have started a war, right?

That kind of egregious lying should lead to an investigation of professional misconduct.

If there’s any counter-incentive to lying on the stand for money, if you’re able to allege that it’s your “opinion” as an expert.

John Yoo, Bush’s torture memo lawyer who gave the administrative legal advice backing every illegal thing they did, holds a chaired position at Berkeley, ffs.

Holy crap, that’s awesome.

That person may have one of the worst jobs on earth, and I saw the Dirty Jobs geoduck episode.

So, a significant chunk of the founders were very skeptical of democracy and saw the risks of demagoguery. Their answer unfortunately tended to be to let the rich run things, because rich people (like themselves) would be more likely to be public minded and not selfish. That’s also, one might say, why the president has as much power as is allocated to that office independent of the legislature - initially, some wanted a king - and why the senate has more power than the house, and senators were not originally determined by popular election. The 17th amendment was passed in 1913.

They made a few other mistakes, too. Although some people (notably including Washington) saw the threat of political parties (which might in fact be an inevitable aspect of democracy), they also thought that the self interest of office holders would be to their office - president vs house vs senate vs judiciary, federal vs state governments - and did not foresee that people would instead find their self interest in their party, which would coordinate across all of those boundaries.

They also carried the enlightenment ideal of people being rational self interested actors who could deliberate and put aside self interest for the good of the country. Adam Smith himself said as much.

It comes down to selfishness versus tribalism versus what David Singer calls the expanding circle of inclusion (family, tribe, city, nation, humanity, ecosystem).

Can’t wait to get in line for that Elon Misk brain chip!

2 in the back, one in the front

On an electric vehicle, I think we call that the shocker.

I am pretty sure this is pure virtue signaling that will be overturned. The article mentions that “Israel boycott” laws have been upheld, but I’m unsure of either the effectiveness of those laws (ie what has to be demonstrated if the entity doesn’t say they’re not entering a contract for political reasons but rather has another justification) or the applicability (since my guess is that the BDS stuff falls under some stretch of the government being the only entity allowed to effect foreign policy decisions, but I’m not sure of the actual legal basis and I’m too tired to research it at the moment).

Except in this case it’s actually working.

And to the degree it doesn’t, it’s because of people who “don’t care.” With Bobo giving a handjob in public and Trump seeing no negative impact from the indictments, and the J6ers still in Congress and getting reelected - it’s the people who “don’t care” who don’t hold the politicians responsible who make committing crimes and defending the criminals just a part of normal US politics.

Here’s the basis of the finding:

Palm Beach county circuit court judge Reid Scott said he had found evidence that Tesla “engaged in a marketing strategy that painted the products as autonomous” and that Musk’s public statements about the technology “had a significant effect on the belief about the capabilities of the products”.

Judge Scott also found that the plaintiff, Banner’s wife, should be able to argue to jurors that Tesla’s warnings in its manuals and “clickwrap” were inadequate. He said the accident is “eerily similar” to a 2016 fatal crash involving Joshua Brown in which the Autopilot system failed to detect crossing trucks.

The bot that parses the articles creates a worse summary than you’d get by just reading random sentences.

In any case, we should note that this finding was reached after the recent media disclosures that Musk and Tesla deliberately created a false impression of the reliability of their autopilot capabilities. They were also deceptive in the capabilities of vehicles like the cybertruck and their semi, as well as things like range estimation, which might show a pattern of deliberate deception - demonstrating that it is a Tesla company practice across product lines. The clickthrough defense compared to what the CEO says on stage on massively publicized announcements sounds to me a bit like Trump’s defense that he signed his financial statements but noted that by doing so he wasn’t actually confirming anything and the people who believed him are the ones to blame.

Given his groundless lawsuit against media matters and his threats against the ADL, I think Elon might have started circling the drain.

I’m going to try to match your communication style here.

As the saying goes, if you were right, I would agree with you. I’ve been using mathematics professionally for a few decades now, particularly in the analysis of information propagation of human behavior and that sort of thing.

First of all it only doesn’t “logically make sense” if the sample you’re pulling is a random sample. It isn’t. When you disadvantage voters in order to suppress the vote, you don’t disadvantage them all equally. You leave polls open in rural districts and consolidate them in urban ones. You require ID cards because it’s harder for some people to get them than others. I suspect you’ve actually never studied statistics.

It has been demonstrated statistically and repeatedly that actions that reduce voter turnout - off year elections, ID cards, long lines - preferentially discriminate against Democratic candidates by disadvantaging Democratic voters. It is why they work to limit early voting and vote by mail. If your made-up reasoning about rural voters was at all correct, republicans would be the ones pushing for longer voting windows and mail in voting. They’re not. It is time to revisit your hypothesis in the face of what actually happens in the real world.

Here’s an article, and here’s the pull quote for you:

“In fairness to the Republicans, voter suppression has a long history in the United States that is not located in one party, but it’s located in one ideology, and that ideology is white supremacy,” Mitchell continued. “So for much of the post-Reconstruction period, until say 1970 or 1980 or so, that was either primarily the Democratic party – think of the old Dixiecratic south – or in both parties.

“It is only in the last 40ish years that it has become a Republican issue.”

Voter suppression targets minority voters, who for the past half century or so have been primarily Democrats. It’s why republicans have challenged and overturned key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It’s why they try to cast doubt on the integrity of the vote without providing any evidence.

Here’s a Wikipedia reference. Here’s one from Rolling Stone.

Or just take a look for yourself about which party is trying to pass bills that reduce turnout, permit party-driven redistricting, and reduce the ways in which votes can be cast.

One of my favorite quotes is by physicist Wolfgang Pauli “This isn’t right. It’s not even wrong.” It’s used for ideas that are so ludicrous that they actually fall outside the realm of comprehension. Your idea doesn’t fall into that category. It’s simply wrong.

Republicans will take all measures possible to reduce the number of votes, because they are more likely to lose when people vote. It’s that simple.

If you look through the material provided to people assigned to manually tally votes, they make it very clear that as long as the intent of the voter is clearly indicated (eg, they filled in one bubble, then drew an X through it, filled in another bubble and circled it and wrote the word THIS with an arrow pointing to it, you’re supposed to count the THIS vote rather than throw it away as a spoiled ballot.

Here, the postmark is a sufficient indicator that the ballot was submitted on time.

I haven’t seen the current curriculum but this kind of thing was an area of research for me (the spread of information on social networks).

There was a study done - I want to say that it was about 40 years ago - that used a single lesson to teach young kids the basics of literary criticism and deconstruction so that they could dissect what the Saturday morning cartoon ads were trying to say. They were able to identify that the ads were implying that eating a sugary breakfast cereal would get you more fun friends to play with, and so on. A lot of it had to do with social pressures.

In any case, there was a measurable increase in the kids’ ability to resist being influenced by the ads, once they knew what to look for. I suspect they’ll take a similar approach here.

Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful, but if you pull back the curtain and show them that the Grand Wizard is just a little man pulling their levers, it’ll have a helpful effect on hopefully enough people to matter.

I think this bot literally just chooses random sentences from the article.

I remember this being said all the time in 2015. Both sides (legitimately used in this case) will always blame polling errors when the polls don’t say what they want. Among republicans, they say that conservative voters are more distrustful of authority and so don’t answer the phone or respond to polls, or that people are too embarrassed to admit to their support for Trump but will vote for him anyway.

It means they lied, either directly or by omission, but seriously and materially enough for the board to make this move.

Or at least that’s the claim.

I know that this is a phenomenon larger than just the US.

Are countries with anti-hate speech laws experiencing the same degree of increase in support of political violence and the advancement of far right parties? I know that we’re seeing this all over, but to what degree are anti-hate laws able to contain it?

I actually felt like the PT Cruiser and the Pontiac Aztek fell well within the “so bad it’s good” category. To be transparent, I’ll also disclose I also like the Volkswagen Thing and I love dune buggies.