Her campaign was awful. Her whole deal was that she was going to do more of what Biden did. You know, the guy we didn't want to reelect so she stepped up to run? Also she pushed right the whole time. She gunned for centrist votes. She should have leaned into Walz's policy ideas on a broader scale. In fact, walz probably would have had a pretty good chance if he were the DNC candidate. She also campaigned in the strangest places. Why on earth did she rally in Houston? She could have gone anywhere in the swing states with the Beyonce performance but she went to a city that was already going to vote blue on a state that has a moonshot's chance to flip from red. She should have spent more time in GA, PA, and AZ. But hindsight is 2020.
Jyek
joined 1 year ago
Clearly not
He was running against trump to be president. This was also before the RNC picked a candidate.
He wasn't even the VP pick when Trump got shot. That happened a couple days later.
Yeah a couple days before. The whole story is BS.
Every election I've ever voted in has had at least a 20 minute wait. I've mostly lived in medium to high density population centers my whole life. I've voted on voting day, I voted by absentee and there was a line for the drop box during COVID, I just did my early voting as a first time Texas voter and there was a 45 minute line to use the voting machines, not even a pen and paper ballot. I've never not seen a line at the polls. It's always been strange to me thinking about the number of folks who DON'T vote vs how many people I personally witness voting every season. But then again, many people don't like standing out in a heat wave while it's raining so I guess it makes sense that a lot of them don't go.
I think we should strive toward a world without borders. but until all governments can agree that borders serve no good aside from trade boundaries and taxation (which is arguably theft anyway) and should be abolished, then I think they do serve a protective purpose as well. Other nations are territorial so you have to be in defense of the place you live else you risk losing it to more territorial peoples.
Every finite range has 2 limits. A bottom limit and a top limit.
There's a lot of stuff everyone has that they don't need. What's your point? Are you going to go vegan? because technically you don't need meat. Are you going to stop driving an automatic transmission? Because you don't need that. Oh, social media (Lemmy included), you definitely don't need that.
Yes a totally normal thing to say about a sexual assault victim who was murdered by her assaulter.
Yes but that isn't changed by the amount of data used. There is no cost to supply per kb supplied, only a cost to maintain the equipment that governs the speed of the connection.
Here's an analog example. If the city you lived in started charging you more for the water to come into your house faster as well as charging you for the amount of water you use. Obviously you should pay for the amount of a finite resource you use but the speed at which you acquired that resource should be limited only by the physics of the water transportation system.
Data on the other hand, is not a finite resource. There is no limit to the amount of data one can acquire given endless time and energy. So the only way to bill for that becomes the speed at which you acquire the data. You pay for the data speed and that funds the infrastructure to supply that speed indefinitely. End of story. The only reason data caps exist is that they want to charge more money for you to use less bandwidth so they can sell that bandwidth to other people. When what should really happen is, they should invest in higher bandwidth capacity and sell that to their customers to return on that investment.
Either supply me infinite speed and bill me for the amount of data used or supply me infinite data and bill me for the bandwidth. Not both.
view more: next ›
At the end of the day those roadblocks are just laws. Laws that he has been cleared to break as long as he does so under the pretense of an official act.