His support in Wisconsin is largely outside of Milwaukee. And his core MAGA base wouldn’t stop supporting him if he showed up and took a shit on their porch. Hell, they’d probably agree with Trump about Milwaukee (regardless of how they felt before Trump said anything) rather take any offense.

But of course, I also assume that Trump didn’t think about anything like this before opening his noise hole. He just says whatever nonsense passes througg his failing neurons and manages to escape his mouth.

I learned the term from a dirty limerick in a sci-fi anthology about dinosaurs that I picked up in middle school at a school library book sale. It was told by a telepathic tree which was trying to convince a guy to jack off into a condom and shove an acorn in it so it could reproduce, as that’s how it had been created. It was weird.

Sounds to me like a way of backing down from their saber-rattling and threats of invasion while trying to not look like they are backing down from anything.

[Realizes he’s talked up a war that would be disastrous, win or lose] “We’re not going to do that, it’s exactly what they want us to do”

Of course, that could also just be Xi being full of shit for diplomatic reasons. It’s not like he’d be bound by this in any way. “We’re not going to be tricked by their provocations” can always be followed by a “but now they’ve forced our hand.”

I find it interesting that guys like this who want to start a race war always think that this is the thing that’s going to do it. Like we’ve made it through all the other hate crimes, injustices and large scale protests without erupting into a race war, but one more incident will do the trick.

Also interesting is how closely his plan is tied to the election. He isn’t just trying to send a message before the election, he specifically thinks that his side needs a specific outcome in the election for his plan to succeed. This plan seems to be a direct consequence of current political environment and the messages coming from his preferred candidate and his supporters.

Now the article doesn’t actually say which candidate needs to win in order to embolden violent white supremacists. But if you need 2 guesses, you should probably consider going back into the coma you’ve been in for the past decade, you’re not going to like the future.

She believed it only because she had experienced many similar revelations during the last few years, ever since she heeded Trump’s warnings about the “corrupt, lying mainstream media” and decided to disconnect her television. Her friends introduced her to far-right media platforms online like Mike Lindell’s Frank Speech and The Elijah List, where each day she listened to a rotation of self-proclaimed patriots, biblical prophets and also sometimes political figures like Lara Trump. They offered Zakas not only conspiratorial ideas but also the promise of a community that extended far beyond the loneliness of her house, with a grandfather clock ticking away in the living room and views out the window of an emptiness that stretched clear into California. Each day, something urgent was happening in the far corners of the internet — something big and dark and secret, and that knowledge fueled her days with both purpose and agency.

A major part of the problem is that a large portion of the population will always choose the lies that resonate with them over the truths that bother them. And while I would love to see legal consequences for fraud and defamation when possible, that can only reduce the damage being done, and force the bigger names in misinformation to stay in a gray area of half truth and innuendo while still misleading people for economic and political gain. They can still lead people to the wrong conclusion, they just need to phrase it as a question rather than a statement (Note: This is a massive oversimplification).

I don’t see a good solution to the problem. Any tool strong enough to stop media that isn’t just overtly committing fraud and slander is a tool that will also likely be used to silence dissent and legitimate free speech.

She came to believe, along with millions of others, that Covid was a creation of the federal government used to manipulate the public and steal elections; that two doses of the vaccine would make men infertile; that Trump had been anointed to lead a “government cleansing”; that fighting had already begun in underground military tunnels; that Trump’s election in 2024 was preordained by God; that he would return to power with loads of gold collected from other countries that had capitulated to his power; that, during his next term, Americans would have free electricity, zero income tax and “medbeds” powered by a secret technology that could harness natural energy to heal diseases and extend human life; and that the only thing standing in the way of this future was a deep state so malicious and vast that its roots extended all the way into tiny Esmeralda County.

But maybe psychiatric help would be a good place to start.

The NDA was apparently against voluntarily cooperating with law enforcement. Essentially, it was agreeing to only cooperate to the extent required by law.

That’s still bad, but wouldn’t overtly compel someone to commit a crime. It’s just heavily implying that crimes are being committed and could easily push someone to do something illegal simply to cover their own ass.

It now has a bonus against evil outsiders and undead.

Cease and desist or he will “consider his legal options” which is about the emptiest threat possible.

Oh no! He’s going to think about how he has no case because everything they’re reporting is factual and he’s a public figure.

Not in a million fucking years Sony. I would have gladly given you my money, but apparently that’s not good enough for you.

I guess Sony didn’t want my money after all.

Nearly three decades ago, I remember my grandpa being pissed about proposed changes to social security which were supposed prevent it from going bankrupt. When I asked what his solution was, he said that he paid into the system his whole life, and they owe him the full benefits he was promised. He got a lot more pissed when I asked if he was fine with me paying into the system my whole life and getting nothing, but he didn’t really have an answer. And somehow, I’m sure he thought he won that argument.

To be clear, I was just pointing out that the savings aren’t coming from eliminating the death penalty, they are coming from reducing the number of appeals, and therefore increasing the likelihood that an innocent person will spend the rest of their life in prison, which is a bad thing. I’m not advocating for or against the death penalty, but I do think that a life sentence should come with just as many safeguards as a death sentence. The fact that you could release someone who was wrongfully convicted only matters if you actually allow those mistakes to be corrected.

We could use improvements at every part of the process. The appeals process however can be particularly awful, and is full of arbitrary restrictions and limitations that have little effect other than making it harder to correct mistakes and injustices. Some of them were put in place for no reason other than because politicians wanted to look tough on crime, and apparently overturning convictions looks bad for the justice system’s track record. But really I was only bringing it up because it’s relevant to the cost argument.

Isn’t the reason it costs more to keep someone on death row largely due to the appeals they get?

I’d much rather we spend more making sure we aren’t destroying the lives of innocent people than save money by not giving them as many chances to get an unjust sentence overturned. Which isn’t necessarily a pro-death penalty position, as it could also be a call to reform the appeals process for everyone else.

Part of the issue is the balance between the stakes of the current election vs the value of the potential change for future elections. It’s possible for someone to be willing to stay home or choose a different candidate as a protest vote during one election, and then view those same strategies as monstrously irresponsible in a different election.

And to add another layer of complexity, keep in mind that both parties are fluid and can change radically over time as factions within them rise and fall.

For example, in some alternate timeline where Clinton got the nomination in 2008, a protest vote against Clinton would have risked a McCain presidency, which would have likely been the most moderate Republican president in modern history. This would have been short term loss for Democrats but likely would have been a long term win for progressives. The Democrats would likely have shifted to the left as they sought more candidates that appeal to their base, and the Republicans would have had their more moderate wing exerting greater influence and filling their leadership positions.

The situation we have today involves very high stakes, in that Trump and pals are threatening serious damage to the basic principles of democracy and rule of law, in addition to all of their horrifying policies. And the message that the Republican party will get from the next election is especially critical. Trump won in 2016, but they performed poorly in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Their shift to the right and the purging of anyone not 100% loyal to Trump has lead to a significant brain drain and a shrinking of the party.

A Trump victory would help the worst people keep a stranglehold on the party, while another defeat would send the message that their current path is a dead end. There’s a sizable portion of the Republican party that isn’t particularly happy with the MAGA crowd, but who are willing to go along with them if it means winning, and others who are just trying to keep their heads down because dissent is punished harshly. The power struggle that would occur after another Trump loss would very likely push the party to move back towards something resembling sanity and competence.

Hell, just being rid of the 800 pound orangutan in the room would make it easier for both sides to work together on the things that shouldn’t be partisan. We didn’t have a problem getting Ukraine aid passed until Trump started exerting pressure, which only got worse when he vetoed a speaker candidate that supported Ukraine aid in favor of the current one who is more than willing to open his ass cheeks for Trump’s puppeteering hand.

Not everyone ignores the problem. Some will actively make it worse just to stick it to the people warning about the problem.

Those are in the future, not a long time ago.

There are currently billions in subsidies offsetting the costs of constructing more chargers, which will bring in continuous revenue long after the construction is paid off. Continuous revenue being that thing that so many other Tesla projects are not bringing in. And the number of vehicles paying to use these chargers is about to go up as most other manufacturers recently agreed to change their standard and rely on Tesla’s charging infrastructure. And with range anxiety and the perceived lack of charging infrastructure being consistently cited as one of the main things holding people back from switching to EVs, future growth depends on increasing the availability of charging. Plus, with Tesla pushing its app on everyone who wants to use their charging network, I’m sure there’s plenty of data being gathered and sold, making it that much more valuable for them to maintain a near monopoly.

Plus, they have spent years developing a skilled team of experienced employees that know what they are doing and have relationships with all the various vendors, regulators and external stakeholders that need to be dealt with to get things done. And with the non-compete clauses Tesla likes to use having been struck down in court, and Tesla’s charging standard being released as an open standard rather than a proprietary one, anyone they lose can take all that expertise to a competitor. Like, maybe one of those other manufacturers that wants to switch to NACS, and might just want some of those subsidies to pay for chargers that will bring in long term revenue.

I mean, you’d have to be some kind of moron to fuck that up. You’d have to be the king of all morons to fuck that up over your own ego. Especially since the dispute is over how many employees with critical functions you want laid off, while at the same time you are spending money on an ad campaign to convince shareholders to approve a compensation package that costs more than all those laid off employees would have cost over the next decade or two.

My favorite comment in response to Tesla’s terrible decisions: “Man, it’s like their CEO’s on drugs or something”

Golden Goose: [Dutifully laying eggs.]

Musk: [Sharpens axe]

“For him to say, ‘I’m doing it because you’re giving me the money’, is a quid pro quo, but to say, ‘I’m going to do it, so you should want me to get elected’, is not.”

Unless they have a recording if him overtly soliciting a bribe, nothing will come of this. Yes, it’s another example of why he’s a sleazy unethical shit stain, and we all know he’s going to sell out our country and our future if given the chance. But it’s not even in the top 20 reasons not to elect him, and I doubt anyone who still supports him will care.

Oh look, a troll.

For the most part, federal law will override state law. However, states have broader powers in the kinds of laws they can make, while the federal government is more limited. That’s part of why the commerce clause comes up so much, it’s frequently used to justify federal authority in things that would normally be handled at the state level, even if it means stretching the definition of commerce from time to time.

In this case, I’m guessing that this challenge is based on this being a program administered by the state, and partially funded by the federal government. Programs like that generally come with federal requirements that the state has to follow in order to get the funding. The federal government can exert significant influence over state policy this way, (for example, the drinking age went from 18 to 21 largely because states that didn’t make the change would have lost federal funds for highways). But there have been cases where the requirements were thrown out for being too coercive and undermining constitutional authority delegated to the states.

Of course, I highly doubt that such a claim would have any merit in this case. But meritless lawsuits aren’t a problem when they stir up support from your base while having no negative consequences for you if you lose. Sure, it costs the state a lot of money, but when the state’s lawyers are your buddies, that’s just doing them a favor.