He wants them to help the next time. That’s a pretty tangible benefit

There is a possibility that Elno gets EVs mandated, or at least promoted to a greater extent. Of course this will only be for Tesla, but there would be a ripple effect on other brands.

If they didn’t already know about it, they’re pretty shitty execs. It’s been SOP for decades

Repeated ad nauseum? Only in the furthest left areas of the Internet did I hear it mentioned more than in passing. It was a very brief series of news posts. It came up in the debate, and he managed to brush it off as not being his. And everyone just let him get away with that answer.

Do you have any idea how many mailers I got about “stopping the liberal agenda”? If there had been as many, or any at all about P25, maybe people would’ve been appropriately concerned

It’s little solace, but not all destination countries will care about that. It might force you to stay away, which creates its own issues.

You’re not wrong, no /s needed. You can look up “campaign donations” and cross reference their undying support. Most politicians are bought for around $10k/election.

I want to believe this. I really do. Maybe the surprise will be that it really did happen.

But I’m not confident. I’m expecting it to be razor-thin, with results unclear even days later.

Some places tried calling him “The Artist”, but it never stuck. Not even “The Artist formerly known as Prince” stuck. But “Prince” has endured to his grave and beyond.

While misrepresenting yourself or your credentials can be fraud, the title of PhD/Doctor (outside of MD) is not regulated, at least not in the US. It’s almost like an endorsement from the university that you passed their tests.

But that’s not very regulated either, and there are countless certifying boards (Boards of Regents, typically).

Falsely claiming to have a PhD in Neuroscience from Harvard, or an honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts from Knox College, would be fraud. But just saying that you have a PhD without specifying anything more specific is not.

And it comes up regularly - an easy example is the author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

How would she tell the story?

How confident are you in that?

As the saying goes, Steel wins battles, gold wins wars. That’s why I’d bet on California.

Ohio here. The vast majority of nonvoters that I’ve met hold generally left-leaning viewpoints. If they were forced to vote, and did even the most basic research, they would overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

That said, I acknowledge that my experiences have a skewed demographic, and may not represent the population as a whole.

• Children that won’t talk to him.

The most likely scenario is that both the presidency and vice presidency would be vacant. That means it would go to the speaker of the House, most likely to still be Mike Johnson.

But if Democrats have an unexpectedly good result, they could control the House and elect a new speaker. Similarly, Republicans could replace Johnson with someone else.

I agree. That was an additional detail that I did not cover, as I wanted to keep it relatively simple. I expect that the anti-Netanyahu Jewish voters are unlikely to switch to voting Trump, given that the latter is firmly and openly pro-genocide.

What, specifically, did I say that you disagree with?

To be clear, at no point was I trying to justify any actions. My only goal was to explain the strategic path that would lead to it. And of course there are additional nuances, which I alluded to at the end.

Besides, a winning strategy is not an indicator of ethics.

It’s a numbers game. There are WAY more Jewish people in the US than there are Arabs (~7.5 vs 3.5 million, according to a quick Google search).

Strategically, those Jewish voters are also more likely to switch to a Republican vote than the Arabs, regardless. It would take 2 Arabs (or any other Democratic voter) sitting out to counter a single Democratic voter switching to a Republican vote.

Granted, none of this accounts for voter locations (because only the 7 swing states matter), voter enthusiasm, claims of national security, or (most importantly of all) ethics.

The difference is that with Biden, it was something new and recent. Trump’s been like that for decades at least. It’s hard to say that it’s because of his age, but that doesn’t change the end result.

They both end at noon on January 20, 2025. In such a scenario, it is likely - but not guaranteed - that both would be vacant. At that point, it would go to the (new) speaker of the House