You don’t have to if you don’t want.

But whether you like it or no rich entertainers like Taylor Swift get lots of media and views. Which parleys into influence and bringing attention to a candidate or an idea.

This is the reason why anyone that wants to grow a brand and/or an idea will try to get a celebrity to endorse it.

Edit: This doesn’t mean they know more than the average joe it’s all about marketing

I think this company has few different teams that work on the problem from different angles

Some are on the boats in the Pacific some are building interceptors in rivers in countries that are the largest producers of waste that makes it to the ocean. Of course they can’t fix the problem just slow it down. The fix comes from these countries changing how they allow garbage to be collected and stored.

If that is the case, then it reads like California is solving the wrong problem.

If a person is undocumented due to their parents decision, then the federal government should make it much easier for them to become an American citizen.

deleted by creator

Yet, somehow trump would be able to get away with it.

Serious question:

What would it look like for Harris or the DNC to be a bully to trump?

I remember watching this movie when I was around 12 years old. Had never heard of it before just started watching it and loved it. It’s It has become one of my top 3 favorite movies. It also introduced me to the world of the blues and some of the best blues musicians/singers.

I remember buying the soundtrack on CD and playing it over and over again. I think I was the only pre-teen that knew of Cab Calloway and could sing “hi-de-ho” .

wow, I was a weird kid

and having a strong and active FTC working to enforce price gouging laws would really help too.

Having a strong and active FTC working to break apart (almost) monopolistic grocery store chains would be a good start.

From a different post but I think it works here too:

I think the error is calling these people journalist. They are not. They are content creators.

Their job isn’t to get to the truth, it’s to drive clicks and comments. It’s to enrich them and their employer.

There are good journalist still out there but since they don’t play to the almighty ALGORITHM they get drowned out.

Capitalism that is bounded by strong regulations that are consistently and fairly enforced by government (the people) entities isn’t that bad.

It’s when those regulations get watered down or just removed in the name of “freedom” that we get what we have now.

A week before the Hamptons fund-raiser, on July 25, Mr. Trump stunned one of his wealthiest patrons, Miriam Adelson, the widow of the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, by having an aide, Natalie Harp, fire off a series of angry text messages to Mrs. Adelson in Mr. Trump’s name, according to three people with knowledge of what took place.

The texts were particularly jarring because Mrs. Adelson and Mr. Trump had a friendly meeting just a week earlier at the Republican National Convention, according to a person briefed on the matter. The texts complained about the people running Mrs. Adelson’s super PAC, Preserve America, into which she is pouring millions of dollars to support Mr. Trump.

At the time, Preserve America was spending nearly $18 million on a week’s worth of ads aiding Mr. Trump in three battleground states. The texts said that the officials running Preserve America were “RINOs” — Republicans in name only — and that Mrs. Adelson’s late husband would never have tolerated that, the people said.

According to two of the people, aides to Mrs. Adelson later discovered that the outburst against her had been encouraged by another major Trump donor, Ike Perlmutter, the former chairman of Marvel Entertainment, who had hoped in vain that Mrs. Adelson would contribute to a rival super PAC that he backs.

They are starting to eat their own.

Kinda shows what kind of person she is.

Speaker Johnson will refuse to swear into Congress on January 3rd a handful of those Democrats, claiming there are “irregularities” in their elections that must be first investigated.

There’s nothing Democrats can legally do to stop Speaker Johnson from pulling this off: he can postpone swearing a member in for as long as he wants.

Then, regardless of how many votes Biden won by, electoral or popular, the House simply refuses to certify the electoral college votes of enough states that the minimum of 270 isn’t reached. Under the 12th Amendment, like with the election of 1876, that throws the election to the House, where each state has one vote.

While a majority of Americans live in a state run by Democrats, a majority of the states themselves are run by Republicans. Each state gets one vote for president in the House, and right now 26 state delegations are GOP-controlled, meaning that a majority of the House would simply vote to put Trump back into the White House, 26-23 (Pennsylvania’s delegation is 50/50). All totally legal.

I think people get too tied up with this idea of the “perfect” candidate

No candidate was, is, or shall be perfect.

Every politician that you have the opportunity to vote for will have some aspect of their past or their platform that you (or other voters) will disagree with in some capacity. And I fear that this need for perfection in their candidate is fertile ground for others to manipulate people’s attitudes towards not voting for an imperfect but otherwise good candidate.

What is the purpose of this comment?

Are you saying that because she uses a teleprompter too much she isn’t going to be a good president?

Are you saying this because you are equating her use of a teleprompter to her intelligence?

Are you saying this with the intention of getting people to not vote for her because she isn’t perfect ?

Or are you just making a random statement about her?

We are going to see lots of this type of bullshit.

It’s the GOP and related “news” outlets that are throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I think that not having or discussing policies is a feature not a bug.

It started with the GOP and the DNC pick up on it. The idea being that if you don’t talk about a policy then your opponent can’t attack you for it. Instead every election cycle politicians talk in big generalities and no real substance because it’s a safer strategy.

I’ve dealt with this too from an anti-vaxxer. It’s really frustrating when you can’t even agree on a common source for the data being discussed.

With this person, every source I told them I got my information from was wrong or biased - yet that same rebuttal from me about their sources were loudly talked over and/or the goal posts were moved.

I think the four part series called The West by Ken Burns is shorter and probably better.