It’s just Trump’s typical defense - accuse the other side of what you’re doing before they can, so when they say it, it’s at worst a “both sides” issue to the public.

Yeah, I was amazed by Atlas Shrugged too…when I was 14.

Isn’t the under 18 procedure pretty much reserved for those who are a high risk of suicide unless they can transition?

In court there’s such a thing as a directed verdict, and also ruling on an issue as a matter of law. Basically where there’s no reasonable jury that could decide otherwise, the judge directs the decision.

That’s kind of how I feel - not removing the democratic process obviously, but this is a situation you can be for Trump or reasonable, not both.

Just for fun: this would have worked so much better if they price dropped the PS5 and introduced the PS5 Pro at the old price.

People are anchored into thinking the PS5 is a certain value, and if they did that, it would instantly make the PS5 Pro and the PS5 appear to be a bargain, and so much of the PS5-owning public would have bought another system because it would be “such a good deal,” while PS5 fence-sitters would jump at the core system. I’m not trained to say for sure, but I think while their profit margin would be lower they’d be making much more money.

Ah, yes. “It was sarcasm.” Trump pulled that last night too.

If you didn’t like it then I meant something different and you just didn’t get it. Women love that response.

Kamala eventually got around to referencing his “love letters” to Kim Jong Un, but I was hoping so hard she would note that Mr. “I’m so powerful, they’re all afraid of me” saluted the guy.

“I’m not a puppet, you’re the puppet.”

I also feel like the moderators were relatively good at calling out egregious lies and not giving Trump the final word. Usually.

But yeah, Trump apparently controlled the mics, not the moderators.

Yeah, I watched Trump train the moderators live. They gave in once and then he would keep doing it more and more until they gave in every time.

Then Harris tried to get an extra response like Trump did near the end and they just ignored her.

They’re an English professor, in that they profess to speak English. I think their name was also very English, maybe Prof. John Barron?

I’m still just like, we all are looking at the same guy, right?

The obvious conman? The guy who said the 2020 election was stolen before voting even ended, and had been giving signals he wouldn’t accept the results unless he won months before? The guy who we heard tell Raffensberger to find the votes to steal the election for himself? The guy whose comms director sounds like a North Korean news anchor?

I feel like you just need a 7-year-old’s credibility detector to see the man is lying and not credible. It’s that hard? I can’t keep up with how quickly I need to lower my expectations.

This is what we should’ve spent every waking moment doing since 2016. Why do we distract so easily…

only site’s

*cite’s

(… /s)

Every time there is funding on the table, the Republicans take the country hostage and create a crisis unless they get something completely unrelated, unjustified and partisan. I’m getting pretty tired of this skipping record.

The main goal of misinformation not to convince people of its truth, although that helps when it happens. It’s to create enough noise to drown out signal and make people disengage. That cognitive dissonance is exhausting, and the exhaustion in turn makes other misinformation and law/norm-breaking easier to proliferate.

The classic Republican platform: “Government doesn’t work. Elect us and we’ll prove it.”

I like the term I first read today, “sanewashing.”

Journalistic neutrality standards are good things when reporting on ambiguity, but you can’t give equal deference to both delusional and sane individuals.

I suspect between Russian influence operations and the billionaire sociopaths, Trump’s funding isn’t a factor at this point.

But I’m doomscrolling these comments trying to find any practical silver-lining, so I genuinely appreciate this attempt.

From her Wikipedia:

On August 8, 2024, she crossed the floor and joined the Republican Party.[5][6] Upon switching her party affiliation, Alvarado-Gil lost all her committee assignments, and was forced out of the Latino Caucus.[7] Alvarado-Gil is fiscally conservative and had previously voted with Republicans on labor legislation. However, she is also “pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+ rights and anti-Trump”.[8]

She’s pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+, and anti-Trump, but somehow decided that the GOP of August, 2024 - the opposite of all those things - better represents her?

Kay…