I didn’t think he currently had publicly tradable companies, I guess I was wrong. Thank you for the clarification.
What’s funny is that this is literally the Chinese post-Mao approach to both capitalism and socialism. It’s a very short walk from “a good cat catches mice” to “socialism with Chinese characteristics”
Before you stopped reading them, did you have a history of responding to leftists and fighting in the replies? If so, the algorithm is trying to beef back up your engagement numbers by giving you content you previously engaged with.
It’s an honest representation of worldwide X users, which is not an accurate representation of the American voting public. I mean the guy himself said it was unscientific, use the tiniest bit of critical thinking I am begging you - you clearly have some because you aren’t drinking down MSM swill. Use that same critical eye towards good news, please.
And remember that this election is not decided by popular vote.
She was intentionally avoiding too much plastic surgery to avoid flak from left-wing feminists. No reason not to give in to vanity after failing in the most public and humiliating way possible.
It probably has more to do with microplastics.
The insight is that this is a worldwide poll and American elections are not decided by popular vote. Even by the skewed data set of only people who use X (anywhere in the world), Harris is close to the minimum percentage needed to win the election.
I am glad for the people whose spirits are buoyed by seeing millions of people agree with them, just as long as they don’t make the mistake of thinking an internet poll reflects the reality of one nation’s specific election process.
Man I completely forgot that non-Americans are voting in this too, brainfart moment for me. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also, in America, because of the electoral college, you can win the Presidency while only get 30% of the vote. These polls devoid of geographical region are basically meaningless as bellwethers for the election. It illustrates what the political makeup of X is after all the shakeups, and that is indeed interesting, but it doesn’t mean anything outside of X.
Sorry but there’s no way in hell X is an accurate pool to sample from. Y’all wanted the Left to get annoyed and leave the platform and they did. Those that stayed made it a point of pride to unfollow and block Musk.
It’s really disheartening to see a group that rightly disparages the accuracy of and MSM reliance upon polls suddenly throw that away because of one poll that gives them good news they want to hear. Musk himself says it’s unscientific. Listen to him on this one.
This poll proves nothing, because polls inherently prove nothing - they provide a data set from which to make informed conjecture. What evidence this poll does give has less to do with national election results (especially in an electorate college system where you can win with under 30 percent of the total vote), and more to do with the political makeup of X vs Twitter.
It’s an interesting and useful poll but it categorically does not mean what you want it to mean.
(Given the Excellence of the Boys on Our Team) is very particular phrasing
Morning, usually
- “The border” when there’s over 500 of them (Article VI)
- There is simply not enough oil here to do that without heavily investing in controversial practices that make major impacts on available land like biofuel and solar farms
- That would involve a very heavy government hand being put upon the free flow of capital this country was founded on - regardless of whether you think that’s a good or bad thing, a change too large will necessarily bring chaotic elements with it at best, cause corporations to fully move to their tax haven countries at worst
- “Restoring peace in Europe” is a turn-around from the anti-interventionism Trump originally ran on, to say nothing of poking a stick into the beehive that is the Middle East (and frankly, unless we are doing this to secure oil, what’s the point?)
- “Again” is doing A LOT of work there. The issue is less cities being the way cities have always been in human history, and more how that has infected rural areas.
- Sounds good until you remember you have to turn over the keys at some point 14 and 15 sound good in the short term but eventually we are going to have to deal with the looming changes (population decline, finite oil supply) - personally I think America should be trying to get ahead of these issues and aim for first instead of last
- Unfortunately, history tells us that success doesn’t unite. Fear does.
You realize that chromosomes are a blueprint and not the actual building, right? Chromosomal sex just isn’t important here - hormonal sex is the key issue. That’s what actually creates changes in the building, not the chromosomes directly. Of course, the chromosomes influence the hormones, but chromosomal sex and hormonal sex don’t always naturally match, and of course, modern science allows people to directly disrupt that connection.
Which is why people with xy chromosomes who were chemically castrated before the age of 12 are allowed to compete against people with xx chromosomes, because while they do contain a blueprint in their bodies, the actual structure that was built is (in terms of athletic performance) statistically comparable to the structure of xx people who also did not go through male puberty.
It just is not a problem in regards of fair competition, especially when compared against steroids (which also wouldn’t be a fairness problem if everyone was allowed steroids, but I’m against it out of concern for the long-term health of the athlete).
If I were you, I’d be way less concerned about a non-existent threat to fair athletic competition, and more concerned about what the current ruleset incentivizes.
This law can literally be circumvented by custom-printing a mask that says “This is my party mask!” and wearing a plastic lei, or you know, just saying “I need it for health reasons.” This law does not do what you think it does
They were predominantly Asian and occasionally Latin service workers, mostly
Unfortunately, I fear you will get your wish.
Next time, read the fine print.
That’s because there’s nothing conservative about a law that makes it illegal to wear a mask SPECIFICALLY for privacy reasons. It allows people to wear masks for health reasons, it allows Muslim face coverings, it allows masks “for celebratory purposes” which could mean LITERALLY ANYTHING, it specifically does not target anyone you want to target and instead goes directly for the privacy of your very likeness.
Boy, I sure am glad there isn’t currently a revolution in the capability for anyone to easily turn a very small amount of data into very accurate fake footage, or this would seem really bad!
But not for privacy reasons. Handing the government the keys to your face, to say nothing of any rando (or worse) with a phone, just as AI is showing how good a fake can be made from a single Live photo… is probably not a wise long-term move.
Also, the very thing you cites makes this law basically virtue-signalling that at best adds one measley line to a list of charges. This is basically unenforceable in any form other than completely reactive. Cops are not going to be stopping people on the street and administering a temperature check or demanding an authentic prayer to prove they’re they religion they claim, and how the hell do you prove a mask was worn for “a non-celebratory purpose” without evidence of some other crime?
This law doesn’t even help business owners or anything. This bill does only harm to American freedom, and the only reward you get is some pearl-clutching on Twitter.
Want better.
Really? In an age where everyone is walking around with high-tech cameras, as AI is exploding, you really want it to be ILLEGAL to hide your face for privacy purposes? Most of you aren’t dumb enough to post personal pictures on social media, making you way smarter than the average bear, but you really want to preemptively put on the books a nation-wide law rendering you defenseless from anyone stealing your face? You really want to get the government involved in that one?
Because there was no rigging. He was a better candidate. Give him his due.
You have to understand that the DNC has an incompetence matched only by their own self-importance. There was no rigging in 2016 because they truly believed, despite all the evidence, that Clinton was a shoo-in, because they did not and do not see America clearly in the way Trump does.
It’s just a bunch of boomers entrenched in power for decades getting so high on their own supply they OD’d. And frankly, the RNC was headed in the same damn direction, but their “fringe” candidate who was not part of the machine and whom the machine desperately tried to kill (metaphorically) in the primaries was stronger and able to sell a better story than the left’s version (Sanders).
The DNC of course quickly learned their lesson and then pivoted in 2020 to back an (extremely relative) outsider with actual fervent, groundswelling, youthful support behind him, instead of crowning a long-time company man because he put in the work and it’s “his time” and he “deserves it”.
Oh wait
You didn’t mention the broad strengthening of the Executive branch, which is the main source of consternation, not actually a good longterm strategy for stability for anyone, and exactly what Bush and Obama did.
If the DNC actually wanted to win they would have 25th’d Biden at some point in early 2023. What is happening now was entirely foreseeable by many people, but it’s too late. A 25thing with more time before the election would have still obviously been a strategic move, but they could have sold it. He’s an old man, he wants to ride trains with Jill and Corn Pop into the sunset, we get it.
A 25thing this close? Even normies and corpo media will label that as the desperation move it is, and no one’s mind will really be changed, because it’s too obvious the platform hasn’t changed, just the figurehead.
What happened was the DNC insisted on forcing through a candidate that had already been rebuffed by primary voters and ran her against someone with actual popular support.
I knew plenty of people who were happy to vote for the “first female president” who also had the letter next to her name that they liked - very very few of them actually LIKED Clinton as a person or a candidate. They just kind of shrugged at the forcefeeding and accepted it because hey woman and also she had the correct letter. I met maybe two people in 2016 who were EXCITED about voting for Clinton for anything besides “the historic nature” of it.
Actually, fuck, I say that, but I can’t even pull up the two people. I may not have met anyone, and I was doing the con circuit and meeting all sorts of folks that year.
But I am sure we both met many people who were FERVENT with excitement for Trump that year.
That’s why he won. He was the better, stronger candidate who had a more realistic vision of America as it is, and his opponents could not for the life of them see that.
...but White people are underrepresented in the infantry?
I'm confused by this one, must be early
And now we have a new Musk poll showing 50 percent of respondents identify as Republicans, while 20-ish identify as Democrats. This puts the numbers in way more perspective.