No. My god, no. What sort of nonsense is that?
You’re taking the position of a catastrophic extreme in response to someone saying they should have been more circumspect about where their money came from.
They should have been more circumspect, though. There’s leagues between acknowledging that and saying that they should be prosecuted by the DOJ.
Case law has been established in the prevention of actual image and text copyright infringement with Google specifically. Your point is not at all ambiguous. The distinction between a search engine and content theft has been made. Search engines can exist for a number of reasons but one of those criteria is obeisance of copyright law.
This is what springs to mind for me as well. OP, you should try to remember this: the people around you are not as concerned with you as they are their own lives. And their own lives are probably pretty intense for them to deal with!
“Your desire to push out the thugs grinding our government’s ability to grow and change to a halt is an extremest view” sure is a weirdo take, isn’t it?
Honestly, as I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize most voting is risk mitigation. I was brought up to think it was about making positive change but votes that do that are less common than the risk mitigation votes.
It’s a convenient wedge issue because although no one disagrees, and Harris is the clear choice, people are very upset about it. That allows the topic to steer people away from reason and into raw emotion. That in turn allows the conversation to become a way to subvert the topic into a general negative sentiment that plants itself association with Harris.
It’s a good manipulation tactic, and you can observe that any dissent turns into a pithy back and forth quickly. That’s going to leave it in the conversation for good. Because we’ll get upset every time it comes up.
It’s a very cynical, awful thing to do. To take the genocide of a helpless people and only serve it when convenient as a wedge issue. But it works, so here we are, talking about them but only when people want to take pot shots at specific politicians.
If you’re implying that they were deliberately sown doubts, I very much agree. I’m not saying a bunch of folks didn’t get duped. I think it was very much to blame on agents provocateur.
What I’m saying is that the acrimony can’t be waved away, not then and not now. It has to be taken seriously even if it was the result of manipulation. Saying “nah you got suckered” gets exactly the kind of lukewarm response it deserves.
I have heard stuff like this so often, and I feel like it’s as silly and callous to say now as it was 8 years ago. The part of the Democrat base that chose time and time again to keep denigrating “Bernie Bros” absolutely own the consequences of their behavior at the time.
In a moment where part of the coalition has doubts, historic precedent isn’t relevant. What is relevant is the work to answer those doubts and that did not happen. Instead the infighting continued and the doubts were ignored. Smug headline after smug headline told potential Hillary voters to shut up and fall in line. But Democrats don’t really fall in line like that.
It doesn’t really matter if other primaries went the same way, because other primaries have also produced failed coalitions. Some are examples of success, some failure. You learn from both. In 2016 we saw infighting and discord dissolve enthusiasm, a crucial part of what gets Democrats to the polls. It’s my feeling that ignoring that is a bad idea.
Yeah I’m reaching with the mail thing. Only because I’ve seen decent results with it. But, not great - Oregon is still just 62% turnout or so and I don’t think they’re sporting better than average young vote numbers.
Republicans definitely don’t realize the only thing holding Democrats together right now is just how totally awful they’re being. A “third way” style move from Republicans where they move to the left would devastate the political landscape. But it would cost them the maniacs and they might not survive the breakup
I agree that it’s a stupid reason not to even try, yeah. But unfortunately it bears out, like it’s one of the reasons why Bernie didn’t do well in the 2016 primaries. His support in younger demographics was striking, but their primary vote attendance was not.
I think the problem is voter suppression, though, and not the voters fault. Making it harder to vote hits younger people directly. Making it easier to do via mail would probably change that dynamic completely.
For anyone seeking broader context, this article was written and published about Wisconsin before a rally which, by all accounts, had a ridiculous showing of young voters.
It also sits buried somewhere far past the election front page, which, a day later, is full of similar stories about record upping voter attendance. Here’s a link https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-presidential-election
Young voters are a notoriously hard demographic, and they don’t pay off to court, not usually. They almost never seem to actually turn up to vote. That’s always going to be a tough problem to solve.
But this article is digging, it really is. And it’s in bad faith.
Maybe, but if so, why not keep talking about it and make them keep answering for it? If you want someone on their back foot then you have to keep them there.
You don’t say.
I gotta tell ya, “is planning on increasing corporate taxes” seems like the right direction to me. So, yes.
It sounds like your wife is in deep grief. MS is torment, and she might be processing that grief for the rest of her life. She may not have space for a romance at all. That may never change. Sometimes, MS doesn’t let you get “back to normal”.
It is deeply crucial that you get everyone to counseling now, and not just individually but in spouse and group sessions. As much as you can afford. You have already started a new dynamic and grieving your old one is natural. But you can still support each other and it’s important to do the work and figure out what that looks like.
Partnerships can be loving and supportive and caring and not romantic. Sometimes it’s a phase that comes back to romance, sometimes not. But you need to be ready to relearn a lot of things and that starts with counseling.
Edit: And oh my gosh, I should have led with this - I’m so sorry y’all are going through this. It’s incredibly hard and I hope you get the help you need.
You ever seen Clerks? This poster reminds me of the Chewlies gum salesperson.
Matt doesn’t have a good idea of who he wants to be at the start of s3. He doesn’t like himself anymore as Murdock or as the Devil. He also wound up in a situation where he didn’t have easy access to his armor, and he kind of resented it anyway. He wants to get hurt, and he thinks he deserves it. So he doesn’t bother trying to salvage it, he decides it isn’t worth the effort. And then later this choice comes back to haunt him.
In this case it’s because he’s obsessed with Lord of the Rings and no deeper than that.
It’s not extreme to seek their prosecution, it’s an extreme leap to jump from a post about how they should’ve known better (they really should have!) to “They should be prosecuted by the DOJ”.
I’m not sure they need to be prosecuted to have these funds seized, though. The government doesn’t even need to ask them for it I don’t think, depending on how the case proceeds. If the money is part of the case it is probably part of the verdict.