Canada has a longstanding border dispute too, with the US.
Imagine if Canada launched rockets at the US, because of the border dispute and also because Canada believed US arms shipments to Israel violated international law. It would not end well for Canada.
His entire methodology is contingent on history repeating itself.
Any prediction is based on history. Even pollsters believe the history of polling results before an election can predict how people will actually vote on election day.
What people usually don't realize about the "keys" is that they aren't advocating some political position, like "incumbency is good". It is more like a retrospective clinical study, where you look at a bunch of factors (smoking, exercise, TV watching, eye color) and see which ones best predict some outcome of interest (lifespan). If smoking has an association with lifespan and eye color doesn't, then smoking is a predictor and eye color isn't.
It doesn't matter if people don't understand why smoking would affect lifespan. It doesn't matter if people think eye color should be more predictive than smoking. It doesn't matter if people think cigarettes today are not the same as they used to be, so smoking should no longer be a predictor for lifespan. Predictors are predictors until they actually fail to predict.
arbitrary interpretation
They aren't as arbitrary as they seem, it's just that the media don't go into the full detail.
For example, key 2 is actually "The candidate is nominated on the first ballot and wins at least two-thirds of the delegate votes", which is clearly true
Furthermore, the entire point of this method is that it ignores opinion polls. So it makes no difference whether the public actually wanted a primary contest or not. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether scandals have "lost meaning".
He is similar to popular non-Americans like Berlusconi, Meloni, Le Pen, and Kickl. Americans aren't unique in that regard.
What does that have to do with Lebanon?
Imagine if Mexico launched rockets at the US in 2003 to protest our pointless invasion of Iraq. It would not end well for Mexico.
Why should they be forced to allow other retailers to sell Steam keys at whatever price they want
Because those other retailers already paid Steam for those keys.
If Steam doesn't want to compete against third party key retailers then the solution is not to sell keys to third party retailers. Once Steam takes their money, they have to accept the competition.
all media
Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.
And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.
The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.
Not sure how you did that, the judgment against Alex Jones was in 2022.
Then they had to decide whether Jones could work off his debt or whether he would be forced to sell off his company. The families offered to go with an annual payment, Jones started haggling over the amount, and this year the families said forget it and went with liquidation.
It's not the same result. Politicians have to appeal to voters, they are free to ignore nonvoters.
If you're not voting, then you're not voting for Trump as well as not voting for Harris. Are you surprised that Trump isn't courting your vote? You shouldn't be.
But Harris has no more reason to court your vote than Trump does. You're a nonvoter, so they are both ignoring you.
Yes, their job is to convince voters. The people who will actually vote. They are not trying to convince nonvoters. Nonvoters don't matter.
How many Harris campaign commercials are playing in Paris? Zero, because Parisians can't vote. Harris isn't trying to court Parisians, and for the exact same reason she isn't courting American nonvoters. You've been written off as irrelevant to this election.
"The best strategy is to stay silent on Gaza. Because if everyone is silent on Gaza, then politicians would be forced to ask us: Hey, what are you thinking about Gaza?"
Of course the Silent Treatment strategy won't work. Refusing to vote is the same strategy.
The circular part is where you wonder why nobody is doing anything to help Palestinians.
I'll give you a hint: after the election, pollsters will ask people who voted what the most important issues are to them. Since people like you aren't voting, very few voters will answer "helping Palestinians". Politicians will look at those polls and simply maintain the status quo regarding Palestine, since voters have little appetite for change. And the status quo is sending arms to Israel.
Again and again, the left shoots itself in the foot.
No, they are trying to reach people who are not sure if they are going to vote.
They are not trying to reach people like you, who have decided not to vote.
It's not on me, it's on the candidates and parties to court my vote.
You completely misunderstand politics.
Voters aren't consumers. Politicians aren't companies trying to maximize market share. All they need is 51% of the people who actually vote. If you don't vote, then you literally aren't part of the equation.
"It's on parties to court my vote" is like "It's on Starbucks to court my filling out a comment card". Starbucks doesn't care at all if you fill out a comment card or not. They just want the people who do fill them out to write positive comments.
it would force the government to legitimize itself
LOL, no. It wouldn't force the government to do anything.
Since you've never seen a ballot, try googling one. You'll see a bunch of downballot races in which very few people vote. Those races all have winners, and those winners always have and always will give zero fucks about legitimizing themselves to nonvoters.
Politicians see Gaza as relatively unimportant because American voters generally see Gaza as relatively unimportant. Poll after poll shows that voters are far more interested in affordable housing and women's rights. And by "voters" I mean the people who will actually vote, so that doesn't include you.
When voters think Gaza is more important than affordable housing and women's rights, politicians will too.
That's not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.
One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren't neutral.
You're not voting for them anyway, so they don't need to listen to you.
Eh, not always. Just ask Steve Bannon, federal inmate #05635-509.
Hey, let's consider more than a single issue.
And if the leader of the second biggest party would rather work with the third biggest party?
Then the biggest party could well remain out of government, because someone decided that a different coalition would form the government.
The virtue of a two party popular vote is that once the votes are counted there is a clear winner determined by the voters, and nobody can change the winner behind the scenes.
Shifted to the right?
You realize FDR refused to put any form of health insurance into the New Deal because he thought it would be too socialist to pass?
Parties pay the most attention to donors and primary voters, both of whom usually vote for the party in November.
If you never vote for Democrats, then as far as they're concerned you're in the same category as MAGA. They don't listen to those people either.
If you've really old enough to remember Nixon, then you should know that Democratic administrations are only able to accomplish one major legislative initiative, and sometimes not even that.
If you expect Democrats to make major progress on multiple problems at once, then you simply don't understand how US politics work. The system is not meant to deliver rapid progress at the national level. That's why many of the things on your list are addressed at the state level instead.
Compared to FDR, Democrats have moved left on health care (Medicare, ACA), gay rights (RFMA), race (VRA, Civil Rights Act), social welfare (Medicaid, SCHIP), women's rights (Civil Rights Act, Lily Ledbetter), environment (IRA), drugs (multiple statewide decriminalization laws) ...
That's a long list of problems that FDR didn't put any effort into solving, at all.
Your eyes will tell you that Republicans successfully fought all those things, yet you refuse to believe them.
No, they aren't.
If you're old enough to remember Nixon then you're old enough to remember Phil Gramm, Zell Miller, and Sam Nunn. All of them Democrats who were more conservative than any Democrat today.
More recently, Lieberman, Manchin, and Sinema all left the party. Every time a conservative Democrat leaves, the party center of gravity moves left.
Believe it or not, there is another political party in the US. They are supported by half the country and are successfully advancing their agenda, in part because people like you don't put any effort into stopping them.
If you support everything FDR did, but nothing more, then by definition you are neither to the left nor the right of FDR.
If you support everything FDR did, except you also support the tiniest bit of health care reform, then by definition you are to the left of FDR.
Unless you vote for Democrats, you really aren't.
Then ask Pete Navarro or Mark Meadows.
Fair enough
In part, yes. It gives extremists more voice in government then they deserve.
Holding a contempt vote while they are in government is kind of pointless, because the DoJ is unlikely to prosecute its own.
Anyway let's put it this way: in the past ten years only one Democrat has been found in contempt of Congress.
The Harris and Trump teams don't agree about whether mikes should be cut when their opponent is speaking.
You might think Team Harris wants the mikes cut. But actually, they want the mikes kept on throughout the debate. Team Trump wants them cut, because they are afraid Trump won't be able to control himself and end up looking bad. Which I think is hilarious.
If you destroy privately owned art that the public couldn't see, does it make a sound?
FWIW, a few weeks ago I went to a Midwestern county fair. The state went blue in 2020 but this particular county voted 60% Trump, higher than the one in the article (56%).
Before I arrived I braced for the worst.
Nothing. No one sold Trump merch. At most I saw one or two people who brought their Trump hats or t-shirts. There was a monster truck show and the announcer never mentioned politics. I counted a handful of Trump bumper stickers in the parking lot.
Zero Trump yard signs spotted on the road back to where we were staying, even though there were lots and lots of yard signs for various county or municipal candidates. So they weren't completely disengaged politically.
I'm sure many of the people I saw will vote for Trump again this year. But they weren't so willing to advertise that.
I've been told Biden is guilty of genocide, is that no longer true?