But do you think he had no strong feelings one way or the other? He certainly put forth the image of him wanting the best for everyone but his hands were pretty firmly in the controls of most of his worst policy decisions.
I'd argue Bush, Jr. is a better example of a centrist with no strong opinions on anything (and, thus, enabling those around him to do truly awful things).
It's O. K. to admit you didn't understand something but it's pretty evidently not saying nothing; I can use smaller words, if that'd help.
Funny; probably the opposite of yours.
Facing the toilet paper outward increases the chance that the paper rips with the roll being in such a position that the loose portion of the roll is lying exactly against the roll: I don't want to have to spin the roll to be able to get to the loose bit. Having the loose bit closer to the wall – probably by virtue of being further away from the user – more often results in it being ripped such that a bit is hanging below the roll, making it easier to grab more often. It's, in total, a much more consistently enjoyable user experience.
Also, less being constrained only to countable objects is an artificial and unintuitive definition. It's not like further vs. farther, describing two distinct concepts which never overlap. Fewer is in reference to counting by individual elements so it wouldn't make sense to apply to things which aren't inherently segmented but it's entirely possibly to measure less of the total of a segmented collection. To say less milk is to take a reduction of the total amount of milk available; this is perfectly feasible with a segmented collection, like cookies. To say less cookies is to take a reduction of the total amount of cookies, something fully measurable and actionable. It is merely that fewer is applicable to a subset of the things which less is applicable.
To argue otherwise is to try and create an artificial construction against the intuitive logic inherent in the natural construction.
I had not realized the latter was a hill I'd die on but, boy, will I, now.
While I agree with you, it shouldn't be forgotten that Hilary still had the popular vote. I think the Dem.s will still win due to Harris not being as hated as Hilary, likely better campaigning than Hilary, Trump being an abysmally bad candidate (just in terms of general political competency, regardless of his beliefs/positions; I think them winning will continue people not taking that point seriously enough), and Harris actually being able to bring out black (and, I would wager, Indian) voters.
I don't think that black people were necessarily excited about Hilary but they absolutely are about Harris. I think they can likely win like this; it won't be a landslide but it'll be O. K.
I agree with what you think they ought to be doing (I want to push the Overton window leftward and going back to the center after it's been pushed so much leftward over the last 8 years is both frustrating and bad policy) but I think Kamala has a bunch more shoring up than Hilary did. I also think it's going to convince Dem.s that this is the way to win; if Kamala continues to govern from the center rather than like her voting record in the Senate, I think we get the same rush to neoliberalism Clinton ushered in. But I'm hoping otherwise.