lemonmelon

Civ IV was peak Civ for me. The changes made going into V just didn't feel like Civ.

Yes, that includes the loss of doomstacks.

Tennessee is somewhat of an outlier, as its other major cities skew red, though at least in part artificially so. Nashville, for example, is part of three different districts now, the 5th, 6th, and 7th. It's been lost to gerrymandering. Knoxville, in the 2nd, and Chattanooga in the 3rd are heavily Republican cities.

The 4th contains conservative-leaning private universities and suburbs of Nashville and Chattanooga.

The 9th District, colloquially "Memphis" in my previous statement, is the only district in the state that currently has a significantly strong Democratic voter base. If anything, it became even more blue after the 2023 re-districting moved part of East Memphis to the already conservative 8th district.

Of the districts other than Memphis, the 5th, which can be thought of as the ghost of Nashville, is the closest to even resembling purple; even so, it has a CVPI of R+9.

Is joke.

In the headline, "pledging to 'murder' shoplifters" is a restrictive participial phrase modifying "texts." Restrictive elements are not offset by commas.

Take away Memphis and see how much the hue of Tennessee shifts towards 0°.

Metal Slug series

Mechwarrior series

Myst

Microsoft Flight Simulator series

Mario Kart series

Mario Party series

Master of Orion series

Marathon series

Mother series

Monster Party

That's just a "best by" date. You can still eat it, though it might taste a bit stale.

UN life expectancy at birth in USA: 79.30 years

UN life expectancy at birth in EU: 81.50 years

UN life expectancy at birth in Hong Kong (world #1): 85.51 years

Even having had time to prepare for this, and knowing it was essentially inevitable, this feels heavy in a way that I'm not sure how to express yet.

Faked photographs intended to serve as deceptive propaganda don't seem like something we should be asking for more of, no matter who the target is.

AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

I'm telling you, Molotov cocktails work. Any time I had a problem and threw a Molotov cocktail, boom! Right away, I had a different problem.

Because I haven't seen it mentioned:

They Live

The Quicksilver Gambit? In modern chess? We're far beyond that!

I see this sentiment often, which has afforded me the chance to reflect on it. The hypothetical smarter, shrewder, Trump-like candidate would likely hold less appeal to the party. As it stands, aspiring connivers operate under the belief that they can exert enough control to get what they want, consequences be damned. Essentially, they are gambling that they can act as the ego to his id on matters that they prioritize. A more intelligent candidate would certainly have a higher degree of agency and thus would be of less value to the manipulators. Trump, and those who resemble him, are the most dangerous sort.

This is the best answer I've been able to formulate as to why those who present as fools and dunces form the face of the MAGA movement. These people are useful idiots who garner support from interested parties focused on specific goals.

This post calls out to me

Yes, but you must:

1. Be immortal
2. Have inside you blood of kings
3. Have no rival (no man can be your equal)

He shot three white men and killed two of them. I think he was irresponsible and foolish to insert himself in the situation. I think his motivation for doing so was racially biased.

I also think it is important to be factual where possible. He's already despicable for trying to benefit from the killings. Incorrectly labeling the victims as minorities, even by mistake, weakens the position against him by giving bad-faith actors a point of contention to home in on.

Through the magic of buying two of them.

Can we put that misinformation to bed, please? Her birthday is before the election, which by definition is before inauguration day. Unless you think she's going to suddenly Benjamin Button, she meets the qualification.

Or you might not be.

Could? Possibly, sure.

Would? Why should any ticket guarantee a win based solely on arbitrary characteristics of the candidates? Nothing about being a woman, a man, trans, cis, gay, straight, bi, ace, black, white, Latino, Asian, biracial, triracial, short, tall, hirsute, bald, balding, skinny, jacked, overweight, or any other randomly chosen descriptor should be a factor in electability. The fact that it's even in question is a strong indictment of how we view politics in a broad sense.

What do I get?

But the sons of his opponents wished that he was their dad.

Do you ever get tired of huffing your own farts?

Sensationalist journalism. This manifests as clickbait headlines, agenda pieces, and other such tactics.

The "political" before "Supreme Court apointees" implies a lack of impartiality.

"Election cycle" and "term of office" aren't synonymous.

The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn't land with you is informative.

Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?

Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?

You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren't who you seem to think they would be.

Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.

Secondly, because what we'd see would likely be mortifying.

I mean there's probably some things there that simply can never be unseen. No amount of brain bleach could ever suffice.

Blackberry jam is my go-to

Probably when measures that genuinely protect the right to repair are enacted on a wide scale.

Kamala, her hands outstretched.

Donny, when his mind was fogged.

So you find it acceptable throw a tantrum about humor and memes while tossing around terms like "cheetolini" and "drumpf"? Do you see the inherent lack of consistency involved?

Bird up

To add to your point regarding additional functions inherent in smartphones: pagers do one thing. They're relatively simple devices. Simplicity means that there are fewer things that can cause the device to function incorrectly or fail to function altogether. In hospital communications use-cases, this is a huge benefit.

Additionally, pagers are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, it's much more effective to have multiple spares available for distribution compared to smartphones. If a pager is inoperable, it can quickly be swapped out with a backup while the original is repaired or replaced. Smartphones do not carry that benefit.

A pop-tart

When the aliens show up, you're already prepared. See? Swing away, Merrill.

The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

It's cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn't care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we're dealing with a different conversation altogether.

Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

You can definitely take too much and have a bad time

You've just alluded to a toxic reaction due to overdose. The term overdose does not exclusively refer to the median fatal dose, nor does it hinge on the risk of lethality.

See that's the whole problem, gotta shell out for better wigs.

"It costs a lot of money to look this cheap!"