Show me the millions of dollars from oil companies to the Harris Walz campaign which are public record. Actually provide your evidence, don’t just conjure it with words.

EDIT

Here, I’ll do your work for you since you dont seem ready to substantiate your comments.

The Harris campaign has taken 661 thousand dollars from oil interests. There’s actually a house candidate who took more, even though she’s running a presidential campaign!

And 9 of the other top 10 recipients and honestly almost the whole list of recipients are her Republican enemies. It’s clear they are funding her opponents.

So how much loyalty did they buy for their $600k? (Not “millions” of dollars as you mis-called it). I doubt very much at all.

Harris took in $47 million in donations in the 24 hours after the debate. If anything this is chump change from the oil industry to just maybe say hey don’t obliterate us. She doesn’t work for them.

No, you are wrong, her position is about swing state voters.

The fact of the matter is that the parties are arguing over a small slice of swayable or “undecided” voters in a small slice of states that are in play ie: “swing states” and each party is honestly focusing on a subset of swing states they think they can win.

The result is that their messages look really odd at times and don’t always line up with what the majority of their party want. Because the majority of their party are safe votes. They’re going after the wingnuts in the middle and on the margins, few as they are, dumb as they are.

This is a far more obvious explanation than “she’s in the pocket of Big Oil.” A lot of Pennsylvanians work for Big Oil. So there is more going on right in the light of day than the clandestine bribery which by your own admission you have no evidence for. Occam’s razor, here.

The “mass” is small and more importantly, located in safely blue states anyway. I’m extremely liberal and I accept that these presidential elections are never going to be about me. I still vote in them because I’m not a moron. But I put more of my energy into the Democratic primary, always trying to tug the D party left. And I focus on state county and city ballots where these ideas are much more in play.

That’s the adult move here. The teenager move is to vote 3rd party or not at all because the political world hasn’t rolled a red carpet out to your doorstep.

To play devils advocate on their behalf: why chase the people who are on the extreme end of your side of the spectrum? Most of those people probably live in safe blue states, and they’re never going to flip and vote R in any case. There aren’t enough far left liberals to truly worry about as most people are somewhere in the middle. For every far left radical the Democrats please, they disaffect three moderate Democrats, who then maybe don’t vote.

Yes it looks weird when they try to cater to the odd and very narrow slice of undecided / persuadable voters, but that’s exactly what they should be doing. And there is more to lose than gain by chasing extreme left voters.

Signed, an extreme left voter.

No he’s made of shit. Shit does stick to him, it just doesn’t matter.

Those guys just don’t want to see the US go the way of Europe where scorched-earth capitalism has been tamed and extreme wealth is taxed extremely. They are wealthy beyond avarice and STILL don’t feel they are free because they come up against regulations and institutions.

They capitalize on the rural Trumpism because it is the path most likely to lead to unchecked capitalism. Remember, the US isn’t like Europe - yet. And It will take a lot of work to get it there. All those rich guys need is a government that will do nothing. So not only is tax-cut Trump their friend objectively, he creates chaos. And chaos prevents action. Rancorous divisiveness means a logjammed national agenda. Which is all they want: no action. Look the other way while they rape the world.

Fun piece. I don’t know about best explanation ever.

It starts out talking about how movies idealize simple honest people from the heartlands (Star Wars, The Hunger Games, Braveheart) but then says:

the whole goddamn world revolves around them. Every TV show is about LA or New York, maybe with some Chicago or Baltimore thrown in. When they did make a show about us, we were jokes

So which is it? Does pop culture feed rural America’s sense that it is “Real America” or does it make them hillbillies?

As if explaining politics through TV and movies isn’t reductive enough, it can’t seem to keep its own story straight for ten paragraphs in row.

His debate performance was stunning because he spent 75% of his time talking about how we are being invaded by an enormous wave of criminals and insane asylum escapees who are violently claiming buildings and territory. I was like excuse me? Do I need to go check my yard for invaders? I didn’t realize we were being overrun. And yes I live in a state that borders Mexico.

On top of that we’re asking a random assortment of Americans to compare where they live with the places they visit on vacation. Watch your wallet in Europe, people are saying. Duh, yeah, when you are a tourist in a tourist area. That’s universal, folks.

By the same token, people shouldn’t over-generalize about the US either. It’s a big place with massive differences from place to place.

I like the usually-better public transit systems. You have an advantage over us in that many of your biggest cities were established long before cars even came about, so they are not planned out as car-cities first and foremost. I’m in California where the automobile was a reality by the time most everything was being built. And in those days, people were excited by cars and the liberty they brought. Cars are much more fun when there aren’t too many of them and you have the open landscape before you. So the region I live in was planned as a love letter to cars and now we are living with all the downsides of that model being overloaded.

Obviously the whole picture is more complex than this - European cities have been rebuilt and replanned, sometimes after WW2 mass destruction. But still I think the effect of having an earlier establishment does make a difference in this way.

Buses drive outside.

People tend to step outside for a smoke.

So yeah, you actually might be more likely to get hit by a bus if you smoke, your smoking spot is anywhere near a bus route, and you are ducking out there 2-4 times a day to stand there smoking while you play with your phone.

I’ve even seen human engineers’ code thrown out because no one else could understand it. Back in the day, one webdev took it upon himself to whip up a mobile version of our company’s very complex website. He did it as a side project. It worked. It was complete. It looked good. It was very fast. The code was completely unreadable by anyone else. We didn’t use it.

Please don’t judge what women can provide by this sad, angry man.

To your core topic, of course you can be married and lonely. Being married doesn’t necessarily mean you are spending a lot of quality time together, or genuinely communicating when you do. Married people have jobs, housework, kids to take care of, and whatever time remains after that is often exhausted recovery time when not a lot of social intercourse is happening.

Conservatives often have more of a “battle of the sexes” mentality where men are supposed to be MEN and women are supposed to know their place. First of all this warps everyone since these roles may not suit their native personality. And on top of that, the male role includes a bunch of sexism - be stoic around women, etc. Conservative men try to be stoic overall, but a lot of them are also loudmouths because their values are so black-and-white they have a tendency to really, really think they are right and therefore should tell the world.

This guy is probably stoic around his wife and a loudmouth at work. A healthier person would have a marriage where they can talk about what’s bothering them, and then be professional at work. He’s clearly got emotional problems but then Conservatives also have backwards attitudes about mental health. It’s not something they think about and try to manage. Again: black and white. If you’re not fucking crazy then you don’t have a mental health problem, you just need to suck it up. It’s no failing of this man if he is cracking. He’s been set up to fail.

Absolutely you should pity him. That doesn’t mean you have to listen to his loudmouth politics in the workplace.

It is not a moot point, since it was offered as evidence of who this electorate are. No one said Hilary became president.

Not sure if by that 50% part you mean that women all care about abortion rights. They definitely don’t. Conservative women love hurting other women whom they perceive to be sluts. It assuages their pain about dedicating their lives to some bubba of a husband who has never made them cum.

Communism is a form of government based on Marxist ideas about how economic power works. But the two are not one and the same thing. You could say that Naziism is specific movement that was based on racism. But we all know the two words have distinct meanings and are not entirely interchangeable, intimate though their relationship may be.

Right, like if you just rephrase OP’s question as what’s the point of a sports bra, it becomes more obvious. Everyone knows what a sports bra is for, right? Well with significant enough breasts, virtually all movement benefits from some support.

The weird thing to me is how women with very small breasts can still sometimes adhere to a strict bra regime. Some of it is cultural programming, including the terror that your nipples might show through a shirt. This IMO is not worth the cost and maintenance and restriction of a bra.

When people poop on Muslims for covering their women or wonder how some women could ever want to wear a veil, I like to remind them that we do exactly the same thing in the West. It’s just that our bar is set at a different level. No we don’t lose our shit if women show their faces but we still lose our shit if their nipples show.

No, you’re reaching for that word to try to categorically dismiss an argument you have no response to.

Good point. This is often true. I was thinking of early computers with the big tape reels, which definitely didn’t look interesting, but there are other examples like the one you showed.