its* thing 😉

Generally speaking, people who contribute to society.

I don’t see “gambling on the right cryptocurrency” as a contribution to society. I also don’t see how “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of dollars, euros, etc.” wouldn’t simply become “individuals that own the overwhelming majority of cryptocurrency” by virtue of working with that

Ahhh yes. Some of them are just made up things that people say is totally money, while the others are actually just made up things that people say is totally money. Huge difference, I’m sure.

If by “a big cut” you mean maybe a few percent, and that most businesses take electronic payments anyway because there are advantages (people are more likely to buy stuff when convenient, accounting is easier, less risk of theft/loss than physical cash, etc) then sure, I guess.

If you think the solution is to make up a new kind of imaginary money that takes a shitton of energy to maintain, which has tons of different types (Bitcoin, Ethereum, whatever one was referenced in the initial comment) and would happen to greatly benefit those who happened to be early adopters (TOTAL coincidence, I’m sure)… No.

Why would it have to be a crypto donation? Their bank accounts are in USD. Most of their readers have USD. People can transfer USD. What does some arbitrary crypto thing you want to pretend is money add that makes it better for those “most people”?

The average poll respondent is older, whiter, and more conservative than the average voter. So you end up with a skewed sample.

Any reputable polling group will adjust for that. Granted, fewer and fewer people are answering their phones and taking these polls, but basic demographics are a well-known and pretty easy to adjust for thing. Most polls take a lot of that information for that reason

I think people need to stop thinking that “most likely outcome” = prediction. They gave Trump a 1/4 chance of winning in 2016, which is far from impossible and better than most were saying. Their latest trackers have really emphasized the probability aspect of things, rather than the expected vote share.

They actually did a project about this. Here’s how close they were with US House predictions: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-house-elections/ (you can look up other elections but since there are so many to work with here I thought it was a good place to start)

their options are fairly limited. Ham/cheeseburger, chicken burger, fish sandwich, or nuggets is pretty much your array of options

You must not have been to a McDonald’s in a while. Do you want that chicken sandwich grilled or crispy? Spicy? Are we talking the basic value sammich you can wolf down before you leave the parking lot, or the bigger one that comes in a cardboard box? The one with bacon and ranch, or one of the others? Did you want a combo meal? Lettuce is stupid filler on a sandwich, do you want to skip that?

Funny, I thought people are more likely to go to the polls over things that affect them and their families directly. Abortion and weed legalization being common examples. I’m assuming you have a source to back up the idea that supreme court justice term limits ranks up there in getting people to vote? Also, you do understand the difference between a “popular idea” and something that will motivate people to vote?

My Democratic rep and Senators are in pretty safely blue territory. What am I/they supposed to do about the other half of Congress they have to win over a good chunk of?

As opposed to, like, passing my own constitutional amendment because someone won’t do it for me?

What exactly is a realistic path to make a real one happen?

And that’s an excellent segue to what I was going to bring up upstream: we only have so many resources to drive voters. There are plenty of relatable issues that can drive people to the polls so Trump doesn’t have another opportunity to appoint anyone. Removing SCOTUS lifetime appointments isn’t going to do it. But if we can keep a Democrat in the White House and control in Congress, we may still have lifetime appointments but at least there will be reasonably sane people in the court.

And before you say anything about a false choice fallacy, campaign resources and attention of the voting base are finite.

Certainly not in the current political climate. You think a good chunk of Republicans can get on board with that when they have a 6-3 majority in the court right now?

That will take a constitutional amendment, which… Good luck

Teeeechnically that could mean Russia is threatening them over it, in which case they are threatened by Russia. But that’s just me being a pedantic pain in the ass before bed.

Sounds like a “spectacular” failure to me

It’s not, but it’s a common phrase and brings up a fair point even if the wrong way.

I’m fairly certain it has to be requested by one of the parties. I’m sure Jack Smith’s team has been getting it ready for quite some time now, but you only want to fire when you’re 103% certain it will work, otherwise you’ve just made things a lot harder for yourself.

an nda is enforced by the justice system it’s not going to enforce it against itself

It’s not that simple. There are two main components to the legal system, civil and criminal. Civil is between two private parties (people, companies, and sometimes the government) for disputes with contracts and such. Criminal law is when the government brings changes against you for breaking the law.

Generally law enforcement (“the justice system”) works on the criminal side of things. It doesn’t really care about a contract between two people if something illegal is happening. Can you imagine the loopholes that could create in organized crime if you just had to write a contract and you couldn’t use an otherwise willing accomplice as a witness?

I’m a huge fan of the “half your age plus seven” rule. Even if it’s legal (assuming no grooming prior) it’s still pretty creepy. Especially since that’s the age you marry - presumably you’ve been together for a bit before that too.