The last twenty have half-lives shorter than Australian prime ministers, and are of equally limited utility to science.

Shots fired.

He needs a W and has pissed off anyone capable of giving him one.

ugh

I’ve never learned kung fu as fast as I have the times that a giant cockroach has made its appearance on my lanai.

Arent most cockroaches winged?

at a typical temperature and pressure, sure.

So…

Like full swing or just a little tap tap?

Windows to my linux partition:

(this is why I wont dual boot)

Well then. There you are.

Oh. Hey. I know Jason.

They got a grant to look at the impact buffalo would have on green house gas emissions, and to develop food security/ food resilience by reintroducing them into former cattle lands. Then the assholes in the administration canceled the grant. Before the program got cut, my recollection is that the reintroduction had an almost immediate reduction in observed emissions from soils (or so I heard). My recollection is that it was a striking and immediate difference.

The USDA claimed that the tribe didn’t meet the 65% or whatever bullshit threshold for direct payments to producers (when literally the tribe is the producer, and were getting 100% of the payments), because of the upfront total cost of the green house gas measuring equipment (installing a ghg flux tower).

🤡

So she is in heat …

nice tits

Pokenmon

Yours is a daft take and if the Democrats proceed with this mental framing, they’ll continue to lose elections. You think you’re right, but same same people who think like you do were the ones making decisions for the Harris/ Biden campaign. This kind of take is presented as wisdom, and yet, when proceeding with it, Democrats consistently lose in its application.

Lets start it off right: firstly and most importantly, bloc’s of voters don’t move elections, and haven’t for almost 30 years. Going after “swing voter” has been a losers approach, and when the Republicans gave up on this strategy in 2000, they began defining the modern political hegemony we find ourselves in, and have found great success. Modern elections aren’t between two parties. They are between each of the two parties, and their likely voters respective couches.

The two most successful political movements in the previous 40 years have been a) the MAGA movement, and b) the progressive movement. Both found their footing in identifying and acknowledging the real pain people experience in their lives, and giving them something to do about it it: vote, march, dial, campaign, etc.

The Harris/ Biden campaign ran in almost direct opposition to all of the movement the base had in developing the progressive platform. It focused almost entirely on the basically fictitious “centrists” and moved entirely away from the base. They refused to be honest with voters about both Biden, his adequacy as candidate, and his competency in office. They elevated Republican voices while simultaneously pushing away their own core constituencies.

If you continue to both think and campaign using the political hegemony which died almost 10 years ago, you will not win elections.

Yeah you are just wildly fucking wrong. Barely the time in life to have to keep swatting down this idiotic take.

Harris didn’t lose because she was black or a woman: She lost because she ran a Republican/ corporate race in a Democratic lane.

If Democrats keep trying to be Republicans, they’ll keep losing, and your take steers them in that direction.

Democrats aren’t ever running against the Republican in the race. That’s not how elections in the US have worked since 1992.

Democrats are only running against the couch, and when your campaign principal message is “Nothing would fundamentally change”, when the incumbent was polling at 33%?

☑️