the federal government has long had hesitance to hold figures like presidents, senators, and supreme court justices to account, and this is just an extension of that.

Because if they start holding others in similar offices to account, they might have to hold themselves as well, and that ain’t happening.

develop our factory base and our sourcing capability in alternative countries, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Mexico, Brazil, etc."

From the same article:

Trump has proposed a 60% tax on imports from China, plus a universal tariff of 10%-20% on imports from all foreign countries.

So those goods still get a tariff, probably raising prices for the American consumer, just not as steep as from China. I thought the primary goal of the tariff was to move production back to America (which is a whole thing and not as simple as flipping a switch), which this does not do…and it wasn’t necessarily to try to limit China’s economy,which it probably doesn’t even put a dent in.

The Democrats did not fail us. WE DID. We failed.

Can the people, by definition, fail? What happened to the “will of the people” and democracy that Americans go on about?

If this is what won, this is obviously what the American people wanted/chose.

You actively sought loss…you didnt listen and lost…

I’m genuinely confused. What are you saying? The American voter currently only has two options: vote Democrat or vote Republican. Anything else, as it stands in present day America, throws the vote away.

I think you’re saying voting Democrat is “actively seeking loss,” yet the only other option is to…vote Republican, which they wanted even less?

Help me out here, as your logic ain’t logicing.

The 2/3rds of American adults that are disenfranchised without representation are the victims.

The real victims (with a say/vote) are the Americans who voted for Harris. The people who voted for Trump and those who abstained from voting actively and passively chose what’s coming.

The first, and foremost failure, is the Republican party.

They are not a failure. They are exactly what they want to be, they are exactly who they said they are, and they won the election. Sounds like the GOP is doing alright to me, from a GOP perspective.

And if you can’t because they’ve been moved or “mysteriously misplaced,” charge him for grand larceny and arrest him (IANAL so there is probably a better legal term for this).

I don’t think that “sure, I stole from them, but I “lost” what I stole so we cool now,” is a valid legal defense. But I’m not a disbarred lawyer, so I could be wrong.

Is there any chance that shit was rigged this time around?

There’s always a chance of almost anything, but it is very slim (conspiracy theory) with no evidence to support it:

“Importantly, we have no evidence of any malicious activity that had a material impact on the security or integrity of our election infrastructure,” per the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly.

Source: https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/statement-cisa-director-easterly-security-2024-elections

Harris was popular when she first announced.

I don’t think she was popular when first announced, rather the fact that not-Biden was popular.

Reuters has a different story…

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqnemxwvx/

And hopefully does something about. Disciplinary for the poor OPSEC and/or better resources to avoid it and/or better laws to stop this unfettered data collection and/or better training to avoid it in the future. Here’s hoping. Holds breath

the fact that Biden is drawing attention to it

Now, if only there was someone in charge of the federal government, preferably with immunity when acting on official duties, who could safeguard America’s interest by removing someone’s access to defense contracts and deporting the same someone who started off their defense career illegally. Oh well.

I’m sometimes super slow at the start of self checkout. If the bags are stuck together, not open, and if I didn’t bring my own, sometimes it takes me 2 minutes just to open a plastic bag. I’m trying my hardest!

old system of writing them down on paper

That’s harder to steal/hack by someone across the globe.

The Human Cannonball? He got launched out of the cannon and did one flip before getting caught by the net.

That’s what it looks like to the untrained eye. But they’re not really going to fire a person out of a cannon. That’s not safe. So he just huddles in the cannon, they light a decoy fuse, it makes a bang (with no projectile), and he spring out and jumps that distance by himself. Requires a lot of core and leg strength.

deleted by creator

all media organisations use X

NPR quits Twitter after being falsely labeled as ‘state-affiliated media’

Your data has monetary value to google. Giving them access, without getting any money from them (or even knowing what ways it will be used) is not something you must do.

To be fair, while you may not be getting money in its direct form (cash, bank deposit, etc) from Google, they are providing you a service which costs them money for free. So they are providing something of monetary value.

Only the individual can determine if their data is worth that free (to the individual, not free to Google) service. I’m assuming that most people in a privacy community would be against that, though.

Clickbaity, sure. But this is one of the justifiable clickbaity times. They said the meat of the article, while clickbait, that was the essence of the problem. “I’ll give you a child.” That’s the issue. It doesn’t really matter if he’s randomly setting his sights on her, or if she said she was childless. That part does not matter. They could’ve left everything out but the quote. The part that does matter, is he said he’ll give her a child without being asked.

You agree it’s a terrible thing for him to say. Is it less terrible for him to say it because she signed as childless? No? Then context does not matter. Yes, it’s less terrible because she said it? Well, then there’s the hiccup as we disagree on that part and we’ll disagree on the context, too.

So there’s no meaningful missing context. With or without the context, it is widely understood to mean “I’ll impregnate you.” I don’t see how that “missing context” makes the headline “unfair,” as you put it.