SOOO many Dems were unhappy with the Hillary choice in 2016, so they just skipped voting ...
Or cast purity wank votes a third party ballot. Third party or write-in votes for president made up 5.73% of the 2016 electorate. In 2012 it was 1.73%. Apparently when presented with a choice between moderate liberalism and early stage fascism an electorally significant number of American voters go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Yeah ... In general, most Americans (1) have shocking little appreciation for -- knowledge of -- history, so just don't/can't/don't want to see pitfalls and (2) are impatient ...
SOOO many Dems were unhappy with the Hillary choice in 2016, so they just skipped voting ...
Or cast purity wank votes a third party ballot. Third party or write-in votes for president made up 5.73% of the 2016 electorate. In 2012 it was 1.73%. Apparently when presented with a choice between moderate liberalism and early stage fascism an electorally significant number of American voters go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Yeah ... In general, most Americans (1) have shocking little appreciation for -- knowledge of -- history, so just don't/can't/don't want to see pitfalls and (2) are impatient ...
It is selfish, lazy self-indulgent bullshit.
If one wishes an alternate path, one puts in the work well before the election. Waiting until the voting booth to make a "point" that NO FUCKING ONE will hear is just fucking bullshit.
Trump doesn’t have to get the approval of a majority of Americans. He can win by getting the votes of a small number of angry white people in flyover States. Same as he did last time. The Democrats can get 80% of the vote in California and still lose if they can’t win Wisconsin (for example).
The Democrats need to unequivocally condem violent protests as soon as possible
Trump doesn’t have to get the approval of a majority of Americans. He can win by getting the votes of a small number of angry white people in flyover States. Same as he did last time. The Democrats can get 80% of the vote in California and still lose if they can’t win Wisconsin (for example).
The Democrats need to unequivocally condem violent protests as soon as possible
I think they should have seen months ago that this was gonna be a problem, and issued the unequivocal condemnation then. Like I said a few weeks back, Sister Souljah moment and all that.
(And no, this doesn't neccessarily reflect my view on the protests themselves, but the fact is, a lot of the public is not gonna do a nuanced analysis of who is at fault when the headlines start screaming about dead-bodies at the latest statue-toppling.)
The Democrats need to unequivocally condem violent protests as soon as possible
Why? I'm not sure who you mean by "the Democrats", but Joe Biden has routinely condemned violence at protests and yet we still get questions like "when will [ the Democrats / Joe Biden ] condemn the violence?" I think it's worthwhile to do for its own sake, but no matter how many times Biden condemns violence a whole bunch of people are going to ask why he hasn't condemned the violence yet.
In other words, it's not a demand made in good faith, it's a pretense used as a bludgeon.
No matter how many times Biden condemns violence a whole bunch of people are going to ask why he hasn't condemned the violence yet.
I believe that every campaign ad, either by Biden or by Biden supporters, that runs in every market from now until November must include an unequivocal condemnation of the violence.
To his credit, I think Biden's ads have been fairly well done so far. By contrast, you-know-whose have been strongly negative but, I'm afraid, effective with his base.
On a related note, the despicable Martha McSally, Republican senator from Arizona, has been running a very negative but highly effective campaign against her rival, Democrat Mark Kelly, even though most of what her ads contain are either lies or half-truths. Kelly, on the other hand, has been running a very weak campaign. It almost seems as if his heart isn't in it.
I think there's something broken in the narrative where a lot of ink is spilled pondering why Joe Biden won't condemn the violence he's already condemned yet there's virtually no attention paid to the fact that Donald Trump is advocating violence and police brutality.
Came of age in the 60s ... So I've been through plenty of anxiety and worry ... But this is the first time in my history that I have been outright *FRIGHTENED* ...
Are you saying that just TODAY, or perhaps in the last few days, Joe Biden got around to explicitly condemning violence, arson, and looting?
See, this is why I suggest that Biden's actual actions are irrelevant. No matter what he does right wing assholes are going to pretend that he's acting according to their worst predictions.
Meanwhile Donald Trump's endorsement of vigilante murder elicit . . . cricket noises.
Livestream of Joe Biden meeting with citizens in Kenosha.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The latest revelations about Trump’s crudely expressed contempt for soldiers killed in the line of duty may make a difference to some of the Trump loyalists. I accept the general view that for the great majority of his loyal supporters he can literally get away with murder. But I think these revelations are corrosive. Particularly for GOP voters with strong connections to the military.
November 3 is still two months away and a lot can happen. But I think this will cause some him some damage.
November 3 is still two months away and a lot can happen. But I think this will cause some him some damage.
Assuming the people among whom the damage can be caused actually believe he said that these things, instead of dismissing it as “fake news.”
It will hopefully help that a Fox news reporter confirmed it.
Adding: Laughed at myself as I read that back in my head as I was clicking to post it. The level of cognitive dissonance it takes to support Trump is almost impenetrable.
Hey, remember when Michael Bloomberg liquidated his campaign apparatus despite initially claiming he'd keep it going through election day even if he wasn't the Democratic nominee? (This was back in March, so about fifty years ago in subjective time.) Well today's installment of Mike Bloomberg is Unreliable is the one where he promised to spend a billion dollars to support the nominee (Joe Biden) but has apparently decided not to. (The info comes from the New York Times but I'm linking to Twitter because of the NYT paywall.) For reference, one billion dollars is what he spent on his own vanity campaign for the 2020 Democratic nomination that netted him less than 3% of the delegates necessary to win the nomination.
I wonder what vile inducements the Orangeman is offering behind the scenes. I wonder even more how and why anyone anywhere manages to believe any offer emerging from those Orange lips or through one of his patsies.
yep yep yep. I recall some skepticism was expressed about Mr Bloomberg's reliability on these pages at the time. I wonder if the leak to the NYT will prompt him to do something.
In other words, if you're going rock climbing, and he promises to come along and belay you (run the safety ropes), chances are pretty good that he'll coil the rope back up *while you're climbing*, go away, and literally leave you hanging?
And the voting has started in the 2020 election. North Carolina sent out mail in / absentee ballots last Friday (September 4) and 56 enterprising souls have already returned their ballots as of this post. The votes themselves won't be counted until November 3, but we know their party registration.
For a graphic illustration about why Republicans hate voting by mail this year, here's the party registration of North Carolinians who have requested mail in ballots for the 2020 general election:
Democrat · 52.1%
Republican · 16.3%
Minor Parties · 0.3%
No Party Affiliation · 31.3%
677,098 North Carolinians have requested absentee ballots this year. (So far. The deadline to request a mail in ballot in North Carolina is October 27.) In 2016 that number was less than 28,000.
Of course, Mr. Trumpit advised his people to send in their mail-in ballots and then go to the polls to see if they have been received and if not vote again. (A felony in all states.)
Can I remind everyone that the policy in Purg is that we do not deliberately misname. It is not conducive to serious discussion. BroJames, Purgatory Host
T should become familiar with the voting laws of his present home state. Anyone can request a mail in ballot with no reason required. On voting day (or early voting) the poll workers have a record of who has voted by mail in their particular precinct. No chance of even trying to vote twice.
My mother lost her mail in ballot so I took her to her polling place on election day. They had a record that a ballot had been sent to my mother, but that it had not been received. They gave her a provisional ballot and she was able to vote legally.
This is, I think, a common sense, and I hope, common place solution to the fear of people trying to vote twice.
Sorry for the double post.
There is another way people can cast illegal ballots that I know of. Four years ago, D-U's mother-in-law passed away. She was a Republican through and through, and so is her SO. Her ballot arrived after her death, and her SO laughed and said he was tempted to vote for T on her ballot. I do believe he did not, because the signature on the back of the envelope has to match the signature in the voting records. Some people might be good forgers, but I hope that nobody tries that particular method of voter fraud.
I recently moved. I had received a mail-in ballot at my old address and had filled it out and mailed it in. I also received one at my new address, which I tore up and threw away.
I too am very happy that the delightful Miss A. has done her civic duty. I think you are in Arizona. I hear it is hot in the South West at the moment, so you have my permission to put ice in your wine.
I too am very happy that the delightful Miss A. has done her civic duty. I think you are in Arizona. I hear it is hot in the South West at the moment, so you have my permission to put ice in your wine.
For those who are that way inclined, one can buy "cubes" marketed for chilling whisky without diluting it with all that melting ice, that would work equally well for wine.
Once at a winery tasting room in California the young man pouring a less expensive wine suggested that it was a good wine for family gatherings on a hot summer day and indeed you could add ice to it with no problem. I must say I agreed with him and we bought several bottles and did just that.
One can drink wine (or any other beverage) however they want. If I want to put a scoop of chocolate ice cream in my wine, who's to stop me? (I don't want ice cream in my wine, but I do want ice in white or rosé wine.)
In hot weather I like the rosé slushies that have become popular.
California will mail a ballot to everyone, and I plan to drop mine in one of the collection boxes that are being set up. I like to vote on election day itself, but I will try to study the ballot propositions early and forego that this time.
One can drink wine (or any other beverage) however they want. If I want to put a scoop of chocolate ice cream in my wine, who's to stop me? (I don't want ice cream in my wine, but I do want ice in white or rosé wine.)
Clearly you can perform any perverted act you like with a glass of wine - I'm just surprised that ice in non-water drinks is ever what anybody actually wants. As the ice melts, it forms water, thus diluting whatever drink you have. Do you actually want a drink that gets progressively more dilute as you drink it, or do you want it to be cold?
Clearly you can perform any perverted act you like with a glass of wine - I'm just surprised that ice in non-water drinks is ever what anybody actually wants. As the ice melts, it forms water, thus diluting whatever drink you have. Do you actually want a drink that gets progressively more dilute as you drink it, or do you want it to be cold?
Depends on the drink. Some whiskys are better with a little water in them. It brings out the flavorful volatiles that can sometimes be overwhelmed by the burn of the ethanol. If you're going to use ice for this purpose the trick is calibrating it right and drinking it in the window between the time when not enough of the ice has melted and too much of the ice has melted.
For those who are that way inclined, one can buy "cubes" marketed for chilling whisky without diluting it with all that melting ice, that would work equally well for wine.
The main advantage ice has over other materials is thermal storage capacity.
For example, stainless steel has a specific heat of ~500 J/kg·K and a density of ~7,750 kg/m³. (These are approximate values since there are several different varieties of stainless steel). So if we assume a cooling cube of 2 cm on a side a cube of stainless steel at freezer temperature (-18°C) in a drink at room temperature (20°C) can absorb at most* 1,178 J of heat energy from that drink.
Stone is another popular option, which as a specific heat of ~840 J/kg·K and a density of ~2,500 kg/m³. (Again approximate.) A freezer temperature 2 cm cooling cube of stone can absorb at most 638 J from a room temperature drink.
Ice has a specific heat of 2,108 J/kg·K and liquid water has a specific heat of 4,187 J/kg·K. Ice has a density of 917 kg/m³. These numbers are in the same general ballpark as the other substances mentioned (lower density but higher specific heat), but ice's big advantage is the heat of fusion (i.e. the amount of energy it takes to convert ice to liquid water). Water has a heat of fusion of 333,550 J/kg. When combined with sensible heat change (i.e. changing the temperature of the substance) this means our reference cube of ice 2 cm on a side has a maximum cooling capacity of 3,340 J relative to a 20°C drink. In other words, an ice cube can provide 3-5 times as much cooling as a similarly sized cube of other commonly used materials.
*I'm assuming an infinite drink that will remain at 20°C no matter how long the cooling cube is submerged in it. Obviously this defeats the purpose of the cooling cube, but it's a good back-of-the-envelope measure of ideal cooling capacity.
*I'm assuming an infinite drink that will remain at 20°C no matter how long the cooling cube is submerged in it. Obviously this defeats the purpose of the cooling cube, but it's a good back-of-the-envelope measure of ideal cooling capacity.
Hey, I came for the differential equations!
Liquid ammonia has a high heat of vaporisation, but I guess it would mess up the flavourful volatiles somewhat.
Clearly you can perform any perverted act you like with a glass of wine - I'm just surprised that ice in non-water drinks is ever what anybody actually wants. As the ice melts, it forms water, thus diluting whatever drink you have. Do you actually want a drink that gets progressively more dilute as you drink it, or do you want it to be cold?
Depends on the drink. Some whiskys are better with a little water in them. It brings out the flavorful volatiles that can sometimes be overwhelmed by the burn of the ethanol. If you're going to use ice for this purpose the trick is calibrating it right and drinking it in the window between the time when not enough of the ice has melted and too much of the ice has melted.
For those who are that way inclined, one can buy "cubes" marketed for chilling whisky without diluting it with all that melting ice, that would work equally well for wine.
The main advantage ice has over other materials is thermal storage capacity.
For example, stainless steel has a specific heat of ~500 J/kg·K and a density of ~7,750 kg/m³. (These are approximate values since there are several different varieties of stainless steel). So if we assume a cooling cube of 2 cm on a side a cube of stainless steel at freezer temperature (-18°C) in a drink at room temperature (20°C) can absorb at most* 1,178 J of heat energy from that drink.
Stone is another popular option, which as a specific heat of ~840 J/kg·K and a density of ~2,500 kg/m³. (Again approximate.) A freezer temperature 2 cm cooling cube of stone can absorb at most 638 J from a room temperature drink.
Ice has a specific heat of 2,108 J/kg·K and liquid water has a specific heat of 4,187 J/kg·K. Ice has a density of 917 kg/m³. These numbers are in the same general ballpark as the other substances mentioned (lower density but higher specific heat), but ice's big advantage is the heat of fusion (i.e. the amount of energy it takes to convert ice to liquid water). Water has a heat of fusion of 333,550 J/kg. When combined with sensible heat change (i.e. changing the temperature of the substance) this means our reference cube of ice 2 cm on a side has a maximum cooling capacity of 3,340 J relative to a 20°C drink. In other words, an ice cube can provide 3-5 times as much cooling as a similarly sized cube of other commonly used materials.
*I'm assuming an infinite drink that will remain at 20°C no matter how long the cooling cube is submerged in it. Obviously this defeats the purpose of the cooling cube, but it's a good back-of-the-envelope measure of ideal cooling capacity.
The other factor is taste. Temperature affects the ability to taste components of a substance. With many alcohol varieties, the harshness is minimised by dramatically lowering the temperature. This has the benefit of minimising the harshness, but the detriment of flattening the flavour profile. Well, detriment if the alcohol has a flavour profile to flatten.
It *looks* like you're trying to come up with a hybrid of the Infinite Improbability Drive, based on the Brownian motion of a stiff cup of tea; and the heat-sink equipped space ship stolen from the parking lot at Milliway's...
While chatting with Marvin, the Paranoid Android...
While drinking your 15th Pan Galactic Gargle blaster in a month.
{Backs away slowly and carefully, then breaks into a run, chanting "42...42...42".}
Comments
Yeah ... In general, most Americans (1) have shocking little appreciation for -- knowledge of -- history, so just don't/can't/don't want to see pitfalls and (2) are impatient ...
If one wishes an alternate path, one puts in the work well before the election. Waiting until the voting booth to make a "point" that NO FUCKING ONE will hear is just fucking bullshit.
The Democrats need to unequivocally condem violent protests as soon as possible
I think they should have seen months ago that this was gonna be a problem, and issued the unequivocal condemnation then. Like I said a few weeks back, Sister Souljah moment and all that.
(And no, this doesn't neccessarily reflect my view on the protests themselves, but the fact is, a lot of the public is not gonna do a nuanced analysis of who is at fault when the headlines start screaming about dead-bodies at the latest statue-toppling.)
Why? I'm not sure who you mean by "the Democrats", but Joe Biden has routinely condemned violence at protests and yet we still get questions like "when will [ the Democrats / Joe Biden ] condemn the violence?" I think it's worthwhile to do for its own sake, but no matter how many times Biden condemns violence a whole bunch of people are going to ask why he hasn't condemned the violence yet.
In other words, it's not a demand made in good faith, it's a pretense used as a bludgeon.
Ok. It does sound like him, but I've heard it attributed to Twain.
I would like to rub their noses in what they did.
I believe that every campaign ad, either by Biden or by Biden supporters, that runs in every market from now until November must include an unequivocal condemnation of the violence.
To his credit, I think Biden's ads have been fairly well done so far. By contrast, you-know-whose have been strongly negative but, I'm afraid, effective with his base.
On a related note, the despicable Martha McSally, Republican senator from Arizona, has been running a very negative but highly effective campaign against her rival, Democrat Mark Kelly, even though most of what her ads contain are either lies or half-truths. Kelly, on the other hand, has been running a very weak campaign. It almost seems as if his heart isn't in it.
I think it's of a piece where Trump gets considered "tough" for demanding Wisconsin's governor call out the National Guard and not a confused old man because he made that demand twelve hours after Governor Evers called out the National Guard.
I mean, that's great and all, but maybe he could have spoken up a bit sooner?
Longtime GOP consultant: This election "is the most dangerous period since the Civil War"
NeverTrumper Stuart Stevens on how the party he helped build became a crime cartel ruled by a failed casino owner (Salon).
Came of age in the 60s ... So I've been through plenty of anxiety and worry ... But this is the first time in my history that I have been outright *FRIGHTENED* ...
I think Mark Twain was a Republican. But, back then Republicans were the emancipators, and the Democrats were the racists.
See, this is why I suggest that Biden's actual actions are irrelevant. No matter what he does right wing assholes are going to pretend that he's acting according to their worst predictions.
Meanwhile Donald Trump's endorsement of vigilante murder elicit . . . cricket noises.
November 3 is still two months away and a lot can happen. But I think this will cause some him some damage.
Adding: Laughed at myself as I read that back in my head as I was clicking to post it. The level of cognitive dissonance it takes to support Trump is almost impenetrable.
In other words, if you're going rock climbing, and he promises to come along and belay you (run the safety ropes), chances are pretty good that he'll coil the rope back up *while you're climbing*, go away, and literally leave you hanging?
For a graphic illustration about why Republicans hate voting by mail this year, here's the party registration of North Carolinians who have requested mail in ballots for the 2020 general election:
677,098 North Carolinians have requested absentee ballots this year. (So far. The deadline to request a mail in ballot in North Carolina is October 27.) In 2016 that number was less than 28,000.
My mother lost her mail in ballot so I took her to her polling place on election day. They had a record that a ballot had been sent to my mother, but that it had not been received. They gave her a provisional ballot and she was able to vote legally.
This is, I think, a common sense, and I hope, common place solution to the fear of people trying to vote twice.
There is another way people can cast illegal ballots that I know of. Four years ago, D-U's mother-in-law passed away. She was a Republican through and through, and so is her SO. Her ballot arrived after her death, and her SO laughed and said he was tempted to vote for T on her ballot. I do believe he did not, because the signature on the back of the envelope has to match the signature in the voting records. Some people might be good forgers, but I hope that nobody tries that particular method of voter fraud.
This Arizonan is doing exactly that.
It was for the primary, not for the upcoming big one.
An invention of the devil. Actually, my brother-in-law keeps his wine glasses in the freezer, and they come out frosty cold without the use of cubes.
California will mail a ballot to everyone, and I plan to drop mine in one of the collection boxes that are being set up. I like to vote on election day itself, but I will try to study the ballot propositions early and forego that this time.
Clearly you can perform any perverted act you like with a glass of wine - I'm just surprised that ice in non-water drinks is ever what anybody actually wants. As the ice melts, it forms water, thus diluting whatever drink you have. Do you actually want a drink that gets progressively more dilute as you drink it, or do you want it to be cold?
Depends on the drink. Some whiskys are better with a little water in them. It brings out the flavorful volatiles that can sometimes be overwhelmed by the burn of the ethanol. If you're going to use ice for this purpose the trick is calibrating it right and drinking it in the window between the time when not enough of the ice has melted and too much of the ice has melted.
The main advantage ice has over other materials is thermal storage capacity.
For example, stainless steel has a specific heat of ~500 J/kg·K and a density of ~7,750 kg/m³. (These are approximate values since there are several different varieties of stainless steel). So if we assume a cooling cube of 2 cm on a side a cube of stainless steel at freezer temperature (-18°C) in a drink at room temperature (20°C) can absorb at most* 1,178 J of heat energy from that drink.
Stone is another popular option, which as a specific heat of ~840 J/kg·K and a density of ~2,500 kg/m³. (Again approximate.) A freezer temperature 2 cm cooling cube of stone can absorb at most 638 J from a room temperature drink.
Ice has a specific heat of 2,108 J/kg·K and liquid water has a specific heat of 4,187 J/kg·K. Ice has a density of 917 kg/m³. These numbers are in the same general ballpark as the other substances mentioned (lower density but higher specific heat), but ice's big advantage is the heat of fusion (i.e. the amount of energy it takes to convert ice to liquid water). Water has a heat of fusion of 333,550 J/kg. When combined with sensible heat change (i.e. changing the temperature of the substance) this means our reference cube of ice 2 cm on a side has a maximum cooling capacity of 3,340 J relative to a 20°C drink. In other words, an ice cube can provide 3-5 times as much cooling as a similarly sized cube of other commonly used materials.
*I'm assuming an infinite drink that will remain at 20°C no matter how long the cooling cube is submerged in it. Obviously this defeats the purpose of the cooling cube, but it's a good back-of-the-envelope measure of ideal cooling capacity.
Hey, I came for the differential equations!
Liquid ammonia has a high heat of vaporisation, but I guess it would mess up the flavourful volatiles somewhat.
Croesos--
{Ponders, then looks askance.}
It *looks* like you're trying to come up with a hybrid of the Infinite Improbability Drive, based on the Brownian motion of a stiff cup of tea; and the heat-sink equipped space ship stolen from the parking lot at Milliway's...
While chatting with Marvin, the Paranoid Android...
While drinking your 15th Pan Galactic Gargle blaster in a month.
{Backs away slowly and carefully, then breaks into a run, chanting "42...42...42".}
(Belated H2G2 geekdom alert.)