Anyone that thinks that it's going to be only 'criminals' that get deported forget that crossing the border without documentation is a crime. Yeah, it's a misdemeanor, but it's still a crime, and the Trump administration is still going to deport them when they can.

That's such a fucking stupid take from someone that doesn't even have a grade-school understanding of politics.

The Republicans endorsing Harris don't like her, and they don't agree with any of her policies. They probably do agree with much of the bullshit that comes out of Trump. On the other hand, the Republicans endorsing Harris genuinely believe in America, and in the idea of democracy. They clearly see that Trump is an enormous threat to democracy in the US, and that he's doing everything in his power to break the system that they believe in, even if his specific policies are things they agree with.

Whether I like Bush Jr., or Cheney (either one, really), or George Will, or any other Republican endorsing her, or not, they are still people that believe in the rule of law. Trump does not believe in the rule of law. These Republicans largely believe in letting voters decide, even if they'll jerrymander the shit out of districts. Trump does not. These Republicans don't believe that this country can survive a second Trump presidency, and they would rather lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and possibly a few seats on SCOTUS, than watch our democracy die.

Some of these are wrong.

Tracing a call is instant. It took longer back in the days when there were physical switches, but that's been a long, long time ago.

Silencers can make a gun nearly as quiet as the movies, in limited cases. Something like a subsonic .22 will be about as lout as a golf clap. A 5.56x45mm rifle will be hearing-safe, but only barely; it's still going to be very loud, and will def. sound like a rifle.

You can shoot some locks off. You're not shooting through the shackle, you're disrupting the locking mechanism that keeps the shackle closed. It's still unsafe; you're going to have ricochet and spall going everywhere.

IIRC, this was posted earlier today on the lemmy.ml instance, and very, very quickly deleted by a mod.

...Which undermines the central claim.

EDIT: I am wrong about the sample size. Yes, the sample is a little small, but not too far off. They're registered voters rather than likely voters, which is not quite as good, but, again, no terrible.

The poll surveyed 892 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.2%.

As FiveThirtyEight would say, that's a bad use of polling. That's a very small sample size, and there's no indication that it's representative in any meaningful way.

Even more important, Obama has said she has no interest in being the president; she's not willing to run.

Here's what this means:

If you favor access to reproductive healthcare, you NEED TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER.

The GOP will absolutely vote to restrict access to all reproductive healthcare now that SCOTUS has refused to do so.

This is why school funding needs to be entirely de-coupled from property taxes, and funded on a per-student basis at a state level.

And why charter/magnet/and any private schools that take any public money need to be utterly abolished.

I'll take, "Laws that violate the 8th Amendment" for $100, Alex.

IIRC "books" were a medieval-period invention. Before the common era, everythign would have been scrolls or tablets. The first codices wouldn't have existed until about 100BCE in Rome. So, assuming that this is (roughly) what a cuneiform tablet was saying, I wonder what the actual work used for 'book' was, and what more accurate translation there would be, if we had the relevant cultural understanding?

But, more so than that - the earliest proto-novel that we know of is The Tale of Genji, that dates to roughly the 11th century ~~B~~CE (Edit: this is a typo; it is definitely CE, not BCE). Which makes the question of what kind of 'books' this is supposed to refer to even more interesting.

Or--alternatively--is it just a shitpost?

Under very, very limited circumstances, maybe. Like you need gas to get to work now, get paid tomorrow, and have nothing in your account? Yeah, maybe, but that's an expensive tank of gas for someone that's that short on cash.

OTOH, I can't count the number of times where my former bank processed my paycheck last--even though it went in first--and then hit me with overdraft fees for buying groceries, gas, paying bills, etc. (This was National City Bank; they ended up losing a class action lawsuit about it, but they still made more money from their theft than they had to pay back out.)

IMO, there should be zero overdraft fees; if the money isn't in your account, the charge is declined. All of this shit should be done in real-time, instead of waiting for a merchant to post at the end of the day. This is the twenty-fucking-second century, and it's not that goddamn hard.

Unless all these Gen Z kids actually fucking VOTE it won't matter, because Boomers fucking do.

Oh, you think the choices are trash? Well fucking vote in the primaries then. Get involved at a local level, and start promoting candidates that represent you. Don't just bitch and moan that the choice is between a codger and senile draft-dodger.

This is fundamentally false.

While it is true that there was inexpensive housing available in the USSR, and that rents were quite reasonable compared to anything that currently exists in the US, and people couldn't readily be evicted if they lacked the ability to pay, it's a flat-out lie to say that that was the "solution" to homelessness, or that it eliminated the problem. Rather, the USSR criminalized being homeless and not being engaged in socially-productive labor; people that were homeless ended up in prisons and were labelled as parasites. The problem that we have now is that the official records simply didn't record the problem, in much the same way that Stalin had histories and photos revised to eliminate people that had become enemies of the state.