Thank you. Saw that it was an additional link in this post (not a link from the statement) right after I posted, but I didn't delete quickly enough.

I don't trust it because there's no believable plan to make it commercially viable, so it's just going to end up defunct or enshittified. Mastodon is up front, it's a volunteer service that you can either pay for or roll the dice on the instance staying up. And there's a built-in way to move on when one goes down.

BlueSky is a B-corp, which theoretically means they can say their mission takes priority if sued by an investor in court, but doesn't in any way require them to make it the primary goal, and the reality of funding and money and investors means that's almost certainly not going to happen.

Good on them, but man, how did this not happen earlier? Seems like something that you could just spend a moderate amount of campaign funds on. There was a good wave of Project 2025 awareness going around social media a month or so ago. It's so late to do it now.

"Conversion therapy" is definitely not the phrase you were looking for.

And notably the first one does "gain extra votes". And those voters who like rather than just accept their most closely aligned candidates will talk to other people in their orbit to get them out to vote. The votes to gain aren't just a few clueless people in the center.

Yeah, you might be able to pull that off, but you'd have to really deftly manage to be both unsettling enough to make less extreme Republicans exasperated with Trump while not being so obviously bad at outreach that someone calls the campaign to complain. Though the truth is so out there there's a lot of room for just being "passionately offputting" where a short-staffed operation might just assume you need a reminder about the script.

LOL, you can actually search my history for 'Jill Stein' to know what I think of her. Your tagging is extremely dumb.

Their lists are going to be targeted at likely Republicans, so they wouldn't have much value to Harris. Apparently there's GPS logging, so you either fake that or maybe can find some Democratic houses in the same neighborhood.

It is a moral good to take a job with a Republican door-knocking operation run by a loser billionaire and just pretend to work without doing anything. Lie to them and say whatever you need to make them think you're excited for the job, then just don't do it. You'll probably get fired, but you'll do a service for democracy by taking up space and/or siphoning some ill-gotten funds from bad people. And it's a short enough gig it will never be noticed if you don't put it on your resume.

"I'm just gonna do what the law says, and btw he did it too" is not a defense of trans people. It's minimizing the issue, which may be a wise sell towards actual Republicans, but it's not an active defense of why you should be ok with trans people existing.

If you genocide them enough, then they don't need leaders at all. Then there will be more lebensraum for the people of proper genetic stock that you think deserve to exist.

And as their assassinations keep pushing the leadership lower and lower down the organizational structure there's less likelihood whoever is around by the time they negotiate will have the influence to actually command people to cease fighting.

I'm not even sure I understand the meme. It feels like the last section was supposed to be something further left than liberal like "uncommitted". I'm sure the campaign thinks "we'll be both parties" is also supposed to appeal to undecided voters.

That's actually a relatively kind interpretation of Netanyahu's war. The government acknowledged it had received and was considering a proposal by former generals to use starvation to clear northern Gaza.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-report-israel-testing-aid-freeze-to-north-gaza-to-starve-hamas

I'm really surprised he hasn't been fired already. He's an assistant professor, that's an entry level with no job security. And after all this nonsense would they ever even want to tenure this guy so he could really become a problem?

What? That's never been the case in any election. The parties only get candidates to ~40% or so. And turnout is far more impactful than people crossing party lines.

Even under the (completely unreal) philosophy that turnout is fixed and that every single voter has a default party, that still wouldn't mean you need the other party's voters. One of the parties will have >50%.

What exactly is the goal you think they share and how does his endorsement advance that goal?

Literally not Article 5. They can talk to each other and decide to do things that aren't obligated by the treaty using the NATO organizational structure. The Libya mission was only the countries who willingly joined in, not a treaty obligation. That wasn't even in response to an attack on a NATO member. JFC, why are you arguing about this? These are just facts.

That's just not true. These aren't arcane pieces of information, they're bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn't happen in any of America's other wars?

NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It's not a general "if you hurt an American soldier anywhere" treaty.