Voting isn’t actually a constitutional right like owning firearms is. There are protections about equality when it comes to voting, but not much about voting itself. States are generally given the right to decide who can vote and how they vote.
He has had some pretty bad senior moments, the worst one I can recall is the “Hey Jackie” one. In general he does talk pretty slow and just appears confused sometimes. He talks like he is really having to think about what he is saying, and that’s not just him, he didn’t use to be like that.
Most qualified and experienced for the job, regardless of race or gender
Our medical care isn’t limitless, there is only so much we can actually do. Look at how Biden has been progressing even with the best care in the world, he clearly isn’t in the best shape and it’s only going to get worse. It’s entirely possible he gets worse fast and for there to be nothing that can be done about it even with the best care we can give him.
Let it be based on the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman then fine, but the race and gender should not be a requirement at all. Saying that you will only choose a black woman is just as racist as sexist as saying you will only choose a white male.
I think a lot of the left agree with you, and obviously the right hates her, probably more than Biden. I also feel like the far left has grown a lot lately, the fact that Bernie even won some states in primaries just shows how big the far left has become.
I know he initially promised to pick a woman, but I’m pretty sure he changed that to black women, saying he has like 4 to choose from. Either way it’s bad taste to make such an important decision openly based on race and gender.
So we agree that nobody wants Harris as president? And that voting for Biden is how we might just end up with her as president?
He may not die, but I think it’s reasonable to think he will be deemed unfit to serve, or even step down voluntarily.
I personally don’t see that happening. To make any real drastic changes on the destroying democracy level you would have to throw away the Constitution, and I really don’t see that happening.
We also have a pretty heavily armed society, so with anything that crazy I would expect some fight back from civilians and military against the government, and hopefully that’s enough of a deterrent to not even try.
I can really see this going either way if Biden stays with his decision to run. I know every year people complain about having two bad choices, but Biden V Trump round 2 has to be a record for the actual worst options possible.
I think the issues with both Biden and Trump are fairly obvious, but another issue is that if Biden does win, there is a fairly good chance we will end up with a president Harris, probably the one person people like less than Biden as a democratic president. I think she lost so much credibility when Biden promised he would pick a black woman as a VP, basically cementing the idea that part of her qualifications for the role of VP was based purely on gender and race.
Welcome to Fuck Cars
Most Atheists define Atheism as “lack of belief in a God”, which seems like it applies here. Agnostic is usually defined as “lack of knowledge of a God”, which also works here, so both Agnostic and Atheist.
It makes sense when you look at Theist (with belief in a God) and Gnostic (with knowledge of a God) that adding an A before it just means “without”.
As a Sync user myself, why should I switch? I’ve been using Sync for years on Reddit, I love the interface, and I don’t mind if the dev makes a bit of money from it with the occasional and minimally intrusive ads or paid ad removal.
No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.
Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.
As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.
At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.
Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).
The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.
Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.
I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.
Just to be clear, I define Atheism as “without belief in a God”, that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.
To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren’t the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
That’s great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can’t just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.
Has P2P changed much? I don’t think it has really. I use private sites for that stuff now and it’s great there, but the public stuff still seems pretty bad IMO.
Well if they don’t want their content there, then you have the whole problem if it being illegal. Now you have to convince people to break the law, and go as far as to install a VPN or whatever so your ISP doesn’t send you warnings. This isn’t a great start for something to replace YouTube.
I think Big is required for a P2P YouTube style thing to work. You need lots of peers to stream content in decent quality. You need people to knowingly break laws and use VPNs. You need people to run their own media servers, you are asking a lot from people, all YouTube is asking you to do is watch some ads or buy premium.
What’s crazy is that you can come from a country like the US, having never driven a manual car before, and go legally rent and drive a manual car on the roads in the UK.
It’s my belief that the reason nobody has seriously tried to change the Constitution to remove or modify the 2nd amendment is that they know it’s currently impossible. Changing the Constitution requires a serious amount of working together and agreement between the state and federal governments, and that just doesn’t exist right now.
That’s why some states are trying to pass unconstitutional laws, it’s easier to do that and get away with it at least for a little bit than it is to change the construction.