JillyB

One of my best friends did that in high school. While his parents were out of town he threw a house party and everyone smoked weed in the attic. While up there, he stepped through the ceiling. The parents came home, found out everything and had to get a contractor to come fix it. Right after the contractor left, he went up there and was surprised by how well done the work was. While testing its strength, he put his foot through again. The contractor had to turn around and redo the work.

I went bike camping with some friends last fall. The campground had a bunch of MTB trails around it and we had to ride them to get groceries. 2 of the guys were riding Surly Steamroller fixed steel bikes. We rode black diamond trails with groceries. The dudes with eMTBs that they brought on the back of a truck must have been confused.

I'm not sure how serious your comment is but anyway...what you're describing is a decades-long reorientation of military doctrine and procurement strategy. Getting a different multi-role fighter is already a huge expense with lots of ramifications but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Edit: IMO, if you really wanted to alter air force strategy to deter the US, you should look to Sweden and Finland who have been facing an asymmetric threat for decades. Aquire the Gripen, train with the Swedes in how to run and operate a distributed air force of small independent units capable of generating and performing missions from random roads in the woods.

Ghetto high card build

My interpretation: the right is broadly successful because they are presenting a compelling narrative to explain the problems in America. It's "elites" in business, government (deep state), and schools that are pushing an unamerican agenda of "wokeness", using immigrants to gain power, and indoctrinating through schools and universities. This is enough to get people to vote right because at least the right is doing something to address their concerns.

What the Democrats need to do, is present a more compelling narrative. They can't just be the "non-maga" party. They have to actually address people's concerns about economic insecurity and present a vision for the future. I remain convinced that the first president that runs on economic populism will sweep an election.

Wait what did they do?

The current Democrat party is like that, yes. However, if this proves ineffective, you'll see more Democrat candidates with an experimental message. Historically, this is how it has played out. We are currently in the 6th party system. Which means that the parties have had drastic realignment 5 times already. I think we're entering the 7th party system.

I was talking about this the other night with a friend. We kind of agree that now is a good time for a shift. The Democrat party has never been so powerless. Either a drastic realignment of the Democrat party (what I think will happen) or a truly leftist party supplanting them (what I hope happens) has never been more likely. Fighting right wing authoritarian populism with vaguely liberal platitudes just doesn't work. Kamala's massive defeat proved that. I think the midterm election will be a test of left wing unity. Can we rally behind a coherent message? Or will we see a bunch of Democrats running on a platform of "we're not maga so vote for us" again?

Definitely her gender and skin color had an impact. What Trump and the maga crowd successfully did was present an appealing narrative. Even the most politically apathetic Americans feel like something is wrong. Tech companies and large companies in general have an increasing level of control over our lives. Cost of living is going up with no sign of stopping. The right made it sound like these problems were the result of "elites" in business, Washington, and colleges pushing an unamerican agenda (via immigrants, indoctrination, etc). This is enough to convert many not overtly racist people to vote for racist anti-intelectual policies. What the left truly failed to do was present the real narrative that capitalism is to blame. I remain convinced that a candidate running on economic populism will sweep an election. Those people just need a better narrative.

This might be a hot take and I have nothing backing this up but: I don't think the average US voter gives a fuck about the Palestinians or the US support of Israel. The people who do are a vocal but tiny minority, even among Democrat voters. That minority still likely voted overwhelmingly for Kamala. I just don't think the Israel Palestine issue had any affect at all on the election. If you look online, you'd think it was the single biggest failure of the Democrat party. Which...it is, morally speaking. But I don't think it decided the election. I'd love to be proven wrong but I think Americans don't care about foreigners.

"All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation," he wrote. "This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me."

It's a Democrat introduced bill with no chance of passing. The intent is to point out the absurdity and creepiness of controlling people's bodies and sex lives by flipping the gender. Kind of clever.

If the list includes everyone, what good is the list?