A tie in the Electoral College is an extremely remote chance, less than 1%. Widespread interference in our electoral process as part of a broader scheme to put enough doubt in the vote totals to force the issue to SCOTUS or Congress is literally the plan being executed by Trump and the GOP right now. The best chance we have is overwhelming voter turnout to make those "close" states as decisive as possible.

Right so let's allow the serial adulterer, racist, sexist, convicted felon who has no respect for rule of law or democracy win. And then when he proves too senile to serve (or dies) we'll be treated with a President Vance who is ready to open the portcullis for Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 fascist goons into the castle.

Harris might not be your favorite candidate. She may not currently be campaigning on issues that are the most important for you. But the alternative is unconscionable.

Your suggestion is wrong. Eliminating the Electoral College is advocated for by everyone who supports Democracy. It is also not a coincidence that the Electoral College disproportionately benefits one party over the other. And to cement that advantage they employ anti-Democratic measures in an attempt at voter suppression.

This is the first time we have seen moderators actually fact check Trump live. I'll take that in spite of the interruptions.

I have been disappointed by that as well but this has been astoundingly good as far as debates have gone. The immediate fact checking is long overdue. And frankly I look forward to pointing at Trump's extra speaking time as a bulwark against the "iT wAs BiAsEd By ThE lIbErAL mOdErAtOrS" complaints.

Other notable additions from Wikipedia:

"Walz received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2012, from the American Civil Liberties Union in 2011, from the American Immigration Lawyers Association in 2009–2010, from the AFL-CIO in 2010, from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in 2009–2010, and from the National Organization for Women in 2007."

And:

"Walz was ranked the 7th-most bipartisan House member during the 114th Congress (and the most bipartisan member from Minnesota) in the Bipartisan Index created by The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy, which ranks members of Congress by measuring how often their bills attract co-sponsors from the opposite party and how often they co-sponsor bills by members of the opposite party."

In other words, Walz seems to be a champion of progressive ideals while also being more than willing to work with those across the aisle. This is a great thing for swaying independent voters.

We can be nice about helping people who ask honest questions too :)

Many people are unfamiliar with the concept of different communities having different rulesets. Even people who come from reddit land.

Rule 2 of the community guidelines does state that all political pictures (defined as a picture of a politician of any country of any planet) are prohibited and will be removed. So they are not wrong, in spite of the down votes. I do wonder if the community were to have a similar poll today on whether these types of images should be banned how it would turn out, assuming the community has grown significantly since the months that have passed since the prior vote. The second choice was very close in the original poll which would have provided an exception of one political picture allowed per current event.

Edit: here's the link to the community poll for context if it helps anyone else!

Don't know that I agree with your spin that this news is negative in any regard. Also, aspartame is one of the most studied food additives of all time and has been repeatedly proven safe.

Your claim that it "can have an event worse effect on blood sugar than sugar can" has also been proven false. See "Metabolic effects of aspartame in adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials" by Santos et al from 2017.

Among other conclusions, the study found that "aspartame consumption was not associated with alterations on blood glucose levels compared to control or to sucrose and on insulin levels compared to control or to sucrose."

If you're referring to "Rule of Law," then yes, it is amazing and worth praising. Unfortunately the US is in an accelerating downhill backslide away from Rule of Law back to Rule of Men. And we will all be worse off for it. There is no copium involved in appreciating adherence to Rule of Law because the alternative is tyranny.

At this point I am having to hold out hope telling myself that we are probably in for a couple decades of horror until the old guard dies off and the pendulum swings back to liberalism and progressivism. I love the idea of America but I don't love America right now, which is painful to acknowledge.

I sincerely hope this is a poor attempt at a joke because that kind of statement has contributed directly to the current situation. It is not antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government, Zionism, or the IDF and its actions. It is antisemitic to say the reason you are criticizing those things is because they are all Jews.

Conflating those two not only makes it impossible to speak out against the atrocities being committed, it makes violence worse against Jews.

I'm gonna have to go with Adam Savage. I loved Mythbusters and continue to watch his Tested one day build videos today and view him as something of a role model from a creative standpoint.

Also to chime in about your mentioning of Kevin Spacey, the guy is definitely a weirdo and has done some really tone deaf things (coming out as gay in the midst of being involved in sexual abuse accusations, posting videos of himself as Frank Underwood denying charges levied against him on YouTube, etc.), but wasn't he acquitted of or found not guilty in literally every sexual abuse charge that was brought against him? And in both the US and the UK?