abff08f4813c

I think piefed.social/pyfedi (which is slowly implementing support for all such objects) should get a mention here as well

Wife would be the biggest factor in all this I think, so yeah.

That said (noting for posterity), you’re right - it is pretty challenging to emigrate with a criminal record. But it’s not impossible. See for example https://www.cicnews.com/2023/12/three-ways-to-overcome-a-cannabis-conviction-before-coming-to-canada-1240675.html#gs.i5eu5j

If you got the 13 years due to possession of cannabis in the US for example - that’s not a crime in Canada, so you’d have to disclose it but it wouldn’t pose an issue in moving (assuming you otherwise were eligible and passed all the bars in getting here).

For things which are also crimes in Canada, sometimes you can apply for criminal rehabiliation - so in your case, eight years from now, you’d be eligible to apply for that (five years of good behaviour and no crimes after your sentence/probation/restriction ends).

So I dug into the source code a bit to see how it’s used. It turns out that IPFS might actually optional, as per the log line on https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L213 (“Getting additional peers from IPFS API”)

The list of required bootstrap peers is hardcoded in the same file, but a few lines above, specifically at https://github.com/hyprspace/hyprspace/blob/master/p2p/node.go#L181

I say might be because - while the required bootstrap peers include a bunch of ones based on bootstrap.libp2p.io - there is a long list of hardcoded ip addresses and I don’t recognize any of them.

So those might be libp2p.io ip addresses, but they might also be IPFS ip addresses, or even belong to someone else altogether. (Edit: There are WHOIS tools online like https://lookup.icann.org/en that can be used to look these up and figure out who they belong to if you are really curious, but I can’t be bothered to do that right now.)

In any case, it looks like the way this works is that from a peer, libp2p tries to look up additional peers, and so on. So at most IPFS would be used as a way to get a listing, but once the desired peer is found, IPFS is cut out of the picture for that particular connection and NAT hole punching is used to establish a direct connection between peers instead (as per the linked wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole/punching/(networking )

Agreed. The current party is trying to be a coalition that brings in folks from as far right as neocons like Dick Cheney to as far left as Andrew Yang (UBI) along with super progressives like the Bern.

I’ve said before that it naturally makes sense for it to split up based on that. I guess without systemic and constitutional reform, the new parties would have to cooperate and agree on e.g. a single candidate for President (maybe a multi-party group primary?)

But if we had a primary this year I feel like a candidate would have been chosen who could have won, so anything that forces primaries to occur (and allow voters more choice) is a good thing.

But they still are actively refusing to acknowledge the American working class exists and are struggling.

The Bern is smart and usually right about these kind of things.

That said, I’d argue that even in the campaign this year some steps were taken in the right direction, e.g.

We have not even brought forth legislation to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, despite the fact that some 20 million people in this country are working for less than $15 an hour

But then, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/23/politics/federal-minimum-wage-harris-trump/index.html

Whoever told Kamala to brag about the economy to anyone that isn’t a millionaire needs to be the first person to never work in politics again

I can see this as being a calculated risk - take credit for something that sounds good - but yeah they forgot the maxim “it’s the economy, stupid!”

We need a popular vote of registered Dem voters to determine DNC leadership and party platform

Better yet, a reformed system so that a third party who implements this has a legitimate shot at the highest offices.

If we keep giving leadership to whoever gets the most donations, they’ll keep ignoring the working class because it’s easier to get money from the wealthy.

Perhaps I defeated myself here - I came here to justify the Dems but if I’m saying we have a better shot at reforming the US constitution than we do at reforming the internals of the Dem party, then I’ve really done the opposite.

Will they exist in 2028? To me this is a bigger question that no one else seems to want to answer.

orange voldemort is already constitutionally ineligible to run for re-election but has expressed interest in running for a third time. Has anyone heard any plans about what may be afoot here to enable him?

My worst fears have been realized. Republicans have taken control of the House. There are now no safeguards.

Well, consider the numbers in https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229

It’s older so based on older numbers, but the estimates from there line up pretty well with the total sum as of right now.

Basically, if turnout was depressed, it was only in the deep blue (and maybe deep red) - where it didn’t matter. In the swing states, turnout was higher for both sides in 2024 than in 2020 - and that’s even before trying to account for the peculiarities of the 2020 vote.

The article really did the line up of the three posters so well though …

But I am certainly troubled by those attacking the actress online for having these feelings. That’s not right.

Agree with this - the fan just trying to make the movie poster imitate the older poster.

But I can see where the actress is coming from as well - these feelings are almost certainly part of the reason why the original movie poster from the studio decided to show the full faces of the actresses instead of imitating the 2003 poster in a more direct homage. It’s a tricky balance, but at the same time it’s hard to blame the fan for wanting to celebrate Wicked in art.

Here’s an opinionated article on the subject that includes a copy of the modified image contrasting it to the original (and also the poster for the musical), https://worthitorwoke.com/wicked-star-cynthia-erivos-reaction-to-a-fan-made-poster-is-everything-wrong-with-celebrity-entitlement/

From a personal point of view, I’d still take the promise, provide that I can the person making it as being reliable.

But from a wider point of view, agreed. Perhaps there was something more Harris could have said, earlier, to back up those statements and give this voting bloc a stronger reason to believe in her without causing the Jewish voting bloc to move away from her. Alternatively, maybe the risk of alienating that other bloc with more concrete steps or plans should have been taken - as stepping to hard to avoid alienating them clearly didn’t work out.

Optimistic. As per https://sopuli.xyz/post/18928087 it seems that “Zelensky was somewhat reassured”

Previously I had thought that this guy would just withdraw all support and hand free reign to Russia, but Zelensky is no fool. If he’s feeling it, then I’m very happy indeed to be proven wrong about this point.

Another silver lining - if the US withdraws from NATO, then at least, they can’t block Ukraine from joining…

That’s why I used the word, “unless.” If the words are addressing that point, then they’re meaningful, but as long as they aren’t, they are not.

Ah I think I got your meaning now.

Does it now?

Yes.

There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side’s willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, “finish the job,”

I assume this is just an example and you aren’t seriously suggesting this is what Harris means. Harris has been very clear on the need for an immediate ceasefire.

You’re choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean,

Well, the alternative meaning doesn’t fit with what Harris has said about getting to an immediate ceasefire - you can’t have a ceasefire if you’re trying to kill every last person on the enemy side. That contradiction makes me think I’ve interpreted it correctly.

What you don’t understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election.

I got that. I figured this was an important constraint on Harris being able to speak in support on Gaza in fact - AIPAC withdrawing their support of her.

After they get elected, then they’ve already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors.

This is a good point, AIPAC would still be around after the election.

That’s why there is zero chance that she would’ve become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.

I think zero chance is too extreme. Consider this,

Obama said in late 2010 that his views on gay marriage were “evolving,” and since then administration officials have pointed to those comments, stressing that Obama is a supporter

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/obama-expected-to-speak-on-gay-marriage-076103

Also, the goal wasn’t necessarily to make Harris pro-Palestine, but simply more anti-genocide. As the situation in Gaza worsens, I could see a possibility where from the grassroots a movement of change, going thru e.g. Sanders and AOC, would eventually convince Harris to evolve her position here as well.

Now, as you point out there are powerful forces that would resist that, but the outcome of that battle would not have been a foregone conclusion.

Yes, Clinton got fewer total votes in a lower turnout election, but by every other metric the election was less bad than this one was for Harris, whether we look at the EC or votes compared to the other side.

No need to rehash what I said above, beyond that I’m still waiting for the data.

As for Gaza, there is one very simple and straightforward action that Biden could have taken (or still could actually) or that Harris could have said she’ll do: place conditions on arms shipments

Agreed. Now, my understanding is that Harris as VP can’t actually do this, that authority runs from Biden down to his cabinet secretaries. But she could have made that promise. It’s still not taking action, but maybe it would have been enough.

Refusing to do that is a complete endorsement of Israel’s actions.

So minor disagreement here. You say complete, or 100%, while I’d say like 95% or 97%. Perhaps an immaterial difference.

Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed

But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: “Harris could have said”

all she ever said was essentially, “Wouldn’t it be nice if they could resolve their differences without fighting?"

I think calling for a cease-fire is a mite bit stronger than that, but again perhaps the difference between us is so small as to be immaterial.

"and will keep arming them unconditionally.”

Agreed, definitely a problem. No need to rehash about the Jewish voting bloc stuff - we understand why this was done and we saw first hand that it didn’t work out. So with 20/20 hindsight…

“But of course I fully support Israel’s right to defend itself”

After Oct 7, 2024, I would too. To say otherwise is an insult to the families of the hostages - telling them that they aren’t important enough to protect, that it’s okay for this to happen to them again.

There is no indication that she would’ve been at all willing to take meaningful action.

On here we completely disagree. “I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary.” seems like a pretty big indication.

Meanwhile,

Trump says he’s about to speak to Netanyahu and says, "Biden is trying to hold him back … he probably should be doing the opposite, actually.

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/netanyahu-trump-cease-fire (link to quote in the “free rein” link on that page)

To be fair, the above is also a really big indication.

You do acknowledge the main point afterward though. I think we’re in agreement on it being a mistake for her to not distance herself from Biden and not sufficiently acknowledge people’s economic problems.

Yep. I think there’s still a tiny disagreement here over whether or not Harris could have put enough distance - but we both agree that a primary would have proven it either way and solved the problem with a different candidate if it wasn’t possible, so that’s perhaps immaterial.

The only similarity is, “We’re going to make the economy better going forward” which every politician ever is going to say.

Both Harris and I provided more specific details than that.

No no no. You cut off major parts of what I said.

Space limits on posting. But actually I agreed on those points and didn’t feel the need to respond to them - Harris never said the economy was really and painfully bad outright and never sought distance from Biden.

That’s still completely insignificant, obviously. Individual politicians don’t matter unless they draw in constituencies (and don’t alienate other constituencies), which did not materialize.

Agreed, the latest numbers do suggest that if there was split voting, it was in favor of the Dems downballot and orange voldemort rather than the opposite, like we saw in 2020 for Biden.

I was just pointing out that this did draw in some, but as you said it wasn’t enough.

No, the number did not fall short of that, it’s just that Arizona and Nevada have not been called for Trump yet

Oh, that’s right. I spoke too soon - should have waited for the data.

And Clinton won the popular vote while Kamala lost it.

But from your own wikipedia pages, Clinton wont 65,853,514 votes while the estimate at https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18340229 says “Kamala around 73 million” so Harris objectively did better than Clinton on the popular vote in terms of raw numbers.

The only thing I was wrong about was that it wasn’t just 20 years. We actually have to go all the way back to 1988 to see a result this bad for the democrats, an election where George H.W. Bush won California.

So worst case 2024 will still be better than 1988 in terms of EC numbers. Anyways, if I’m reading https://www.politico.com/2024-election/results/president/ it’s still too soon to call - the reason being that it’s mathematically possible for Harris to still win those two (if she won all the remaining votes left to be counted). So still too soon to tell.

This is essentially a conspiracy theory. It’s no different from QAnon people explaining away anything Trump does that they don’t like by saying that he had to say it to appease the deep state and get elected, TRUST THE PLAN. It’s completely baseless cope and every piece of actual evidence clearly contradicts it.

So let me give some quotes here to back this up.

as president, I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza, …end the suffering in Gaza,… and ensure the Palestinian people can realise their right to dignity, freedom, security and self-determination,”

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/4/harris-says-will-end-gaza-war-in-final-election-appeal-to-arab-americans

Kamala Harris says two state solution is the ‘only path’ forward after meeting with Israel’s Netanyahu

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/kamala-harris-says-two-state-solution-is-the-only-path-after-meeting-with-netanyahu-b2586161.html

Harris didn’t have much in terms of actual action, but her position post-Hamas was still for a two-state solution and to put an end to what was happening in Gaza.

The problem is there was no plan for that - but she only had three months to rush a campaign through. So less “TRUST THE PLAN” and more “hope she can figure out a plan once she’s in office.”

It’s not a conspiracy theory because she did actually say these things, but if you’d question if these would end up as broken promises … it seems that the voters who cared about these things shared your questioning.

But even if it were true it doesn’t matter in the context of assessing why she lost, because there was no possible way for voters alienated by her public stance to know that she was lying and secretly on their side.

Again, it wasn’t secret, but was based on the speeches she gave, along with this bit of protestor inspired impromptu: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/harris-appears-to-agree-with-protester-accusing-israel-of-genocide-what-he-s-talking-about-it-s-real/ar-AA1szCVt

Obviously it wasn’t enough, but, it wasn’t kept as a secret.

Democrats have this pathological inability to self-criticize, accept fault, or just awknowledge problems,
It alienates people and speaks to a lack of confidence

Yep, definitely time for someone to look at themselves in the mirror.

brainworms
Everything would make more sense if you ripped them out

Yeah, you can’t actually just rip out brainworms. THat’s not how those are treated. This is how they’re actually dealt with: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/neurocysticercosis#treatment

Likewise, the way forward here would be to patiently educate someone willing.

The problem is that you have these deep rooted lesser-evilist brainworms that don’t actually reflect reality.

I think the way I’ve summed things up do reflect reality. I did make a mistake (due to having insufficient data) about Dems flipping red, which I’ve already acknowledged. Actually, Harris is on track to get most of the popular vote that Biden got in 2020, which was one of the highest periods of turnout on record. It’s just that voters who sat out 2016 and even 2020 turned out over the economy this year for the GOP, along with important single issue voters in swing states (Latinos over immigration and Arabs/Muslims over Gaza) switching sides.

More data is needed. Importantly the gerrymandering by the GOP that started in 2010 and was blessed by the Supreme Court makes me think that we can’t look at 2008 or earlier for precedents. And even comparing to 2012 would be hard since Obama had an incumbency advantage when the plan was still new and not fully implemented.

With limited data, Clinton’s more progressive (I said more progressive, not actually progressive) platform in 2016 failed to excite voters, and even more progressive ones failed in the primaries.

This is why I am such a fan of RCV - instead of having to battle it out in the primary, RCV would allow Dems to safely run more progressive candidates side by side with more moderate ones, allowing voters to say which ones they prefer the most without worrying about “electibility” so much (as this means the less electible candidate’s votes would go to the other Dem to boost that Dem instead of assuring a GOP win).

and stopped looking at things from that perspective and assuming everyone else sees things that way.

Again, look in the mirror.

and Kamala was a particularly bad example of this.

As this is subjective, no citation needed. However, I’d argue that her change from her 2020 platform does in fact represent she is capable of reflecting and changing - she changed her 2024 platform to reflect the more “electible” platform of Biden that won 2020.

And the result was actually a very close election in the battleground states, as per https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj4ve004llxo but as you also pointed out.

Voters weren’t the problem here, as nobody ever got a chance to vote for her…because of her bungled campaign.

That’s why I didn’t mention them. Agreed overall - the point is that having to campaign for a primary in 2024 would have exposed the faults along with putting “electability” back into the picture. Exactly how this happens is less important than it does indeed happen.

Democrats won most of the battleground senate races
Democrats… won Michigan and Wisconsin… are ahead in Arizona and Nevada.

I missed this. Conceded, you’re right.

it wasn’t very realistic that the democrats would ever hold either

Yeah, the WV loss was basically certain. Although higher hopes were had in Montana, obviously they didn’t pan out.

it’s just that the senate seats up for reelection were favorable to Republicans.

Yup, I remember this being an issue back in 2018 as well. Seeing that Senate terms are for six years, this makes sense. But that gives hope that 2026 will be more like 2020 with Dems barely retaking the Senate. Though that assumes there are still free and fair elections by then.

Looking just at the senate races, it was a pretty respectable result for the democrats, it could have been a lot worse

Agreed.

this despite the fact that Kamala got the worst result of any Dem candidate since 20 years ago.

You’ll have to explain this. Based on the other speculative posted I referenced earlier, in terms of the popular vote it seems like Harris will have more than Clinton did in 2016 and only be short by a few million compared to Biden. If you look at EC numbers, Harris had more than Clinton, and the 2016 winner and the 2020 winner won by more than 300, while this year the number fell short of that.

It’s definitely a bad&painful result, but I wouldn’t call it the worst.

Many Latinos have conservative social values, but in the past they were willing to look past that because there was a substantive difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the issue,

Ah, that makes sense.

It’s not puzzling at all.

The reason it was puzzling is because I had forgotten. It’s a personal bias (my inner circle of friends includes Latinos with very liberal families, but this obviously is due to a selection bias and doesn’t reflect the grouping in general).

That is literally one person. A person who does not in any way reflect a significant constituancy of voters. What a ridiculous argument.

I can give you a longer list if you like, of all the former Republican politicians who have gone on the record for supporting Harris. It’s not ridiculous at all. It’s fair to say it wasn’t enough, but it’s more ridiculous to say it was just one person when we know the real number is at least more than an order of magnitude greater.

Nobody gives a shit about sweet talk, we wanted actual material action.

We’re in agreement here.

The message wasn’t strong enough because it was bullshit.

I have nothing to back this up, but I had a feeling that once Harris was elected, actual action would eventually have been taken. She just couldn’t say anything but empty words prior to election day to avoid losing the Jewish bloc - but based on what we now know of the overall vote, it seems like that was a risk she should have taken.

she could have at least tried to distance herself from it.
Hell, she could’ve said something like

I think the GOP would have had a field day with “before we were merely mitigating the damage” (why didn’t you just fix it? maybe because you don’t know how?)

but now, with your support, we can begin building towards a future that will be brighter than ever. We are going to [policy X, Y, and Z].

That’s exactly what Harris tried to do, as per https://www.npr.org/2024/08/09/nx-s1-5055895/harris-is-signaling-her-campaigns-priorities-the-economy-could-be-key-for-voters (fight price gouging, expand child tax credit, encourage more small businesses) and per https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2024/09/30/harris-opportunity-economy–closes-the-economic-gap-with-trump/ (the opportunity economy).

Instead the messaging was more along the lines of, “The economy is great, actually, and anyone who says otherwise

You’d be right if you said trying to use this was a mistake, but - I feel she was trying to share in the credit for the good numbers on the economy as per https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/harris-inflation-solid-economy-00183210

Voters care more about their own personal finances. If things are more expensive for them, why do they care that the economy’s numbers look good? Another thing I think a primary would have prevented.

What harm would there be in distancing from Biden? Is it going to hurt B’s future career prospects?

I think at the time the thinking was being too distant from B would cause two problems. First, why didn’t she do anything more as VP? Second, not able to take any credit for the few good things.

Agreed - this makes a lot of sense too. As bad as they have it, they do have a cushion due to the programs you said, and they would have seen Harris as a way to ensure that cushion remained.

In a way that reinforces my original argument (that the top and bottom didn’t really feel the change in the economy as much as the middle did) - but you’re right to bring this up as it’s important to understand precisely why this was the case.

This makes intuitive sense to me. If you’re rich, the economy getting bad like it did wouldn’t have hurt so much - you do pay more but your existing wealth insulates you from most of the actual pain.

And if you’re making under 30k then life was already really tough before the economy got bad, so you went from a painful situation that sucked to a slightly more painful situation that sucked.

It’s those in the middle who went from comfortable to painful.

Edit: why the downvotes @goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com and @theatomictruth@lemmy.world ?

Dahh… I was wondering actually if Biden had offered to pardon that guy like in the last two weeks prior to the election, in return for dropping out of the race.

Vance as a presidential candidate and a rushed new VP pick probably would have lost, and they’d have almost no time to make up for a missed campaign.

Also, pre-MAGA Vance was actually a not-so-unreasonable dude, see https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html - so even if Vance had won, without the specter of orange voldemort he might have reverted back to his old self.