Temporary psychosis could have a variety of causes, including but not limited to drug triggers.
The number of times abusive men have murdered their partners is not the real statistical factor. It’s the number of times multiple largely independent Pennsylvania law enforcement organizations have concluded that the partner’s alibi is solid, and they were wrong.
If I take ibuprofen or aspirin, I get bruises. I’m not saying that happened here. That would be an availability heuristic mistake. I am saying that we do not know what to make of the bruises.
Agreed.
Shapiro’s November 2026 reelection result – in comparison to his past state-wide runs – will be a reasonable test of whether this dirt is starting to stick.
Every candidate for the nomination will have oppo research vulnerabilities. This time, we have the luxury of multiple plausible candidates with a history of winning state-wide in swing states. Seven possibles other than Shapiro meet that criteria (Gallego, Kelly, Slotkin, Whitmer, Ossoff, Warnock, Bashear). Plus, Andy Kim solidly won in a congressional district that Trump won the same year. We’ll see what ridiculous-to-me conspiracy theories they become the subject of.
Well, if he did cover up a murder for personal political gain, I’d say it does matter what happened. I’m not saying that’s what happened, but we don’t need to defend him if that turns out to be the truth.
If he’s not involved in a conspiracy, then yes, “dirt” is the issue.
Exactly. This is a serious issue that deserves investigation, but at this point I see no reason to think it’s likely that Shapiro personally did anything wrong. And frankly, even if he did, it seems unlikely that conclusive evidence of his guilt is going to surface a decade later.
It has had that serious investigation- from 5 different agencies. Remember, it wasnt only Shapiros OFFICE (likely the DA himself had nothing to do with the investigation) that investigated and ruled suicide. It was four other independent investigations. And the two so-called “experts” that disagreed never viewed the body and one of them is a JFK assassination conspiracy nut. So, not “a lot of experts” only two and one is imho bogus- and the other “expert” is one of those guys who will testify for pay.
From PhillyGuys cite-
Multiple, extensive, interagency investigations found no signs of forced entry nor any traces of intruders in the apartment, and at the time Ellen’s wounds were inflicted, her fiancé (my friend’s cousin Samuel Goldberg) had a rock-solid alibi that he was not there: he was in the fitness room of their building for an extended workout session, and his time in the gym as well as his time getting there and back in the corridors and elevators were all captured on time-stamped, unaltered security video.
And I did some digging myself- searching for Shapiro and the two “suspect” families (they were never actually suspects, from what i saw) comes up with the ONLY “relationships” being the endless speculation about this case. So, whatever “relationships” between the families might be, they certainly arent that close.
I’m concerned about all of these things too, but AI adoption is inevitable. The best way to guide and regulate it is to get on board and drive it. I would like to tap the brakes on adoption and data center build-outs, but it won’t happen – it’s happening across too many disparate groups: companies, municipalities, and states.
Maybe I’m too Machiavellian, but strategically one party will eventually adopt the pro-AI stance. I’d rather the Dems stake out their claim now, draw the battle lines where we went them, and ally with the big money so that we have some leverage to extract concessions.
I think this could be a powerful plank in the platform: “We support AI, but we are going to do it our way.”
Your broader point is very good – currently AI supporters and detractors are all over the political map.
I don’t think AI needs to be binary as a political issue. If it’s as useful as, say, the internet, then it’s widespread adoption and massive impact will be inevitable. But we don’t know that yet. It doesn’t need to be for or against. Just “it’s a very intriguing new technology, but there are concerns as well, and we should approach with caution and interest.”
Again, I don’t think issues really matter much. I see no evidence any significant chunk of voters is waiting for positions on Ai to decide their vote. It will be about TV presentation, charisma, and personality, and we need to be sure to nominate someone great at those qualities.
I work in the Tech sector. The is 0.00% chance that AI is going away. AI makes me WAY more productive than I was before I used it in my job. Tasks that used to take a week are now done in a day. The difference between how effective AI was even just year ago and today is night and day. Now don’t get me wrong. AI isn’t perfect. I normally have to go through multiple revisions of what I want it to do before it gets it right so AI for programming still needs a user that understands what you are doing. But to be blunt if I were doing it on my own I would have to go through many more revisions.
Obviously, that makes me a little scared of what this will mean for my career in 5 years. I don’t think ignoring it or trying to outlaw something this useful is going to work. If you want a silver lining there are things AI doesn’t do well and there are signs it might be hitting a wall soon and radically slow down how fast it is advancing.
Not even when the bubble bursts and the VC bros stop throwing billions of dollars at it and the companies actually start charging you what it REALLY costs to buy out the world’s supply of RAM, push the electric grid to its limit, consume millions of gallons of water a day, and speed up global warming so you can code faster?
The biggest change AI is going to have on our lives is when the entire industry goes tits-up and takes the global economy down with it, and we’re gonna need a president who has a plan for when that happens.
This thread has been off the rails for quite some time. These are only the most recent hijacks. Please return to the topic of this thread now.
@Smapti, you are a frequent offender of our No Hijacks rule. Please be more careful about which thread you’re posting in and make sure you are on topic.
…
But if Democratic Party politics are any indication, the future is no longer female. Stung by the losses of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Harris, many in the party, according to multiplereports, are looking for a presidential candidate in 2028 who is straight, white and male. Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas summed up the prevailing attitude as "Let’s go find the safest white boy we can.”
My bold.
I’ve been saying this all along.
…
But nowhere is this trend clearer than in the messaging of Gavin Newsom, the California governor and presidential hopeful. More than any other Democrat, he has embraced an unapologetic, some might say toxic, form of masculinity. Suddenly aggressive, thick-skinned and partial to the macho lingo of the online right, he seems to have concluded that progressive models of manliness — the deferential white male ally, the “girl dad” concerned about reproductive rights — are passé.
His instincts may unsettle progressives, but Mr. Newsom has accurately identified a Democratic weakness. His attempts to address the problem, though often misguided, nonetheless point his party in the direction it must travel to beat back the right.
…
The point is not that Mr. Newsom secretly desires the subjugation of women or minorities. On the contrary, he is committed to a system of diversity, equity and inclusion measures that offer advantages to women, racial minorities and L.G.B.T. people — that is, to everyone but straight white men. The point is that he is responding to a political and cultural energy that has shifted away from the celebration of feminism and diversity and toward the concerns of alienated, and especially white, men.
…
Like it or not, this is reality. Before Democrats can take back the White House and the country, they first have to get elected.
Odd, the NYT said “many in the party” and the Axios article said “Some Dems 2028 strategy” and sure, some do think that way. But not most and I am doubtful if it is “many”.
Every actual poll or other attempt to engage with voters about 2024 shows that people vote on issues. You disagree with Trump voters about the notion that “trans athletes in sports” is an issue, or that “massively increase ICE powers” is the solution to the issue of immigration, or that “instituting higher tarriffs will help the economy” is accurate. That’s fine. I disagree with 90% of the Trump platform too. But the idea that people aren’t voting on their perception of what the issues are and who has the better solution to them is false.
Every attempt to go down the self-pity hole of “if only people weren’t so stupid and racist and brainwashed by Fox News and in love with politician’s haircuts….” needs to be met with the rolled-up newspaper and spray bottle. No! Bad analysis! Democrats lose elections when Democrats offer unpopular policy proposals or eschew policy proposals entirely in favor of “you have to vote for me because I’m a woman” or “you have to vote for me because I’m a veteran” or “you have to vote for me because Trump is a bad person.” Voters do not care about this stuff. Maybe they did in 1980. That was a long time ago.
If people are factually wrong about whether inflation is a problem, educate them. If they are morally wrong about whether it’s justified to deport people who have lived peacefully in the U.S. for decades, persuade them. These things are hard, but the answer to them being hard is to rise to the challenge, not run away from the reality of how people vote and pretend we just need to find the guy with the right nose shape and the best zinger writers.
You’re completely misreading what I said. Writers and zingers are the opposite of what the party needs. I’m saying there might be an Obama out there - someone with A+ natural charisma, not writers and zingers, who effortlessly and naturally communicates a positive and authentic message that connects to people. When I say issues don’t matter, I mean that they’re baked in. The entire party is anti ICE, anti MAGA, pro economic growth, anti inflation, etc. It’s not some elaborate position on a website that is going to win the election. It’s authentic communication and charisma.
That’s why Obama won, that’s why Bill Clinton won, that’s (unfortunately) why Trump won. We should nominate a natural, effortless, and authentic communicator.
IMO, the first candidate who says “I will use every resource available to me to ensure that Donald Trump and his associates are held accountable for their crimes against humanity, up to and including extraditing them to an international tribunal if our own legal system is incapable of doing so”, is going to instantly rocket to the top of the polls.
Re last post, in the primary pols, conceivably, but they would have little chance in November. The international tribunal ideas goes against the deep nationalism common (albeit not universal!) in our species.
Trump or no Trump, a winning Democrat will have to find multiple ways to be proud of their country.
That’s one reason talk of nominating a while male hetero Christian is nails on the chalkboard to moderate me. We are better than that, and if not are sunk anyway (besides that if someone is highly electable in purple statewide races, there’s every reason to think they could win other swing states).
P.S: If a DA candidate pledges to go after an individual (happened with Bill Cosby), I vote against them. I might vote for a November presidential candidate who made your pledge because defeating MAGA is so important. But the pledge for the president to go after Trump is itself Trumpy.