Atyno

It kinda makes them look even more short sighted tbh. Like yeah, you can look at "there's a few polls where he takes from Biden" and call it a day, but it's kinda missing the fact he's lost a lot of relevance already with no signs of stopping.

It's kind of a catch 22: he's stealing votes from the low-info pool, but at the same time if he's not defined at all he'll make no impact by election day. Elevating him can fix that, but that risks those low info voters realizing what they're getting into and then start biting into Trump's numbers as expected.

It's a little silly to look at a whole nearly 10 years and not recognize culture has changed significantly, but here's an example considering the other reply failed to produce one:

Merely 1 year before, the internet was roiled by absolute massive drama that was basically masterminded by proto-incels upset that women were in the video game industry. They were extremely successful in framing a jilted ex's story as somehow a question of ethics. It was not only impressive how seriously they were taken, but some aspects were just unquestioned as just "how the internet was" like making depictions of these public figures being beaten to a bloody pulp, when nowadays the kids have been having to make euphemisms for implying someone dying in any way to get around censors. It even spilled over into 2015, which is why I can even use it as an example for that year.

In comparison, Gamergate 2 happened a few weeks ago. Its likely not many people here will even realize that even happened, and those that do recognize it was a whimpering yelp at best compared to the OG.

So, while there's no green, I think it'd be interesting to consider what's going on in the yellow places. Its likely those areas are close to parity even if male suicide is (marginally?) higher.

Particularly India and China.

Edit: just India, China is on the higher end after looking into the actual numbers. Also, Grenada should show up as green on this map, but the creator chose to not include it. Admittedly, it wasn't the only lesser Antilles island that was nixed so I'm not going to immediately call bias.

I'm not sure those numbers are as rosy for your argument as you'd think. You're not considering the possibility of someone that does think it's genocide and wholy approves of it. Which does exist, the "glass em all" types like my father.

I'm pretty sure it all balances out, because other polls are showing it's still Israel with the popularity advantage even with the downturn.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611375/americans-views-israel-palestinian-authority-down.aspx

It's especially telling that desire to pressure the Palestinians to compromise is dropping faster than the increase to pressure Israel: it's either people just becoming wishy washy or intentionally wanting the conflict to continue until Israel wipes them out. (Kinda wish Gallup didn't nix the differentiation between those options tbh).

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most of the money Trump fundraised was from "new converts" of people that never voted until Trump entered politics. And those people are probably tapped out now or disillusioned

The Republican party has long been funded by big donors for so long that the individual member has a deep distrust in individual donations. At the very least, I know my parents are in that boat: they think it's a scam.

The polls are wrong as long as they keep clashing with electoral reality. Nate Copper's article is heavy on poll data but flimsy on electoral anecdotes: a county election in 2020 and New York Elections with inconvenient data lopped off (The recent elections to replace George Santos).

The shift the polls are claiming are so seismic that it begs the question why this unprecedented shift is non-existent in basically every post-dobbs election. And let's not forget the fact that these polls present other, nonsensical trends to like the elderly shifting hard to Democrats too: a shift that can't easily be waved off by the usual "The shift is only in voters that only vote in presidential elections" excuse.

That's the thing, neither? I get approved a certain amount of hours and it's always 40 a week.

I'm going to keep an eye out in the market with these replies. I think I'm still ok if it's just the possibility of reduced hours because I'm not entirely sure if that's likely the case. I didn't mention it in OP, but we already had an "approved" amount of hours to work regardless based on contracts. We also have timesheets regardless due to auditing requirements.

But it probably doesn't hurt to be cautious.

I was possibly thinking this too? The email that announced itself mentions "the timing of this change--DATE--will be aligned to the implementation of EMPLOYER'S new payroll cadence and provider". Also something about manual transactions being unsustainable under the company size.

I'd assume you meant just the 40 hours right? As far as I can tell I could still get overtime since it's non-exempt either way.

How do you read the first paragraph and think any of that was ok, left or right?

The spoils system is awful and should remain a relic of the past.

A lot of folks here are rightfully pessimistic about this being the actual end, considering the past history of articles like this.

I'd like to present the possibility that the GOP is crumbling BECAUSE of why those years weren't the end for the GOP like articles predicted: Trump is inflicting the same institutional damage to the RNC Obama inflicted on the DNC. The same kind of damage that gave an opening for Republicans to revitalize themselves.

The only problem is whether if there will be enough rot by this year's election: the biggest evidence of the DNC's shrivelling under Obama's shadow was the 2016 election where Hillary basically saved them from death in exchange for fealty. It's not entirely clear if the 2010 losses were from early damage or just the upswell of reactionary outrage to Obama's presidency.