niucllos

Sure, but if she had spent her few months promising to tax the shit out of Elon Musk and other billionaires I bet people would have been more excited and actually showed up to vote than when she promised to keep the course and also appoint a Republican

I don't understand how the rhetoric this time didn't hurt him there tbh, he didn't change it really

They hang out here because America is currently one of/the best wealth engines on the planet and they can afford to avoid the shit parts. Once either of those stop they'll go somewhere else that's nicer

One example does not a rule make, and in the US electoral system money (and the party affiliations that bring it) speaks loudest of all. Maybe going further left wouldn't work, but going further right certainly hasn't. When Harris first emerged as the candidate she had such a swell of support, as she moved further right she lost it.

There is some panicking prompted by the horrible things he's promised to do but probably can't, but:

-He got Roe v. Wade overturned, stripping rights from Americans while also being responsible for a 3% increase in infant mortality in the US, the first significant increase in decades

-about as many people died of COVID as voted for Jill Stein, and while Trump isn't responsible for all their deaths he significantly worsened the problem.

So I'd say beyond shit

Not in a lot of states they weren't

I don't agree that she had no platform other than I'm not Trump, but she certainly shifted right as the race went on and lost more and more support as she did it

I think Harris played it better than anyone had so far with handling Trump. I think her fatal mistep was believing there were hordes of rightwing never trumpers who could be swayed. She had so much momentum when she first stepped in and people thought she'd be further left than Biden, she pivoted further right than him and probably got less votes. Being a POC woman certainly didn't help either.

I mean, the projected winner maps aren't the US government's decision, it's what whatever news your watching has modelled as settled with an acceptable margin of error based on current information. Realistically they could have called most of the states months ago with that same error, some organizations just veil it more

Oh God, I was imagining one of his weird motions that sort of looks like a hand job but isn't supposed to, but yeah this is super deliberate.

GTFO with that "politics" bullshit. It stopped being a purely political difference when Trump made it about racism, sexism, and all other possible forms of bigotry. It stopped being about purely bigotry when he tried to stage a coup.

Above and beyond, you don't know their life. Maybe they needed a life-saving abortion and their father gleefully cackled when that right was effectively removed in many states. Maybe they're black and their father bragged about the shootings of black folks, they're latin and he chortled over the deportation rhetoric, or they're Muslim and he rubbed the travel bans in their face. Maybe they have/had long COVID and their father gave it to them because "it's a hoax." There are so many reasons for cutting MAGA idiots out of your life and Trump's political policy is the least of them

Sure, there will be examples of problems in any field that has hundreds of thousands to millions of humans working in it. That doesn't mean there's a broad crisis, and it doesn't mean that most research is faked or fallible. In your 2004 example, all of the data wasn't faked, some images for publication were doctored. There's been potential links between alzheimer's and aBeta amyloids since at least 1991 (1), long before this paper that posited a specific aB variant as a causal target. Additionally, other Alzheimer's causes and treatments are also under investigation, including gut microbiome studies since at leasg 2017 (2). Finally, drugs targeting aB proteins to remove brain plaques work in preclinical trials, indicating that the 2004 paper was at least on the right track even if they cheated to get their paper published. This showcases science working well: bad-faith actors behaved unethically, but the core parts of their work were replicated and found to be effective, so some groups followed that to clinical trials which are still ongoing, and others followed other leads for a more holistic understanding of the disease.

Also, I'd very much argue that human neurological diseases are both bleeding edge and niche, which inherently means that recognizing problems in studies will take more time than something that is cheaper or faster to test and validate, but problems will eventually be recognized as this one was.

1. Cras P, Kawai M, Lowery D, Gonzalez-DeWhitt P, Greenberg B, Perry G. Senile plaque neurites in Alzheimer disease accumulate amyloid precursor protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88:7552–6.
2. Cattaneo, A. et al. Association of brain amyloidosis with pro-inflammatory gut bacterial taxa and peripheral inflammation markers in cognitively impaired elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 49, 60–68 (2017).