I don’t think this is true at all. She has a lot of media appearances coming up, as does Tim Walz.

But as other people have said, if you’re worried about, you can do something about it!

Here are the Encyclopedia Britannica pages for Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney, which have the same dates of birth for both individuals as cited above.

Yes.

Dick Cheney is 83 (born 1941).

Liz Cheney is 58 (born 1966).

83-58=25

So Dick Cheney was 25 when his daughter was born. This seems pretty normal and certainly not impossible.

But he voted Trump in 2016. I think that’s what @Chuymatt@beehaw.org meant by a ‘historical conservative’.

Several people here have mentioned the genocide in Palestine, which I accept is a major issue and one no one should be dismissive of. Biden himself acknowledged the validity of the issue in his speech to the DNC.

I honestly find Biden’s decision to keep spending so much money arming Israel baffling, but there is at least some chance Harris will change that policy.

But if Harris doesn’t win the White House, Trump’s policies will intensify the perescution of the Palestinians and also lead to pogroms, if not actual genocide, in the US and elsewhere.

I agree this is not a happy choice to have to make. But it’s also quite clear which is the right choice.

Tear it all down and start fresh or GTFO.

Okay.

Now what?

You raise a fair point: what exactly is a zombie? To me, a zombie is not a sapient thing, so if it remembers its previous sapience, it’s not a zombie. But zombies aren’t real, which makes it difficult to define them precisely.

No. Jesus had his intellect and personality intact, which zombies do not.

NB: I’m taking the Gospels as gospel, here. I do not think the man himself rose from the dead.

You may well be right and that’s why it’s vital not to be complacent. Donate, volunteer, vote. Get out there and make a Harris win happen!

Further thoughts on this:

Criticising the Democrats as merely a type of Republican has other downsides: it effectively takes the Republicans as the standard type of politician, i.e., it turns every argument into an argument on their terms.

This also means that we don’t effectively criticise the Democrats, who are best criticised on their terms, not as merey lesser or mutated Republicans.

The “lesser” fascist is still a fascist, and fascists spend much more of their time attacking us than attacking each other, and on top of that even if they do attack each other it’s through attacking us.

But the Democrats aren’t fascists, lesser or otherwise. They’re not ‘the Republicans, but less so’; they’re a different organisation with different histories and philosophies, different people and different priorities. The Democrats, for example, are not promising to overthrow the constitution, but overthrow it a bit less than the Republicans; they’re not planning to overthrow it at all. Degrees of evil are not possible in this case, nor in many others. The Republicans are straight up wrong in a way that the Democrats just are not.

For these reasons, I don’t buy the framing of lesser evil at all. If I did buy that framing, I would still wholeheartedly vote for the lesser evil, because it would still be better than more evil, by definition. Even your definition of ‘the same amount of evil, but slower’, would be better.

Seems like a good choice from where I am (which is, granted, the other side of the ocean). Republicans want to depict Democrats as dangerous extremists, but Walz comes across as a friendly dad, so that just won’t stick. No one will care about his policy record, they’ll just sound weird talking about that stuff.

easy to profit by re selling

This was exactly the reason they shut down the 3DS marketplace: re-selling old games is more profitable via Switch Online than it was through the 3DS marketplace!

Part of me still reads it as ‘slur punk’, which sounds appalling.

Real (I assume you mean proven) conspiracies start off as theories.

No, they don’t. Conspiracy theories are not ‘theories about conspiracies’. You are both misusing the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and wrongly describing the Tuskegee experiment as a conspiracy, which it never was. One of the people who originally called it out did so after reading about it in a published scientific paper! The pereptrators of that ‘experiment’ lied to the participants, but they were not otherwise secretive, otherwise they wouldn’t have been writing and publishing papers about it.

Fuck off

I’m not going to discuss this further with someone who cannot do so civilly.

The thing is that when Americans voted for the oldest Presidential candidate ever, with Harris as the VP, they were effectively saying they were okay with her as President. So, it’s safe to have some faith in Americans on this one!

Absolutely correct. And Trump is very beatable. The Democrats have loads of candidates who could beat him (including, IMO, Biden, but that’s in the past, now).

The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you’re right.

Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.

No, it isn’t. He’s a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.

RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.