That information doesn’t change anything I’ve said. He can be “trailing trump” and still not be the best candidate the dems could have
I think there are people on the fence (who generally decide the election) who would be swayed by Biden’s apparent dementia
The Polymarket prediction markets gives odds for who will win the presidential election and who will win the democratic nominee. We can compare the odds of each candidate and use Bayes Theorem to determine their chances of winning the presidency if they secure the DNC nomination.
Here’s the results as of posting this comment:
Joe Biden: 27% Kamala Harris: 50% Michelle Obama: 100% Gavin Newsom: 66% Other: 50%
Obviously this doesn’t work perfectly (the Michelle Obama example especially is bizarre), but there is over $300M behind these numbers so people seem to think they’re at least somewhat accurate.
TLDR: there is a lot of money that thinks Joe Biden is one of the worst options
You don’t think if Biden stepped down and it was an open primary there wouldn’t be some good options?
Pete Buttigeig, Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, anyone under 60 would make Trump look like a dottering old man in comparison
I don’t think the opinion “the man who has control of the nuclear arsenal is showing signs of senility and should not serve another 4 years regardless of who replaces him” is not an unreasonable one
The real question is, how can we avoid the maple leaf being griefed?
Here’s the girl’s facebook post since it wasn’t linked in the article: https://www.facebook.com/emma.maclean.376/posts/1624020878439140?ref=embed_post
The powers that be will likely push for cashless society because it gives them more surveillance & control
If credit/debit cards were the norm and cash was invented today, it would likely be outlawed down because criminals/terrorists/child kidnappers will use if for nefarious purposes
It’s crazy that they change the weights on these indexes. How are you supposed to get an accurate inflation number if you keep moving the goal posts
I don’t like it
I have to give credit where it’s due, I actually like this change. Likes used to be private, and then they became public and subject to the toxic performativity of social media
Everyone is the just the product of luck
Totally agree! Isn’t an argument against the carbon tax though, but an argument for more transit development
There’s been a slight downtick in recent years, but it’s still up +10 years from 1970
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/CAN/canada/life-expectancy
While I think the student protest are misguided, this seems like a good development. People have a right to (peacefully) protest, and universities shouldn’t forcibly remove people that aren’t hurting others or damaging property
It’s not the simple unfortunately, because of 2 factors:
Our boomers are a very large generation, larger than the millenials
Life expectancy has increased so people live much longer (with high medical costs)
In the 70s - 2000s we had a large generation of in their working years paying for a small generation’s 5-10 year retirement
Now, we have a small generation in their working years paying for a large generation 15-25 year retirement
And this is not something we can solve by just “taxing the rich”. The numbers are so huge that taxing Canada’s richest people is a drop in the bucket
I can’t believe the carbon tax is getting such bad press lately. IMO it’s one of the best policies to come out of the current government. Everyone is upset about high gas prices, but the forget that they get a big rebate at the end of the year. This means for people with fuel efficient cars, the tax is minimal, and the gas guzzlers pay a lot. Encourages better use of limited resources.
It’s anti-tech propaganda. The same is happening with crypto. Certain groups don’t like it, so they try to convince the public that it is bad for the environment so it will be banned
This isn’t a good situation, but I also don’t like the idea that people should be banned from using energy how they want to. One could also make the case that video games or vibrators are not “valuable” uses of energy, but if the user paid for it, they should be allowed to use it.
Instead of moralizing we should enact a tax on carbon (like we have in Canada) equal to the amount of money it would take to remove that carbon. AI and crypto (& xboxes, vibrators, etc) would still exist, but only at levels where they are profitable in this environment.
This is a bit of a fallacy. In a normal market, the rent for a home is less than the costs of home ownership (mortgage + maintenance + taxes) and that saved money can be used to purchase other assets.
Until the real estate mania of the last few years, if you followed this strategy, you would not be any worse off than the person who bought their home.
I personally would much rather have equity in more fungible assets than a home. Owning a home ties you to a specific location, and can’t easily be sold in an emergency. Plus it’s not a very diverse portfolio if most of you wealth is in a single property
I think what’s happening is that the old political boundaries are being rewritten. The MAGA crowd don’t hold all the same views as old school conservatives, and so some of them are now swing voters. But also Trump is pulling some votes from the democrats, most obviously the unions