Of course its not just that, we got enough resources that we don't even need the US. Last I've checked (someone can fact-check it), the great state of Texas was (by standard of living), top 5 state in the entire country. So don't associate us with poor anything
Not even close. Keep on simping. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/quality-of-life-by-state https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617
I've never seen or heard anything like that regarding Texas, please source so I can see the method. There are two popular annual standard of living rankings I know of and Texas ranks in the bottom half of states in both HDI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index_score US News - https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings
Plus you keep stating Texas. Which I have proven you incorrect. My statement was red states are poorer than blue states. Fact.
"And in that space between us, politicians and algorithms teach us to caricature each other and troll each other and fear each other." - Barack Obama
Cool. Her take is just as good as the Donald's relatives takes about him .#believerelatives Glad you agree!
I was wondering what you were talking about. Palestinian rights are no more or less than Israeli rights. Denying them their rights is extremism. The easy middle and sensible ground is Harris' position: Let me be clear: I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on October 7th. Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival. At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking. President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination.
I wasn't knocking her. I didn't even watch the video. I was referencing that our resident CEO wants to call out what a family member of one candidate says, but ignores what the family of the other candidate says.
I grew up in Texas, but it's scary to think about growing old here, since we have the worst ranked nursing homes in the entire country. Priorities are outta whack. It's even worse when there’s no Texas requirement that nursing homes and assisted living facilities keep generators on hand to power air conditioning after storms. That's just cruel and inhumane treatment of the elderly in a state this damn hot.
Good point. An unbiased individual would have a consistent method of evaluation. There is more direct and strong evidence for the issue ATW is concerned about. Trump dined with neo-Nazis and publicly supported a candidate who denied the Holocaust. As for her, it looks like that tweet was a screenshot, not a video. The screenshot shows a "Democrats for Palestinian Rights" button worn by her. That, apparently, is too much to ask for. Something is seriously wrong when you want to deny a whole people their rights. Something is wrong when you aren't willing to do what's sensible - for the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians, and against terrorists.
Nate Silver has a really good analysis of her speech and contrasts it with Clinton's. Kamala Harris is not going back to the failed politics of 2016 (natesilver.net) I didn’t watch Kamala Harris’s convention speech live last night due to a book tour event that ran late, instead coming back to my hotel after a quick drink with my cousins to view the replay and take notes with a relatively fresh pair of eyes. I’ve found that watching speeches after everyone else has gone to bed is sometimes helpful in avoiding groupthink. For instance, I thought Joe Biden’s State of the Union address this year was quite mediocre and that he was being graded on an extremely generous curve by the media. This time, I’m more aligned with the generally favorable pundit buzz for Harris’s speech, but if anything I don’t think it goes far enough. I thought this was an excellent speech, delivered by someone who’s become a pretty good — maybe even very good — politician. As friend-of-the-newsletter Matt Glassman reminds us, the difference between a good speech and an excellent speech may not mean that much in terms of immediate impact in the polls. But it suggested a strategically smart campaign, one that really wants to win and has a plan that it can execute with quite a bit of precision.... In conjunction with Harris’s remarks, I watched Hillary Clinton’s 2016 acceptance speech, basically dividing each speech into thirds (beginning, middle, end) and toggling back and forth between them. It’s the natural comparison point. Joe Biden’s 2020 speech was delivered during Deeply Weird COVID Times, and unlike Clinton or Harris, he had the advantage of running against an unpopular incumbent. My conclusion? Perhaps the contrast with Clinton — and the hindsight bias of knowing Clinton lost — was inevitably going to make Harris look good by comparison, so that’s one potential flaw with this methodology. But man, Kamala Harris is approximately 1000x better at the stagecraft of politics than Hillary Clinton ever was. There was one good sign for Harris’s speech right away. The first video clip I found had a relatively short runtime — 38 minutes — forming a contrast not only to Clinton’s 57 minutes in 2016 but even more pointedly to Trump’s 92-minute speech in Milwaukee last month. (Which would have been a good speech if Trump had stopped at 38 minutes.) I think this should be the norm for nearly all political speeches: 30 minutes, 45 minutes tops. You want to talk for 90 minutes? Great, go on a podcast.... Kamala Harris DNC Speech Is the Best I’ve Ever Seen (nymag.com) Kamala Harris rose to the occasion with a perfect nominating acceptance speech. I’ve never seen a nominee target their political objectives so precisely. The text was ideally suited to the electoral challenge she faces, and her delivery exuded strength and inspiration....
Clinton blazed an unknown path, and I doubt she had a grounded circle despite their Arkansas background. It's like she let Bubba do the schmoozing and baby kissing. Kamala and her handlers would be harebrained if they didn't rip pages from her campaign on lessons learned. The problem, before she got the nod, was perceptions of her lack of seriousness with That Laugh. People expected a Hillary type in the most common form of leadership in power, the Executive Tyrant, but Kamala's one job at the convention was to make her look genuine, confident, and...not-weird. Establishing a bond with the American people first is definitely more important to her campaign than listing a 100-pt Executive Plan for her vision of America. Her first impression was crap and people would listen to the other guy's response whether they liked it or not. Trust or respect has to be earned. You won't believe what the other person is saying until you give them some benefit of the doubt.
