abff08f4813c

When we ran a young charismatic candidate with a progressive campaign in 08, it was easy to get voters on board and red states became blue, it even carried over to flipping state governments

See https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521 - but the TLDR is that 2008 isn't comparable, since a major gerrymandering effort by the GOP took place in 2010 that took Dems by surprise - and this gerrymandering made the above virtually impossible to repeat (by design, I might add).

Yep, the truth is it shouldn’t even be this close, but Kamala has moved significantly right in the last four years.

Actually, that's probably why she's winning. Because of the nature and makeup of the Electoral College, we can consider the Presidential election biased in favor of the GOP candidate.

It’s the only explanation for why they keep moving right after Obama’s 08 landslide

I've explained this in detail before, so rather than reposting, I'll just point folks over to this, https://lemmy.world/comment/12409521

The Dem party doesn’t try to get landslide victories, they want to give voters the absolute minimum they need to win.

Well, I'm sure they would if they could. But see above - it's not possible with the current structure. I'm still hopeful that we can get Harris elected, and then have a chance of getting the 127 DC states plan to pass - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review

Which would allow Dems to pass the required constitutional amendments to address the systemic problems with the current, erm, system.

I've had some bad ones (the DMV near my university) along with some good ones (the good folks at Service Ontario where I got DMV-like things done - they're so polite, friendly, and helpful!).

There are real benefits to the third party candidate in this scenario though - since they're getting multiple votes in a safe state, but federal campaign funding eligibility is just based on the national popular vote, this gets them closer to that funding than if the swing voter did a straight vote for the third party.

Also, he has confessed to telling the ranger back then that he shot himself. Surely the ranger would have known he was lying or not if he saw the wound? You're right again - it doesn't add up.

Wow, you're right. When I first read that sentence I assumed that he meant that the gun went off when he fell down, and it fired into his arm - into his old wound from the war - and that's why he worried the new bullet might have dislodged the old one, along the lines of https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3846953/ or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731308/

But then I reread it and it says,

Sheehy himself has sought to parry Peach’s version of events by saying he had never been hit by gunfire that day in 2015.

So you're right. The bullet would have to be dislodged by his act of falling down. I'm not a medical or a firearms expert so I can't say for sure on this point, I can only note that my internet searches don't seem to come up with any other examples of this ever happening.

I guess Sheehy might have gotten irrationally worried over nothing that day - a strong enough fall can do that and much worse to the good ol' noggin, I suppose. But that also means he never tried to get a bullet removed after so many years? Isn't that really dangerous to leave the bullet in? And couldn't the doctors who saw in in 2015 tell if the bullet was recent or really old?

This sounds right, but I'm curious. What specific systems or factors are at play here that make it impossible to hide this? Like what if the reason no one else has come forward now is because the other grunts who were with him that day all later died in combat?

Also - a war wound while defending against the enemy is one thing. But a wound from friendly fire? It almost feels like he wanted to go with the former but changed his story to the latter to come up with a good excuse to avoid having documentation for it...

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

Cool, thanks for the suggestion!

Also, h/t to getting pointed to https://www.nten.org/change/savedotorg-campaign-history .. TIL!

This is actually very easy. You can copy the files from the container, even while it's not running, onto your host system to edit there, and then copy them back afterwards.

See the top answer on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22907231/how-to-copy-files-from-host-to-docker-container for step by step instructions on how to do this.

There's a good reason for it - in short it's the price I pay for a free domain name.

I provided a longer and more in-depth explanation over at https://aussie.zone/post/14078235/12384427

Thanks for getting to it so fast! Looks good now.