One more thing I might suggest is to start attending some of your town/city council meetings. You can also ask the clerk to put you on their mailing list for meeting minutes. Some have a sign up on their website. Just getting a feel for what your locality is dealing with can help you to understand what the local issues are. Local politics are often more accessible to change.
Pick an issue, or a few, you care about. Find the local or regional group that is already fighting for that issue. Join their newsletter. When they have events or meetings near you, go. Meet people and network. Someday you will find a way you can help in a way that fits your skill set, say yes.
It really is that easy to get involved, and these organizations need volunteers way more than they need money. People make the world move forward, not money, not votes. I mean voting and giving helps too, but giving your time is often way more important with activism.
They can live anywhere, when the usa collapses, they all just leave to go fuck up somewhere else.
I’m not for millions of immigrants suffering just to teach conservatives a lesson.
The article implies that this is a reaction to specifically conservative men. So I think there is nuance there that the article is choosing not to define. But until women get autonomy over their reproductive health, having sex with any men, conservative or not, comes with increased risk. So it has a certain logic to it even if they are truly swearing off literally all men.
I’ll believe it when I see it, there is too much money to be made by selling division and overblown narratives.
Democratic party aside, Bernie couldn’t get the votes. I actually think the news media has been a much much bigger problem with someone like Bernie getting power. They always try to paint someone like him as being radical, when anywhere else in the world he would be a normal person on the left.
I thought they die because they can no longer support their weight either because they can’t digest enough or hunt enough food to sustain their size?
It’s these bad faith arguments that caused the thread to turn against you. Gender isn’t a cat, and it certainly isn’t anything at all. You claim you wanted earnest conversation, but you undermined that with snide comments you knew would result in negative reaction.
Ask yourself if he would have said that comment to a white Christian. If not, then you have your answer.
Would he have mentioned a beeper if the recipient was a white Christian? It hasn’t lost any of it’s meaning it’s just that some people are incapable or unwilling to recognize it unless it’s backed by a nazi symbol, white hoods, or overt calls for racial violence. Your inability to recognize reality does not mean reality ceases to exist.
Obvious sarcasm getting down votes …
I’d rather pay for security updates than invite more AI and Microsoft sponsored spyware onto my computer…
I think you’re missing the point of predictive modeling. It’s probability of separate outcomes is built in. This isn’t fortune telling, there is no crystal ball. Two predictive models can have different predictions and they both may have value. Just like separate meteorologists can have different forecasts, but predict accurately the same amount over time, all be it at different intervals. IIRC, the average meteorologist correctly predicts rain over 80% of the time. They are far over predicting by chance. But if you look at the forecast in more than one place you often get slightly different forecasts. They have different models and yet arrive at similar conclusions usually getting it mostly accurate. It’s the same with political forecasts, they are only as valuable as your understanding of predictive modeling. If you think they are intended to mirror reality flawlessly, you will be sorely disappointed. That doesn’t make the models “wrong”, it doesn’t make them “right” either. They are just models that usually predict a probable outcome.
His model has always been closer state to state, election to election than anyone else’s, which is why people use his models. He is basically using the same model and tweaking it each time, you make it sound like he’s starting over from scratch. When Trump won, none of the prediction models were predicting he would win, but his at least showed a fairly reasonable chance he could. His competitors were forecasting a much more likely Hillary win while he was showing that trump would win basically 3 out of 10 times. In terms of probability that’s not a blowout prediction. His model was working better than competitors. Additionally, he basically predicted the battleground states within a half percentage iirc, that happened to be the difference between a win/loss in some states.
So he has exactly one chance to get it right.
You’re saying it hitting one of those 3 of 10 is “getting it wrong”, that’s the problem with your understanding of probability. By saying that you’re showing that you don’t actually internalize the purpose of a predictive model forecast. It’s not a magic wand, it’s just a predictive tool. That tool is useful if you understand what it’s really saying, instead of extrapolating something it absolutely is not saying. If something says something will happen 3 of 10 times, it happening is not evidence of an issue with the model. A flawless model with ideal inputs can still show a 3 of 10 chance and should hit in 30% of scenarios. Certainly because we have a limited number of elections it’s hard to prove the model, but considering he has come closer than competitors, it certainly seems he knows what he is doing.
All prediction models only give you odds, not flawless accuracy. He has been closer in every election than most everyone else in the prediction market.
He’s not polling, he is aggregating all of the polls into a prediction model. Either way it is just a snapshot in time.
but it does mean that Boeing got something wrong.
Comparing it to Boeing shows you still misunderstand probability. If his model predicts 4 separate elections where each underdog candidate had a 1 in 4 chance of winning. If only 1 of those underdog candidates wins, then the model is likely working. But when that candidate wins everyone will say “but he said it was only a 1 in 4 chance!”. It’s as dumb as people being surprised by rain when it says 25% chance of rain. As long as you only get rain 1/4 of the time with that prediction, then the model is working. Presidential elections are tricky because there are so few of them, they test their models against past data to verify they are working. But it’s just probability, it’s not saying this WILL happen, it’s saying these are the odds at this snapshot in time.
Most officers don’t ticket for speed of traffic, the uniform vehicle code (federal advisory on traffic laws) literally advises them not to for obvious reason. Most cops will focus on cars exceeding both the speed of traffic and the speed limit. If you drive you whole life going the speed of traffic you are very unlikely to be ticketed ever.
Voting is a small part of political change, it needs to be done but that’s not where the work is. Getting involved in your community and pushing for changes is far more productive, activism of all types.
I would start by getting on mailing lists for things you care about and email for local city council meeting minutes. You might be surprised by some of the meeting times of local orgs. Some events are evening, but you can still learn about what is needed if you are staying engaged with local things. I can’t tell you what will work, but I reiterate I would start by getting on mailing lists for things you care about and take opportunities when they come.
Edit: and don’t be so hard on yourself, you can only do what you can do. Take your wins when they come and focus on those.