No child Left behind was explicitly designed to sabotage schools so that the right wing could privatize them.

Sheesh, got any more tinfoil for your hat there? You do realize the bill passed both the House and Senate with effectively full support of both parties? If anything, it was disproportionate voted in favor by Democrats (there were more Repbulican Nays than Democrat in both the House and Senate vote).

When your opposition is a felon that is disliked by most people and your opposition still gets elected that should speak VOLUMES to the choice your party made for a candidate.

Does it, though? Can you actually articulate some concrete flaws about Kamala?

It has zero percent to do with the individual and everything to do with what she ran on. Harris staked her presidency as Biden 2.0, with effectively the same policies he was running the past 4 years. Biden's policies were polling at like ~70% unpopular. It also didn't help her that she came off as super disingenuous and fake when she tried to pivot to the middle late in the game. One particular instance that comes to mind was when she tried to pretend she was pro-fracking late in the election cycle in an attempt to win over Pennsylvania voters. It stood in stark contrast to everything she was previously on the record on regarding the topic in the 2020 election. Ultimately it just seemed fake/political/pandering. I don't think people bought her shift to the middle as genuine, especially when she wouldn't even admit anything she would do differently than Biden.

I simply can't understand why people would opt for Trump over *any* other candidate.

It's because of the shitty two party system. Believe it or not, many of the issues Trump focuses on are still not unpopular. Merely the way in which he's addressing them is what's unpopular. For instance, just to give one example, people wanted the border secured. People wanted a crackdown on crime. To some extent, they wanted a pullback on DEI overreach. Biden's policies were deeply unpopular, and Harris pretty much said she'd run on the same platform. So that's not exactly setting yourself up for success. So the tldr is that in a shitty two party system, voters preferred Trump's platform, despite not liking the individual personally. I believe they were also expecting a presidency closer to his first term, which was largely grounded, rather than the unhinged stuff currently going on.

We raised a whole new generation of individuals who would rather desperately seek a reason to be offended rather than laugh. Back in the day, nothing was off limits to comedians. Now, humor has to be carefully curated. In fact, I didn't even hear the phase "punching down" until this younger generation invented it.

"Supply chain absorbing cost increases" are weasel words used by politicians to convince the public that things will not be so bad

No, it's not. It's a deliberately vague catch-all that accurately describes a very complex macroeconomic environment that you seem to be content to shrug and boil down to simplicities. There are many ways in which long term effects might not be seen. Producers may reroute supply chains through different countries. Alternative cheaper inputs could be substituted. Products could be discontinued entirely. Business costs (ala layoffs) could occur, lowering costs and not requiring product repricing. With COVID, we saw "shrinkflation", where prices didn't change, but products got smaller.

The global supply chain + businesses reactions and plans are far too complex to know for certain the effects of tariffs. Heck, the Fed didn't understand the full effects of the COVID impact on supply chains for years. The "weasal words" you speak of are the taglines you spout: "this is just a tax on consumers! americans will pay all these tariffs, not foreigners!". Those words can not be proven, are intentionally vague and misleading, and political as hell. Consumers are only one part of a complicated business environment. And they will push back at some point. See McDonalds: https://www.mensjournal.com/fo...
Consumers do not just absorb 100% of cost increases.

It will be paid by those who buy the chips within the USA. It will not be paid by those who do not live in the USA

This is simply not true. It will be paid partially by those within the US. Even Powell knows this. The cost of tariffs are spread across the entire supply chain. The manufacturer will likely eat some of the cost, as will the distributor, as will the retailer, as will the consumer, etc, etc. We really don't know exactly how much of the cost will be bourne by the consumer, but it's very disingenuous and misleading to claim 100% of the cost will be paid by US consumers. That's simply untrue.

The amount of assumptions in your post are downright comical. I'm overweight, borderline obese, and in my 40s. And I'm very very aware of how hard it is to lose weight, as I fight the good fight every single damn day. It's taken me the better part of a year to trim off 20 pounds while consigning myself to a diet of mostly salads and a ton of biking. And I can very easily lose a great deal of those gains with a single cheat weekend or literally any vacation. Losing weight is hard because the human body is efficient. You don't have to binge eat to gain weight. Even eating just when your body says "feed me something" is often enough to cause steady gains. That's the point. That is why it's hard to keep weight off. Because the struggle literally never stops. Most people diet a bit, lose some weight, and then want to go back to "life as normal", not knowing that "normal" means "weight gain." True weight loss requires lifestyle changes and an acceptance of a little discomfort, and most people don't want to or can't put up with. How many people do you know that eat a couple of salads as their only caloric intake for the day and bike at least an hour a day? Of the people you know who do that, how many do you know that would be willing to maintain that for life? Don't go spouting bullshit at me when you don't even know the lifestyles these people you're claiming are trying to lose weight are engaging in.

At the end of the day, people want some semblance of comfort. They want to enjoy a donut, or a piece of cake, or a soda. They don't want to feel hungry all the time or constrain themselves to nuts and berries for months on end. They want to eat a prepared meal instead of a pile of leaves. People don't want to permanently alter their diet to something borderline uncomfortable. That is your answer as to why weight loss isn't sustained. It requires people accepting a bit more misery into their lives permanently. I fucking hate salads. I fucking hate biking. I fucking hate not picking up something to eat immediately when I feel hungry. Yet I've been doing it for the better part of a year now. Because I hate dying more.

If eating more salads, drinking less beer, and jogging could fix their weight, most would do that

So you're going to tell me the laws of thermodynamics are BS? Eating less and exercising more absolutely COULD fix their weight. Many (most?) people just don't have the discipline to do so. Like it may actually require you feeling hungry and uncomfortable for a period of time, but you will lose weight, because physics/biology. For instance, if you ate zero calories for a few days, I can assure you, weight will go down, regardless of your "genes". Just because people don't have the willpower and fortitude to accept some short-term discomfort to achieve long-term success, don't try to pretend they're genetically immune to losing weight. It may be harder for them, or more uncomfortable to achieve success, but it's not impossible.

An unsuccessful petition to ban Detroit: Become Human from sale in Australia.

Detroit: Become Human? I played that -- there isn't anything even remotely titillating in that game. What an insane petition

Yes, super hero fatigue is real.

The success of the recent Superman appears to prove you wrong. Tell a good story and people will go to see it. It's not super hero fatigue that's real...it's that the storywriting has suffered, and they're pulling from deeper B and C list superheroes that don't have the same kind of appeal.

I mean, did a million people really search out Velvet Sundown, or did Spotify just inject the songs into a million people's streams? The article doesn't really say, one way or the other.

Likely a combination of both. Initial injection followed by viral search out. I know Spotify has injected AI bands into my "Discover Weekly" stream. I went searching for the artists of new music I enjoyed just to discover they were computer generated

Something like 80% of all causalities in the war right now are coming from drones.

Source? That's a bold claim.

Take your pick -- all sources on google have the number somewhere between 60 and 80%: https://www.google.com/search?...

NPR is pretty legit: https://www.npr.org/2025/06/07... Or NYT? https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

Meanwhile, some reports from the frontlines indicate that while drones are ubiquituous, they aren't the game-changer the tech-industry wants them to be. tl;dr essential bits: a) most drone strikes could have been done by other, cheaper weapons. b) drones are an unreliable weapon due to jamming, dependency on weather and light and many technical failures.

I'm pretty sure that's untrue. Something like 80% of all causalities in the war right now are coming from drones. There are many ways around jamming (band jumping, fiber optics, AI, GPS, piggybacking on cell networks, etc), and those improve every day. And locating and targeting remote drone operators is far harder than targeting a nearby mortar or artillery crew (unsure which "cheaper" weapons you believe exist...drones are dirt cheap)

Tell me then. I was informed from a reasonable Independent that as a Democrat, I tend to "demonize" MAGAs. It does seem easy. So, tell me what you love about the "Big Beautiful Bill"? Honestly, let us talk. I tried before to talk with MAGAs, and in the end it always boils down to a MAGA doing personal, six grader types of attacks.

I wasn't intending to defend the merits of the bill. I personally hate deficit spending. I'm also not a MAGA. I was saying it was a very poor and misleading title. It's a 900 page bill, and climate is a handful of line items on a laundry list of changes: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/bre...

That said, there are some things in it I do like. Like no tax on tips, and alot of senior assistance. But that's neither here nor there. The bill itself overall is poorly designed, as it's yet another example of modern day deficit spending both sides have egregiously acquiesced to making the status quo

House Passes Bill That Slashes Solar, Wind and EV Tax Credits

What a terrible spin-laden uninformative title. That bill includes a ton more provisions than just that. That title makes it seem like it's exclusively a climate bill