So in other words you are too uninformed about the issues to name your preferred prospective Supreme Court nominees. This all starts to make more sense, now. You won't address any of these issues directly because you actually have no idea what's going on. See? Asked to name even one prospective jurist, you have to resort to more childish deflection in an attempt to avoid confirming your ignorance. So, now you've had a while to at least look up some names. Let's try again: who do you think should sit on the Supreme Court? How about just one name.

Ted Kennedy enlists Soviet aid against Reagan in 1984

The whiners today can shove this right up their collective asses. It's just repeating past Democratic behavior.

No, you're too much of a coward to even address the issue, as usual.

Here, let's break it down into the baby-sized bites you can't pretend you're unable to address:

Who would you like to see seated on the Supreme Court? Be specific. If you pretend you can't, we'll see you're just a craven BSer as usual. If you REALLY can't, then we'll see you shouldn't be voting regardless. So: name names.

So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?

So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.

See? Completely unable to acknowledge reality, or completely unwilling to admit it.

So: how will your choice in candidates influence the next Supreme Court nominees that are named? Be specific, if you have any sort of ability to talk about reality. If you can't answer the question, it's just another sign that your entire ongoing deflection on this topic is just you being an intellectual coward. So: which nominees will have a more likely chance of being seated, because of your vote?

I agree with the XKCD reference. The thing most people seem to forget is that the knife cuts both ways.

Diversion? As usual, I address simple reality, and you go off on a hand-waving bender having zero relevance. See, you'll do it again right now.

One of the two main candidates will win the election. This is a fact. You don't like that fact, so you talk about guilt and prison yards.

Vacant Supreme Court seats will be filled by one of those two people. You are too timid to take the responsibility of influencing whether or not those seats are filled by liberal activist types or conservative/constructionist types. This is simple cowardice, but you will say that that you're somehow doing something noble by being sure that your vote goes to someone that cannot possibly influence this important process. But in doing so, depending on the state in which you live, you ARE choosing to lean your state's electoral votes to one of the two viable candidates. This is a simple fact. You don't like that fact, so you prefer to call reality a "diversion."

You will be unable to say anything on-topic in your response, because that would require you to either confront those realities, or lie. You don't want to do either in writing, so you'll of course say some sort of blathering nonsense about prison yards, guilt, and being hung with statistics or other childish attempts to evade the substance of the matter. Like you're about to do, right now.

Prison yard. I see. Replacement meds haven't arrived in the mail yet, today? Check the tracking number, maybe they're out for delivery.

If someone was going to die as a result of a malfunction or breach of a system, we'd demand it be air-gapped and have robust CM. There would be hell to pay as a result of failure - think hospital systems. Or military systems.

The thing is, most of the systems businesses use aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. No one is going to die if Twitter or Walgreens has a breach. Sure, for the individual, this is bad, but you're probably going to get your prescription anyway and having someone impersonate you on your Twitter account is irrelevant.

Cue "assumed breach"...we must assume that systems like Twitter and Walgreens are breached and are leaking data. Therefore, conduct any business with them while insulating yourself from the consequences of said breach.

Enough people obviously pay to fund the production of more. The fact that you aren't doing so is irrelevant. (neither am I)

Kursk was a strategic defeat, to be sure, but it was a tactical defeat as well. The main reason is that the gathered German mobile force was directed at a salient which had been basically turned into a fortress by the Soviets. Many lines of defense were constructed including a deep line all the way back at the Don - showing the Soviets were not convinced they could stop the Germans in the salient. Much superior results could have been had by choosing a different axis of attack in a different sector, rather than biting off Kursk after it had been fortified. The main reason why is that most casualties were caused via encirclement rather than frontal tank combat versus a staunch defense.

It is only the superior German units and tactics that resulted in the high Russian casualties you describe. The Russians could afford the loss (in purely practical terms), while the Germans could not replace their losses. Then, the Germans had their forces dispersed by the requirement to form a defensive line in Italy after that nation's collapse and armistice.

Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won" is a good synopsis of the recent scholarship on this, while Chris Bellamy's "Absolute War" is a less readable book overall that covers the same material in more detail. Books from before 1990 (example: Albert Seaton's "The Russo-German War") had very little detail about what actually happened at Kursk from the Soviet side. In regards the mistaken attack on Kursk, Mellenthin's wonderful "Panzer Battles" or Manstein's "Lost Victories" are pretty conclusive on this score.

It's funny how you're the only one who ever uses the word "guilt" when it comes to this subject. All I'm doing is pointing out that the third party candidates cannot win, and that using your vote to support one of those cannot-win candidates will not, for example, do things like change which supreme court nominees one of the actual viable candidate will, in real life, end up naming.

We're all going to live with the actions and policies and appointees of one of those two viable candidates. You're choosing to stamp your feet and throw your vote away rather than impacting the actual outcome in a meaningful way. That you feel the urge to use the word "guilt" when someone simply points out the facts is your thing, not anyone else's.

They've lied about their news feed provenance, they've lied about censorship, now they lie about video statistics. The whole site is a cesspool. The day is rare when someone isn't asking me about a factually inaccurate FB ad trying to scam old people.

Taking it offline would benefit all of humanity. It's as bad as e-mail at this point.

I agree entirely. Can you say bad publicity? I knew you could.

Actually, he was genetically far better off, and this explains why he was able to spearhead a European domination of the Western Hemisphere. All that inherited resistance to crowd diseases from Eurasia - smallpox most significantly, but all the rest of them, too. In fact, the only areas Europeans didn't dominate in the Western Hemisphere were areas where indigenous diseases prevented their dominance, such as the Amazon basin.