gehringer_2

Thomas Edsall's NYT column today was feedback from a lot of political observers all to the effect that no-one's mind is changing and that the election will be won on turnout. Per his reporting, Harris' poll increases have all been recovery of 2020 Biden voters or in groups already disposed to the Dems side. So to the degree that that is true, anything that drives disillusionment or cynicism on the red side is good for the blue even in the absence of anyone changing sides.

Reuters reporting that the White House will block the Nippon Steel purchase of USSteel. https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/biden-preparing-block-nippons-us-steel-takeover-washington-post-reports-2024-09-04/

Investors getting wary of anyone selling chips...

I don't think they will vote blue but this could de-motivate a lot them from voting.

That's an Achilles heel for all EVs. Fuel economy goes to pot when you tow with an IC vehicle as well, but 35gal gas tanks for your pick-up come cheap and the difference in refueling time is a pretty trivial. I think we are still a generation of battery tech away from practical EVs for consumer towing.

Loonspudery. Hilter wanted to fight, he just want to pick his targets at his own convenience. So he certainly did not want to fight England, and certainly not the US, at least until all those sub-human Slavs to the east could be subjected and eradicated as needed to make room for German lebensraum. So you can certainly look at the record in from '36 to '39 and see Hilter trying to avoid war with England and the US. For the Nazis war with England was a future project to be undertaken by a stronger expanded Germany when it was ready. If Hitler could have keep England out of the war until Germany was ready to turn it's full attention on it, he might have been able to secure the British Isles sufficiently to deny easy US re-enforcement. Churchill knew England could not wait around for that to happen.

Yeah - I don't even know if the anti-abortion voter cares what Trump thinks personally, they already knew that abortion wasn't his issue. What they do know is that he is captive to their side on court appointments. They know he will roll over for them both on appointments and any anti-abortion legislation sent to him by a GOP Congress so I don't see him losing their votes. OTOH, you are correct, he isn't persuading and pro-choice voter he can be trusted on the issue for all the same reasons plus Dodd. Where he hurts himself doing stuff like this is with uncommitted voters with low motivations on abortion either way. It just shows him to be playing politics, being calculating and convictionless - all things that make a negative impression on voters.

There are two issues with EVs in the winter. The first is the battery itself - low temperature slows down chemistry - that's a matter of physics so while better engineering will improve things over time, it's unlikely they will ever be able to eliminate the performance difference between hot and cold completely. If you pay attention your gasoline car gets worse fuel economy in the winter as well though the effect in an IC engine is small by comparison. The other difference in an EV is lack of waste engine heat available to heat the vehicle interior, and a car going down the road fast loses a lot of heat on a cold day and that has to be made up from the battery. You can do that more efficiently with a heat pump than with low tech resistance heaters, but that adds cost and complexity to the vehicle. Some EVs have them, IIRC Ford decided they weren't worth it on the E-Mustang. In any case there is no way around the need to heat the vehicle interior somehow (and cool it in the summer but that is a smaller task) and that will cost part of the battery charge. They can make the heating system more efficient but that extra requirement won't go away. I can imagine we will see some new types of insulating windshield glass.

Well, 76 WAR from Knebel, Adames, Granderson (after the trade) and Suarez say "Hi" Cabrera was a steal, but mostly because the Marlins weren't going to pay him. Letting Granderson go would still have been a brilliant trade if they hadn't been fool enough to lose Scherzer and Jackson hadn't gotten old fast.

LOL - My BIL was an engineer who should have known better, but he bought a Pacer - it turned out pretty badly and we rode him about it mercilessly. My dad bought a couple of AMCs also - mostly he didn't care about driving and wasn't willing to spend much on a vehicle for himself - mom got the nicer cars. But there was a terrible straight 6 Hornet (basically a Gremlin with a trunk) with manual steering that had to be about 10 turns lock-to-lock, and before that an Ambassador, which actually was pretty nice as long as you drove it like someone's grandmother.

GM tried some style experiments that didn't go well beside the Aztec. The original Silhouette took the wedge to where it was almost impossible to drive.

so the pic on twitter does appear on CNNs website of the story, nor does it carry a clarifying caption like "James McCain in 20XX at such a place" (where-ever or whenever he was speaking in the pic. Just another example of how sloppy CNN is.

He enlisted as a grunt. Didn't want to go to college/ROTC or otherwise follow the family legacy to Annapolis. Or maybe he was just a screw-up in HS and didn't have the choice. 🤷‍♀️

Maybe he’s learned things since he went to intel that cause him to judge the stakes as higher.

File photo? Story said he’d been serving 17 yrs but was just commissioned in ‘22 when he went to intel, so he was apparently a long time NCO.

that's a pretty fair suggestion. Credit something like an extra two days for every 100 innings at C.

for which team?

To me the more interesting thing than the law involved was the widow's apparent change of heart. I just wonder if it's a situation where if Trump had had a little more personal grace and extended himself to and better recognized the other victims, he might have saved himself defending one more suit.

Oddly enough to say given the plaudits he has gotten, the character in Oppenheimer that didn't work for me was Downey. I couldn't get past something about his portrayal. I guess I felt like he was doing a stage style performance in a film. It was good acting, but the wrong acting - a little too much maybe.

This is probably pretty accurate. The one place where I think the SS did clearly miss was not establishing a live communication link with the local command post. Trump could have been taken off the stage well before a shot was fired if the locals could have communicated with his SS team as soon as they had ID'd the presence of the armed threat. That was a ridiculous level of breakdown given today's communications tech.

It's always going to be a matter of degree. In every event the SS and the other security team members will have a list of things they would *like* the candidate to do and the candidate will agree to some and reject others ( for instance you know SS would always *like* the candidate to stand behind a bullet proof screen, no candidate ever will.) So every event is a compromise with a line drawn somewhere on that list that defines a spectrum from overkill security to candidate negligence. So the area between is where Comperatore's lawyers have to try and make a case.

LOL - there is no more dangerous ground to be on in a US corporation after a project goes south than to have been right about something your bosses turned out to be wrong about..... If they all get fired, you probably get caught in the backwash too, if they don't, you will likely become the unforgiven and shown the door at the survivors' earliest convenience. Your best shot is attempt a lateral move into a different group ASAP!

Even here you run into the Constitutional issue since he is their boss and at least theoretically is the source of the authority of all the rules they operate under other than legislation that explicitly binds a president's actions, and even in these cases the SCOTUS may find for a president if he challenges it. e.g. the Mar-a-Lago case wouldn't exist if Trump could have shown he declassified the docs before he took them because he had the authority to do it. It's a powerful office, the Founders never imagined it had to made idiot proof.

They don't have any legal authority to prevent their protectee from doing anything. If they won't take advice, (and since when does Trump accept advice from anyone?) they just have to salute and do the best they can.

If they can show the campaign took actions that ignored SS advice or acted in ways that subverted security efforts in place I suppose they would have a cause of action. As practical matter to sue the SS under the Fed Tort Claims Act I think you have to prove actual negligence and in the kind of multi-model failure to communicate situations like this was, explicit negligence might be a hard standard to meet, not to mention that SS can shield its procedures under security classification etc. So the lawyers must think the bar to show partial liability on the part of the campaign is a better bet.