svcg

Impressive indeed!

Just so I know how impressed to be, what is the proportion of images to video?

Most people won't like coffee the first time. Most people won't like beer the first time either. Many will continue to not like one or both of those things, but many will acquire a taste for one or the other after they've have enough goes on it.

For me, personally, I would have agreed with you once upon a time when it came to drinking coffee, but I was always a bit weird in that I like coffee flavoured ice cream as a kid. (And also the coffee flavoured chocolates in the Cadbury's Roses and the packets of Revels, when they used to be a thing.) And I guess coffee with a load of milk and sugar was a gateway to coffee with a load of milk, which was a gateway to coffee with maybe just a little bit of milk or a little bit of sugar to take the edge off the bitterness.

A statement so taco-coded that it might as well be singing Puttin' on the Ritz.

Just as long as they don't start trying to sell me car insurance.

I thought that the headline was talking about the mafia for a second, there.

Calling Starmer a wolf does him too much credit. At best, he's a caterpillar being piloted by the cordyceps that is Morgan McSweeney.

The Greater Good

A bad person? For what? For not wanting to live in a tiny bedsit just so the world can accommodate more theoretical people that don't exist and need not exist?

I think you mean:

velociraptor = dpositionraptor/dtimeraptor

In summary

Vote blue no matter who:

Pro - Democrats more likely to win. Things won't immediately get worse.

Con - Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than what their wealthy donors want.

Result - Things don't get worse now, but eventual rightward drift is guaranteed because the democrats will do nothing good and the republicans will win eventually.

Vote blue only if X:

Pro - Democrats have an incentive to do something other than what their wealthy donors what, in theory.

Con - Democrats less likely to win.

Result - Democrats might do something good if they win. Rightward lurch is possible if they lose.

Can we please stop litigating this now?

Edit: The "best" approach would ultimately depend on the relative effectiveness of influencing democrat policy via primaries or whatever, and I don't think the answer is immediately obvious. I am not advocating one approach over the other, I just want people to stop pretending the answer is obvious.

I'm not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge's order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.

Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?