EpeeGnome

Yeah, I don't think it would lose her a lot, but some. Little enough that it would be a notable net gain in her favor. I was just acknowledging that it's a non-zero amount. I'm voting for her, and it wouldn't bother me any either, as you probably assumed from me suggesting it. I do have opinions on gun control (neither more nor less, just make it better tuned), but I barely consider it when voting because I have much stronger opinions on social safety nets, capital's disproportionate influence, the health of the environment we live in, and so many other issues.

Ties are worn around the base of the neck, and the neck is the flexible thin part that connects the head. I see position A as being well below the flex point, which would be like wearing the tie low on the shoulders. That's why I would prefer it at the bottom end of the joint, position C. One could reasonably argue that anything above where the body narrows down towards the neck is part of the neck, in which case A would also make sense.

Semantics on where a neck starts aside, position B is clearly at the top of the neck and is therefore just nonsense not even worth considering.

Also position C lets the tie hang neatly down the front of the body as it should, rather than dragging the ground or dangling loosely in midair.

A square? A square?! Wake up sheeple! That things not even a rombus! Don't you see the lies? Look at the lines! Look! Not all rhombuses are squares, but all squares are rhombuses! All squares are rhombuses and look at this thing they try to call a square. Where are the parallel lines? There's got to be parallel lines, don't you see, or then it's not a rombus and all squares are rhombuses. Don't forget that, don't let them take that fact from you and perpetuate their geometric lies. Does no one even remember what a rombus is? This is, this is basic geometry here that you should have learned in middle school or elementary school, but then you just forget it, and let people trick you with these misleading definitions and fancy diagrams but you have to remember that a Square. Is. A. Rombus.

I'll just repeat someone else's idea I saw elsewhere on Lemmy. She and Walz should challenge Trump and Vance to a marksmanship contest down at the gun range. He'd never go for it, but the image is hilarious. Admittedly, it would lose Harris some support from her base, but it would lose Trump a lot more from his to see him being shown up in such a visible way on one of his base's favorite topics. Harris has stated that she is a gun owner, and you know she's the type to take safety and skill training before she ever bought one, while on the other hand, if pansy-ass Trump has ever handled a live firearm in his life I will eat my hat. Both VP candidates have military training, but I'd still expect a pretty big skill gap between a decorated career infantry NCO and a newspaper staffer in a uniform.

Grandma Lucy's organic dog treats are made to be fully human and dog safe and I find them just as tasty as the dog does. They're like unsweetened Teddy Grahams. I know this because my brother-in-law gets them for his dog and is very amused to offer them as a snack to people as he and the dog both enjoy them.

It's definitely the sort of campaign promises he would make, though I don't know he's said any of these in particular.

I'm imagining that his wife will never hear the end of it. "See honey, and you said I didn't need to carry two guns around all the time. Well look who was right about that."

Go for it. It's... exhausting and frustrating, but worth a watch.

You're right, that's not a recap, but I watched both and it does pretty well capture the spirit of how the debate went. Yes, you'll need to watch it, or an actual recap, to get the details of what the two said about the various other topics, but what Stewart highlighted was very representative of the rest of it.

That's good to know. Generally about what I expected based on the concerns about her I've read. The Greens really could use some leadership that is actually competent, because they're not wrong about their overarching point, even if she seems to be wrong about most everything else.

Oh yes, I was cheekily agreeing with that. It's always good to spread the information that the end result of a person who isn't specifically trained in rescue swimming attempting to swim out and rescue a drowning person is almost always just the two drowning together, even if the would-be rescuer is an otherwise strong swimmer.

I realize that other comments have already explained the law better than I could. I still wanted to say that fortunately, jumping in to drown alongside them doesn't legally count as "helping," so there is no expectations for anyone to do so.