The “activist“ tools include, among other things, a text-spamming and calling feature, both of which employ the users’ actual phone number. In contrast, Democratic phone banks always anonymize phone calls to protect the privacy of volunteers. There’s also a feature that invites users to upload all their phone’s contacts into the app. Users’ friends will no doubt appreciate this giveaway of their lucrative personal information once they start getting spammed with texts and calls.

I declined to give Turning Point my phone book, skipped the spam texts, and instead hit “knock on doors.” Then I hopped in my car to try to find the “voters near me” listed in the app …

As I drove, a list of target contacts appeared, with the names, addresses, ages, and phone numbers of people up and down the road. Several entries were tagged with a red flag indicating that the address was home to multiple voters over the age of 75—a potential goldmine because older voters tend to vote more than younger ones.

Wow.

After Sunday’s rally, a senior adviser for the Trump campain, Danielle Alvarez, said in a statement that Hinchcliffe’s joke did “not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.”

His “set” absolutely reflects the views of Trump and his campaign. That is why he felt comfortable saying those things.

It’s not like the racism of Tony Hinchcliffe was a secret that he kept carefully hidden from public view which caught the organizers by surprise. It took me about a minute of searching who this guy was before landing on the Tony Hinchcliffe Wikipedia page which covers his racist performance in Austin just 3 years ago.

It’s been a few years since I last bought a TV, but I’ve been happy with my Sony. About once or twice a year I get a “software update available” message, which is weird since it has never been connected to any network, but I just dismiss it and continue my regular usage.

Fair enough.

I personally see our options with Isreal as a no win scenario for the US people. With the “Peace to Prosperity” agreement Trump signed with Isreal without even inviting Palestine to the table, he pretty much announced that his view of peace in the area was the genocide we see happening now. Then Biden pretty much agreed with his military support. I was hoping that I had missed some 3rd party candidate proposing a alternative, but I guess not.

No need to apologize. You do what you think is best.

Is your intent to not vote or do you have a candidate that you believe will halt the military support of Isreal?

Do you think that Trump or the Republicans will halt military support to Isreal?

You also have not answered my question. Are you simply not voting because all politicians are just various degrees of evil and voting for any of them will be “accepting ‘the lesser of two evils’”?

I am genuinely interested in knowing the point of that statement. Is it to encourage people not to vote?

Are their any other topics that you apply this mentality to or is it just this election?

Edit: To answer your question, no, I do not support genocide. I do however believe in choosing the lesser of two evils when there are no better alternatives.

I don’t believe in accepting “the lesser of two evils”

I’ve been seeing this argument alot this electing cycle. Can you provide an example of a politician that has done committed or supported an action that could be considered “evil”?

“He has engaged in disgracefully vicious harassment and intimidation of his ex-wife,” the opinion read. “I can imagine no legitimate excuse for Marcus’s behavior as reflected in this record, many of the details of which are not fit for reproduction in a judicial opinion.”

If only somebody could have predicted that mysogynist legislators weaponizing the legal system would enable abusers. /s

Remember when she wore a jacket with the words “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a migrant child detention facility in Texas?

Remember when she wore a jacket with the words “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a migrant child detention facility in Texas?

I hope a significant number of them get new jobs and quiet quit to get that double paycheck for as long as they can.

a source that records this type of information requires a people to provide legal proof that they’re breaking the law as well as providing evidence that opens them up legal & financial liability; but i’m sure you knew that

I am not aware of that. Nor of any such organization existing. Could you name what these resources are? I would be interested in learning more.

the closest thing you can get to it are surveys done by pollsters and that’s private information and is only shared to subscribers who are sometimes also journalists who write articles that sometimes shared it on reddit

Are you aware of any articles written by these journalists? Can you share a link to the reddit post where you learned this from?

in order to shut down a counter argument and help support your point.

I’m not trying to shut anything down. This is not a “I’m right your wrong” discussion. You have your experiences which you have used to form your valid opinion. I have my experiences that I have used to form mine.

As for my “point”, it was a request that people “please try to keep perspective of what is true risk / reward for pursuing vs walking away”. Is that what you are arguing against?

Purdue doesn’t make fentanyl, they make oxycontin.

Doh! You are absolutely right. That was a mixup on my end. Thanks for catching that.

You seem to have a similar myopic view of the crisis but instead of evil Mexican immigrants and drug cartels being the sole problem it’s the evil sackler family.

It was not my intent to suggest that the problem lies solely on the supply side. I was responding to the subject of the article and not attempting to share my views on the broader and more complex topic of drug use, regulation, abuse, addiction, and the ancillary topics associated with them.

In order to solve this problem we need to look at the demand side

I agree and by (wrongly) referencing the Sacklers, my intent was to highlight how America is not addressing other factors contributing to the problem of drug addiction. Problems like how the pharmaceutical industry has a financial incentive to create addicts.

I would argue that by locking the door, trapping the aggressor in the same room with the cashier and other customers, the intent of the cashier was to avoid theft and not to avoid getting hurt.

To go back to my original point, I personally do not think that he exercised good judgement in evaluating the risk vs reward of his actions.

He placed the value of his employers property above the value of his safety, the safety of the other customers and the safety of the rest of his employers property should the aggressor resort to acts of violence or vandalism in an attempt to secure his freedom.

You are making several claims here that I’m not sure are accurate.

What trend? Do you have any sources I could review to support that there is a trend and that your scenario is not an exception?

Do you have any sources I can review to support that most armed assailants will not resort to violence when confronted by or prevented from fleeing by a lone civilian?

Do you have any sources I can review to support that driving is more dangerous than confronting an armed assailant?

If the risk of physical harm or potential death was worth the reward of keeping that job, then that was the right decision for you. To me, no job has ever been worth the risk of violence or harm to myself or any other person.

I’m not not passing any judgement, just asking people to stop and think about potential consequences before acting.

Edit: Having worked at gas stations / convinience stores, fast food, and retail, I can assure you that not all gas stations or similar employers will fire their employees for not confronting robbers.

I don’t know the details of the exchange in the store, but it sounds like it would have qualified as a strong arm robbery. The cashier was not giving away anything, the other person was forcibly taking it. Not sure what employer would fire somebody for being robbed, but that would factor into the risk / reward consideration. Is the risk of being required to put your physical safety at risk worth what I assume to be a minimum wage job? Maybe, for his situation, it was.

All of this over $3.80.

If you ever find yourself in an escalating situation, please try to keep perspective of what is true risk / reward for pursuing vs walking away.

focus on fentanyl trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border as the sole root of the overdose crisis is dangerously myopic

I’m gonna need a citation for this “sole root” claim. I have not heard either candidates claim that Mexico was the sole source of a drug that was originally manufactured and distributed by the American Sackler family through their American Purdue Pharma company.

Harris calls for increased border agents, but I don’t recall her or any member of her team ever saying anything that would link trafficking of any narcotics to immigrants.

Maybe they meant “sole focus on addressing”? Cause I’ve also not heard either candidate address the myriad of problems with the US pharmaceutical companies and the individuals who run them, other than the occasional reference to predatory pricing which has been, at best, an attempt to drain the ocean with a teacup.

Either way, in our current climate of politicized sensationsm reporting, this deminishes the legitimacy of the article for me.

An increase of CBP officers and funding is not inherently anti-immigration. It’s the usage of those agents and funds that makes that determination.