Nope. Lots of stuff commonly believed by Christians isn’t from the Bible. (Though sometimes they’ll do a lot of mental gymnastics to assert that what they believe is from “the only reasonable interpretation” of the Bible.)
Just a few other things commonly believed by Christians not (or at least only dubiously) from the Bible:
“Streisand effect” comes to mind, but like “sunk cost fallacy” it’s just an example of something “becoming more popular the more it fails.”
I feel like we’ve said this to OP already too, but:
…it came off that he was so popular…
However it may have come off, not enough people voted for him to win him the primary. He wasn’t that popular. For reasons mentioned elsewhere.
It’s possible some people who favored Sanders over Hillary voted for Hillary in the primary anyway fearing that she was more likely to win the primary and not wanting to chance unintentionally boosting the chances of someone other than Hillary or Sanders getting the nomination. I don’t know of any polls or anything that might have indicated that was or wasn’t the case. But that still means people didn’t vote enough for Bernie.
…because fewer people voted for him than for Hillary?
Not quite sure what kind of answer you’re fishing for here.
He just wasn’t “as popular as you believe he was.”
Yes, but how do you think candidates get “popular?” With Hillary’s and the DNC’s thumb on the scales, Hillary’s campaign had an unfair and underhanded influence on the public.
I’m not sure if anything Hillary’s campaign did was “illegal”, but it definitely broke things like the DNC’s own bylaws.
No president has tried it before. Whether he can get away with pardoning himself has yet to be seen. For him not to get away with it would require someone to bring some sort of court case challenging it. And to bring a case, they have to have “standing.” (That is to say, they have to have some credible justification why the self-pardoning action the president took wronged the petitioner in some way.) Which would probably require some legal argument that has never been made before.
I’m guessing Trump probably could get away with it, but given that no president has tried this, we’ll just have to see for sure.
deleted by creator
I doubt the term “time tangled in knots” is sufficiently well-defined for any reasonable answer. At least in terms of real-world physics.
If you’re talking about scifi technobabble time tied in knots, my answer is “Looper.”
Yeah, good answers. Thank you.
Are you expecting someone to provide you with all the answers?
Only to explain the answers that they’re already bringing up.
And, honestly, your answer and OP’s answer are exactly the sort of answers I needed. Thank you.
I guess the short restatement is something like “work with others to create an alternative to depending on the capitalist/fascist system for crumbs and then protect that alternative system on a self-defense basis with firearms. (And be ready to before you actually have to.)”
Seems like you’re advocating:
I don’t really know if this is a “I can’t really say what I’m advocating for because I’ll be banned, so I’m dancing around the issue and hoping you’ll stochastically pick up on what I’m not saying” thing either.
Without knowing more concretely what you suggest we do, I don’t really have a take on whether I agree or not.
I don’t think it would phase me that much.
In 2016 it was so out of left field. So completely unexpected.
If he wins tonight (surely he won’t, but if he does…) I’ll be kinda pissed and scared. I don’t think I’ll be moving to another country or anything. It would feel a little “been there, done that.”
Don’t get me wrong. I voted. I voted for Kamala. And I hope the final figures show her winning in a landslide. And I would love to see a blue majority in congress along with her victory. But I’m not expecting good things. And I’m not investing too much in the result emotionally.
If Trump won, I’d probably plan to be a little more shut-in and keep to myself more.
Right?!
I’ve dabbled in learning Japanese enough to know that learning a second language as an adult has a way of driving home to you how little I really understand about my own native language. And learning what little I have of a second language definitely has taught me more about English.
I think if someone referred to “the Travises shared given name” without adding the extra “es”, my brain would get stuck on that for a bit. I don’t know that that would be the case for most people or not. But if someone were talking to me about the name shared by multiple people named “Travis”, my brain would churn less, get " stuck" for a shorter time, and be less likely to have to catch back up to the conversation if the extra “es” was included.
Without the extra “es”, it feels like it could get a little “garden-path-y.” Like:
Right? Not to say I wouldn’t expect to catch on in a couple more words there. And also more realistically, my brain wouldn’t be stuck on this interpretation in the conversation, but more “suspending judgement” and holding both possibilities for interpretations in mind until something resolved the question. But speaking just for myself, I think my brain would have to go through all those machinations if the extra “es” wasn’t there. And that requires more wetware cycles than if the extra “es” wad there. If it was, it’d be unambiguous immediately after the second “es” that “Travis” was both plural and possessive.
(To be fair, after the second “es” another possibility would be that we were talking about multiple groups of people named “Travis”. Chapters of a club only open to people named “Travis” for instance. Kindof like the word “peoples” which is similarly “double-pluralized”. But it seems to me unlikely my brain would jump to that possibility the way it might jump to a possessive form of the title “The Travis.”)
Also, it’s very possible my brain works differently than most. I think I have a pretty “stilted” manner of speech. People occasionally poke gentle fun at me about it. (All in good fun, mind you.) And it’s possible my brain doesn’t process speech quite like most people’s do.
There’s a linguistics professor at MIT who I once heard say in a class (an Open Courseware class… I didn’t attend MIT or anything):
“We’ll speak no more of prescriptive linguistics except to mock it.”
However you want to say it, say it. Your particular style of speech is unique and beautiful and you should keep speaking that way.
I personally would pronounce it like “Travises”. As if pluralizing it. (“There are multiple Travises in the phone book.”) Makes it fairly clear. I guess that brings up the question what to do if there are multiple Travises who co-own something. “The Travises’ shared given name.” I think off the top of my head, I’d probably pronounce it like “Traviseses.” Cool!
Depending where you are moving to, snow may not be the only sort of inclement winter weather you may have to deal with. For instance, ice may build up on trees, power lines, and/or roads.
If on roads, don’t drive unless you absolutely have to, and if you do, be way more careful than you think you need to be. Look up safety tips for driving in icy conditions before you have to put them into practice.
If you have any trees that might fall on anything of value, kindof watch their condition. If any are splitting down the middle, hire someone to treat them before the winter season to avoid major problems like this.
Or it’s possible you’ll live somewhere ice buildup is unlikely to be an issue. Maybe look into the history of the area or talk to someone who has been there a long time to find out what conditions might be an issue.
Also, the ability to work remotely is kinda nice, I guess. It’s a double-edged sword, though. If you can work remotely, you never get days off due to weather. But if you can’t, you may be pressured to drive into the office when it’s very dangerous.
I mentioned this to my mother just a minute ago. I said I’ve never seen anyone use “are” instead of “our” and she was like “oh god that drives me nuts; I see that all the time!”
Until it makes shit up that the original work never said.
I don’t know what TTT is, but that reminds me of this story that I just posted in response to another comment.
Short version: cable is more optimized for sending everyone the same content at the same time. (And all users connected to cable get all channels all the time, even if they’re only watching one or two at the time.) Internet is made for each user getting what they ask for when they ask for it.
Either technology can be used for either use case, but they were originally built for different purposes and so are optimized differently.
Just like a subway train would make a pretty crappy private one-person vehicle for commuting to work and the grocery store. As would a fleet of cars be crappy for public mass transit.