Nah, it accepts a link if you have it, but you can typically choose an image from gallery and creates a link with your home instance as the host.

I’ve never had a problem.

My man, stuttering is not the same thing as anomia or other (related) speech disfluencies. Even so, they are all neurological symptoms and tend to appear amidst neurological decline and dimensia, even if not exclusively.

It would be one thing if he were simply stuttering his words or misplacing nouns in a sentence, but he has also been forgetting things like the deaths of colleagues and mis-remembering when things occurred. You can pretend those are just silly mistakes that anyone could make, but you shouldn’t act surprised when it causes people to lose confidence in him.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JiafgQEz_Rk

Hell of a stutter.

Yup, I think a lot of people avoided the movie because there’s an obvious proximity to current events that’s just too stressful for casual viewing, but I think they did a pretty tasteful/artistic job making the politics of the narrative vague and even a little subversive. It ends up keeping you focused on the details because you’re looking for those clues, but ends up putting you in the shoes of the journalists, trying to piece together a political narrative that you can’t quite see in the moment while you’re being bombarded with the horrors of war and armed conflict. I love that part of the movie, because it presents that tension of what they’re there to do as journalists - taking pictures to catalogue a larger narrative as the soldiers they’re following lay dying in the fog of war and unable to clearly see the bigger outlines. The viewer ends up feeling a little resentful of the journalists, because they seem a bit uncaring about the horrors they’re witnessing in service of getting the chance of capturing history.

That’s also why I got a little worked up seeing it mentioned in this thread… op was doing the thing the movie was clearly going out of its way to prevent. Idk. The movie is great and I hate seeing it used as an inflammatory political statement.

I don’t know if Civil War is meant to have a clear real-world corollary for the conflict. In the movie Texas and California are aligned against the president and Florida and most of the NW states (including Idaho and Ohio) are breakaway factions that seem aligned against the federal forces as well (the implication that Idaho and Ohio are in the communist state alliance is pretty fucking laughable)

All that to say: i’m pretty sure the producers intentionally avoided real-life groups to keep the movie focused on the topic of journalism and to avoid it being used in exactly this type of political fearmongering.

Edit: also this bit in that article you linked, which seems to allude to the president possibly starting out as a liberal and becoming fascist, which is chef’s kiss

Perhaps just as controversial as the decisions of which states seceded in “Civil War” are the choices as to which states stayed. Notably, the whole Northeast, including the protagonists’ main residence of New York, has stayed loyal to the fascist government, a plot point certain to raise questions about what happened to the former liberal stronghold. In an interview with The Atlantic, Alex Garland offered up the possibility that changes in political alignments occurred as a result of the President’s own politics changing between his first term and his third: “He may be a fascist at the point we meet him, but he presumably in his first term didn’t say [that] …”

According to his polling, so does staying in

Hmmm. Maybe you’re right, maybe that’s not duress.

Maybe it’s fine.

A choice under duress is never a choice.

idk what to tell you, the article you linked shows alt candidates having similar support as biden in head-to-heads. I’m not sure in what world that means Biden has majority support. They can’t all have near-majority support

if 75% of the democratic electorate would prefer a different candidate, then in a ranked-choice election 75% of democratic voters would likely be putting him as second or third choice, not their first.

Lmao, those polls are asking how people would vote in hypothetical head-to-heads - as in:

the current situation is one brought on by an imperfect implementation of democracy.

But I guess since this says each hypothetical polled resulted in near the same chances, that means all of the alternatives have ‘near-majority support’, right?

On what basis are you making the claim that Biden has near-majority support here? Because if it’s simply the fact he’s the candidate that was produced by our shit system, it seems like you’re just begging the question.

This is the third or fourth time I’ve seen you hide behind “the opinions of the electorate” as a defense of status-quo positions, except this time it’s pretty clearly not the opinion of the electorate that Biden is the preferred candidate to go up against trump.

Despite insisting otherwise, PugJesus is a through-and-through centrist who prefers the convenience FPTP offers to those who don’t want things to fundamentally change.

It is the only reason he would be insisting on the head-to-head interpretation of “near-majority support” and only agrees to popular progressive positions when there is a systemic hurdle that prevents that position from coming to fruition.

75% of democratic voters would prefer a different candidate to Biden, I wouldn’t consider that a near-majority support.

Anyone still planning on voting Biden at this point can only justify it on the basis he’s not Trump, and wouldn’t decide not to vote without Biden on the ticket

A quality he shares with every other American with the exception of Trump himself.

The democrats only stand to gain votes by swapping him out. 75% of democrats would prefer a different candidate.

Depression and raising toddlers can both be the result of ill-advised diddling

I’m so curious about those two downvotes

This is… this is really antisemitic… right? And Islamophobic…?

This is definitely some nazi shit

Guess ill be trying my hand at building my own pfsense router