Arroz con Pollo. I can eat that all. Day.

Just a heads up as of a few hours ago the windows installer is broken.

I think the missing link is viable raw photo management and color space transforms. Photoshop is just built well for that. But in terms of drawing Krita blows Potatoshop out of the water

HERE WE AAAAAARE

BORN TO BE KINGS

I understood that refere-BAM!

I would say Lemmy is very heavy on emotions. Not a diss on Lemmy. I think it’s a great platform but my god! It’s like being stuck in an elevator with the angriest hormonal teens on the planet. Everyone, jeesus, please just chill and have a convo. My god.

Sort of. It’s a mixed bag is what I’m saying. It’s just not as impactful as we all imagine it to be. Some politicians are very corrupt obviously. But it’s not this prevalent “corporations own congress” kinda thing.

Access to influence policy and legislation. But they seem to get mixed results. There have been a few studies that looked at the actual effects of lobbying. I may have to dig around but i can track them down. It’s very interesting because it upturned what my assumptions were about lobbying.

It seems they find candidates that are already somewhat aligned and work no push the scale further. Like, someone like Latimer wouldn’t need a lot to push the scale in favor of AIPAC objectives.

It’s very interesting to read up on this.

I used to think lobby groups are influential in determining the outcome of these elections but I think the reality is they align themselves with candidates that are slated to more likely win. Sometimes they even fund both candidates. Money just doesn’t seem to translate to effective victory. Look at Bloomberg in 2016. That guy spent an ungodly amount of money on his campaign - - - more than all the candidates combined or something close.

Cory Bowman was already waning in popularity. From your article:

Bowman had several compounding low-level mistakes and scandals that could easily be hammered home to voters, like pulling the fire alarm at the Capitol or his controversial hip-hop lyrics. Beyond that, Latimer is a popular politician who has represented most of the district’s voters for years. Add in more money than any group has ever spent on a congressional primary by an enormous margin, and you have the conditions for a win.

I think it all depends. I’m not saying AIPAC is not influential. I just don’t think it’s so clear cut. I think the money in more to get access. The reality is Israel is popular with boomers, and Dem boomers vote. We are starting to see a shift with younger voters but it’s just not there yet.

It was a mumbled yes. After Mehdi asked her ten times. Only to be followed by ‘but but but’. Gotta be careful what we say about Putin, right? No problem with Biden though. Clear and emphatic out of the gate YES

Why can’t it be a yes full stop? The same way she did for two others?

It’s yes but with an excuse. It’s not a hard yes. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. She seems to have no difficulty saying that for Biden. What gives?

Why can’t it be yes, full stop? The same way she did for Biden and Netanyahu?

Saying yes with no many qualifiers is insane level of weaseling.

Heres a simple example:

“did you rape that woman” “yes”

vs

“yes she was asking for it”

Is not the same. That’s what she’s doing.

Saying yes then loading it with ten thousand qualifiers is not a clear yes. Nice try though.

Wrong. Her answer is ‘yes’ followed by a million qualifiers. Because for sugar daddy Putin we need to use the softest padded gloves. We’re not stupid. The ruse is up.

How come she can give a clear yes for Biden but Putis it has to be surrounded by a million qualifiers? Multiple times.

We all watched the interview. What are you trying to prove.

Give the full exchange. I watched the full interview. She said “we condemn his actions”. She never could in a full sentence condemn him. It’s gotta be loaded with qualifiers, and even THEN nothing of value comes out of her mouth. It shouldn’t be like pulling teeth. It’s a simple yes/no.

This was an interesting book (although their economic analysis is not great). I think by now all the atrocities of the CIA are pretty well documented and the world is pretty informed. This book focuses on a period that took place about 75 years ago when the US (under Nixon, JFK and Reagan) had a strong anti-communist stance and active policy.

That policy is to longer an actionable framework for the US. It wouldnt be fair to attribute the current agency the same level of culpability. I’m not saying the current CIA is beyond scrutiny but times have changed and the world has moved significantly beyond the so called dangers of the cold war.

Are they still around though? I think they filed for bankruptcy. The jeezus wannabe ceo was a good con artist.

Her essays are also superb.