Ah I looked a bit earlier with less vote percentage reporting. Guess the outstanding vote was in more republican areas than I had thought. Regardless, the rest of my point still stands even if the vote share is about the same this election

He still lost vote shared had just about the same vote share compared to the previous election. It’s just that dems didn’t show up as much. If his tariff plans go into effect, his support will almost certainly drop a fair amount more. A good chunk of people supported him because they thought he’d magically fix everything economically. Destroying the economy will turn people against him or at least not make them so actively support him

Tens of millions did not vote for this. If they want to take away rights, make every one a fight. Every thing that they have to spend time on keeps them from moving on to the next thing

No, there are some red, blue and swing states in there. It’s kind of a weird mix of states because there a few blue states that don’t have it and some red states that do

Puerto Ricans also move. Plenty in swing states + places with competitive down-ballot races. Republicans are already trying to back track on this, they think it hurts them

Peurto Ricans by state

• Pennsylvania: 450k
• North Carolina: 100k
• Wisconsin: 65k
• Michigan: 50k
• Florida: 1.1 million
• New York: 1 million

EDIT: also worth mentioning that he also said other racists remarks too

“These Latinos, they love making babies, too. Just know that they do,” Hinchcliffe said, setting up his joke: “There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside, just like they did to our country.”

Hinchcliffe also told a joke about one of his Black “buddies” and how they “carved watermelons” together.

I encourage you to take some of the election anxiety and turn it into productive action. That could look like canvasing (door knocking) to phone banking, text banking, letter writing and more. Those all have been shown to increase voter turnout. If nothing else, it at least reduce some of the anxiety

• Here’s a site that shows volunteer opportunities around you both in person and online
  • You can find canvasing, phone banking, text banking, etc. there
• Help write letters to swing states or competitive down ballot races
• Progressive turnout PAC’s postcard to voters

I also think some of them were so into their far right-wing media bubble that they thought people secretly like all their policies (they don’t)

Plus the media overall has historically not been great at really talking about Republican’s horrifying plans like this in the past. Barely mentioning that kind of stuff if at all. They were also banking on that continuing, and to be fair, it almost certainly would’ve if not for the democratic party starting to talk about it way more

There’s actually more they haven’t published yet, an entire core pillar’s worth of the project 2025 platform. Despite having read a fair bit about project 2025, somehow I keep finding new horrible things that are part of it

From a letter signed by 35 representative addressed to the Heritage Foundation

Project 2025 would appear to honor the promise on your website about being “an open book, with our materials available online,”1 except for one glaring problem: the entire “Fourth Pillar,” the “180-Day Playbook” which you describe as a roadmap of comprehensive, concrete, early actions for each federal agency, remains shrouded in secrecy.

You have conspicuously declined to publish or disclose any of the prioritized early actions that we believe would obviously be the most important parts of Project 2025. The immediate executive orders, emergency declarations, presidential directives, and other measures are likely to have profound impacts on the American people and their government. Therefore, we believe it is overwhelmingly in the public interest for you to actually keep your “open book” promise by disclosing the “Fourth Pillar” of Project 2025, and we hope you’ll consider explaining why, unlike the first three pillars, you have been keeping it secret for so long

https://pressley.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Letter-to-Heritage-Foundation-on-Project-2025.pdf

Culture wars are created to pointlessly divide and distract, yes. However, I too often see people using that line to diminish the importance of speaking out for minorities under attack

We must stand together in solidarity for all and fight for the working class

Direct link to the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubJFPJgL3Y

I should have clarified my comment about how the article changed. First archived version of the article on archive.is (almost certainly not the first headline) was:

“Israel strike on Gaza school kills more than 100, Palestinian news agency says”

Then the next archived version was Scores reported dead in Gaza school shelter as Israel says it bombed militants

And then it went back to Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, civil defence officials say

(and almost certainly more versions of the headline missing from the archive)

So presumably they posted the tweet during that part in the middle

EDIT: looks like you added some more to your comment, so will respond to that

“but I would be very surprised if any of the mainstream print news outlets that have web presences do it”

The New York Times is very open about doing A/B testing, which I would consider a mainstream print news outlet with a web presence

The Times also makes a practice of running what are called A/B tests on the digital headlines that appear on its homepage: Half of readers will see one headline, and the other half will see an alternative headline, for about half an hour. At the end of the test, The Times will use the headline that attracted more readers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/insider/headline-trump-time-interview.html

Not OP, but it seems like they have changed the headline of the article a lot here and keep changing it

Archive is, shows that at one point the article had a headline of:

“Scores reported dead in Gaza school shelter as Israel says it bombed militants”

https://archive.is/RS0UR

But then changed again

As of writing this comment, it’s changed again from your comment to “Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, officials say” which is different than what your screenshot shows

News organization sometimes also do A/B tests where they show different headlines to different people to see what gets the most clicks. Unsure if Reuters does this but I know some others do

The chart says it’s only looking at eligible voters

But looking it up shows around 4.6 million were disenfranchised in 2022 because of convictions. In semi-good news, it’s gone down recently in part because more states are starting to allow people to vote after they’ve served time. So if people keep pushing in other states, it can hopefully keep going that way

There are perceptional reasons why it may feel like milk worked better such as it being cooled vs using room temperature water. Or from being the second thing used. Or from various different factors

But the research above suggests it doesn’t do as much as people think it does

The infection risks are not the same. Milk has stuff in it that microbes like for growing where water doesn’t have nearly all that. Other stuff can enter inside. The eye infection pathway is concerning especially right now when bird flu seems to enter that way and is in large quatities of dairy milk. Not all pasturization methods are certain to actually remove it (i.e flash pasturization might not)

Edit: A minor point to clarify, capsaicin is in pepper spray but not tear gas. They often do get conflated but they are different

Only if they consent :3

(but also probably not great in terms of infection risk either)

I would think that alcohol on the eyes wouldn’t do too many good things to them, however

One of the studied things was using antacids in that pepper spray study and didn’t find much benfit for it for pepper spray. There currently doesn’t really seem to much that research confirm works any better than any other liquid over the eyes

I believe the diference between the two claims may be due to controlling for height in one of the findings that they don’t correlate to athleticism and not in the other

Reading some more scientific literature, I think they probably read that it was associated with muscle mass (due being associated with height which wasn’t controled for). Controling for height makes the association go away

They are basing it off of different reports between those claims

Did you read the original study here at all?

Worth highlighting this part of the article since I’ve seen a number of people falsely claiming the opposite on lemmy.world lately:

Transgender women’s bone density was found to be equivalent to that of cisgender women, which is linked to muscle strength.

And this is not the first study showing this same trend

Similar findings have been echoed in previous reporting. According to a recent report that generated an in-depth review of all English-language scientific literature (published between 2011-2021) about transgender (trans) women athlete participation in elite sport, several key conclusions coincide with findings from the IOC funded study

It’s not completely. There is some evidence suggesting certain methods may neutralize the virus, however there’s also evidence to suggest that flash pasturization may not