To create change, whether you're a moderate or on the extreme left, a party that supports-or can be brought to support-your positions must be in power. Without that, all the policy is absolutely worthless.

Being correct and absolutely powerless changes nothing.

Manchin and Sinema derailed so much of Biden’s policy (literally, in the case of trains) that who knows what today would look like if they hadn’t been in office. We shouldn’t view presidential nominees as the be-all & end-all, or their policies & positions as the final say or an inevitable outcome.

Not voting for a presidential candidate in the party you've chosen to support, and then working within the system to drive the change you want because they have the power to create it because they won the election, is a massive strategic failure.

People shouldn’t assume that supporting a nominee whose policies they only partially agree with means those policies will become the government’s standing agenda if the nominee is elected. Votes carry more weight with House and Senate members, and they have the power to push or stall policy.

Moderates don't withhold support; they vote for the other party that is more likely to win and has policies they can better agree with or that they think will be inert to them for four years. Fighting for policies is what primaries are for-what congressional elections can affect.

Not FAFO she's getting in early on the rupture that's going to take place in the base over the next few years to push her "America First" crap which will be in contest with those trying to preserve MAGA as it collapses and the Never Trumpers that try to revive "conservatism" as a political party

If you see an easy to consume graph or a simple answer to a complex problem. If you see a complex answer to a simple problem, doubt it. Doubt all claims, expect evidence and for the evidence, the results and the claim to match! Don't trust and always verify claims before giving credibility.

This means that their "information" is incomplete. Their link to a JAMA study claiming it verifies what they say might be entirely unrelated to the actual claim their making. Their own "studies" might be a qualitative study that lasted 5 days and only included 7 people.

Doubting claims is important

These are "wellness" doctors. Their entire goal with all of their content overall is to profit from making you think you need their product. Their vitamin, their program, their diet of freeze dried vegetable powder. Their ultimate goal is to educate for profit, not for actual information.

So if you go to a doctor's "blog" and it sends you to their website that has a homepage that is a sales funnel for a loosely regulated or unregulated product, you're looking at a wellness doctor. If you're looking at a claim for a doctor & they're using an outdated study to backup anecdotal claims..

Some real doctors might have a podcast. Some real doctors might write a book. Some real doctors might give a presentation or talk about things in their wheelhouse or experiences in their work.

But the separation is going to be that a real doctor will give a fuck about their credibility and claims.

Secretary of State Rubio - child of immigrants from Cuba who came to the US in 1956, says migration disturbed “continuity of our culture and of our people”

“A French consulting and information-technology company has decided to sell a division that does business with ICE, after it emerged that the company has a contract with the agency to help track immigrants.”

People don’t want to have anything to do with crimes against humanity.