Also, he has confessed to telling the ranger back then that he shot himself. Surely the ranger would have known he was lying or not if he saw the wound? You’re right again - it doesn’t add up.

Wow, you’re right. When I first read that sentence I assumed that he meant that the gun went off when he fell down, and it fired into his arm - into his old wound from the war - and that’s why he worried the new bullet might have dislodged the old one, along the lines of https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3846953/ or https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731308/

But then I reread it and it says,

Sheehy himself has sought to parry Peach’s version of events by saying he had never been hit by gunfire that day in 2015.

So you’re right. The bullet would have to be dislodged by his act of falling down. I’m not a medical or a firearms expert so I can’t say for sure on this point, I can only note that my internet searches don’t seem to come up with any other examples of this ever happening.

I guess Sheehy might have gotten irrationally worried over nothing that day - a strong enough fall can do that and much worse to the good ol’ noggin, I suppose. But that also means he never tried to get a bullet removed after so many years? Isn’t that really dangerous to leave the bullet in? And couldn’t the doctors who saw in in 2015 tell if the bullet was recent or really old?

This sounds right, but I’m curious. What specific systems or factors are at play here that make it impossible to hide this? Like what if the reason no one else has come forward now is because the other grunts who were with him that day all later died in combat?

Also - a war wound while defending against the enemy is one thing. But a wound from friendly fire? It almost feels like he wanted to go with the former but changed his story to the latter to come up with a good excuse to avoid having documentation for it…

To the surprise of absolutely no one.

This is actually very easy. You can copy the files from the container, even while it’s not running, onto your host system to edit there, and then copy them back afterwards.

See the top answer on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22907231/how-to-copy-files-from-host-to-docker-container for step by step instructions on how to do this.

Yep, hopefully Harris will be able to direct the US reps at the UN to stop doing that much.

Unfortunately it seems there’s a law that requires the US to defund where the UN recognizes Palestine as an independent state (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html / https://archive.is/67xzK ) but I don’t think that applies to the scenario you just discussed.

(I also don’t get how that law works with the US supporting a two state solution - how can the US support a two state solution, one of which being Palestine - and defund those who recognize two states too?)

There’s a good reason for it - in short it’s the price I pay for a free domain name.

I provided a longer and more in-depth explanation over at https://aussie.zone/post/14078235/12384427

Me too. Although even once Harris takes office, AIPAC would still have a lot of power and influence. But I’m choosing to remain optimistically hopeful here.

I wonder if this could be another reason for a red shift as seen in polling earlier. Herding convinced otherwise independent polls to move rightward when one or a few particularly well regarded polls swung that way, perhaps?

Wow, was surprised to learn that the US - which lacks not only single payer but even universal healthcare, has a One Health plan.

Thank you for your service! This makes perfect sense. I was wondering if this was similar to Uncommitted’s non-endorsement of Harris, where they declined to explicitly endorse her due to Gaza but basically said everyone needs to out and vote for her anyways - and you answered this for me.

That’s exactly right.

Overall, the article just reflects the long standing situation - China’s never really been in control of or comfortable with North Korea. Rather, it was always just seen as the “least bad” option out of a bunch of seemingly bad ones…

I’d add that I disagree with the premise of the article. I don’t see a contradiction between wanting the suffering happening to innocent Gazans to end on the one hand, while generally being supporting of Israel’s right to defend itself as a country on the other hand (e.g. from Russia, if they were to go even crazier and decide that nuking Israel to distract the West from supporting Ukraine was a good idea).

And nuance is tough to do in a campaign ad, so emphasis the part of the message that resonates with the target voters is not hypocrisy at all, not if both messages are indeed consistent with your underlying platform.

As far as I know, this is indeed the case - Harris supports an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for the return of the remaining hostages, along with an eventual two state solution. I don’t see how that contradicts either message above, if it were possible to implement. (It’s not because Israel under Netanyahu won’t go along with it, but, I mean, if it were.)

Remember, there are Israelis who live in Israel, who want an immediate ceasefire, as per https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/24/israel-immediate-ceasefire-open-letter and https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/some-300-left-wing-activists-protests-genocide-in-gaza-at-tel-avivs-habima-square/ - and Harris’s position on this appears to be the same as, or at least very similar to, theirs.

Otherwise agreed. I guess the news part is that it’s done “in response to” what NK did recently - like this is an extra joint air drill that otherwise wouldn’t have taken place if NK hadn’t done anything.

That said, I recall reading the same kind of articles back in 2012, and in 2016, and 2018, and … so, agreed in full.

So glad to be on pyfedi ( see piefed.social ) - which does support SVG

I could of course be completely wrong on this and I would be more than happy to be proven wrong

Actually, that feeling of being rubbed the wrong way (even in the metaphorical sense) is inherently subjective. So, it’s not something I or anyone else can disprove to you or “prove wrong”.

As a non-american, somehow this article rubs me the wrong way.

I guess, it seems like a whitewashing here, that the folks on the campaign aren’t as evil as we’d otherwise assume (e.g. all of them being racist Nazis)?

You’re correct that we shouldn’t assume otherwise - it’d be dangerous to bend over backwards and assume they aren’t Nazis if they really are - but at the same time, it’s plausible that there are still some “adults in the room” in the campaign, along the lines of https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/14/17114444/rex-tillerson-fired-rexit-trump-adults

I have a suspicion that all the talk about public relation disasters and staffers worried about their candidate‘s reputation does not accurately portrait what is really going on there.

I think the reason this sounds reasonable is because a lot of the folks on the GOP campaign are longtime GOP folks, who know - or at least have certain long-held beliefs about - how this conventionally works.

The other aspect at play here is that they jumped onto MAGA for entirely self serving purposes even though this doesn’t reflect what they really thing.

Or is it, Mr. Vance?

Interesting you bring him up. In some ways he’s the perfect example of this.

Vance in 2012,

Republicans … their policy proposals are … or openly hostile to non-whites.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140305032241/http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/2012_11_01_archive.html via https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/17/politics/jd-vance-delete-2012-blog-post-attacking-gop-anti-immigrant-rhetoric/index.html

Vance in 2024,

J.D. Vance tripled down on his debunked claims that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating local pets in Springfield, Ohio, while also admitting, ‘If I Have to Create Stories… That’s What I’m Going to Do’

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/jd-vance-haitians-if-i-have-to-create-stories-1235102572/

To me it looks like everything that happened including the MSG shitshow was absolutely the way they wanted it to go. It’s a page out of the fascist playbook and it uses the same tactics that have been proven successful since Germany 1933.

I think this best describes the candidate. But not everyone on the campaign is going to share these views, as it were.

The explicit goal is to strengthen the collective bonds with voters who already made their decision and to kick it up a notch at the same time.

But this is not really how one wins. You need a broad coalition backing you to win - playing to a smaller base may make them feel good, but it’s not going to bring enough folks backing you to the polls on election day. And again a lot of the folks on the GOP campaign are longtime GOP folks, who know how this conventionally works, so this mean they’d have the understanding (correct or not) that this not the direction a winning GOP campaign should take.

They don’t give a shit about angering Puerto Rican voters or even maintaining a modicum of decency in general. They are trying to provoke a mania in their own base that spirals out of control

and so far it works pretty well for them.

Citation needed. In fact there’s some evidence that (after a delay in the polling to reflect the latest updates and information) this really hurt them. See for example, https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2024/11/02/iowa-poll-kamala-harris-leads-donald-trump-2024-presidential-race/75354033007/ or https://www.axios.com/2024/11/03/harris-iowa-poll-trump-women or even https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/election_2024_harris_49_trump_48_in_michigan

This is an endgame strategy.

I’d argue that part of the strategy is for the candidate to campaign with the “principles of restraint and competence” to ensure his re-election. Only then can he do his damage.

Expose this too early and they have the issues I noted above.

The only thing that is not going according to plan is that their candidate is falling apart mentally

Hmm … perhaps he’s failing to restrain himself and exposing this ugly side early, specifically because he’s falling apart mentally? Thus screwing up his own campaign’s endgame?

I’m probably going to leave after the election results are known for sure (note that if it’s very close, we might not be sure until all the votes are counted, which could take more than just a single day) - just too much traffic on here and world to keep up.

The other point is that, as the latest from Nate Silver,

At this point, there’s enough new polling that it’s hard to know exactly what’s influencing the model, but Harris is gaining in our forecast,

Reversing the past week’s polling showing the GOP and MAGA gaining. So even if you didn’t believe the previous polls about this, the fact that the polls themselves are starting to now trend blue is interesting in and of itself.

This. Pretty much everyone with a legal degree thinks this case is junk and should be mocked (as per the CNBC article). Alas, it’s filled in the one court that would say otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_shopping at it’s lowest…

I don’t oppose third parties, but will answer anyways

(1) How will you get the US to stop funding Israeli genocide?;

We already have the Leahy Laws for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy_Law

So it’s just a matter of drawing up support after the election is over to push to get this properly enforced. I’m optimistic that a final ruling from the ICJ on this case in favor of South Africa would help shift public opinion in the US on this matter as well - making the push easier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa%27s_genocide_case_against_Israel

(2), what are the chances of your proposal(s) succeeding before, say, 2075?

I don’t like betting on court cases or the odds of future public opinion swaying. That said, I remain optimistic.

I am also hopeful for a plan B here - https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/modest-proposal-to-save-american-democracy-pack-the-union-harvard-law-review - which would make it practical for third parties to win the Presidency in the future, making it easier to push for less moderate policy agendas.