This comes days after arrests in a separate plot to assassinate President Lula da Silva and other officials.

Oh there’s no relation I’m sure. Zero. Zip.

A lot of places don’t throughout the USA and a lot of people use private/community wells.

It is “Seán”.

The more reasonable and manageable timeframe might be closer to living generations currently in existence.

The hyperbole kind of misses its intended mark when itself misses the context of a call for context.

“Stealing” business…?

Ah yes. History began on October 7th. There is no context to anything involving anything prior to October 7th 2023.

Although even looking at just October 7th and what has happened since… kind of elucidates what the fuck has been going on.

Hell even 7 decades ago Einstein was looking at what was just starting and went “Well this is some Nazi shit.”

So, One China Policy still stands. Breaking news, status quo?

Personalized and specialized content seems to factor into it.

Often it works out where someone pays a large sum for a specific piece of content. Afterward a gallery or video is posted for subscribers or individual purchase for much smaller sum, which gets pirated, but the real money is already kinda made.

This is based on a friend of mine relating how their sister makes a living off OnlyFans.

I think it seems that way if you look at the outcomes and ignore the process which led to said outcome.

You get it. But word usage seems to be a stickler for you and I honestly can’t help you navigate that. I call it forcing. You wouldn’t. The overall point is tangible enough that it doesn’t need further elaboration for the audience.

My point is the primary system is a process, not a one time vote. If you look at the primary vote as a final and singular number, then yeah the candidate won the primary with the popular vote.

But the primaries take place over time. The results of the initial primary states absolutely impact the votes of the later states. In the last two election cycles the initial momentum by Sanders was met with resistance and attack ads. There is clearly no dispute that the SDs have influence which they exert.

So it appears this boils down to a concern that you have with the word usage of ‘forced’. Which is kind of a meaningless hangup given the reality of the electoral process and this thread of conversation.

The sniff test part.

As far as supporting the assertion: The superdelegates are party leadership and standing elected members. They are a 15% voting block with the direct power to influence a primary election by claiming a candidate is or is not ‘electable’ based on their own support. They are not beholden to the voters results on how they vote. This gives them a considerable flex during the primary process to shape and control the party platform.

Like I said with the DNC primary: the debate about ‘electability’ has been the recurring theme. This is because the superdelegate voting bloc is declaring essentially a 15 point penalty in any given alternative candidate. They have a license to poison wells so to speak, and they make that known. They have the power to declare any candidate unelectable and have a mechanism to back that up.

Again here in 2024 the DNC is insisting Biden be the only option. Biden at this rate will again win the popular vote in the primary, the primary voters will notwithstanding. If you see no problem there then, well, you don’t.

And many people are convinced at the poll to vote for the more ‘electable’ candidate when the stakes are where they are currently. It is the main argument I read and see every day.

That is how the primary process works: it isn’t an election day where a winner is decided. It is an ongoing process over time where candidates promote and modify their platforms based on the active results of each staggered vote.

So when that process is manipulated by a body of party officials with the ability to swing close conventions by 15 points, you have the function of forcing a predetermined result.

Republicans don’t have superdelegates like the DNC, which is why you may have had trouble with that. The GOPs equivalent are still obligated to vote for the candidate the primary voters chose by popular vote at the convention. The DNC superdelegates don’t have that obligation. They are uniquely equipped to be able to vote against the popular vote on their own volition.

Yeah, the Democratic Party is not that progressive. That’s the point I am addressing.

Yet: progressive policy has significant support across the voting base and across both parties. There is an active suppression of any individual attempting to be a politician promoting and passing progressive policy. It is what the DNC has explicitly done at the minimum since 2010. (But essentially since Reagan.)

Now as far as people voting based on the lead of superdelegates? Yeah. Superdelegates are party leaders. Rejecting the notion party leaders influence the primary is like saying Trump endorsements don’t impact GOP candidates. (Incidentally Republicans also have this dynamic of being fed terrible and unteneble candidates.) But the influence of leadership certainly has an effect especially in an environment where no one is talking about policies and instead nebulous concepts like ‘electability.’

In 2016 the superdelegates coming out early and in support of Hillary was specifically to stunt the momentum Bernie was showing early on. That reality is why the party had to change the rules in 2018.

In 2020 the DNC similarly made effort to contest the convention to sidestep the 2018 rule changes to allow the superdelegates once again the room to tip the scales.

The thing to keep in mind is this happens outside the presidential elections. The state and local elections with the Democratic Party also follow this pattern. Progressive suppression is their mode of operation, it is just people only engage in politics once every four years typically.

Also, slightly aside you also had media storms expressingly fear and loathing about progressive candidates like Sanders, like suggesting public executions in central park should he win.

In 2016 and 2020 alike Bernie Sanders was winning the primaries. Each time the party pushed the scales away from the popular candidate.

In 2016 the superdelegates, which is essentially party establishment, backed Hillary in spite of the primary votes supporting Bernie to tip the scales. It caused the convention rules to be changed in 2018 so superdelegates can only vote in a contested convention instead of being able to just pick their chosen candidate.

In 2020 with the rule changes you had a few maneuvers in the primaries designed to hamstring Bernie and split votes. Namely by having Warren stay in the race and all the moderates and conservatives drop out and back Biden. You also have Clyburn in South Carolina. They manufactured consent for Biden being the popular candidate.

Definitely was a case for a forced candidate by the party establishment to control the options the people could choose from.

2020 actually had debates and a primary process wherein Biden was yes, forced. Much like Hillary was in 2016.

But this time the DNC is trying to avoid a primary process altogether. Running any kind of reelection campaign is a liability for Biden.
Any amount of spotlight on Biden will probably damage his chances in the general, which the party is all to aware and afraid of.

It is worth pointing out that a number of state democratic parties have declared the only primary candidate will be Biden. Others are denying some combination of candidates from being on the primary ballot opposing Biden.

So that kinda sucks, and something people should be aware of: attempts are being made to force Biden as the candidate by the party.

Sure, but you should be aware that logging out, using a private window, or a different computer are all sure fire ways to ensure it acts as close to randomly or popular as possible.

The 18+ streams shouldn’t be freely advertised until the user has identified themselves as 18+ at any rate.

I don’t use tiktok and haven’t ever so I’ll have to take your word on that.

I suspect ignoring content is way more influential to the algorithm. But at the same time I spend relatively little to no time just browsing streamer channels.

It really seems like seeing something sexy every now and then isn’t really pushing it into faces. But if anything I do not think Twitch is readily prepared or equipped to adequately sequester their 18+ content given the absolute reliance on users and streamers to self report their content and access to it.

It hasn’t been strictly gaming for many years,

What is interesting is if you don’t click on or watch those streams Twitch doesn’t recommend them to you.

A lot of the complaining is often just an unaware self report which is kinda funny.