ICBMs are spaceflight rockets, imo it’s best to count them. The US hasn’t had such large accidents with ICBMs, mostly minor ones.

Even if we exclude those it’s not true. The US has sent significantly more people into space than the Soviets did, so NASAs accident rate was lower (hence safer), even if the absolute number of deaths was higher.

The Nedelin disaster claimed more lives than NASA did over its entire existence.

Indian

According to Krafton’s statement the remaining employees are getting their bonus though.

So this is the application form:

Mamdani was born in Uganda to a Ugandan father and an Indian (Gujarati) mother. Which box would you tick?

Mamdani opted to tick “Black/African American” as well as “Asian”, and at the “Other” box wrote “Ugandan”.

I personally fail to see the problem. Given the constraints of these boxes, this seems to be the most accurate way of describing his ethnicity? Am I missing something here? Why is NYT presenting this as an issue at all?

Trump saying he’s white despite him being orange seems like a bigger discrepancy.

because you can be watched or recorded as you were filling it out

You expressly can’t do this. This is why there’s a voting booth and observers who make sure you’re alone in the booth. And after you fill out the ballot, it gets folded inward and placed in a box that is closed off until election day is over. There’s no way to verify who you voted for, as your name isn’t on the ballot.

In your home, someone could force themselves in, force you to vote for someone and verify you did so.

With anonymous voting at a polling place, sure someone could force you to go there, but since the vote itself is anonymous (and there’s people around to check it is), they would never be able to verify that you indeed voted X or Y way. It’s also why most countries ban taking pictures of your vote; no proving to anyone how you voted!

That audience wasn’t Republican don’t lie to yourself.

Fox News decided to invite a bunch of progressives? Don’t kid yourself.

Clinton lost for a lot of reasons. But she managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of what should have been an overwhelming blowout. It’s not just Russian interference at that point, that’s delusional.

Biden won once, barely, and only with Trumps shit 1st term stuck in economic crisis after Covid. Biden then ended up so far behind in the polls they pulled him from being embarrassingly defeated by Trump. Harris lost because she didn’t offer any meaningful difference from the Biden era. That includes inflation, but again it’s not the only reason people didn’t turn out for her. Polls also showed she alienated a core left-wing demographic that stayed home. She needed every vote but made poor decisions that cost her more votes than she could gain.

The right-wing does campaigning on right-wing policy better than any centrist candidate ever could. You see this happening everywhere, not just the US.

AOC for president is ridiculous, her heart might be in the right place but she doesn’t have a wide enough appeal. Sanders is different. There has been plenty of polling done that showed Sanders had a better chance at beating Trump than Harris or Biden did.

I made it up.

“Turns out all we needed to travel forwards in time is to burn homophobes!”

Centrists lost to Trump, the objectively worst candidate for president.

Sanders received a loud applause from a Fox News town hall. I’m not so sure he’d have lost.

When voters have chosen the option furthest to the right it is stupid to think that running a candidate further left would do anything but lose.

Trying to do right-wing policy “better” than the right-wing candidate has consistently lost elections to far-right candidates. All it does is validate the far-right candidate’s positions, and they’ll always be considered “stronger” on those positions

People primarily vote for change, and that’s exactly what the centrists haven’t been able to offer. It’s why Biden lost, it’s why Harris lost, it’s why Clinton lost.

That’s not specific to having a constitution. Judges in the Netherlands for example also cannot do a judicial review to determine the constitutionality of any passed laws. And that’s with a written constitution. There’s also no supreme court. The closest thing is the Raad van State (the “state council”), which evaluates all laws on proportionality, constitutionality, and executability, and then advises the government what to do with a law. It’s convention that that advice is followed, but it’s not required.

There’s still a judicial challenge happening. And just because the UK doesn’t have written constitution doesn’t mean there’s no constitution at all. Most of it is even written down, just not in one place.

Yeah but why can’t a death count have two levels of funniness?

Why not?

Not sure that matters too much, frogs in the US are boiling fine too. The constitution can be brushed aside just as easily.

This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as “liberal” despite this internationally not being the norm at all.

Here’s a definition of liberalism:

Liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology that emphasizes individual rights, liberties, and limited government. It promotes ideas like free markets, free trade, and social equality, while often advocating for a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and civil liberties.

Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc…

A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.

Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia’s liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren’t very influential w.r.t. party policy because it’s such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.

Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they’ve come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They’ve remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here’s the “political compass” for the Netherlands for example:

Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it’s interesting to note here that the PVV (the “far-right” party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn’t even all that far right. Their economic policies aren’t actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there’s certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.

Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don’t like being lumped in with liberals, because they don’t focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.

You’re not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals “left-wing”, but it’s a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.

Trump would send fighters to force the plane to return.

Prior is one way, but it also means “in front”, e.g. the image in front of you (that you can copy).

I’m afraid the past 10 years have definitely showed us that yes, this too absolutely is America.