This is half the reason he doesn’t want to do it.

I really hope the democrats take full advantage of spinning that as yet another anti-democratic Trump move… that it’s anti-democratic to impede informed voting.

Interesting that they are still today apparently served by mentioning Obama’s middle name.

Whenever I see Obama referred to by his full name, I instantly know that the author is pushing manipulative islamaphobic dog-whistle propaganda and everything else by such authors automatically has zero credibility, lacks substance, and the drivel is a waste of time to finish reading. I wonder if that manipulation attempt is still largely unknown, or if the rt-wing nut jobs are really just out of touch with the pursuadables they are trying to reach and thus shooting themselves in the foot.

I must say he’s right about one thing: the US is a one-party system.

Or more specifically I would say the US is a two-party system for white men (+Kanye West) and a one-party system for everyone else.

NY Times is a closed website. Paywalled or something? I could not reach it from Tor at least not with my browser. Could be a popup-blocker blocker, not sure. Anyway, the link I gave is a NY Times front-end that is openly accessible, though clearnet users might have to append a .cab or something. There are probably NY Times FEs on clearnet but I don’t know of any ATM.

(edit) actually I think that’s NY Times official onion server. Anyway, for whatever reason it has better accessibility than the clearnet version.

Hold the debate anyway. Have Kamala appear next to an empty chair.

Moderator: giving Trump a couple more minutes to appear.

(~5 min later)

Moderator: Trump is a no show. Hmm… he originally eagerly agreed to this September debate with Biden. It’s unclear why the change of heart, but I have to say he forfeits by default.

Kamala (interrupts): Hold on, please call Trump’s probation officer to verify his attendance permission while we wait a few more min. He’s understandably a bit skiddish with prosecutors lately but I would like to yield some of my time & do him this courtesy since he donated to my campaign in 2011 & 2013.

(~5 min later)

Moderator: no go, but would you like to answer the questions next to an empty chair to have your answers heard anyway?

Kamala: yes, this way he can take all the time he needs to prepare a scripted response later given his cognitive challenges….

Ha! I predicted this!

I also predicted Biden’s disaster and asked people around me why the fuck is Biden going to debate Trump. People said “he has no choice”. I found that quite questionable. Now Trump seems to be proving that candidates have a choice.

Sure Trump’s cowardice will damage his campaign. But getting an ass-beating in the debate is even more damaging, as Biden proved. So Trump is making his best tactical move for his ability.

(edit)
I would like it if the headlines were “Trump forfeits the debate” to rightfully emphasize the lossy nature of the decision.

woah, that article is Cloudflared. So no, Mozilla has no credibility to speak about a “more private Internet”.

These things are small experimentation gardens,

Indeed that was my thought as well. The problem is we don’t have enough consumers experimenting with privacy and/or an analog life. If just a few percent of the population would insist on cash payment, refuse to feed the tech giants, and resist designed obsolescence by using old smartphones (AOS 4-), and run only FOSS, then there could be some headway into ensuring these digital experiments that kill off lifestyle freedom of choice while leaving some people in the dust would rightfully fail. It would be interesting if a consumer union would recruit right-to-be-analog proponents to target merchants among these experimental digital dystopias.

A “pin” receipt, ie. validation of payment is not a legal item to be used for tax deduction because it does not list what you bought nor the amount of tax, not sure if both percentage and the amount must be present.

In the parts of the world I’ve been, an itemised receipt and card receipt are both given or they are combined into one. In my travels through Netherlands I often only receive one form of receipt or the other and sometimes I have to request it.

ATMs are mandated by international treaties to print receipts, yet I’ve noticed some that are perpetually out of paper.

The cashless direction is forcing a “paper trail” on us whether we want it or not, but then at the same time the receipt problems seem to deny us the benefits of the paper trail (to be able to claim tax deductions and make warranty claims). For ultimate control I generally want to pay in cash (for data control) and receive an itemised receipt (for tax/warranty claims) which should be on paper (for more data control).

As far as I know, a customer receipt is not and has never been required.

Then the interesting question is: Do tax auditors accept that if you claim a deduction for a cost where a receipt was not rendered?

What is required is a pin receipt, but you get this when paying with a card.

I find it a bit alienating that Dutch speakers often seem to refer to card payment generically as “PIN payments”. Maybe I’m missing something because PIN typically expands to personal identification number which is an authentication mechanism used for larger amounts of money. In my case it was a small enough transaction to just tap the card and use RFID to identify the card and skip authentication. But indeed I was surprised they accepted a card payment but had no printer to produce a receipt. I wonder what would have happened if my card were the older style which has no EMV and requires a hand-written signature. I probably would have been unable to pay.

BTW, strangely I see your reply in my notifications timeline but not in the thread when I visit the thread. So I’m not sure if you’ll get this reply.

(edit) I can see my own reply to you in the thread, but still not your msg in the thread (unlike the other comment from someone else that I can see fine). Seems like a strange federation issue between our nodes.