He was getting a free flight from his airline because he was a pilot.
Think it was a cargo plane so he was one of the only passengers. He freaked out, entered the cabin, and started trying to crash the plane. The actual pilots had to hit him with a wrench or something I think to stop him.
This sounds like the FedEx hijacking attempt, flight 705.
Huge turnouts will also show the places that are actively gerrymandered and otherwise trying to suppress certain demographics from being able to vote. Which oddly enough are usually in swing states. Almost like there's a reason for preventing some people from voting.
I'd say yes, but I did have to look at it closely. Plus the assumption that it would probably default to continuing.
I can't see the GOP as it is now going with her or any woman. Or really anyone but Trump, as he has opened the doors to allow them to be more of what they are. I get what the question is looking for, but the alternate history to lead to something like that would have diverged a long time ago with a very different now.
It's not conversion, but just more getting people to think beyond what they're being fed. That I know of (or rather, what they've said) possibly two or three.
Talk to more people? Presuming it was a problem with voters showing up. I can't see how me getting just a few people to vote blue instead of red or not at all is a problem leading to that scenario. Unless I miss your point.
If it's vote stealing or another insurrection attempt, certainly that's a looming danger, but I didn't get that meaning from your question.
The first one was also used in the short series "11.22.63". Going back to change things results in huge amounts of temporal inertia to overcome.
I understand your point, and I agree to a degree that once you find out a person is ignorant on purpose, or worse that they know the facts and embrace them, then let them have it. But I can't see it being constructive to attack anyone before you know where they really stand, and unfortunately sometimes that takes some interaction and "good faith". Let them dig the hole first before you bury them.
I'm just trying to avoid being a false dichotomy on the issue. People are more than a caricature of red or blue. Hell, part of the Republican plan is to make the peons fight with each other and not talk to each other, it works for them to create this image of the evil liberal.
Pick your fights. Some aren't worth fighting. Some are.
I was going to say that Barron still isn't fair game, but...
part of daddy's campaign stuff now
Well that's sad. I was hoping he could break free from the influence.
I can't say I understand it either. All I can do is try to suggest to them maybe there's a reason to vote left, even on just a single issue, and perhaps break through the wall of sports politics and apathy. I don't see that as taking a high road, but just trying to win the little battles where it's feasible. Some people are lost, and you find that out really quickly if you can't even have a discussion with them without it getting ugly.
Using the old models, they don't keep up with the latest improvements.
That's a strawman of doomerism. There's as many different opinions as there are "doomers", but most are probably in the realm of "do what we can to reduce the damage, but the science and math is saying we're way past any great solutions." I guess some would call that realism to separate it from the doomer label, but whatever it's called, that's where we are.