Because one just happened last week! Like, c’mon man. We know Trump was connected to Epstien, the media has covered his known connections to Epstien, but they don’t have evidence that he did anything with underage women (I’m sure he did, but we don’t have evidence). Like, what do you want them to do? Interrupt coverage of the debate fallout out to remind everyone that there is no new information on Trump’s connection to human trafficker that died 5 years ago? That’s not the news.

Dude, it was literally the first thing I linked to, and I even quoted the most relevant portions of the entry.

Yeah, I suppose time travel could win them the day, but that feels like cheating. I’m not sure boarding party would do much better. Those personal shields the Borg have are…weird. They stop phaser fire like a ships shields, but they don’t stop physical objects (for example, Mr. Worf’s fists) like a regular shield. But there’s no reason to believe that they would stop plasma bolts from a Blaster, so there’s no reason to think a Borg boarding party would get wrecked by a barrage of (admittedly inaccurate) Stormtrooper fire before they could do much damage. Plus the Cube would probably get destroyed before they could send more than one or two waves of drones over.

Well, again, their sheild adapting technology very specifically works on phaser and torpedo warheads, but haven’t shown any adaptability to other weapons, and the entry on Memory Alpha entry seems to make this explicit. That doesn’t mean that they don’t stop other weapons, just that they only work like normal shields against other weapons. So, 23rd century warbirds probably wouldn’t be very effective against the Borg, since they’re old, outdated, and probably underpowered tech, but a Galaxy Class Starship with plasma weapons as powerful as normal phasers would probably do well.

So, if the sheilds don’t nullify the Death Star’s weapons, this match up would basically be the same as any large Star Trek ship vs. the Death Star. And since the Death Star is so massive, pretty much any ship is gonna get wrecked. I’m sure the Borg would do fine against a Star Wars ship of roughly comparable size, but the Death Star is almost 100 times larger.

Yeah, the Borg hordes would overwhelm the Death Star. The last time this was posed was as a single Borg Cube vs. the Death Star, so I’m assuming that’s what OP was asking.

I don’t really see how a boarding party is going to help them much, though. Stormtroopers aren’t the most competent soldiers, but Borg aren’t going to be better protected from the plasma in their Blasters than the Cube is from the Death Star’s plasma and laser weapons. It’s possible they could assimilate someone with strategic knowledge of the station or find something useful in their computers, but they’re going to get wrecked before they can pull that off. The cube is also too big to get through the Death Star shields, so they can’t use the exhaust port trick to blow it up.

This came up a few months ago, and I wasted most of a day figuring it out. Here’s a compilation of what I said at the time:

The Borg’s main advantage is its ability to counter energy weapons. They do this with the Adaptive Shield Matrix:

All phasers are generated on a particular subspace phase compression pulse frequency, whilst torpedo warheads all possess their own shielding which also possesses its own subspace phase compression pulse frequency. Adaptive Shielding works by remodulating the shields to the identical subspace compression pulse frequency of torpedos and phasers…

So, it seems like the Borg’s sheilds adapt to the subspace pulse frequencies of phasers and torpedos. Phasers are a type particle weapon that Gene Roddenberry made up when he realized lasers didn’t work the way he thought they did, and they don’t really have much basis in the real world like lasers or plasma weapons do. The problem is that 99% of the weapons in Star Wars are plasma weapons, except for the Death Star cannon, which is a laser.

Since the Adaptive Shield Matrix specifically works by adapting to subspace frequencies, there’s really no reason to think that their shields would have a distinct advantage over lasers or plasma bolts the way they do phasers. Star Fleet seems to agree, as they theorized plasma phasers would be effective weapons against the Borg in Best of Both Worlds. Picard was also able to easily kill several Borg with hard-light bullets in First Contact, further demonstrating their inability to counter non-phaser weapons.

It also doesn’t seem like the Borg have an innate ability to adapt to enemy weapons. Aside from only countering phaser weapons, the rotating-frequency strategy was pretty effective throughout TNG and First Contact. It seems more like that Adaptive Shield Matrix was just a piece of technology they assimilated rather than an intrinsic ability to counter attacks.

So, if the Borg shields don’t nullify the Death Star’s weapons like they do Star Trek weapons, and they don’t have a special ability to counter enemy attacks, this just comes down firepower. The superlaser should be able to destroy any Borg cube multiple times, and even without the superlaser, they’re massively outgunned. This is 3000 meter ship against a 75 mile wide battle station. Even if the 10,000 turbolaser, 2,500 laser cannons, 2,500 ion cannons can’t overpower them (and by the way, it sounds like those, “lasers,” are actually plasma weapons according to wookiepedia, because of course Star Wars can’t be consistent), and the 768 tractor beam projectors can’t immobilize the cube, the 7,000 individual tie fighters would probably overwhelm the it. Hell, if the Death Star is faster, they could probably just smash into them and still survive the damage.

I think the Death Star has this by a mile. I hate to admit it, but I don’t see a win condition for the Borg here.

…what? One of those things happened on national television, and the other happened on a secret pedophile island. Why would you expect to have equal knowledge about those events?

I don’t think it’s going to steal them in a negative way. These things usually go by very quickly, and it’s unlikely to become a drawn out, bitter affair like the last few primaries have been. If Biden drops out with grace, and the candidates all agree to keep things positive, it could be a huge boon for the party. Ezra Klein covered it in depth on his podcast this week, it’s worth a listen.

Yes, I think this is a sub-category of looksmaxxing.

You can usually tell how old someone is by whether or not they think, “liberal,” and, “progressive,” are synonyms.

I don’t know, what’s mewing?

Except that’s not true; the DNC sets the rules for each state, and they make plenty of exceptions when they feel like it. In North Carolina, the DNC will allow someone on the ballot if their candidacy is, “generally advocated and recognized in the news media.” In Tennessee, the DNC chair will accept applications if someone is “a bona fide Democrat.” They’re perfectly willing to rubber stamp a challengers applications based on subjective criteria.

The DNC creates a feedback loop to keep challengers off the ballot; they don’t hold debates, so alternative candidates don’t get any exposure to mount a challenge; without any exposure, they can dismiss the candidates as not having enough media presence to warrant being on the ballot, and tell them they have to gather signatures; without any support from the DNC or exposure from the media, it’s virtually impossible to get the funding and resources to collect signatures in 50 states.

Plus, you will face retribution from the DNC for challenging an incumbent. I mean, just look at what they did to Phillips. They forced him out of his leadership positions, then they found someone to primary him, and now he’s not even seeking reelection. All because he had the audacity to think there should be a real primary. Does this really sound like a fair process?

Call your Senators, Congressman, State Rep, anyone with a D in front of their name. Tell them you’ve lost confidence in Biden and want the party to pressure him into stepping down before the convention. Then we can hold a contested convention, where the delegates will probably take several rounds of voting to decide a candidate. It’s risky, but not as risky as doing nothing. It would also steal the headlines from Trump for a least a few weeks, which could build some momentum for the new candidate.

The problem with Biden is that he’s going to lose to Trump. Voters’ major concern about Biden was his age, and he completely validated those concerns last week. His polls are bad and getting worse, and we can’t wait and see if they get better; we don’t have that much time to waste. We need to replace him.

A contested convention is risky, but it’s our best shot right now. It would dominate the news cycle for at least two weeks and create energy and excitement in the base. As long as we come out with someone generally inoffensive, we have a good shot of winning. My pick would be Gavin Newsom; I don’t particularly like him, but he’s polling on Biden without even campaigning.

It is now very unlikely that Biden will win the election. Acknowledging that isn’t the problem, and ignoring it and hoping it goes away isn’t the solution. We need to accept it and find a solution.

Ah, well, you know those Trump supporters, always being swayed by facts and evidence.

That’s a feature, not a bug. The party leaders like having time to craft a narrative and create momentum behind their preferred candidate. It’s how Biden’s campaign managed to come back from the dead in 2020. If the primaries were all held on the same day, these pundits wouldn’t be telling us to stick with Biden, they’d be telling us Bernie is too old for a second term.

This article is fucking absurd. It holds up the primary as a paragon if the democratic process, even though Biden was the only candidate to have universal ballot access, and ignores the fact that two-thirds of Democratic didn’t want him to run. It compares the Drop-Biden advocates to the January 6th protesters, even though they’re advocating for a contested convention, which is the same process that was used until 1970. And to top it all off, it’s written by Stuart Stevens, AKA Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign strategist. Why should the Democrats be taking advice from a Republican strategist, especially one that’s already botched a presidential campaign?

Williamson was kept off the ballot in almost half of all states. Phillips was kept off the ballot in more than half of them. It’s hard to believe it’s a real primary when only one candidate has universal ballot access.

This is called, “looksmaxxing,” it’s something the incel community picked up from a discredited orthodontist. The guys on the QAA podcast covered it on one of their premium episodes.