People already are starting to forget somebody just took a shot at trump. I don't think the 18 month cycle was ever necessary.
People already are starting to forget somebody just took a shot at trump. I don't think the 18 month cycle was ever necessary.
Not sure what article you're reading, but this one didn't seem to imply the reason for ceasing donations was being against oligarchy. So I'm not sure what point you're making?
Yeah they're going to cast like the highest paid actor in the world and then not show his face
That's literally "making the best of a bad system"
You don't like the choice you're making, but you're picking what you perceive as the "least bad".
Isn't the push behind Biden "making the best of a bad system"? Which seems to be exactly the same sentiment behind "I don't like the oligarchs but it's useful that they agree with me."
You think Biden is a legitimately good candidate and not just worth rallying behind to stop Trump?
Memories being given as an input to the system are themselves context
I have to ask: are you just ignorant of the position of the anti -Biden crowd, or are you intentionally misconstruing it as them preferring Trump over Biden?
I don’t answer questions from people who can’t answer my own.
You didn't ask a question.
I imagine somebody well connected enough to be an envoy doesn't share in the living conditions of the average citizen
Ukraine?
Striking inside their territory won't matter all that much if they can just nuke Kiyv.
And breaking the nuclear taboo is a catastrophe for everybody, regardless of who the target is.
The UK has some real cabbage head PMs cycling through, and shot themselves in the foot by leaving the EU.
Trump served a four year term as president.
I don't think the comment you replied to justifies the level of scrutiny you're putting it under.
Polling post-debate more or less justifies what it says.
The act of inserting this context into the system is itself context, so I'm still existing in the context of what came before
If somebody tricks you and you fall for it, it doesn't mean what you were tricked into believing isn't context, or that the fact you were tricked at all isnt context.
Even if he had, you still wouldn't know if he had.
You think the US's implementation of democracy that forces you to pick the least bad between two candidates you don't like is
?
And that's without getting started on the electoral college.
being the only choices is a symptom of democracy is so foreign to you
Given that the overarching question here is "is biden really the best candidate?", and that ranked choice voting would immediately fix that issue while retaining democracy, yes i feel fairly confident that the current situation is one brought on by an imperfect implementation of democracy.
But again, this is just more bad faith whining so goodbye.
VS Code is written with performance in mind. Compared with other electron apps, it's very performant.
Compared with even a sloppily written native app though, it's not great.
If you ignore the fact that trump wouldn't be running if he hadn't lost the popular vote in 2016 and still won, sure.
This started as you deriding the US's system as an oligarchy, but now when pressed it's your ideal democracy? What are you doing, friend? Are you okay?
What parts of the system that make it bad are anti-democratic elements - which are not particularly relevant in whether my choice should be Biden or Trump.
Or in other words, the system you're in is flawed but you're working within the constraints of those flaws to get the best outcome you can find.
Making the best of a bad system
The US is only in this predicament because the system it has currently allowed a candidate who lost the popular vote in 2016 to get into an office that had enough power to meaningfully damage the country.
However it's clear from your repeated and deliberate attempts to reframe criticism of that system as an attack on the very concept of democracy itself that you aren't arguing in good faith here.
Doesn't matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
I think you might care about this a touch too much
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I'm a murderer whether or not I'm convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it's not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn't make him innocent though.
I'm not saying they'll do it, I'm saying it's incorrect to state that there's no valid strategic target when there absolutely is.
The point being that you went from not believing anybody else could do the job to believing in Harris because it turns out that if somebody isn't campaigning then they don't seem a viable candidate?
If you pointedly and repeatedly demand which alternate candidate somebody canvassed for, then one of three things is true:
Why bother pretending otherwise?
I'm trying to figure out if you've convinced yourself of this or if you're just trying to avoid appearing wrong on the internet. Utterly fascinating.
For reference, demand would very obviously be a synonym of ask in this case.
You're really doubling down at every opportunity?
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion more justifiable than expecting them to donate before having one?
Ignoring that asking about canvassing isn't all you did, expecting people to canvas to have an opinion on politics is so nonsensical it actually brings us full circle to the deliberately ridiculous original comment I left.
How is expecting people to canvas before having an opinion any better than expecting people to donate? It reeks of elitism.
Pointedly asking people who their preferred candidate is to Biden doesn't fit that narrative, though.
I think both are incredibly weird but you do you, boo
I take it this means you've reconsidered your previous opinion that Biden is the only viable candidate for the democrats
But for there to be somebody to downwardly punch, then it must be true.
If Ericsson was a person they'd struggle to dress themselves
I'd honestly be interested to see a cohorent argument as to why the first two aren't true if not voting is. I can't think of one.
The last one I threw in there for fun.
Okay so the emoji thing. Not allowed to criticise anything? What a strange and unique lens to view the world through.
"Voter apathy helps Trump" has a lot of baked in context that makes it kind-of-true when "You not voting helps Trump" just objectively isn't.
I must say though, I wasn't miserable when i made that comment, and now that you have received the initial thing you were looking for (or confirmation that you had it all along), I expect to see nothing but positivity from you for the next week.
But I'm not miserable about Harris? I just told you that.
Or are you trying to say that making any comments that don't end with a string of 🎉 emojis is off the table for the next 3 to 5 working days ?
I get that maybe you misinterpreted my comment as anti-harris, since I didn't bother to make my specific stance clear and kind of threw it out there, but I've now clarified.
Why are you doubling down now? Just to try and retroactively justify some unnecessary receipt pulling?
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
And I support Harris?
"Not voting is voting for the other side" is completely ineffectual as a slogan, since the type of person likely to not vote is going to immediately file it away in their brain as the obvious hyperbole-bordering-on-lie it is.
What's your point?
but not voting [...] means actively Supporting fascism
OJ Simpson also wasn't convicted.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That's murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.