Oh no, no, nobody ever believed he was anti-war. If they claim they did, they’re lying.

You could believe he was gonna clean the swamp, if you were extremely foolish. You could believe he was gonna release the Epstein Files, if you were drunk enough and melted your brain doing whippets.

But you don’t get to pretend, ever, that the man who thinks foreigners are garbage would ever, for a second, think twice about shooting them.

What if we don’t want the tools? And even if we did (which we don’t), the tools don’t work, can’t work, will never work.

First of all, it’s not wishful thinking. Second of all, many of us have been doing this for decades. And most importantly, if you only try to express power through your vote, then that will definitely not be good enough for real change. It’s incredibly important that you get out there and do other things at other times, however you reasonably can given your situation in life.

There’s an old saying that everyone is equal on election day. Actually that’s not true because of gerrymandering and the Electoral College and disenfranchisement. But even if it were true, then everyone would not be equal the other 364 days of the year. Or non-election years. So don’t rely on voting to solve problems, but do it anyway.

You mean the primary voters who chose Bernie over Hillary, but were undercut by secret DNC insiders? I remember that quite well.

Most of the world? No. You just need to do more research. But yes, moving abroad is hard and offersno guarantees.

Oh my friend, you read like an undercover right-wing plant. It’s fairly obvious to anyone with a conscience that genocide is the simplest and most important issue that a candidate could fuck up. And Harris did that.

Let’s compare issues. I would say that on various issues (immigration, defense spending, health care) her stances were certainly not left-wing. Center, center-right, pro-corporate, that’s what I would say. And these are important issues. But I think it’s also true that she could have maintained many of those stances and still win. After all, previous Democrat presidents did.

If you’re afraid to say that genocide is wrong, and don’t actively work to stop it, you deserve to lose.

The headline is a lie. The CEOs are not confused; they know why. And in the article, they don’t even pretend they’re confused, because that’s too ridiculous to claim even in a media blurb.

Step 1. Add AI. Step 2. Add (broken) switch. Step 3. Pretend to fix switch. Step 4. Hide switch in sub-menus. Step 5. Remove switch.

… And all they actually need to do is make “AI” an extension. Let the users install it if they want to, or don’t. That’s the whole point of extensions. But they would never dream of that, hell no.

Lol the FBI is worried that people might leak shit they’re doing, so they gotta scare off Anonymous.

The best team is the one that wins and that’s why we play the game. If you knew who was best beforehand, you could just stay home.

I don’t think it’s a matter of common sense because many negative emotions are natural although they often have bad effects. It’s more a matter of values.

Discriminatory behavior tends to result in lawsuits and other legal issues. This new law is trying to reduce the liability that businesses face if they fuck over same sex married couples.

We needed a report to tell us that? Well, maybe the DNC did. Everyone else kinda always thought supporting genocide was a shit idea and a bad way to win an election.

He might want to stop breaking the law, lol.

Many people here know that “AI” as a term is pure snake oil. You aren’t actually talking about anything until you say what you think it means, or specific examples.

AI research goes back to the early 1950s. Being “against” all of that old research is kinda meaningless… So it’s your job to clarify what you mean, or not, and other users will respond accordingly.

Look, you want specifics but didn’t provide any. That’s basically manipulative. It suggests you don’t want a real answer, but you want to say you tried to find one.

The Times is so bad. Why not … uh … Go look at the crime rate and tell is which is true? That would be real journalism.

Lol what terrible research. “No! The parents have no control over their children. None! Please ignore all of human history.”

The NYTimes is so bad. Strong evidence that Trump has committed sex crimes, and quite possibly to children, with some assault and battery (and maybe dead bodies) floating around, and it’s news that young voters are “disillusioned”? I would hope the reaction would be slightly stronger than mere disillusionment.

But that’s the Times. Bury the lede, underplay the crimes, repeat. Sigh.

Hahaha the joke’s on us, cuz we don’t own property, sigh.