If I'm not saying what you were prepared for, maybe you are the one with a script. It's LBJ. LBJ was significantly more left than Biden, but can you name one since?
docAvid
joined 2 years ago
But that just isn't true, he didn't move further right, he has moved left. Not nearly as far as I would like, but definitely left. He's turning out to be the most progressive president since LBJ. Admittedly, that's more of a criticism of how right wing the office has been in that time, than it is high praise of Biden, but it is true.
And it has a whole set of options based on common ls options. Classic and brilliant.
What actually surprises me is that the right hasn't already been releasing a barrage of easily-debunked deep fakes just to undermine the public confidence in evidence and make it easier to claim a real recording is fake.
I was actually about to upvote for that first paragraph, but downvoted because of the rest.
And hey, I mean, ACAB, I'm not defending cops. Cops are selected for stupidity and aggression, trained to murder, and held above the law. Even the best of them are still part of a system that is oppressive by design.
But what that trainer was saying was true, and an important thing to acknowledge for anybody who is likely to be in life-and-death situations - firefighters, paramedics, even social workers. Go to the Snopes link he included and read the whole thing.
Sex is a normal reaction to danger. It doesn't mean that cops are going out and killing people just to have better sex, that's stupid. They're killing people, yes, for lots of reasons, but that's not one of them. It's almost as dumb as the QAnon quacks talking about adrenochrome.
Weird. Booleanish isn't a built-in, I'm pretty sure. I'd like to see the definition.
That's a fair take. I don't really agree, as to me, it is just a popular idiom meaning that people reacted negatively to something and either criticized it or mocked it harshly - I don't think it has to carry a lot of weight - but I do think it's perfectly valid that you think it does. That's not, however, what I get from the comment I was responding to, at all.
You know what "slammed" metaphorically means, here.
No baby was aborted, ever, by definition.
Pregnancies are aborted.
Aborting a pregnancy involves destroying a blastocyst or embryo, in most cases.
At no point is a baby involved.
But I'll bet that some actual children who were orphaned when those 1200 women died wound up dying as well.
Biden isn't doing exactly the things I want. He's doing some things I kind of want, or at least strongly prefer over what I might have expected him to do, and vastly prefer over what Trump would do, while also doing some things I think are very bad. He's probably the most progressive president of my lifetime, but that's more an indictment of politics in my lifetime than an endorsement of Biden. He not only isn't doing, but has actively opposed doing what the best science available tells us we need to do in order to prevent the worst outcomes of the climate crisis, which is pretty terrifying. Ultimately, he could literally kill more people than any world leader in history, yet he's still the best viable option. So yep, you got me: we gotta vote for him, even if he sucks.
I am highly unconvinced by STAR. The problem with STAR, as I see it, is that there is no cost to giving a candidate a higher or lower ranking, except that they may beat a more preferred candidate. It's like Amazon ratings, the most simplistic, extreme voters win. The voters who carefully decide whether a candidate should get two or three stars have a subtle influence, while voters who go "yeah that guy's great, five stars!" and "no not her, terrible, zero stars!" clearly have an outsized impact, determining the finalists.
With a fully ranked ballot, to vote one candidate higher, you have to vote another lower. I have not seen any convincing argument that any system is better than STV/IRV ranked choice.
You can decide for yourself, of course, whether being friendly and listening is more or less effective than lecturing, but it sounds like you're choosing not to pick the best of bad options, but just let it burn, to show people who think differently from you how wrong they are. This could be described as: