Hylactor

For the sake of argument, let's just say sure, both sides gerrymander just as egregiously (which frankly, they do not.) This would makes it a wash balancing out pros and cons of either choice as it relates specifically to the 2024 presidential race. Which leads us back to the world of pragmatism. Which candidate is liklier to encourage greater voter turnout and representation if elected? Probably not the guy who represents the party that is removing scores of names from voters rolls. Probably not the guy who opposes mail in ballots. Of the two options, which candidate would benefit more from voter suppression? Probably the guy who won the election for just the fifth time in our countries history while simultaneously losing the popular vote in 2016. Probably the guy who called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to pressure them to "find 11,780 votes" and overturn the state's election results from the 2020 presidential election. Of the two candidates in the 2024 presidential race, only one of them stands to benefit by more votes being cast and counted in subsequent elections. Therefore Harris is once again, the likeliest hope for improvement.

If you wish to find out, I recommend voting for the candidate that is most interested in preserving the democratic process, rather than the one who idolizes dictators, doesn't support the peaceful transfer of power, and who's party is held together by gerrymandering. Furthermore , if you wish to improve our democracy I recommend the ticket discussing ranked choice voting, and who are interested in eliminating the electoral college.

The fact that one is the worst does in fact mean that the other one is better by definition. We aren't voting to fix western civilization in one fell swoop, we're voting for the 2024 united states president. The pragmatic choice is the best available candidate, which is probably the one who doesn't discuss shooting people on 5th avenue, or grabbing women by their genetials, or mock reporters with disabilities, or make reference to "shit hole countries", or salute the dictator of North Korea, or get convicted of 34 felonies, or say that Israel should just "finish the job", or who isn't 78 years old. Call me crazy.

I don't know what this article is about, and I'd rather not engage with this segment of society to find out, but from a quick Google images search it seems like she recently (?) caught flack for a Valentino dress, which was very sheer and through which her nipples could be seen. But anyone who's been paying any attention to fashion at all would know that sheer is very much "in". The latest Yves Saint Laurent line is a prime example of this. As for the quality of her body, which seems to be an unusually frequent topic, why's it anyone's business? Can a woman exist anywhere on this planet and not be objectified and scrutinized like livestock?

Here's a thought experiment. Between the two likeliest candidates, who would you rather assemble some ikea furniture with, Trump or Harris? Who would you rather go on a road trip with? Who would you rather be stranded at sea with? You can keep escalating these scenarios until the stakes get higher and higher. At some point it should dawn on you that Trump cannot fend for himself. He is unpleasant to work with. And that he is untrustworthy as a teammate. On a fundamental level he is the worst person of the two. Handing him the keys to the country is suicidal.

Wait until you hear about the prison industrial complex.

Maximum. It would be like book burning, but with people.

Historically I still "lose" these types of arguments as my willfully ignorant interlocutor spams potential strawman and ad hominem "arguments" until they feel sufficiently convinced that my pesky facts and I are safe to ignore.

In my experience there are very few people worth arguing with, as there are very few people willing to argue in good faith. Most people see arguing as a battle to be won or lost rather than a mechanism by which to vet assumptions. How can you expect to argue with a person who is unable to argue with themselves?

Well, we've tried convicting him with felonies and playing actual tape of him describing rape, which he is guilty of, and no one seemed particularly swayed. So, facts and evidence seem to be out. If it takes a more abstract, personal approach to break the spell he holds half the voters in the country under, then so be it.

Wordle 1,214 6/6

Man, today's word was shithouse 9000. Even with playing easy mode my last guess was a cointoss. My condolences to all the hard mode players today.

At company, we're lke family. This is your home and family now. Who needs to retire when you're with your family? And a family doesn't unionize.

You're right, a startling number of political comedians seem to betray progressive ideologies and become mysteriously conservative. Must be a coincidence.