Thanks for the explanation!

You can see his childish laugh while trying to act all tough. So cute

I tried to play this but no idea how it works. I tried the daily and I wrote a word that gave me all colored letters and didn’t let me keep writing. Did I guess the word? No idea…

He ain’t selling shit, he’s just showing off

I actually stopped reading and a good look at that number… I still did go back to look for that letter

I haven’t played around with Ardour for a while. Might test this new release

I’m talking about how best to reach those potential voters so Kamala doesn’t fuck it up.

My bad then. I thought you were justifying not voting for Kamala. Of course I agree with both tactics being used. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive

It should.

But it isn’t.

I don’t get it. You are a progressive voter. You agree the difference should be enough to make you vote Democrat, yet you don’t. Why?

The rest of your argument rests on the assumption that moving the policies of a presidential candidate is easier than moving individual votes. But how can that be the case? The positions a presidential candidate take are determined by a lot of very powerful, sometimes mutually exclusive interests. The positions a presidential candidate takes are the results of a lot of work and negotiations among these competing interests. Of course it is incredibly hard to change the policies of a candidate.

On the other hand, individual voters like yourself have two choices, and it seems reasonable you would choose the best of the two, or the least bad, if you will. You yourself said that the differences between the two choices you have should be enough to convince the voter to choose the option closer to their ideals.

So it seems to me that convincing individual voters is a much more efficient and likely to be successful strategy than trying to change the policies of Kamala.

Surely there are more policies she disagrees with Trump that policies she agrees with him. Shouldn’t that proportion be enough to make progressive voters to vote for her?

@givesomefucks@lemmy.world

Imagine if Kamala’s line was just to the right of yours, whatever you care most about, she’s just going to agree with trump on.

But that is not how it works. If she is to your right, she will hold a position to the right of your position. That’s all. How do you equate her being to your right to her agreeing with Trump? That assumes that to your right everything is one single position. But that is of course not the case. It’s a continuum, and Kamala is probably closer to you than Trump is.

/slams door

That’s what I thought. The only way on which this has four sides is if the semi -circle is a side. But if that’s the case, then I don’t know wha the definition of “side” is

What are the 4 sides?

Socrates agrees

@pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de

I can see in the future paper cuts becoming an Olympic sport, like sword fighting. People of the future will stand in a ring with two pieces of paper and will try to make a cut on their opponent’s piece of artificially grown skin, placed at the center of their chest. People will cheer as the athletes try to cut their opponent with an ancient piece of technology

@Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml

Sesnse8 Supernatural Buffy Seinfeld Curb your enthusiasm Arrow Legends of Tomorrow

And animated: Simpsons Family guy Adventure time South Park American dad Bob’s burgers

@MossyFeathers@pawb.social

You make a very good point. Things aren’t black and white and because something has produced Benefits, it doesn’t mean that it has only positive consequences.

@cheese_greater@lemmy.world

It was to care about other’s wellbeing. I remember when it clicked, and it was the first moral principle I consciously followed

Peaches in regalia in my ass

@return2ozma@lemmy.world That was an interesting read