2024

[Shirley]

I'm thinking Harris + Whitmer.

They would not only generate a ton of excitement in the Demo base, they'd likely beat the hell out of the bro ticket of Trump and Peter Thiel's lap dog, plus Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, and Dana White. (All of whom are speaking tonight in order to emphasize bone spurs made me not do it Trump's repulsive "Fight" meme, which will not appeal to not already committed voters.)

Book it...

If you can't pluck an R, I like Shapiro or Beshear better.

I like them both too, but there wouldn't be nearly the buzz of a Harris/Whitmer ticket.

What possible R, (I assume you mean Republican), are you imagining? (Do you have a fever, or did Mich hack your account?)

And, don't say Liz or Kasich, they're both much, much too conservative for the Demo base. And, other than being honest and having principles, a low bar in the past but nearly insurmountable in today's Republican party I'll concede, what do they have to recommend them over someone who appeals to the base? Appeal to the middle? If Democrats show up in enthusiastic numbers, whether it's Whitmer, Shapiro or Beshear, people in the middle who would vote for Trump despite that ticket were likely un-gettable by Democrats, anyway.

[jfish26]

I'm thinking Harris + Whitmer.

They would not only generate a ton of excitement in the Demo base, they'd likely beat the hell out of the bro ticket of Trump and Peter Thiel's lap dog, plus Kid Rock, Hulk Hogan, and Dana White. (All of whom are speaking tonight in order to emphasize bone spurs made me not do it Trump's repulsive "Fight" meme, which will not appeal to not already committed voters.)

Book it...

If you can't pluck an R, I like Shapiro or Beshear better.

I like them both too, but there wouldn't be nearly the buzz of a Harris/Whitmer ticket.

What possible R, (I assume you mean Republican), are you imagining? (Do you have a fever, or did Mich hack your account?)

And, don't say Liz or Kasich, they're both much, much too conservative for the Demo base. And, other than being honest and having principles, a low bar in the past but nearly insurmountable in today's Republican party I'll concede, what do they have to recommend them over someone who appeals to the base? Appeal to the middle? If Democrats show up in enthusiastic numbers, whether it's Whitmer, Shapiro or Beshear, people in the middle who would vote for Trump despite that ticket were likely un-gettable by Democrats, anyway.

At this point, Christie would seem like the only one remotely close to the goldilocks zone. I suppose you could try Asa.

[JKLivin]

She of course is not 'dumb'.
And she of course completes a far more amount of cogent sentences than Trump.
You hate her because she is a woman Democrat. We get it.

Lulz. See my tag line for Exhibit A.

Mind providing a source, Psych?

Because when I Googled your tag line more than once and included the "omitted results", the only location that came up were your posts here at Kansas Crimson.

tia

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

[Overlander]

Now that you posted that, I CAN see why she intimidates you so much.

Thanks!

[Shirley]

Lulz. See my tag line for Exhibit A.

Mind providing a source, Psych?

Because when I Googled your tag line more than once and included the "omitted results", the only location that came up were your posts here at Kansas Crimson.

tia

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

Thanks.

Strikes me as odd to consider taking that phrase out of context and isolating it is a win.

But, you be you.

[JKLivin]

Mind providing a source, Psych?

Because when I Googled your tag line more than once and included the "omitted results", the only location that came up were your posts here at Kansas Crimson.

tia

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

Thanks.

Strikes me as odd to consider taking that phrase out of context and isolating it is a win.

But, you be you.

Nobody wins with imbeciles in charge. Context doesn’t make her any more intelligent. It’s a third-grade level explanation from the mouth of a dullard.

[ousdahl]

These two things can be true at the same time: (1) one "side" of something can have unclean hands, and (2) the other "side" of the thing can be conclusively, of the two, THE bad actor.

The general tone of your arguments here is the response people are going for when they "flood the zone with shit."

ummm

sure?

yeah, those two things CAN be true at the same time. But the burden should very much be on the one side to explain, and an objective trier of fact to understand, exactly how their hands got so dirty too.

Cuz there's also a lot of other plausible scenarios in which unclean hands CAN be, and IS, very valid evidence of more than one bad actor, and that both sides really are dirty.

[jfish26]

These two things can be true at the same time: (1) one "side" of something can have unclean hands, and (2) the other "side" of the thing can be conclusively, of the two, THE bad actor.

The general tone of your arguments here is the response people are going for when they "flood the zone with shit."

ummm

sure?

yeah, those two things CAN be true at the same time. But the burden should very much be on the one side to explain, and an objective trier of fact to understand, exactly how their hands got so dirty too.

Cuz there's also a lot of other plausible scenarios in which unclean hands CAN be, and IS, very valid evidence of more than one bad actor, and that both sides really are dirty.

And what I am suggesting to you, in the context of this thread, is that demanding that the D candidate "earn" your vote by some sort of confession and penance is dangerously naive.

The same logic applies in other contexts, as well.

[jhawks99]

Lulz. See my tag line for Exhibit A.

Mind providing a source, Psych?

Because when I Googled your tag line more than once and included the "omitted results", the only location that came up were your posts here at Kansas Crimson.

tia

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

I had to take an entry level AI coarse for my job recently. This sounds very much like chapter 1.

[ousdahl]

These two things can be true at the same time: (1) one "side" of something can have unclean hands, and (2) the other "side" of the thing can be conclusively, of the two, THE bad actor.

The general tone of your arguments here is the response people are going for when they "flood the zone with shit."

ummm

sure?

yeah, those two things CAN be true at the same time. But the burden should very much be on the one side to explain, and an objective trier of fact to understand, exactly how their hands got so dirty too.

Cuz there's also a lot of other plausible scenarios in which unclean hands CAN be, and IS, very valid evidence of more than one bad actor, and that both sides really are dirty.

And what I am suggesting to you, in the context of this thread, is that demanding that the D candidate "earn" your vote by some sort of confession and penance is dangerously naive.

The same logic applies in other contexts, as well.

And what I’m suggesting is, it’s even more dangerously naive to assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something.

And THIS sort of “assume the best for the sake of preserving my own world view” sorta logic of yours very, very, very much applies in other contexts, as well.

For real dude, would you also believe that stripper trying to sell lap dances when she says she thinks you’re a cutie pie?

[jfish26]

ummm

sure?

yeah, those two things CAN be true at the same time. But the burden should very much be on the one side to explain, and an objective trier of fact to understand, exactly how their hands got so dirty too.

Cuz there's also a lot of other plausible scenarios in which unclean hands CAN be, and IS, very valid evidence of more than one bad actor, and that both sides really are dirty.

And what I am suggesting to you, in the context of this thread, is that demanding that the D candidate "earn" your vote by some sort of confession and penance is dangerously naive.

The same logic applies in other contexts, as well.

And what I’m suggesting is, it’s even more dangerously naive to assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something.

And THIS sort of “assume the best for the sake of preserving my own world view” sorta logic of yours very, very, very much applies in other contexts, as well.

For real dude, would you also believe that stripper trying to sell lap dances when she says she thinks you’re a cutie pie?

You keep on mischaracterizing what I have said, because you have to in order to support your own fantasyland position.

Not once have I done anything like "assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something."

You do this, also, in your two-year-tantrum thread, where you accuse everyone else of denying that the US has unclean hands - when nobody is doing that.

[JKLivin]

Mind providing a source, Psych?

Because when I Googled your tag line more than once and included the "omitted results", the only location that came up were your posts here at Kansas Crimson.

tia

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

I had to take an entry level AI coarse for my job recently. This sounds very much like chapter 1.

Spin it however you like. Giggles is an imbecile.

[pdub]

JK, please grace us with your assuredly extensive knowledge of the inner workings of AI.
Having worked with Tensorflow myself in the past, i'd be interested on your opinions on which platform you can most efficiently build a working model with sets of training data and what is the best language to do so?

[ousdahl]

And what I am suggesting to you, in the context of this thread, is that demanding that the D candidate "earn" your vote by some sort of confession and penance is dangerously naive.

The same logic applies in other contexts, as well.

And what I’m suggesting is, it’s even more dangerously naive to assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something.

And THIS sort of “assume the best for the sake of preserving my own world view” sorta logic of yours very, very, very much applies in other contexts, as well.

For real dude, would you also believe that stripper trying to sell lap dances when she says she thinks you’re a cutie pie?

You keep on mischaracterizing what I have said, because you have to in order to support your own fantasyland position.

Not once have I done anything like "assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something."

You do this, also, in your two-year-tantrum thread, where you accuse everyone else of denying that the US has unclean hands - when nobody is doing that.

Well I don’t mean to mischaracterize.

So instead maybe I should just ask - what makes you so sure that someone whose hands are unclean, isn’t dirty too?

Cuz yea, this sort of logic seems like the cousin of, just cuz we acknowledge the U.S.’s own militarism has been so much defined by “mistakes and lies and propaganda” in hindsight, doesn’t mean we’re willing to consider the possibility of more mistakes and lies and propaganda in real time.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

I had to take an entry level AI coarse for my job recently. This sounds very much like chapter 1.

Spin it however you like. Giggles is an imbecile.

"Giggles" does a terrible job of communicating many of her thoughts. I can and will give you that.
What I can't give is that she is an "imbecile".
Why do I get the feeling you may compensate your own internal insecurities about your intelligence by expressing externally that you are smart and other people are "imbeciles"?
I believe if you were to take a little time to learn more about the woman other than she does a piss poor job of verbally expressing herself and she didn't pass the bar exam in California the first time she took it, and you didn't simply judge a book by its cover, I have a feeling you just might come to the realization she's really not an "imbecile". That's if I were to give you credit for being as sane and intelligent as you claim to be.

[twocoach]

Sure. I aim to please. And since you’re partial to videos over text, I’ll even oblige you in that regard: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PHjXf0y-VRw

I had to take an entry level AI coarse for my job recently. This sounds very much like chapter 1.

Spin it however you like. Giggles is an imbecile.

I don't need my President to know everything about everything. I need them to hire competent people to do work on important things. The Biden administration's track record of hiring is light years ahead of Trump's.

[jfish26]

And what I’m suggesting is, it’s even more dangerously naive to assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something.

And THIS sort of “assume the best for the sake of preserving my own world view” sorta logic of yours very, very, very much applies in other contexts, as well.

For real dude, would you also believe that stripper trying to sell lap dances when she says she thinks you’re a cutie pie?

You keep on mischaracterizing what I have said, because you have to in order to support your own fantasyland position.

Not once have I done anything like "assume, even aggressively insist and refuse to consider anything but, the idea that the Dems’ own dirty hands must be just cuz they like must have been out gardening or something."

You do this, also, in your two-year-tantrum thread, where you accuse everyone else of denying that the US has unclean hands - when nobody is doing that.

Well I don’t mean to mischaracterize.

So instead maybe I should just ask - what makes you so sure that someone whose hands are unclean, isn’t dirty too?

Cuz yea, this sort of logic seems like the cousin of, just cuz we acknowledge the U.S.’s own militarism has been so much defined by “mistakes and lies and propaganda” in hindsight, doesn’t mean we’re willing to consider the possibility of more mistakes and lies and propaganda in real time.

I am certain the Ds' hands are dirty. I am certain the United States' hands are dirty.

I have not, one time, said anything otherwise.

[ousdahl]

I mean, but you kinda have, even if tacitly.

That, or, you just really are unaware of the things you’re saying kinda being in conflict with itself, and or failed to reconcile the two

“Yea dems hands are unclean but pubs are THE bad actor”

“Yea the U.S. is dirty to but this aggression is unilateral and unprovoked”

It’s like saying, “yea person one was at the murder scene covered in blood too, but so what cuz person two’s the person I choose to accuse here!”

[MICHHAWK]

The United States is the greatest country on earth. by a wide margin.

[jfish26]

I mean, but you kinda have, even if tacitly.

That, or, you just really are unaware of the things you’re saying kinda being in conflict with itself, and or failed to reconcile the two

“Yea dems hands are unclean but pubs are THE bad actor”

“Yea the U.S. is dirty to but this aggression is unilateral and unprovoked”

It’s like saying, “yea person one was at the murder scene covered in blood too, but so what cuz person two’s the person I choose to accuse here!”

And this is a naive view. You do not distinguish between degrees of culpability, shades of color.