I was surprised how old a rumor that was too.

Check your sources.

Plenty of people voted for kamala and are huge critics of how the campaign was handled. Both can happen.

Wouldnt they also not want to take a random name off an AI generated list? How is that something to be proud of? The thought, creativity, and history behind it is just that you put a query into chatgpt and picked one out of 500 names?

Maybe its just a difference of perspective but thats not only not a special origin story for a name, its taking from others in a way you won’t be able to properly credit them, which is essential to me.

I would rather avoid the trouble and spend the time with a coworker or friend throwing ideas back and forth and building an identity intentionally.

I suppose AI could be nice if I was alone nearly all the time.

How is that faster than just picking a random name? Noone picks software based on name.

Efficiency depends on the cost doesnt it?

I just think even democrats had trouble trusting she actually stood for those things. Thats the problem. Its funny the democrats were arguing green party voters only come out and campaign every four years, when democrats seem to only have progressive values every four years.

This time they went crazy and tried to go conservative for some reason, thinking they could out republican the republicans.

They really thought republicans were reluctantly voting for trump. They really thought they could win without sacrificing all their corporate donations either.

If all they were offering was a chance to elect the first minority president, then complaints about DEI hire are not entirely out of hand are they?

The democrats simply can’t win if they need to be funded by corporations but earn votes from the average american who are getting fucked by those corporations.

I watched the fox interview straight through, as someone who voted for her already, and was shocked that the interviewer didnt sound like a crazy person, and kamala didnt answer a single question she was asked.

Fox and co didnt have to make her look bad, she did a great job of it sounding like a salea person or brand marketer. Trump sitting down for unscripted podcast interviews helped a ton. At least trump wasn’t hiding who he is.

Okay now justify the cost it took to create the tool.

They didnt reject her because she’s a woman. She was a bad candidate, just like Hilary. Bad performance, whether thats on her or her team who knows. Noones going to vote for someone purely because they think its fun to have a woman in the white house. Thats extremely low on peoples list of concerns for presidency.

Fact based knowledge sounds good but could mean anything.

Was sarcasm my bro.

Maybe maybe not.

You must be one of the good americans then, bravo!

Not necessary with the candidates and policies the democrats are doomed to follow.

Noones talking about opiates though?

Can you post a source about acetaminophen building up over time the way you describe? It seems unlikely with such a short half life but I could be wrong.

People want to vote. Give them a candidate and party worth voting for.

Abstaining from a broken system is a protest in itself. How else would we know how broken the system was if people weren’t allowed to withhold their vote from all candidates.

I think with young voters the main difference is they think voting is a cool thing to do regardless of party. They still are very susceptible to the media bubbles, but I’m not sure either party has the advantage there.

I saw both sides of tiktok for republicans and democrats, and it was like they paid the same viral marketing campaign because they followed the same templates.

Short clips, out of context, along with a quick message leading you to the right conclusion. Not a whole lot different than the radio and TV ads.

He found fame and money saying this type of stuff. Its to the point where people exclude his attribution in the title because otherwise its not very interesting.