lemonmelon @ lemonmelon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

1 yr. ago

Wouldn't it need to be "dunp"?

You can definitely take too much and have a bad time

You've just alluded to a toxic reaction due to overdose. The term overdose does not exclusively refer to the median fatal dose, nor does it hinge on the risk of lethality.

Could? Possibly, sure.

Would? Why should any ticket guarantee a win based solely on arbitrary characteristics of the candidates? Nothing about being a woman, a man, trans, cis, gay, straight, bi, ace, black, white, Latino, Asian, biracial, triracial, short, tall, hirsute, bald, balding, skinny, jacked, overweight, or any other randomly chosen descriptor should be a factor in electability. The fact that it's even in question is a strong indictment of how we view politics in a broad sense.

I agree with your list, but I also have to point out the irony of throwing in a "for the 'muricans" in reference to an American multinational company.

That's one hell of a shelf life...

Because I haven't seen it mentioned:

They Live

What do I get?

If they had infinite resources, they wouldn't need to worry about adblockers.

Will the mirrors be real?

Yes, but you must:

1. Be immortal
2. Have inside you blood of kings
3. Have no rival (no man can be your equal)

3. re: "last candidate ... George Washington"

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making, as there have been multiple other parties whose candidates were elected to the presidency, including the Federalists, the Whigs, and the Democratic-Republicans. Theodore Roosevelt received the second-most votes in the 1912 election as a third-party candidate for the Progressive (Bull Moose) party.

My guess is that they're conflating "stubbornly contradictory" with "hostile," which isn't accurate. Being labeled as or treated as hostile when you're not is frustrating, and it leads to poor communication. That goes both ways, though, and I can see where you'd both be able to infer hostility that may or may not be intended by the other party.

Also, I'd suggest that if you no longer feel that you should "make an effort" then the best course of action is exactly that - cease engaging.

This vaguely reminds me of Old Man Logan.

Then how does "needlessly argumentative" strike you? You misinterpreted the other poster's point entirely, and then entered a cycle of doubling down without making any further effort to understand.

You wear wrinkly clothes to the return of Jim?

A pop-tart

A cosmic gumbo, kinda moves to the beat of jazz

You're confident they were born on or after May 8, 1992?

When the aliens show up, you're already prepared. See? Swing away, Merrill.

My brain interpreted that as 3-in-1 oil for a brief second, in which I thought you were really out here trying to murder some folks.