AI Project Manager: Create a button on a webpage that, when clicked, displays an alert saying "Hello World!"
AI Programmer: "What a sensible requirement! Here you go."
AI Billing Department: "Project completed, that'll be 10 million dollars."
Client AI Payments Department: "Sounds right, paid!"
I agree with 0% but disagree there's any paradox - every choice is just plain old wrong. Each choice cannot be correct because no percentage reflects the chance of picking that number.
Ordinarily we'd assume the chance is 25% because in most tests there's only one right choice. But this one evidently could have more than one right choice, if the choice stated twice was correct - which it isn't. So there's no basis for supposing that 25% is correct here, which causes the whole paradox to unravel.
Now replace 60% with 0%. Maybe that would count as a proper paradox. But I'd still say not really, the answer is 0% - it's just wrong in the hypothetical situation posed by the question rather than the actual question.
"Of course I know what due process is. A lot of my friends are due process experts, and they're always telling me 'Donald, you do so much process. Nobody does process as brilliantly as you.'"
Notice how this gets so much less attention that it did during the campaign even though its only gotten worse. Just remember: many of the people who claim to care, don't. And if you actually want to stop this, it needs to start with putting people in power who actually care about stopping it. If there isn't one in the general, that means this didn't happen during the primaries.
In addition to what everyone else says, I've done well with rubbing aloe on after. I'm not usually a natural goop guy but my ex bought it for me and I found it actually works pretty well.
The strategy they've been floating for years is: have two other candidates run while he runs for the house. Trump gets chosen as house speaker, meanwhile the President and VP resign, making Trump president. Then they argue this is technically constitutional since he didn't win an election to become president.
That's why it's essential that after 2026, there is a push to eliminate this loophole. It may take a constitutional change, but first it's going to take absolute annihilation of Republicans in the midterms.
Your position would be more sensible and coherent if you were looking to achieve it through a mechanism outside of voting, but to insist on trying to use the tool you recognize as broken to repair itself is an absurdity, it’s completely irrational.
Your position would be much more sensible if RCV had never been achieved through voting. But it has. And notice the states where it does exist - these are the same places where lots of people vote for Democrats. And the places where it's banned statewide? Those are the places where lots of people vote for Republicans. We need more of the former, and less of the latter.
I know I'd be a lot cooler, especially around here, if I just put on the Che Guevara shirt and say revolution is the only answer. But it just isn't. Because every example of that sort of thing just leads to more fascism under a different name. Voting works, it's the best choice, and I have yet to see any evidence other than wanting to be cool to convince me otherwise.
But as for making it a red line for supporting democrats, sure. I mean honestly, credit to you for proposing something that might actually work. I think if there's a big enough movement to do that, every Democrat would get behind it.
Shut the fuck up with your disgusting justification.
I'm confused as to why you are getting so many upvotes because either though misreading or misplaced focus, you only replied to one half of one sentence of my reply, constructing an alternate reality in which my point was the opposite of what it actually was. And to be blunt, both the reply and the upvotes reflects so much of the knee-jerk hyperemotionalism in online debates.
As for the rest, I think we can all acknowledge that people in general will take more offense to a paper insulting a powerless minority than the powerful majority. But in this case they didn't, hence my point that violence is counterproductive to a cause, which you seem to think was the opposite point.
The two party system is bullshit, and the solution is electoral reform like ranked choice voting.
One party, the Democratic party, usually (but not always) approves of such reform efforts.
The other party, the Republican party, universallyopposes such efforts with extreme fervor.
So it makes sense to hate the two party system, but that system is one party's fault in particular.
AI Project Manager: Create a button on a webpage that, when clicked, displays an alert saying "Hello World!"
AI Programmer: "What a sensible requirement! Here you go."
AI Billing Department: "Project completed, that'll be 10 million dollars."
Client AI Payments Department: "Sounds right, paid!"