Many of the candidates from alternative parties are anti-genocide.

I’m sure that shaming them will make them change their minds and will not backfire in any way whatsoever.

Hopefully they turn to Jill Stein.

If this is a joke, it’s a very bad one. If it isn’t, good luck on pulling your head out of your ass.

How would you feel if the US was sending weapons to a country that was killing your friends and family? What would you do?

You’d be surprised.

more than 20% of Black Americans own or have owned cryptocurrency assets, according to the campaign

Ahem, excuse me. The US doesn’t “torture”. It’s “enhanced interrogation”.

Why do we need the “most lethal” military? Are we in danger of being invaded by Canada or Mexico?

A couple of good examples are lifehacker.com and lifehack.org. Both sites used to have excellent content. The sites are still up and running, but the first one has turned into a collection of listicles and the second is an ad for an “AI-powered life coach”. All of that old content is gone and is only accessible through the Internet Archive.

In fact, many domains never shut down, they just change owners or change direction.

The attacker(s) apparently just did it to do it.

What are you doing to push Harris to the left on this position? She needs to change, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it could cost her the election. If you’re so worried about Trump winning, you need her to change on this.

How can Trump be any worse on this? Biden/Harris are already giving Israel everything they want. How could you give them more?

Trump has said “finish it”, without elaborating AFAIK. Do you have evidence that he means “wipe out Gaza”?

while Biden/Harris/Walz support Israel defending itself within its borders but don’t support genocide.

They do support genocide. They’ve been supporting it this whole time. They have said they will continue to support it.

One thing I can say about the Zionists is that they’re honest. They’re wrong, but they’re honest.

It’s hard to respect anybody who, on the one hand, opposes Harris for her support of genocide, but on the other hand votes for her anyway.

No.

I agree that AI can be helpful for bouncing ideas off of. It’s been a great aid in learning, too. However, when I’m using it to help me learn programming, for example, I can run the code and see whether or not it works.

I’m automatically skeptical of anything they tell me, because I know they could just be making something up. I always have to verify.

So, let me get this straight…you “thirst for an answer”, but you don’t care whether or not the answer is correct?

The problem with getting answers from AI is that if they don’t know something, they’ll just make it up.

If we can’t get rid of the electoral college entirely, electors should at least be proportional. For example, if Kamala Harris gets 25% of a state’s votes and Trump gets 74%, then Harris should get 25% of the electors from that state (instead of zero).

further, any attempt to create a viable Third Party is not only doomed to failure

The Republicans were originally a “third party”. It used to be Democrats vs. Whigs.

Duverger’s Law isn’t like a law against jaywalking. It just says that first-past-the-post systems create two-party systems, which is true. It doesn’t tell you who you should vote for.

In other words, the Spoiler Effect, Like what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. He’s the reason why Bush won.

Al Gore actually won, depending upon how you count the votes. Additionally, you’re operating on the assumption that Nader voters would’ve voted for Gore, instead of just staying home.

In fact, there were a lot of Democrats who voted for Bush, and their numbers dwarf Nader voters by several orders of magnitude. If you want to play that game, then it’s Democrats who are responsible for Bush winning, not the Green Party.