TempermentalAnomaly

I didn't want to have to read this, but no one summarized it. So here's a summary.

1. The Dems picked up seats in the House.
2. The Democrats lost four Senate seats. Three of those were in states that were solidly red for a long time.
3. In high level state elections, nothing changed.
4. It wasn't that bad . They really only lost the presidency which is probably Biden's fault.

And now my retort.

1. They picked up two seats. In doing so, they failed to control the House buy 3 seats. In 2022, they lost 9. In 2020, they lost 13. It was only in 2018 that they won a ton of seats: 42. MAybe this is a good omen for 2026, but we have to worry about today.
2. Who gives a fuck. Like honestly? The failings of the Republicans to be able to flip a seat in 2018, the last time these seats were up, is not an indicator that you had your shit together.
3. I don't know how you consider this a good thing. Are you playing for the win or just not to lose?
4. "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?" Jeez ... There's been a lot wrong with the Dems for a while, but pretending that losing the presidency isn't one of the worst things that can happen to them is silly. They continually failed to secure power in multiple branches and at multiple levels because at the heart of their game was the presidency.

I also think his conclusion on why Biden lost is wrong. I think people wanted the ambitious projects that the Biden administration offered. They failed in messaging it, they failed to connect with the worries of average families as inflation soared, or with young people as rent skyrocketed and we sent bombs to Israel. So many things went wrong for Biden at the end including a prolong decline into mental difficulties. When the Dems had a chance to distance themselves from all that, they picked someone wasn't able to do it. She lacked the ability to connect with the real concerns of people at an emotional level. Heck, I don't think people wanted Trump, but they didn't see a better option. Just more of the same.

I remember getting a hint guide book. It's have the particular issue in red letters and a white background. Under it was a red box with the answer obscured by the red box. You'd use a red filmed decoder to hover over the red box and then read the answer.

Then at one point game companies had a 900 hint line. I finally used it once. I kept on dying and seeing the death cut scene. So I'd pause and reload. And die again. I swore I had the right answer. Finally, I gave in and called the hint line. First and only time. Turned out when you solved the puzzle, it started the same as the death cut scene and then something happened and you make it through alive.

No, it's available on home. I've been running it on home machines for a while now.

The first one. Standing on line vs standing in line.

Having made some of these mistakes, I tend not to be rigid about them. But here are some fun ones.

• on line vs in line
• to graduate vs to be graduated
• antivenom vs antivenin

All of the above have been normalized, but at one time was not.

Another quirk, we used to not call former Presidents President So and So. We used to call them by their highest position before president. So it would be Senator Obama and not President Obama.

Sometimes I do things off purpose.

Nah... He's marrying the drill sergeant.

Crayon,

I should have prefaced my answer and stated that I don't think this is racist, even unintentionally. But removing that possibility in this situation is a mistake, which I think I explain why below.

I think it falsely reduces and misrepresent Deepseek's innovation. And that fucking sucks. And in the atmosphere of "Chinese knockoffs" when a legitimate and well publicized innovation comes from China is misrepresented and downplayed and where it would be more appropriate to cautiously praise it, it's obviously ignorance by the meme creator. And then you have to wonder if it's racist ignorance or not. Frankly, well never know. But excising it from the possibilities is, in my opinion, a mistake.

Any case, this is far too serious of a conversation in shitpost and I take full responsibility.

Then explain "X, a Jesus". He did some cool miracles and shit.

Yes. Those are the first two sentences of the paragraph. But the idea is contained in the paragraph which describes the process from those two sentences to racist idea.

I think your other claim is better, that I was digging. But I think in today's environment racism is rarely explicitly. It is implicit and easily denied. It can also be unintended. And I think those claiming it's racism can be wrong. And even in failing, can legitimately point to something in the culture that conditions the interpretation of statements like this.

What was more important was describing the process.

That's not the part that I was claiming was racist.