• Nollij@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Jesus, they actually listed Kamala Harris as #4 to run again…

    • kata1yst
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      They listed Fetterman. It’s a bad joke. Even the larger party is backing away from that asshole.

      • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        I got downvoted on R for pointing out Fetterman’s voting record on things like Kristi Noem’s nomination. He’s a lost cause and basically the new Joe Manchin.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Buddy, we ain’t making it there at this point. We’re going to have to literally drag Trump out of the oval office, or have him wheeled out after too many hamberders for his wretched heart.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s certainly a list of people who have demonstrated a willingness to move to the right. So it’s probably gonna be one of them. Most likely Newsom or Buttigieg.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    How does that saying go? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results?

      • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t think that’s accurate. Science does rely on repeatable experimentation, but if an experiment fails to verify your hypothesis, you either change the experiment or change your hypothesis.

        • atempuser23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You are supposed to repeat the experiments nearly identically and look for changes from the last run to verify results.

          • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Kind of, but you generally don’t “expect different results” as the phrase goes. If anything you expect similar results and different results indicate something might have been done wrong. So science uses repeats to validate results, basically the opposite of the saying.

            • atempuser23@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              32 minutes ago

              More precisely no results are supposed to be expected. But in general the experiment is repeated to validate results. So you are correct.

              Internet stranger you have given this comment far more attention than it deserved and been kind while doing it.

  • xmunk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Warnock isn’t awful. But we need someone who can actually present an argument for their election. AoC will be old enough, right?