Still waiting, sweetheart.

Good a place as any.

Cheers.

To denounce a candidate is to say that you shouldn’t vote for them.

Or you can vote against them.

To vote for a candidate who you say doesn't deserve a vote is self-contradiction.

They deserve a vote solely for the reason that doing so is the only possible means of voting against the other candidate. It's not a self-contradiction.

A tactically correct action is an action that best furthers your goals.

What are the goals in this scenario?

Only by contradicting yourself.

Prove it.

None of those things are the same as concluding that voting for Kamala is tactically correct

Define "tactically correct".

That's just definitionally what those words mean. To say "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should to" is an endorsement, and to say "I endorse this candidate" means, "This candidate is the best choice, I'm voting for them and others should too."

Under FPTP, one can absolutely use their vote to denounce a candidate and vote against them taking office. Especially if that vote has a chance of actually pushing the needle far enough to make that happen.

Blatant lie. I have consistently disagreed with that at every single point of this conversation.

Blatant lie.

You agreed that:

• Kamala or Trump will be elected president
• Trump losing would be better overall in the short term
• Trump losing would be better overall in the long term

Do you need me to link that for you?

Lazy quote changing

Literally changes the quote

You have to be trolling.

Imagine being able to walk and chew gum at the same time!

Yes? That's why they're all about Dick Cheney.

"The Democrats are all about this hardcore Republican as a means of capturing the Leftist vote"

...huh?

Then you agree that escape is what matters and choosing the more comfortable flames to die in is not what's important.

Yes I agree, your burning house analogy isn't actually applicable to the scenario at hand (like the vegan analogy you keep doubling down on). That's my bad for trying to take it in good faith.

I must have missed that footnote in their rhetoric.

Come on, guy.

I work on a 20+ year knowledge base for a big company that has had no real content management governance for pretty much that whole time.

We knew there was duplicate content in that database, but were talking about thousands of articles, with several more added daily.

With such a small team, identifying duplicate/redundant content was just an ad-hoc thing that could never be tackled as a whole without a huge amount of resources.

AI was able to comb through everything and find hundreds of articles with duplicate/redundant content within a few hours. Now we have a list of articles we can work through and clean up.

You're being downvoted because you're just flat-out wrong.

"86" doesn't mean "hold this item", it means the kitchen is out of that item.

So no, it wouldn't make sense even to people that know restaurant lingo.