ExotiqueMatter

Almost surely false. I seriously doubt it's possible to train a modern multy-billions parameters LLM with less than 2 dozen million prompts, even if it's 16M each, let alone if it's 16M combined.

What's the point of being glad that a tyrant is dead if the country gets even worse than under him? If the reason you want the guy dead is because of how bad the country was under him, shouldn't you prefer things not getting worst over the guy dying and things getting worse?

Can you point to me where in the constitution does it say that?

in famous thought experiment, named Trolley problem, do you call yourself murderer (genocider) if you decide to push the lever?

Yes, even if it's "justified" or "the most moral choice" or "the lesser evil" knowingly killing someone is still murder.

Incidentally, the trolley problem is a poorly made though experiment. The fact that the only way it has to deal with "troll answers" that refuse its attempt to impose a false dichotomy is to say "that's not allowed" or "just answer the question" should be proof enough that it doesn't apply to real world "dilemmas" even as a metaphor.

The Democrats would’ve, at a bare minimum, left USAID slower.

You are reduced to splitting hair about hypotheticals. You might want to try moving on to other arguments. Assuming you have any left.

I’m not going to bother responding to the last part. Unless it’s easier to organize under the GOP, it’s irrelevant.

Oh, dodging inconvenient arguments now are we? Your "point" was that it's supposedly easier to organize under the Democrats so the fact that it isn't is absolutely relevant.

This is just sad at this point. You reached a level of throwing-everything-at-the-wall-in-the-hope-something-will-stick that probably does more harm than good to your position in the minds of peoples reading this thread.

How many the Democrats would’ve killed is almost definitely less

You don't even know what you're saying yourself you damned clown 🤡 This is the party who spent their last presidential term funding and arming a genocide btw, on what ground are you arguing that this very same party would have given a shit about killing less peoples this way?

They certainly wouldn’t have left the WHO. Staying in the WHO is just good business sense, aside from for the private hospitals but the impacts of a highly lethal global pandemic on stability and on the safety of the rich isn’t worth it.

Again, you are arguing for voting for a party that is guilty of funding and arming a genocide. And these are the argument you are bringing up to make your case. Is staying in the WHO worth supporting a genocide? Heck fucking no!! In the name what ridiculous alternate moral philosophy are you arguing that it remotely makes up for even a fraction of it?

I'd also like to point out that you being reduced to praising the Democrats for what they maybe wouldn't have done in the hypothetical scenario where they would have won isn't a very good look for your side of the argument, just saying.

And people will have more space to organize when under a predictably evil government than a chaotic one. Unless you’re relying on the death and destruction for a recruitment drive.

Again, genocide. Is potentially having a slightly easier time organizing worth supporting genocide? No, It's not!

Also, the Democrats have increased the budget of the US' militarized police forces as much, if not more, than the Republicans. Does a party that give as much or more money to a brutal force of repression who already have military grade weapons than the other sound easier to organize under to you? Have you peoples already forgotten Biden's brutal crackdown on strikes and protests during his presidency?

Even if the Democrats would’ve cut it USAID, they would’ve been far less sudden about it.

"No but you see, they might have done it too, and in the same way, but at least they would have done it slower! That's totally better right?"

Just take the L already. You can't even argue your own point without making a total fool out of yourself.

The Democrats make it pretty clear that they do not care about our votes, or about beating Republicans.

Wasn't your whole point that the Democrats would block or at least slow down the Rep? You do realize that this sentence voids the argument right?

Why the fuck do you go to bat for Copmala and Genocide Joe then?!

You mean the one where they let the Republicans repeal Roe v Wade without doing anything about it despite their candidate being president? That one? In that case please do forgive me as it's obviously very different! If it had been a Republican Roe v Wade would have been overturned, but thanks to the Democrats Roe v Wade has been overturned but at least a democrat was president! Soooo much better!

slightly different

Even you have reached the point where you can't confidently affirm their differences anymore and are reduced to having to add diminutive adjectives in front to prevent yourself from getting called out for saying something that is obviously false. You're out there fighting for the scraps left of your "argument" after we tore it to shreds, it's frankly pathetic. And pretty funny to me so please by all means do go on.

Neither is the party you support lmao. May I remind you that despite billions of $ in campaign findings, dozens of appearances on TV and other mass medias, dozens of political rallies, all while being the one of the 2 duopoly party and having no obstacle, Kamala still managed to lose to Trump of all peoples.