Not saying he didn’t seem more “with it” or energetic or whatever, but he is basically just as old and makes even more gaffes - but people don’t care because he does it almost non-stop.
There are plenty of people talking about Biden as if he’s the crypt keeper and Trump as if he’s a stunning specimen of youth and vitality, which is just silly.
I guess all public statements would essentially be “under oath” and would be held to that standard. So the questions would be 1) which statements are public and 2) what constitutes a lie.
It can be proven that someone has lied - for instance, if they have said something on the record previously that indicates they had foreknowledge that what they said was false. It’d be a large administrative burden, so I imagine that only consequential lies would be prosecuted. But the law would also be ripe for abuse - an opposing political faction could scrutinize everything a public official says, sue them for everything that wasn’t true, and tie them up with court appearances and fees for a long time.
Anyway, it’d be very difficult to consistently enforce this law and prevent it from being abused.
Biden is only like 18mos older than Trump. They’re essentially equally old. Like a 2% difference in their ages.
Imo the price of those was justified solely by fraud. I.e. they lied about picture quality being better, etc. I also don’t know that demand for those was all that high and am even more skeptical that it’d be driven by price.
That typically only works for luxury goods, but yes. A good that inverts the effect of price on demand is called a Veblen Good.
But that strategy probably wouldn’t work for something like rice or shampoo or socks or drywall putty unless people start using those as status symbols.
Not illegal anymore bucko
You want to check my shape, let’s do push-ups together. Let’s run. Let’s do whatever you want to do. You may call me old, but I’m just old school. I’m cool. I’m ice cold. I’ve got Baja Blast flowing in my veins. Pop pop’s jacked up on the Dew and will take you out behind the woodshed. That’s how they did it in my day and that’s a fact, Jack.
Or because it’s stupid political theater giving Trump’s base an out when he inevitably says some dumb bullshit during the debate and loses. He obviously never expected that ridiculous request to be granted. The act of playing along is an act of weakness, so it’s never going to happen.
Also they’re both going to be on drugs. All presidents are given various drugs. Some to keep them alive, some to help them concentrate. It’s no big deal, it’s a demanding job.
Edit: forgot Obama actually did show his birth cert. Shouldn’t have played along though
Is he a frail, senile, old man? Or does pop pop crave the BLAST of tropical energy from an ice-cold MOUNTAIN DEW BAJA BLAST!?!? Which is it, repubs?
How do you explain me looking this psycho if there is no SATAN
That thumbnail is terrifying. Genuinely thought it was a dude wearing a roger stone mask wtf
From each according to their corruption, to each according to their greed
Wait so all the justices recieved $3M in gifts, and $2.4M of that was to Thomas? That’s like 80% of the gifts.
There aren’t comics afaik and, thankfully, the Jodorowsky monstrosity didn’t get made.
I mean, sure, but it’s half of a story. So much of the criticism I saw totally left out that it was part 1 of 2. I ask because it’d be like watching The Fellowship of the Ring and being upset that it was just a story about some midgets going on a hike - it’s a take you could only have if you weren’t at all familiar with the source material or even generally what it’s about. It’s not an invalid take, necessarily, but it is one that ignores that it’s only one part of a larger story. Dune Pt 1 was also a slower burn, and it’s totally valid to dislike that sort of movie.
I hope you watch the second one and can appreciate the first one as part of that context. Dune (the book, not just the movies) is very good for a lot of reasons and was incredibly influential on sci-fi as a whole. It’s obviously fine not to like it, of course, but as a lifelong fan, I just want everyone to give it a chance.
Edit: there are comics actually. Huh.
They were working on it long before the pandemic, so that’s invalid. But you read the book and believe that? Or did you not know what it was about beforehand?
That is a fair point. My only counterargument would be that due to the way cities are set up, a large portion of those emissions come from commuting. The reason people commute is they have to earn money to pay bills so they can feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads.
So, asking people to drive less could mean asking them to give up their employment, which could be much more than “giving up the comforts of their lives” like the OP suggested - again, it could really put their livelihoods in jeopardy. And, without an organized cause, clear goal, a call to action, and clear communication about why their specific sacrifices are necessary, people will not take such huge risks.
I’d argue that: 1) what is extreme changes over time, 2) a system of government being extreme de facto means it will have less support; the more support it has, the less extreme it is by definition, 3) the less support a system of government hass, the more force will be required to maintain it.
I am also under a system of government that is oppressive and monopolizes violence, but if the government had less popular support, I fully believe it would proportionally ramp up the oppression and violence. In fact, I’d argue that it’s currently happening in the US.
If we understand “Leftism” to be about a relationship to the means of production - namely one in which the workers/plroletarian class owns the means of production - then the USSR certainly was socialist/leftist to a significant degree.
Since leftism is about that relationship to the means of production, that also means that a government can be both Leftist and Authoritarian. We can discuss to what degree an ideal leftist government should be “authoritarian”, but that is less a conversation about the economic aspects of leftist political ideology and more about the political philosophy around personal freedoms, freedom of speech, etc. - none of which are completely cut & dry.
One could easily argue that some degree of “authoritarianism” is necessary to protect greater freedoms at the expense of lesser ones - that could be a coherent pro personal freedom and pro authoritarian argument. One could also argue that the anarchist conception of personal freedom is doomed to fail without an “authoritarian” power hierarchy to protect those freedoms. All I’m saying is the question of to what degree the power of the state should be limited is by no means answered.
Source? Idk if joking bc this is the world we live in now