Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,324

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well technically it isn't illegal until a court says it is. So you need the alledgedly in the front. But can you really blame them for not labeling it illegal. They know they would be retaliated against.

I think the key is who it is disruptive to. Blocking traffic just pisses off the average person. The decision makers don't care about the average person. You gotta disrupt the decision makers. But you also have to be prepared for them to fight back hard.

Vegas I am sure.

I was on one about 7 years ago with a guy who didn't believe in prison. He was never going to vote guilty. Where I was you only needed 10 out of 12, which is very rare. And since then they changed to needing 12 out of 12, so quiet jury notification has already started...

Sadly it seems like 95% just want to rant.
I don’t know enough about AOC to say fraud or not. But it doesn't actually matter. Trump is the biggest fraud there is. He still is getting people what they asked for (conservative supreme court, abortion stuf...). So AOC could be a fruad and still do what we want for her own gain. So I think she is currently the most likely to pick up the bernie tourch. But the dems establishment will fight against her. So it will be a long short. The republican establishment got caught sleeping with trump. They didn't think he had a chance, and didn't fight hard enough. The dem establishment won't be sleeping at the wheel thanks to that. And dems also have a higher bar for the integrity of thier candidates. So it will be an uphill climb. AOC probably won't even try it.

The next election will be very interesting.
If trump is still functional (in the goes to rallies for a successor sense), will there be someone he can or will transfer his popularity to. I kind of doubt it. Anyone able to take on that popularity is a threat to him. Maybe he would do it for one of his kids, because he might think he could control them, but I still doubt it. So he might submarine his own party.

That would open the door for another boring centrist from the democrats that "plays ball" with the party elites.

If trump is too feeble to do any rallies and such. That would allow a trump like replacement to pick up the republican torch. This would push the dems toward needing a progressive trump like populist to try to win. The dem "party" (the people behind the scenes) would fight that. Just like they did when Bernie was up against Hillary. And could end up handing it to the new trump like person. This would be the path to your future one party system.

The third scenario would have trump die in office somehow. Vance would "play ball" with the rep party elite in a heartbeat. And he is more like a pre-trump politician. We saw that in the vp debate. But the party elite would probably back him. It could end up with the return of the pre trump days with boring poloticians who just do what the party elite say, with the party elite m9ving back into the shadows.

You can't push back against the person who doesn't care. These "trump" things aren't likely coming from trump. All he wants is attention. So as long as someone spins an idea to him that will get him attention, he will sign it. He hasn't had an original idea in decades. So you won't see push back in public much. It will happen between the people behind the scenes.

Well in fairness, the pendulum keeps swinging farther with each new administration. So the split is never going to happen until it does. No way to know if this is the time or not. But unless something happens to break the cycle of more and more extremism, their will be a serious attempt at a split eventually. Weather it results in some kind of civil war where one side forces the other to stay, or a split actually happens is also unknowable.

Your point on R&D, while true, doesn't consider the cost of the US R&D success. I'm not talking about money. I'm talking about it creating the oligarchs we have now. I'm talking about how all that investment doesn't go toward healthcare or generally improving the lives of the people. Personally, I think it is a bad trade.

My original question was to try an understand the underlying cause. This might help me better assess the risks of people like my kids friends parents and such. My end goal is prevention. But I am also curious by nature. The better I understand things, the better a voter I am.

I swear I've seen this movie before. It was based on some book by a guy named Tom... /s

No point in feeding his ego.

My mistake on the definition. I was looking more for the phycological underlying reason for that attraction. Unless you are saying a person is just born that way, and it isn't thier fault or something.

Why is the sky blue? Because it is blue, I don’t really understand the confusion.
Pedophile is a title defined by an action. It has no connection to why the action was chosen. A person screwing someone who they legitimately thought was 20, but was actually 17 is by definition a pedophile. But the reason why they did it is very likely different than someone who had sex with a 13 year old and knew it.

I suppose I just don't get it. She seems to be good looking. She could easily have an adult male with the mentality of a teenager, we know there are plenty of them. All I can see is opportunity/ease of access. Even the power dynamic would be the same with plenty of adult guys desperate to get laid.

Your reading into my choice of the word scenario too much. I just needed a word for the line of events that occur as a result of your plan.

Over the years, I have seen a fair number of articles about patterns found when looking at the houses that don't burn down when a wild fire passes through. California apparently has some regulations and even does inspections for plant placement around houses in high risk zones. Oregon will do a free assessment and if you qualify, give you a small tax credit for making improvements to refuce your risk. These though are just the cheapest things that can be implemented. Expanding that into construction standards is what I think the best plan is.

And while I agree with your assessment of the political climate, the supreme court recently allowed Hawaii to sue some companies essentially for the effects of climate change. I was surprised by this, but that means at least states could sue to pay for programs to buyout homeowners.

I worked at intel for a while. It deserves to be destroyed. But I live in an area with a lot of well off intel employees. It could tank my house value among other major impacts to the community. Like I am sure he would kill the matching donation stuff which would be a significant reduction of the amount of money non profits get in this area. So I hope the destruction is slow enough for other chip companies in the area to absord some of the workers.

They are worth nil if no one will buy them. And if the insurance will be significantly more, who would buy it? The owners would probably still owe money on the mortgage if they managed to sell it, which many couldn't afford. Banks would probably refuse to loan to people buying those houses further reducing who might buy it, which further reduces the value. So people won't be able to sell them making them effectively worth nil.

And in your scenario, those lots of people losing money... why should they be average citizens. They didn't cause climate change. That was the oil and manufacturing industry who knew decades ago what they were doing. And instead of try to come up with solutions, produced propaganda to hide the facts and discredit anyone who tried to point it out. Maybe they should be the ones to lose a lot of money. They sure made and continue to make more than enough to buy those houses outright.

I was wondering last night, how cold does it have to be for trump to skip his own inauguration.

Incorporating is just the legal paperwork that brings a corporation into existence. Never done it, but I bet it is just paperwork and money.