How would this even work? Tariffs function by holding the physical items in customs, until the tax is paid. But a licensing deal on a digital good, that can be transfered undetected over the internet, is impossible to teriff. You could tax it other ways, but 100% of what. The distribution license? The copyright?
I guarantee he hasn't thought about any of this, and as such this mindless utterance a can be safely ignored.
But 95% of the time he doesn't take any action on what he says.
Then he actually does take action on things he never said anything about.
If you fight back against everything he says, you'll exhaust yourself on so many things that don't matter; You'll completely miss many things that do. Which is in fact the strategy.
For example his personal crypto tokens. He never said anything about making his own tokens to launder bribes through. Then suddenly surprised everyone announcing a new company and tokens. If anyone in the world buys $25M worth, they'll get a private sit down dinner to discuss whatever they want. That blatant clear corruption is important. And bullshit this is just a distraction.
Everyone needs to stop reporting on anything he just says. Instead, the media should exclusively focus on what he actually does. Did he issue any executive order about it? Did he instruct congress to do anything anything about it? No? Then I don't give a shit, and neither should anyone else.
While your certainly sounds better with the word choice in the headline, it doesn't reflect the actual facts of events.
"Father of an 18 year old," establishes the father as the subject, and the 18 year old as a specifying factor. So the the rest of the sentence states, it was the father who was "fatally shot by Ohio police" and "charged with hitting and killing deputy". It's still unclear if it was the father or the deputy who was "with car".
Where as my commas separate the facts accurately. Their strangeness comes from the extremely poor word choice and order of facts in the headline.
"Father of," establishes the father as the subject. "18 year old fatally shot by Ohio police," is together a single specifier. "charged with hitting and killing deputy," states what happened to the father. And finally ", with car" is what the father used, to hit and kill the deputy.
The US has no free, standardized, national ID card.
Each individual state does it on their own. They all have their own rules and levels of verification.
Recently there is a national standard created. If the state ID meets that standard it has a gold star emblem in one corner. I believe part of that standard is proof of citizenship. But I'm not sure all state ID yet meet that standard, compliance has been pushed back several times; Mostly by conservative states. I think we can now see the real reason for that, instead of the commonly stated "government over reach".
That would very clearly be an example of thinking "the electorate wouldn't vote for her".
If it was her nature as a woman, the reason would be some thing like "Because women are bad at _______".
Something clearly misogynist; Instead of just thinking everyone else is misogynist.
What actual percentage of the American people do you think believes a woman can't be president? And I mean believe her nature as a woman makes her unfit, not people who believe the electorate won't vote for her.
Do you know any polls in the last year that indicate how big a contingent that would be?
I'd be shocked if it was over 0.5%. Even over 0.2% would be very surprising to me. Of course to get polls that precise you'd need to ask like 100,000 people.
Check out this video.
It explains why you can pretty reliably bet whatever Trump says isn't what he'll actually do.
Hopefully it's help you calm down a little. Or it may make things worse.
Ok. So even though you don't support some things your government does, it's everyone's moral duty to blame and punish you for it.
Understood. Good day sir.
Do you believe everyone is always happy with everything their government does? Are you, with yours?
I ask because it really sounds like you might think that.
My argument is that Uber itself has directly done more than enough to be boycotted. Their entire business model from the very conception, was an obvious anti-competitive monopoly play. Saying Uber should be boycotted now, for something they aren't even doing? It's not a great reason.
But maybe I'm wrong. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, is still doing the right thing. So sure, welcome to the Uber Haters Club. How do you feel about Lyft? Can I mark you down for boycotting them, or any other rideshare, delivery, or gig-worker "jobs"?
Yah, that argument does nothing for me.
Uber being a terrible company, which ruined an entire industry, acting like a vampire feeding on both it's users and providers? That's a good reason to not use them.
Another "Trump said" that should be ignored.
How would this even work? Tariffs function by holding the physical items in customs, until the tax is paid. But a licensing deal on a digital good, that can be transfered undetected over the internet, is impossible to teriff. You could tax it other ways, but 100% of what. The distribution license? The copyright?
I guarantee he hasn't thought about any of this, and as such this mindless utterance a can be safely ignored.