It's not rambling to point out you lied. Maybe you should go back and open that link I provided that you definitely haven't opened yet.

No, hold up a second. I need to understand why you lied.

Did you even look at the link? It's not one you cited.

Did you happen to read that article?

I don't understand. Surely they have foods that are vegan besides bread and water, right? Like, some vegetable being served or something?

This guy? https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/alan-dershowitz-trump.html

That article has all the feeling of being written by a high school sophomore 1 hour before it was due. I especially enjoyed the "In conclusion" to kick off the final paragraph.

And to save you a click:

The average US president has been charged with 2 felonies. However, this statistic is heavily influenced by former President Donald Trump, who became a statistical outlier due to the multiple legal issues he faced during his tenure.

If he wins in court, which is very likely,

Show your work here, because none of the actual lawyers I've seen weigh in on this have come to that conclusion.

What does this look like in context? Not charging him for crimes? Not covering this extremely newsworthy event?

I was curious and it turns out that the FEC does have regulation regarding public debates.

The part that would be relevant doesn't seem to apply, though:

c. Criteria for candidate selection.

For all debates, staging organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held prior to a primary election, caucus or convention, staging organizations may restrict candidate participation to candidates seeking the nomination of one party, and need not stage a debate for candidates seeking the nomination of any other political party or independent candidates.

So, I guess there is a law that could be potentionally sued over, but I don't see how the RNC doesn't fall within the guidelines. I'm not a lawyer.

I have a weak and high level grasp of how LLMs work, but what you say in this comment doesn't seem correct. No one is really sure why LLMs sometimes make things up, and a corollary of that is that no one knows how difficult (up to impossible) it might be to fix it.

Is this really where you are talking about?

One of us doesn't know what socialism is, and I want to be very clear here that it might be me.

I am under the impression that socialism is about the government owning industry, not having a robust social safety net. Though, from that link you provided, Norway happens to be an exception in the Nordic model, and actualy does own some industries. So I guess we're both right? haha

It's funny because I almost left that out.

I'm pretty sure that Norway is capitalistic, just like America. The difference is mostly a matter of degree, not category. I definitely could be mistaken, though.

Well, I really doubt anyone is being serious in this entire thread but the parameters were simply that it was something one person could do (inferred), and that it wasn't illegal.

I think my solution meets those requirements.

At the risk of making the OP's problem worse: https://www.visittromso.no/ for the curious.

Considering some of their comments, doesn't seem likely to be right wing. Most of their complaints are anti-capitalism in nature. The rest of your reply is certainly plausible.

A quick scan of the OP's history suggests that they live in Norway, but I don't know if that tells us anything about what a "small town" is. Nor do we know why the town is popular. It's at least plausible that tourists stay in that small town because there are so many places to stay, and it's close to some area that is the real reason the tourists are there. (like a mountain to ski on, or something).

I doubt the OP expects a real answer, because they didn't provide enough information.

Run for mayor (or local equivalent), win, and then push for/implement a bunch of rules that make the town inhospitable to tourists.

I assume the tourism brings in money to the local community, yeah? Cutting off that income will probably mean you won't be able to win the next subsequent election, so act fast.