Hi I'm Wolvenlight. Join me on my journey across Imgur as I attempt to give witty but polite and insightful commentary to people who didn't ask for it.
Hi I'm Wolvenlight. Join me on my journey across Imgur as I attempt to give witty but polite and insightful commentary to people who didn't ask for it.
This is what anyone who says "what's the problem with requiring IDs? Other countries do it!" is missing from the equation. A solid support infrastructure that mitigates disenfranchisement, time, and costs.
Most other countries with these ID requirements have that last bit. The SAVE Act doesn't and won't do that last bit because disenfranchisement is the goal. Not security.
There was a primary in 2024 though: https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/primaries-and-caucuses/results/democratic-party/president?election-data-id=2024-PD&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false
(And no, "but then the DNC went with Harris!" isn't a refutation, because everyone knew she was his VP, and the VPs primary job is *being the president* should the president no longer be able.
And Harris called for an *actual* ceasefire in her DNC speech).
True. And I know if I was playing knife-football, I wouldn't ever put my face anywhere near the place that the knife-feet are if it wasn't absolutely a real crippling injury.
He didn't attack LEOs though. He held his hand up while being vaguely in the way of a LEO attacking a woman for the crime of recording him in public.
You can maybe make the usual LEO case of "I saw a hand and feared for my life" or whatever, but "Pretti attacked officers" is being corroborated by nothing except AI deepfakes, a two week old vandalism video, and a federal organization caught numerous times on video (sometimes under oath, in court) lying about things that didn't actually happen.
This is a claim Tim made, but it doesn't actually seem to be accurate. It only applies to Steam keys, which is reasonable. If your company was given discounted/free steam keys to give games away in contests/to reviewers or sell them elsewhere, they can't be sold for cheaper than you'd find them on Steam itself.
Games on Steam itself can absolutely be cheaper elsewhere. I've seen this happen, in fact.
Unless Steam updated their agreements after 2019, anyway.
Depends.
Amazon absolutely engaged in price fixing, which is a common example of actual anti-trust violations. Valve has its sales, but they put most games up with the same prices as the competition and aren't in the business of giving things away for free like Epic does with their platform.
They've also had to settle for other violations like difficult cancelation procedures.
I can't think of any actual violations Valve might be guilty of unless "sales too good" checks the fixing box.
Not really. It was less the notion everyone's favorite gaming platform might violate anti-trust laws by being too popular (which is not enough in and of itself) and more the lack of actual examples of specific malpractice coupled with smug derision.
If you're going to go against the grain, being respectful about it is helpful. Being correct about it is also helpful, though I won't say you're for sure wrong because maybe this lawsuit will have actual examples.
Judging by their history though...
All a high market share makes it is a dominant monopolistic power. It doesn't mean it runs afoul of anti-trust monopoly laws.
https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-is-a-monopolization-claim-under-the-federal-antitrust-laws
It is not illegal to be so dang good at what you do that many choose you over the competition. What matters is what the dominant company does to lock out competition.
Without actual overt examples of boycotts, exclusives, price fixing, etc, Valve will win.
LOL. Mr. Choose didn't like being contradicted, I see.
Bro, calm down. Your example was just bad. It happens. Don't make it your entire bruised ego.
Though I guess it's also possible you just hate trans people and being "logical" about it wasn't as logical as you thought.
(By the way, when you block people, changes are they won't see your entire comment. Given I certainly don't care about your tantrum enough to check off mobile).
(Which, I mean, wouldn't matter in the vast majority of cases anyway, given trans women barely, if at all, hold an advantage over aligned women after enough years of HRT.
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/11/586
ICE, however, does hold an advantage over people. I've never seen a gaggle of trans women get away with beating a man motionless and then executing him in broad daylight. All for the crime of, ironically, defending a woman).
Trans women are no longer allowed to compete in the NCAA and there are currently no openly trans women in the WNBA (there was only 1 until recently).
Also, if we're just going by "shot" we have to include by less than lethal rounds, tear gas, tasers, and so on. Such as the protesters who've been blinded by such. This also doesn't include those that died in custody via negligence, missed medication, etc. It also doesn't include beatings.
So in general chance, I'd take it against a trans woman.
Yep. And despite their arguable flaws, Obama and Biden did a lot for cancer survivability in terms of stem cell research funding and other measures.
Politics *does* affect people's everyday life, whether they realize it or not. The vast majority of people know someone with cancer. For over half of Americans, that's an immediate family member.
I think this guy single handedly caused 12 more rules.
"Gov't should pay for/provide a service" does not equal slavery. This is true of post offices and welfare and doctors just as much as it is police and soldiers and firefighters.
And don't for a second think that a discussion on the intricacies of effective governance necessitates waxing poetically about high concepts that were settled when the Constitution was written to explicitly include the federal gov't collecting taxes to, among other things, provide for the general welfare of the people.
Yep. The line between "we have to do something!" and "we did way too much, way too stupidly" is razor thin. U.S. history is rife with examples, most recently in the Middle East, but certainly also in South America (and in the case of Banana Republic coups, we shouldn't have done those at all, but hey).
Maduro needed removal the same way Ghaddafi and Saddam and ISIS did. The same way Putin and the Kim Dynasty still do.
It's too bad that we keep fumbling everything related to those removals.
Sure, it's safe that "part" of it is the victims.
It's also very safe, and evident now, that part of it is they took out references to Trump. Because they missed some. Then took them out when they realized.
https://imgur.com/NXS82En
Nerve pain can be a fickle mistress too, depending on the specifics. One second, you're fine. The next second, you're on the floor because your feet feel like rocks are grinding their skin off.
This wouldn't necessarily prevent work though, given everyone I know with nerve conditions like these still work. One can't drive (risk of a pain episode causing a collision) so they work from home. Another probably shouldn't work in their field, but needs money and does what they're used to.
A VP doesn't have the means unilaterally go "you're out, old man." She would need the majority of his cabinet or a committee established by congress to agree (25th amendment, Section 4). Other than that, it was ultimately his call unless he got impeached.
But they *were* pressuring him to step down, which eventually succeeded. It just succeeded too late. Perhaps had they started sooner, sure, but I can't lay blame on solely one person here. They all screwed up.
Eh, a family member of a potential future lawyer vs a stranger who takes money for services* is kind of a false equivalence.
And given its law school, he probably has money.
(Also, by your own source, they didn't remove bridges, but they did add barriers and other preventative measures, which vastly decreased suicides there.
Which tracks with this:
https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/means-matter/bridges-and-suicide/
When you reduce ease of suicides, the suicide rates drop and don't particularly increase in other locations or via other means.
Guns aren't bridges, of course. Yet while it's worth noting that the analogy isn't 1:1, some principles apply universally.)
Reducing gun access to those at risk of suicide doesn't address the root cause of suicidality, but it *does* save lives by reducing suicide, and in fact attempted suicide, itself.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/means-matter">/">https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/means-matter/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3290984/
"But some people kill THEMSELVES with guns!" was never a great counterargument.
In any case, you don't have to make this about America. You said it yourself, Australia has the means to make their gun regulations work.
Nobody is making that argument.
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/
During Obama, Republicans had a 30+ seat gerrymandering advantage. The "current high level addiction" is +16 Republican. Democrat states score way better in gerrymandering analyses.
You're not wrong that before 2001, it was more even, but most of the states that eventually implemented independent districting commissions were Democrat ones. They've *been* trying to change the laws.
But it needs to happen at a federal level.
I mean, kind of, but also:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-bullied-brain/202311/verbal-abuse-can-damage-the-brain
But that is also arguably paired with a power imbalance, peer policing, or dependency relationship in which one can't simply choose to ignore or disengage. The words are a part of what physically alters the brain.
This is an extension of the Elan School example. It's no wonder a lot of those kids got PTSD and killed themselves, even if the abuse wasn't *just* verbal.
Which is a bit incompatible with the notion "words themselves cannot be violent."
But I guess that depends on how we interpret the word "themselves."
I would consider things like fighting words, or Synanon's or Elan's use of "getting ones feelings off," instances where words are violent.
But you could also interpret "by themselves" to be incorrect because they are "paired" with malicious intent or auditory torture.
But in either case, words are used, partly or otherwise, to inflict harm.
Trump is definitely racist. He's been racist when it was costing him money (refusing to rent apartments to black people, being sued for discriminating against black and female employees, etc.)
Now, yes, he's so filled with hate that racism isn't the only hate he holds. He's so hateful you might as well say be treats everyone like absolute shit.
But it's not regardless of anything. The more you're not like him, the more he hates you. Race is still a part of that.
Obama's involvement in the middle east was a stain (particularly in Libya) but I'd chalk some of that up more to naivety (trusting CIA/drone operators) than I'd grant Trump the same benefit of doubt. Not all, but some.
Obama initiated policies (that Trump rescinded) to curb civilian casualties from drone strikes, leading to him having the lowest per strike before Biden became POTUS. And Biden benefited from the R9X, a drone with low risk of collateral damage. Which Obama began the design of.
Nobody called you a douchebag. Reread the comment and stop getting livid at facts.
You're also the one crashing out. Maybe also stop projecting and lashing out. It's hurting your ability to communicate effectively.
Exactly. There is a vast difference between "increased drone usage" and "wants to actually destroy America."
All the while, Obama actually did lower collateral damage rates per drone strike. Trump increased them. Biden lowered them again.
War is hell, and no war time POTUS is clean. But that guys logic is oddly close to "well, Obama is almost as bad as Trump" when they're both vastly different, even if they both contain (differing amounts of) glaring flaws.
(And sorry, but I don't need that kind of reactionary nonsense in my notifications. Do better next time with others).