ChairmanMeow
You'd be surprised how functional the illiterate can be.
America would have likely joined the war regardless of whether or not Japan had attacked.
"I have 99,99% uptime I swear!"
Business also managed just fine before social media advertising was a thing.
It's how elections aren't supposed to work, but it is how they work in the US. If you don't vote in favour of one candidate, it works out to a half-vote for the other candidate. It's the inevitable reality of a two-party system, which sucks ass, but it's still there and voters are still responsible for how they choose to deal with it.
Not voting for Harris means realising a Trump victory. It's just how it works in the US, and no amount of principled ideas can ignore the mathematical reality of the US electoral system.
Also, I don't buy into the idea that voters are powerless sheeple. Organize, protest, strike, options a' plenty. But Americans are apathetic and don't care enough to realise actual change. And it's clearly possible, given the track record of several leading human rights activists in the US. But it is hard, and people don't even bother trying something if it looks hard.
I blame the voters and Harris. The Harris campaign was bad, but voters don't get to escape the responsibility of the result that the mathematical reality of the US electoral system bestows on them.
Either:
- The report incriminates him, and Johnson is defending a paedophile.
- The report exonerates him, and Johnson is actively preventing Gaetz' exoneration.
Both options make Johnson a shitstain.
Georgia and Moldova both are struggling against Russian influences in their elections.
also giving infants 70 shots is insane
Yoi're right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.
Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don't make money off of healthy people.
This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn't cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.
Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.
Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.
Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you've essentially monopolised a disease.
This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we've found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.
RFK is right
He's wrong.
Nothing lasts forever. But for now, it's decent enough.
I was friends with her and I trusted that she would handle it well if she wasn't interested. And turns out she indeed wasn't interested, but we did talk about it and decided to just stay friends. It was a little awkward as my feelings for her still lingered a bit, but eventually that passed and I'm now with a wonderful girl who I think is a much better match for me.
We're still friends to this day.