zarp86

I feel like it's like trying to calculate if the nukes in WW2 saved more lives than they cost.

I know you are just using this as an analogy, but if you are curious:

According to most estimates, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan killed between 140,000 and 210,000 people, with the majority of deaths occurring on the day of the bombings, August 6th and 9th, 1945 respectively

And:

During World War II, 1,506,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured, many in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. By the end of the war, even accounting for medals lost, stolen, or wasted, nearly 500,000 remained. The total combined American military casualties of the seventy years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—did not exceed that number.

I think the horrors of nuclear weapons were at least responsible for ending the war quicker and saving lives that would have been lost during a ground invasion if Japan never surrendered.

It is possible for two people in a situation to both make poor decisions.

Mate, if you think anything I've said is "angry and lashing out," I don't know what to tell you. I'm frustrated sure, but wasn't the one who started to dole out blame. The original comment I responded to was blaming Dems lol.

Still interested in if you think the country will be better under Trump than under Harris.

The point is that if you have one party that won't legalize weed and won't criminalize abortion at the federal level, and you have another party that won't legalize weed but will criminalize abortion at the federal level, the first party is better. Now apply this to other issues. Families will be forcibly separated when Trump begins his mass deportation, Bird Flu will be COVID 2.0 when RFK is in Trump's cabinet, etc.

Everyone on .world and .ml is focused on what the Dems haven't done or won't do. Ok, put that aside for a second. Do you think that Trump is going to put into place any of the policies listed above? Do you think he will be a better president than Kamala Harris would have been?

If the answer to both questions is "no," I truly don't understand the logic in complaining about what Dems didn't do in the last four years. Not voting for Harris because she wasn't left enough is cutting off your nose to spite your own face. The country will be far worse under Trump.

If you answer "yes" to either, then we are too far apart to have any meaningful conversations.

Do not make yourself a target and a danger when the threat against you is just shitty laws that benefit the wealthy.

Bold of you to assume that's the only threat.

Bold of you to assume they will bother looking at the papers.

Council member Mercedes Narcisse, a Brooklyn Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said on Tuesday that the new law ends racial disparities in enforcement, noting that more than 90% of the jaywalking tickets issued last year went to Black and Latino people.

Never heard of Walking While Black? This at least forces police to come up with better excuses.

Here's the thing...

I'm not worried at all.

Why you gotta put that out into the universe?

Of all the hot takes I've read on the internet today, this is one of them.

Tianeptine.

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/12/nx-s1-4865955/tianeptine-gas-station-heroin-drug