Right right and many of the posts that we’ve seen here over the past 3 months forget about that key point, which is just an insult to the majority of voters in the United States.

And that’s how the Democrats can lose political support. That’s how they can alienate potential allies.

I understand your feelings, and sometimes I feel the same way. But what you didn’t tell us is the steps you’ve taken to make life better for people in Palestine and neighboring countries who are dying now.

If you want to argue that Harris is the lesser of two evils and that you’re also working to prevent her from being as evil as she has been in the past, you actually have to say that. Or don’t say it, and we’ll assume that you’re doing nothing because you don’t care, and the future is going to be just like the past, which is not acceptable.

I wish that more people could see that there aren’t two sides. Neither side is on your side, nobody is on your side, and you can think you’re on their side but it just doesn’t work that way.

all they have to do is point out that they don’t live in a swing state and that’s it, there’s nothing else to say, they just made a strong case and you have no rebuttal

lol

You want to trust him after what happened in Ukraine? Are you out of your mind? And he’s admitted that he chats with Putin on a regular basis.

I think you answered your own question. If taking drugs actually makes you a better person, of course it’s OK. That’s true for both physical and mental considerations.

But look, you put everything into one definition. What is “better”, who decides, and how do they decide? If you don’t have anywhere to go, you probably won’t get there. Or maybe you will get there but you won’t realize it.

There is much debate on all kinds of drugs, but I can tell you that some of my friends have had various experiences that are relevant. For several friends, acid or shrooms helped them deal with some harsh trauma. For several other friends, various uppers helped them handle ADHD relatively effectively. But of course we all have different problems and goals, so the burden is right back on you to figure out what you want to do. There’s no way around this basic fact of life.

If the facts of the case are clear to you but they aren’t clear to doctors who actually live and work in the state, and are risking getting locked up for years or decades, and large hospitals that are part of gigantic corporations that have expensive lawyers working for them, maybe it’s because they know more than you, or maybe it’s because they are more worried about being cautious, because they know that the cops and the DAs down there are eager to arrest people.

All of which is to say, we don’t even have to look at the text of the law, because people are telling us the actual effect of the law. You’re pounding the statute but the statute’s not the problem. The enforcement of the statute is the problem. So you can keep on pounding it, but your energies are misdirected.

I think you need to take a step back and stop talking about income tax. Instead, talk about wealth distribution overall. What about businesses? What about corporations? What about passive income? What about savings that’s passed to children? What about inheritance tax? What about tax fraud and tax evasion? And I meant to separate those explicitly, because there are many weak points in the tax code that allow for companies to take advantage of the ability to send money overseas, for example.

If all you’re doing is adjusting the standard deduction or the base exemption or the top threshold for social security payments, you’re ignoring the gigantic high-dollar figures that are happening with the billionaires and the largest corporations in the world. And if you ignore them, then there’s no way you can fix the corruption that’s plaguing modern society.

Of course I think you were trying to keep your focus narrow, which is a reasonable thing to do, but it’s also worth noting in at least one comment that the big picture involves much more important questions about how we should allow wealth to be redistributed.

Hundreds of doctors and their lawyers disagree with you. Of course they could provide medical services, and see if local law enforcement decides to arrest them and lock them up. Or they could withhold medical services, because that’s what their lawyers say is a reasonable interpretation of the law.

In other words, it doesn’t really matter what you or I think. It matters what doctors and their lawyers believe is likely to occur. And we know what that is, because they’re telling us out loud, and they’re showing us through their actions.

Of course you’re entitled to interpret the law however you want to. I think many of us have done that over time, and sometimes we realize that we got it wrong, because we see that lawyers and courts don’t agree with us. Probably this is one of the times that you need to recognize what’s actually happening, and realize that your wishful thinking is just that. I’m sure many people would be happier if reality matched your thoughts, but it doesn’t.

Lol. It wasn’t the “Washington Post” who decided that. It was the owner.

You didn’t tell us when he asks if everything is OK. That is a large omission, and I hope you can update the original post with examples of what led up to the question being asked. Also, what is the setup there? Are you working at Subway making sandwiches? Do you have adjacent desks? Do you show up to work with black eyes? We are left wondering what’s up.

Certainly anyone who repeatedly asks “Are you OK?” is exacerbating some issue, but I would be hesitant to offer any advice about what you ought to do without reading more details.

(In other words, the missing missing reasons applies here just as it did in the original scenario, for those who remember it.)

But that’s not what happened. If the lawyers are saying that some open source groups can’t work with open source groups in Russia, as Linus indicated, that doesn’t mean either group dislikes the other group. I don’t think this is a question of animosity.

You didn’t tell us what you meant by “shoulder the burden”. Maybe you should have, or at least if you did it would allow more focused answers.

Some people that I have spoken with are fans of a flat tax. They think that income tax should be 10% on everyone, no matter what. They think that is fair.

In order to maintain that belief in fairness, they also need to magically forget about: the ultra rich, passive income, capital gains, the existence of businesses that have a different tax code, and the fact that they probably actually endorse various tax breaks.

On a side note, I think one of the underlying causes of people being willing to try to forget all of these obvious facts of life is the gut assumption that big banks and ultra rich people who are running scams or finding loopholes are doing so in a very complicated way, so there’s no chance we could figure out what’s happening and stop it. But what forensic accountants point out from time to time is that many of the scams and loopholes are new variations on old tricks. We can understand how they work, but it takes effort, because the names change and the money moves in slightly different ways.

There are many third-party YouTube browsers and viewers that will get accurate date information, because that’s sitting there in the RSS feeds that YouTube posts.

For people who are worried about what their family members would think, probably they’re not donating or signing up for newsletters, so their postal mail is not going to give you much information.

The cops are not good at protecting you, wherever they are, but sometimes they’re good at protecting themselves.

I agree that going to the cops probably wouldn’t keep OP safe. But it would give the cops a starting point if a dead body turned up. They would know exactly where to start looking, and they probably would do so. But couldn’t lead to more harm than it is likely to prevent? Yes, possibly. It’s hard to make that determination without knowing more details about the city.

Sometimes you just don’t talk about politics, to avoid fighting with in-laws. That has always been true, and it will always be true.

But I hope you don’t “go back to normal”, because hundreds of millions of Americans acting “normal” had the power to prevent this kind of scenario from occurring in the first place. Of course there’s a ton of corruption, and shady corporations and billionaires (all of them) are major culprits in the badness, but also we the people have a lot of power to fix problems if we can get ourselves organized and motivated. So let’s do that.

I don’t think the lawsuits are his major problem, and they’re not a good example of badness in the system. Civil suits are often delayed if one of the parties has unavoidable scheduling conflicts, because they can be solved by money, and a month or two here or there doesn’t make a big difference to that, at least not most of the time.

There can be corruption in civil suits, and there are reasons to use delay tactics if you’re trying to spend your money or shift it to offshore accounts, so rich people certainly can and will gain the system. But simply getting your court dates scheduled in November instead of October is not in itself nefarious on the civil stage.

Not everything is on hold. The dates and deadlines are simply not right now. Lawyers are preparing motions and the like in the background. Work continues. Of course that varies by case.

The information is true but the article is thin. There’s no new information or interpretations in it.