I would absolutely vote Republican if they were just a bit to the left on abortions, education, and unions. Actually unions and teamsters would totally support Republicans if they weren't openly hostile to them.
Right now they're just different flavors of big government endlessly growing and I really think some libertarians need some wins to shake them up.
Quite possible, but I've also seen genuine bullying this way too.
They would only be forced to if she filed a lawsuit against the anonymous caller. People have done that before.
How do you define young?
I'm definitely too old but I loved Tarkov before cheaters ruined it.
I know some early-20's folks who grew up on DayZ.
Both games very hard to not suck at.
You disagree with my statement that is not actually contradicted by anything in your statement, apart from your open acceptance of flawed studies?
My question then is this: what do they teach kids to allow them to spot flaws and what do they teach them as the method for determining who is reputable? Beyes theorem? How to control for multiple variables? I don't actually know whether they go into this or tell kids to JUST trust an authority.
Flawed studies have done all kinds of harm over the years before being retracted. Linking vaccines to autism for one.
That's the thing though, outside of studies published in journals where you look up their ranking and it's high enough that you trust the peer review, how do you tell the difference between imperfect and flawed in a way that renders the conclusion useless to your use case? It's not a rhetorical question, that's what I'm saying requires deeper knowledge and where you should not trust it alone without having qualified help review it for you. And without the help, yeah it's just as well to go without.
Not a Republican but see one risk and one flaw in teaching kids to rely 100% on science: there are strategic reasons to make some decisions which you miss if you rely solely on "science" sources. The biggest risk here is if kids are taught to trust anything called "science" but not how to differentiate between good studies and bad studies - there are journals that will publish anything, and it's easy to manipulate people if they cannot effectively differentiate between good and bad studies, which requires a deeper understanding of statistics and ability to think critically about the variables tested, controlled, and overlooked or ignored.
Ugh I don't know which is worse. Next timeline, portal gun.
Look you're the one who reached your cognitive limit and switched to name calling. Call me whatever you like but you're the one being a petulant child while I was mistakenly attempting to speak with you as if you were capable of engaging in a real conversation.
I brought up points you clearly never knew or thought of and you shut down.
You need to find an echo chamber on Reddit if you want someone to stroke your comfort zone.
You're 12 aren't you?
You're right that you cannot pay a dividend but you missed the check on your knowledge of how wealth and money work: that money doesn't exist. Only a miniscule fraction of that wealth exists as a budget you can just spend as you know it. All that those billionaires have is the ability to tell people what to do and all they can spend is reallocating productivity towards other goals. All the money that actually gets spent goes into other people's pockets and gets spent in turn. The inefficiently in this system is far lower than the inefficiency in a planned economy.
Your grasp of how money works is surface level.
Let's start here: billionaires do not have billions of dollars like Scrooge McDucks swimming in gold. They hold securities for companies that are doing things on the idea that they can sell them and redeploy that capital later.
In other words: the money means nothing. All that wealth means is they're the ones who control resources.
By similar reasoning, modern monetary theory is that government can print money and activate unused resources without driving inflation very much.
So what you want is a planned economy. Soviet style. In fact the language you use makes it clear you're fully bought into tankie propaganda.
There are 3 ways to make people do things: money, love and power. So am I going to give you everything you need because of love? money is clearly not the means to ends in your system. That leaves the threat of unaliving.
And so we're back at gun control, the only way your kind is able to make such a system work: by killing everyone who disagrees.
Ok so America has 300,000,000 people. That's $3 per person for every billion dollars. Come on genius, bring that math, explain how all those billions divide into everyone having everything they need and everyone else will absolutely deliver those needs.
App issue, reposted
You're the one who replied to my deleted comment with " all those billionaires exist" (I can't actually pull it up in this app now to quote).
That's some maoist theory you're leaning on.
Do you know how many dollars you'd have if you took every dollar away from every billionaire and divided it evenly? Enough for a nice dinner, maybe a very cheap getaway, not enough to stop working or get all your needs met by someone else who is in the same position as you.
Can you quantify this surplus? Because your unqualified statement requires there to be enough to meet ANY demand. You just sound like a genzedong tankie who does not understand the most basic market theory that for every demand there must be a counterpart, who themselves will have demands, and there's no unlimited resource hack IRL (yet).
Your right to life ends where my right to not get unalived by your wishes ends.
Sorry meant to add here and this app needs polish… Deleted comment too slowly.
Also your tangent changed subjects. Right to life. Criminality vs liberties.
deleted by creator
The ones who actually run for office are less fascist and more incapable of actually running anything.