nova_ad_vitum

It's generally useful to think of these things in more nuanced terms than right or wrong. If/when they are unified, it will be a refinement.

https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

It's also not true in a relevant way. In the abstract, on its own, sure. If a presidential candidate argued for less military spending during an election campaign they would be painted as weak , and trying to weaken American increasingly dangerous world. Probably conspiracy theories about them being a foreign agent. And they would either lose outright or at least pay a significant political price.

The one thing they could have made Shepard read that would make him invite the reapers invasion.

Related question: where can I voluntarily get a lobotomy?

The middle drawing appears to be the end scene of Bladerunner 2049 where the protagonist lies on the concrete steps, not a field.

https://youtu.be/bqFwDapu23w?t=3m50s

Meme is 0/10 literally unplayable

EDIT - Added spoiler tag. Also Snape killed Dumbledore

They're trying to provoke a military response that will be the pretext for war for 2 purposes:

1. Distract the public from domestic issues. President's usually get an approval ratings boost during war time too.

2. Let the new MIC that's embedded in this administration test their new toys (Anduril, Palantir).

And the rest of the country is just going to let them do it too.

You know there's a Canadian sports exec named Dick Pound?

Mr and Mrs Pound had a baby, looked at it, and said "were going to name him Richard, and he will be known as Dick. With a hard D".

Really makes you wonder.

I disagree but it is interesting to note that your conception of corruption essentially doesn't make the distinction between extractive and quid-pro-quo.

Extractive corruption is where one party uses authority to essentially shake down someone else. A cop pulls you over for a spurious reason and demands $200 in cash to make it all go away on the spot, or you can fight it and maybe win in court after significant inconvenience, cost, or just be met with immediate violence. In any case, in this case there is a perpetrator and a victim and the victim gets nothing out of it other than getting screwed.

In quid-pro-quo type corruption, both parties benefit to some degree. So for example if you're applying for a permit at a local government office and you need it done fast, you slip them $50 to bump it to the top of the queue. They get paid, you get your permit faster .

China's anti-corruption efforts famously dealt very harshly with extractive corruption while allowing a certain degree if quid-pro-quo corruption on the basis that 1) you cannot fully eliminate corruption so you have to prioritize and 2) quid-pro-quo corruption actually meets a market demand that isn't being met within the official system, as you noted. So long as the clerk continues to eventually process permits for people who don't pay the $50 bribe , there is a certain like of logic that says that you might as well let that clerk keep doing this since not everyone needs permits fast.

This form of "allowed" corruption itself requires monitoring and regulation, though as it can easily turn extractive and such practices essentially require that the clerk have some reasonable fear of going too far.

Those shares are also generally for sale for a high enough price. Given the immense current value of the brand, when Gabe dies vultures of every variety will start circling. If they offer employees 2x their share price to sell, enough of them will do it to lose control to investors that just want to enshittify everything and milk it's brand for every last penny as they drive it into the ground.

Even if it wasn't regressive (which it is) it still wouldn't work to replace income tax. The tariffs incentivize domestication of production, so people are literally incentivized to circumvent them. That's also (lol) one of the stated goals here - being back manufacturing. But you can't use tariffs to both bring back manufacturing and replace income tax or even a substantial part of it in the short term anyways. It's really just one or the other. Realistically, given the competence with which they're going about it, it'll be neither.

I mean it's not like the kid killed a random person. In a sense he's the only character doing any kind of root cause analysis.

He's acting exactly like a current established Democrat leader. He is proudly saying he doesn't take money from PACs, except AIPAC is the exception and if you ask why you're antisemitic. He cares about keeping the democratic unconditionally and uncritically 100 perfect behind Israel as his main policy goal, far more than any domestic concern. In that he has tons of company and is doing his job just fine.