Ya, I looked at that part of the video again and while I stand my my overall impression, it's not her fault, it's the way the news has cut a clip of her talking about how she can't taste chocolate with a voice-over of her learning to "take the virus seriously."

I was slightly disappointed to find out the whole "hand down the pants thing" was legitimately him tucking his shirt in. Initially that sounded like a wild BS excuse, but no - it actually fits in context. He was certainly a bit creepy, but I didn't feel he actually *quite* crossed a line.

Overall I found the movie lacking compared to the first one. It was a lot more scripted set-up, and a lot less crazy shit involving real people in an unscripted manner. I would guess he had more planned originally, but the pandemic threw things off.

You're kidding. You can get good care (I assume anything non surgical?) For $1800 a year and you don't?!? I pay that three times over for insurance that pays almost nothing until I'm $4500 out of pocket, and compared to today's market here that's a bargain.

Here I'm lucky to have a doctor at all. We have a huge shortage, always have since I've lived here.

Do you really see it getting better without the aca? Can you tell me why, since normally any improvements wouldn't go to patients or level of care but instead to higher profits?

I sure don't recall when advancements of any kind led to lower health care costs on average...my thought was the aca just spread the pain of paying for the indigent, and gave them preventative care to lower their need for expensive treatments we pay for either way, with higher insurance rates covering care for the poor and lowering overall costs or with higher care cost, leading to higher insurance and more unhealthy poor skipping out on higher bills.

I absolutely think single payer is best. Costs can be negotiated by the entire country, leading to lower costs. Everyone gets basic care, no one skips on their bill, leading to lower costs. 20% that the insurance industry takes from every medical dollar goes away, leading to lower costs. Like other nations with universal healthcare, anyone who chooses can buy supplemental insurance that covers better, more comfortable care like private rooms or choice of top doctors, so nothing's lost for patients. The only issues I see are ideological.

Only AFTER trump changed the numbers, the CDC has repeatedly announced the horrible truth only to have to retract it for political reasons, meaning Trump insisted and put their jobs on the line, and fired many that wouldn't ignore results to spread his propaganda.
The CDC has been politicized by Trump and is no longer a good source for information, only propaganda until Trump's temporary sycophantic administrators are removed and professional administrators can be confirmed. That's why doctors and scientists are fleeing the organization. That's why they said 400000+ dead by new years then retracted, it's why they said 6' isn't enough indoors, then retracted despite there being no new data or conclusions. Flu season starts soon, and we sit in the worst position possible for that, still wave one and it's accelerating again.

200000 dead/7million cases =....can you do that 2nd grade math?
.
.
.
.
.
It's an overall death rate of 2.8% Bob. Not .003%, not .02%, not way less than the flu (.1%) like Trump lied to America, but exponentially, up to 50 times worse like he admitted in private Feb 7 (now 30 times worse). 2.8% after we got an idea how to treat them.

That doesn't count deaths from complications, like going into a coma, surviving the virus in that coma, then dying from the damage it did to your brain and lungs. That's not in the covid death number I give you, neither are permanent disabilities like brain deaths, needed lung transplants, neuropothies, heart damage, etc.

2 was OK. 3 was better than 2, but not good as 1. Overall still good. FYI, 10 eps 4 S1 according to https://www.reddit.com/r/MaxRaisedByWolves/comments/im4jk2/raised_by_wolves_season_1_rollout_dates/.

I watched on Mythbusters years ago that the existing boarding routine is NOT the quickest, just most orderly. I think right now, the priority is use the quickest boarding method to get everyone settled in asap and reduce the overall time on the plane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss1S3-Kv6R8

Lol.

Do you really think people respect your opinion on this?

Do you really think your dishonest far right wing propaganda is convincing to people who don't already believe that nonsense and are only looking for any confirmation of their ignorant opinions?

Do you not understand you look so incredibly wrong at every single turn that if you suddenly started saying Trump is a bad man unfit to lead, we would second guess our assessments?

The only benefit your opinion offers is a stepping off point for learning just how ignorant and backwards the right has become and how much better lackluster candidates like Biden are than you claim, or by comparison.

You and your ilk making accusations HELPS Biden. You are that toxic. Keep it up.

But not to worry, Trump is proud of his 8% approval rating with blacks. Too bad for you it's in the low 30's overall now, and dropping.

Even Republican senators have distanced themselves, now not mentioning Trump or his record at all in their commercials because he's so toxic.

Enjoy your second red tsunami, I know I will.

People can misuse statistics to prove anything. Forfty percent of all people know that.

I'm afraid you're misrepresenting the statistics.
Those are based on overall US population, not racially divided populations.

30 per million blacks killed even though they are only 13% of the population vs 12 per million whites even though they are 76%. That's 30 dead blacks for every 12 dead whites.
Whites don't get off Scott free, but per capita it's close.
1/6 as many blacks as whites but 2.5 times more dead...making it 15 times more dead blacks per capita when divided by race...not over twice as many whites like you said.

The numbers aren't as lopsided as expected because you made a massive statistical error. Try again please.

All these issues you list are demonstrably used more often against non whites. This doesn't mean exclusively, but if your base stats are right, it should be 3-1 whites getting shafted if it wasn't racist, but it's more like 15-1 blacks/browns being shafted.

Although I'm a life-long small "l" Liberal voter, and Justin Trudeau is still the better leader of the major parties, he did made quite a few major political bungling.

Though the policies are sound, the implementations are a mess.

Overall, he can talk a good game but there are so many external forces fighting against him, nothing much has to gotten done.

Quite similar to France's Macron.

Potential.
Historically; freedoms, rights, and opportunities, both economic and social.
Until recently, governmental system.
Wealth (per capita).
Military might (although I accept the argument that this is more often a net loss, not a net gain).

Yes, it swings both ways, as you also have the freedom to be as terrible as you like, to hate as irrationally as you like, to be as ignorant and dumb as you like, to be as spiteful and self serving as you like. Before we allowed our system to be purchased by the deepest pockets for purely personal gains of the powerful few with Citizens United, our system was well designed to serve the people, which while imperfect was still better than almost all others. There is still the possibility, however slight, that that democracy killing decision can be remedied with an amendment and we can get back on the right track. Most other systems are lacking in such self correction.

I'm not claiming perfection, far from it, but our overall potential outweighs any other nation's (at least it used to). Yes, we have bigots, but less than many nations by far. Some countries still allow murder of improper worshippers or don't allow certain races to become citizens.
Yes, we have more than our share of loudmouth ignorant morons, but there are other nations that beat us there too. We (as a whole) don't believe aids comes from homosexuals eating each other's poop, for instance, or that women's brains are 1/2 the size of men's. The opportunities for educational advancements are better here than most countries, but not all I admit, and far too many don't avail themselves of said opportunities, granted.
Yes, we have poor people, but fewer per capita than many if not most others, and the opportunity for ethical advancement both financial and social are still good, but admittedly that's changing.
Equality under the law, while far from perfection in that respect, we are (or were) still moving in the right direction.

We have a long hard Sisyphusian slog towards perfection, but overall, historically, we have been crawling towards justice more than away.

That said, New Zealand has been nipping at our heels for a while, and arguments could be made that they presently are ahead in all meaningful ways besides size and weather.

You're fucking dumb. I'm not a hypocrite. Do you know the details of withholding aid in Ukraine?

Do you remember when obama was president how the republican congress and senate was stonewalling everything he wanted? Do you remember complaints about executive orders?

The Ukraine Support Act proposed in 2014 did not make it out of committee in the house of representatives https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_Support_Act

THEREFORE

Obama issued two executive orders as part of a national emergency

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/17/executive-order-blocking-property-additional-persons-contributing-situat

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-presidents-continuation-national-emergency-respect-ukraine/

There was a separate bill that guaranteed loans that was later passed but distribution of funds was done mostly through executive order in accordance with The International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

THEREFORE

Obama actually had prerogative and liberty with which to distribute funds and Biden was acting as his surrogate at the time.

In other words, the law was not broken because there wasn't a law to break that existed.

----------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM WHAT DONALD TRUMP DID IN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT DISTINCTLY THAT HE SIGNED A LAW SAYING THAT HE HAD TO DISTRIBUTE THE MONEY

In 2019, the appropriations committee passed this and made it a part of an appropriations bill which the president (Trump) signed as part of a budget regulation

That is the difference

And it's why Biden can use those funds in a discretionary way and have it be legal, and Trump can use them in a discretionary way and have it be illegal (not just because he's investigating a political rival, because he fucking signed the law that said that he had to do it).

---------------------------------------------------


The retort is "what about Obama" but the circumstances are different and as much as, and as simple as, it was not against the law for him to do that because the house and the senate didn't pass a law saying he had to do anything with money for Ukraine, that was part of an executive order which gives him that discretion. Donald Trump could have issued an executive order rather than sign off on that budget And it would suddenly be legal.

^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^ Don't misunderstand me. ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm not saying he's doing something illegal and jumping up and down and squealing and shitting myself like a housewife discovering daytime television.

I'm making an observation about how he doesn't care about what laws are passed or not in a more general way.

>>>>>>>>>>>>He just doesn't care about following the law.

Still, that's a separate issue from rooting out corruption overall versus bringing the entire weight of the federal government, not to mention the government in Ukraine, on Joe Biden.

Last I checked no executive order no bill no resolution said "Target Joe Biden specifically" And on the phone call released from Donald Trump in the White House there's only one name that's mentioned.

Thanks for the unblock link, that was brilliant.

People were foaming about the last joke without mentioning the sweatshop lead-in which was crucial context.

I'm going to add *controversy for that even though I think it overall was on point and amazing, and *dark because some of those jokes went there!

Perfect example why this country needs a lot more mental health clinics and just overall awareness.

I didn't straw man anything. His argument was that the animal is about to "go through hell" in "a few days".

My counter is that the animal is not going to go through hell (not abused) and will be living for more than a few days. I backed that assertion up with facts that I am familiar with for the subject matter. I didn't even mention other inaccuracies about the butchering process that really have nothing to do with the animal going "through hell" since it has been rendered unconscious before anything happens.

Does every fact in his description have to be 100% false for his overall analysis to be repudiated? Seems like a high bar for challenging an opinion.

1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.