𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 0 Posts
  • 607 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • It’s how elections aren’t supposed to work, but it is how they work in the US. If you don’t vote in favour of one candidate, it works out to a half-vote for the other candidate. It’s the inevitable reality of a two-party system, which sucks ass, but it’s still there and voters are still responsible for how they choose to deal with it.

    Not voting for Harris means realising a Trump victory. It’s just how it works in the US, and no amount of principled ideas can ignore the mathematical reality of the US electoral system.

    Also, I don’t buy into the idea that voters are powerless sheeple. Organize, protest, strike, options a’ plenty. But Americans are apathetic and don’t care enough to realise actual change. And it’s clearly possible, given the track record of several leading human rights activists in the US. But it is hard, and people don’t even bother trying something if it looks hard.





  • also giving infants 70 shots is insane

    Yoi’re right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

    Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don’t make money off of healthy people.

    This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn’t cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

    Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

    Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

    Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you’ve essentially monopolised a disease.

    This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we’ve found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

    RFK is right

    He’s wrong.



  • I haven’t found a story that doesn’t use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn’t responded.

    So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom’s side of the ordeal.

    Virality and outrage don’t make a story more accurate.

    We don’t know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don’t know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem “off” in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?

    Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?

    I’ll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child’s safety.




  • Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it’s much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

    Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.