deleted by creator

deleted by creator

There’s difference between pride in ones nationality, and defending an explicitly anti lgtbq and pro Imperialist fascist government

Supporting the heavily anti LGBTQ imperialist state of Russia is not liberal.

Anyone who supports Russia is explicitly anti LGBTQ. You cannot be pro LGBTQ whilst supporting and defending a fascist government that treads on LGBTQ rights.

Neither is it liberal to claim that supporting the existence of Jews, whilst explicitly denouncing the genocide state of israel is a “zionist stance”, which geneve_convenience, the mod mentioned in this post literally verbatim did, and then banned someone over.

Super liberal, basically stating that Jews as a people, regardless of any individuals opinion, don’t deserve to exist, just because many of them are zionist. By that logic members of every major religion, as well as every single cis white male don’t deserve the right to exist as a people.

They’re literally defending imperialist nations that tread human, and particularly LGBTQ+ rights with their feet.

Anyone who is pro Russia is anti LGBTQ+ and pro Imperialism.

It’s not a euphism, it developed in the English language because the aristocracy, which could actually afford meat and ate it regularly, spoke french, therfore using french terms for the meat e.g. Porcine -> pork or Bœuf -> beef ) wheras the farmers who actually raised and dealt with the animals, but rarely if ever could actually afford to eat them, used anglo saxon to refer to them, hence this dichotomy in names for meat vs. animal in English.

It has nothing to do with being a euphism. It’s also evident that the cheapest meat, and pretty much the only one that even peasants could somewhat regularly afford, chicken, did not undergo this split.

Literally just going by what you said. Verbatim.

I also notice that you took time to reply to this comment, but completely ignored the other one where I substantively refute your point. Very intellectually mature and honest of you.

Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.

But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?

So you’re saying my comment is a worse take than literally everything MAGAt and Trump have done and said over the past years ? Really ?

Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.

If it’s so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they’re elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?

No, it’s not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn’t be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they’re not already working to fix those issues.

What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven’t moved a fucking mm.

And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it’s effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn’t easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.

So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can’t start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?

And wouldn’t this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.

In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.

So then why isn’t EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?

So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?

A) who says I’m lying

B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises

If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.

It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.

So where’s the line ?

I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.

Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.

You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.

Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people’s healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to “vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like”.

You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.

Very insightful

That’s just objectively wrong, WA become popular long before Meta bought it, and once it was popular, people kept using it simply because everyone else also uses it.

And the reason it became popular is because SMS were relatively expensive in most of the world outside the US, wheras internet messengers require only a tiny amount of data per message, meaning even when mobile internet plans were expensive, the cost per message for an internet messengers usually still worked out to way cheaper than an SMS. Also, for a lot of people not having any mobile internet wasn’t much of an option, so if you have to pay for mobile internet anyway whether you use an internet messenger or not, then internet messaging is completely free for all intents and purposes, since you’re paying for the plan anyway, and the messaging won’t use up a noticeable amount of your data (as long as you don’t send/receive lots of media), so why would people pay for costly SMS ? And WA simply was (one of) the first mobile internet messaging apps with good features that worked well. And as soon as it started taking off, network effect made it become exponentially more popular in those countries.

If nothing else you can be damn fucking sure they won’t even attempt to fulfil wishes that constitute straight up crimes (such as exposing yourself to a minor).

As for everything else, they probably don’t have any super specific rules beyond that, what tthey likely have some kind of genericly vague, vibes based, catch all term that “wishes have to be in good faith and good taste”