I think it’s coming regardless. The losing party of the next presidential election will probably be the one to rise up, regardless of which party it is. Honestly, if Trump wins, I can see the left revolting, and if Trump loses, I can see the hard right revolting. I think it’s a lose/lose situation.
I’m concerned about the amount of people in this post that aren’t just saying that None is the correct answer, but are instead trying to come up with a race to pick.
Honestly, I think that if Trump is in the General Election as a candidate, it could be civil war regardless of who wins. The hard right loves him, and would revolt if he lost, with cries of election stealing, and the hard left would lose their shit that they had to deal with him for another 4 years if he won. I’m hoping he gets disqualified, though I could see even that ending badly. At this point, I’m thinking a cabin in the woods is the best bet.
Wait, are we doing dicks out for Harambe again?Last time I did it, I was told I wasn’t allowed at the Zoo anymore.
In some places it has been raised to match alcohol. NY is an example of that: https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/tobacco_control/current_policies.htm#:~:text=Article 13-F Section 1399-CC of the NYS Public,under the age of 21.
Honestly, that’s the only reason I have Max, because it’s “free” with my cell plan. If I was paying for it, I would have cancelled it a long time ago. I almost never use it
I have no idea why you’re getting downvotes on this. You’re relating your personal experience, and it’s clearly not an anti-vax type answer. Here’s an upvote to help offset that.
I’ve been saying for years that universal healthcare won’t solve the issue, unless we can get costs under control. If they can regulate medical related industries, such as pharma, the need for universal healthcare can be reduced or eliminated. As an added bonus, it would help keep the cost (ie. taxes) for universal healthcare a lot lower. This is pretty common for pharma companies to make insane profits like this, and it’s extremely unethical.
I’d probably get fired from a company that has that, lol. I’d do random things just to throw it off, odd body movements, etc.
I’ve discovered this at my current job. I worked tons of unpaid overtime (I’m salary), did everything I could get my hands on, I was getting compliments from upper management, my reviews were stellar, etc, etc, and my raise was 3%. My rent went up more than my paycheck did. After that, I started doing only the bare minimum. Some days I even play some Xbox in the afternoon to kill time. My latest review was excellent, and I got a 5% raise. They can go fuck themselves. I’m not going to work any harder for this company than I absolutely need to. Working less got me a bigger raise.
So I’m curious, and this is a legitimate concern of mine, but what happens when corporations (and the local mom and pop) raise prices, because you can now afford to pay them more? Should there be a limit enforced by the government to have a freeze on the price of goods? Wouldn’t it be equally effective to skip the UBI and just do the freeze?
In line with the freeze on the price of goods, wouldn’t it be beneficial for the government to demand lower medical costs as well, since the exact same medical and pharmacy companies are selling their stuff in other countries for cheaper than in the US?
Along with companies raising prices of items. As a non Canadian, I’ll be curious to watch this play out.
The biggest question for me, is who determines what’s misinformation? Honestly, it’s determined by someone with a bias as to what is real information, and what is false. What if it was the Republicans in the US making that decision? It would completely change what’s considered misinformation. This is where the dangers of censoring misinformation come in. It’s all about who is making the decisions. Sure, you may agree with the people making the decisions now, but what about in 5, 10 years?
I’m glad that someone is fighting misinformation. What scares me, is if the right wing in the US starts trying to do the same thing. Can you imagine them cracking down on Facebook, X, etc for misinformation like the EU is doing? It would only be Biden conspiracies and pro Trump propaganda allowed. Good thing we aren’t giving our government that power.
I still see Trumps face everywhere, though primarily on left wing media. Oddly enough, I see it there more than I do on right wing media. (Gotta see what both sides are saying, the truth is in the middle somewhere)
Not just the ones they don’t like. They’re corrupt and lazy. They don’t go after any more than they have to.
It’s time to clean house. Get all of the corrupt congresspersons out, Republican and Democrat. We need to start over from scratch at this point I think.
I haven’t seen that, but then again, I tend to not follow or friend people on Facebook who are white supremacists.
Scientists can have their own agenda. They’re still people. Or they can just be bad scientists. Or they can just be churning out papers as fast as possible to increase their prestige.
It’s interesting to me, that if you had said this exact phrase in relation to climate change research, or any other politically divisive science, you would have been down voted to oblivion, but when talking about this, you got up voted. What you’ve written here is true regardless of the subject matter, but when it comes to agendas, it’s even more true in politically divisive science.
I’m extremely torn about this. First of all, I’ve been saying for a long time, that the biggest problem with the American health system is the costs of everything, and not the lack of insurance. Bring the costs down, and insurance is either not needed, or should be able to be procured much more cheaply, so this move will help with that, which is a good thing.
Second, patents are in place for a reason. If you invent something, you have the right to sell it, at least for a period of time, without it being ripped off by someone else. Patents are used all the time, all around the world, and are typically protected. This is a form of theft, and I think a possible slippery slope, as it sets a precedent going forward. And yes, I’m aware that they are doing this with drugs funded by the taxpayers. If they want to do this, it should be a stipulation when the company gets the government funding, and not done after the fact.