“by mistake” … “by design”

He knows he was lying then. And now.

What a shit article. If you want to blame corrupt South African leaders, you need to actually do that. But targeting the country as a whole is classic bullshit victim blaming.

Because the racist listeners are focused on the racism, not on the “leaders aren’t responsible for anything” part.

Well, he’s sure lowering the value of Tesla, so maybe you’re right.

War? Remember that we’re talking about nuclear war. That is possible of course, but many people with brains would try to stop Trump from starting it. Would they succeed? Who knows.

If troops do illegal shit, the U.S. judicial system is one of several places they could possibly be held accountable.

It doesn’t. He is lying and he knows it. I won’t attempt to recreate his spin, because it doesn’t make any sense.

No. War isn’t inevitable. People have nukes and definitely will use them if needed. In other words, a cold war might occur, but maybe not regular war at least not in North America.

There is not a fine balance.

Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not do a legal and lawful job of getting a conviction, so right now she’s innocent. In other words, if you’re trying to do reasoning based on “what if she’s a murderer”, then we already have that answer sitting in front of us.

That’s the basic premise of the legal system. Now, if you are some omniscient being, then you might be able to do other types of reasoning. But we aren’t, and we never will be, so we can’t.

In other words, there is no fine balance. The prosecution decided their case wasn’t good enough to be presented fairly, and they somehow got away with their evil actions for the past 27 years.

There is not a fine balance.

Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution did not do a legal and lawful job of getting a conviction, so right now she’s innocent. In other words, if you’re trying to do reasoning based on “what if she’s a murderer”, then we already have that answer sitting in front of us.

That’s the basic premise of the legal system. Now, if you are some omniscient being, then you might be able to do other types of reasoning. But we aren’t, and we never will be, so we can’t.

In other words, there is no fine balance. The prosecution decided their case wasn’t good enough to be presented fairly, and they somehow got away with their evil actions for the past 27 years.

If the evidence was so good, why did the prosecution fabricate a witness? … Your explanation glosses over this key fact.

And also, people can protect themselves and later make crazy decisions. That is definitely possible. Likely, even, if they are on hard drugs. So the shocking evidence, well, it isn’t so easy to interpret. Which is why a jury has to deal with it, not that Trump judge, and not you and me.

The cops let it happen, though.

How is that relevant? The definition doesn’t fit the situation. If you want to propose a new definition, feel free.

If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.

The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.

It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.

And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.

If we’re talking about medicine, then you don’t get to pick and choose between actual effective medicine and your homeopathic snake oil. The stuff that you’re talking about, it just doesn’t work, and those vaccines that we’ve had for decades and longer, depending on the disease, they actually do work.

But if you want to buy some incense and soft lighting because it makes you feel better, maybe because it’s a placebo effect, then you can certainly do that. It’s your money and if you choose to spend it on snake oil then that’s your business. And if your justification is that maybe it might work even though there’s no solid evidence, that sounds a lot like Pascal’s Wager, but still, it’s your money to spend.

Just be careful that you are aware of the difference between the two.

It is funny how he is playing himself. Companies that export to the U.S. are obviously trying to establish and stabilize other markets, because that’s basic economic stability. As they continue to do so, his tariffs continue to lose power.

Also, companies lie about jobs constantly. Many are officially always hiring but in fact don’t process applications. Or they are low-ball pay positions, so of course nobody wants to apply at all.

The stats they referenced don’t reflect that, of course, but the article authors should have mentioned it, to be ethical. We don’t know the actual number of jobs available, except that it is definitely under what the listed numbers.

Be careful with your reasoning, my friend. Just because they want it doesn’t mean they would survive it.

Right. And people will die because of it. That’s the problem, my friend.

If you live in a small town, your meds might come by mail. Your pension check too. That kind of mission critical thing. And that absentee ballot? Yeah, no, that’s not gonna arrive on time.

Of course one could build alternative services. But in the meantime, at least, it will ruin a lot of things that are working properly right now. That is the point. That is the objective.