That’s true but it’s also true that Biden being old and passed it would’ve been made clear to those voters through targeting advertising anyway.

The same targeted advertising should be weaponed to communicate how dangerous trump is for the economy (tarrifs make cash machine stop burr), democracy (obviously), healthcare, middle income taxes and the broader high quality of life Americans enjoy.

Why blur the profile picture but show the selfie? Isn’t that a bit pointless?

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Weird how tankies and anti-semites use the same tricks to push their agenda.

Google forced labour in China yourself, it isn’t my responsibility to provide resources to those choosing wilful ignorance or living under a rock when there’s masses of well documented human rights violations and masses of evidence documenting appallingly negligent mining and manufacturing practices.

Yeah when you use literal slaves instead of union labour, costs are down. I’m not willing to trade my humanity to save a few dollars and a debatable improvement to the climate disaster (I doubt the manufacture and extraction practices in China are anything approaching clean).

IMO this is a rare case of Washington doing the right thing.

Edit For the benefit of anyone at risk of being fooled by authoritarian propaganda, there is a plethora of evidence of slave labour used throughout the Chinese economy, from uyghur muslims to foxcons indentured workers. It’s prevelent through the supply chain for many, many industries, and that alone warrants discentives on imports until such time as these practices end.

To suggest that individual businesses, who are built within this system, may be somehow operating outside of it is clearly absurd, however it’s simply not possible for a layman to unpack and debate the supply chains and business practices hidden behind the bamboo curtain.

The discourse below is an example of how bad faith arguments can create doubt, by employing strawman arguments and ignoring actual points raised to create the appearance of being reasonable by hiding behind “citation needed” type arguments. If you read through it, you’ll see that the propagandist doesn’t once engage in anything I’ve actually said - this is intentional, they do not want to be in a position where any claim they make can be contested, nor do they actually want to directly contest any claim I’ve made. Rather they only want to sow doubt in what I’m saying, which takes considerably more effort to discredit than any actual claim.

They are literally fighting for the extermination of the Jewish state and aim to eradicate the Jewish population from the region.

The Islamic colonial powers have a long history of persecuting the Jewish population in the region which was (and should Hamas be successful, again will be) every bit as despicable as what Israel are doing to the Palestinians now.

In this conflict, the only possible justice is for both sides to lose and a two state solution be implemented.

This is a dumb comment, to millions even being allowed in school is a privilege. source

Rock n roll train by AC/DC

Poland is one of the largest militaries in NATO and have a special hatred of Russia. I imagine alongside the UK and France, Russia has nukes aimed at Poland already.

They are plenty threatening already, though obviously adding nukes, even if American controlled, exacerbates things.

The “speculative investors removing housing stock to drive up costs” folks tend to be corporately owned and industry coordinated properties that deliberately keep units open above the clearing rate, in hopes of driving up the prevailing cost of new housing.

This is dependant on the market (the post didn’t say where they are), but I understand is true in the US.

In Australia, the speculation is driven by individuals who get incredible tax incentives if their income is above a certain level. Because of this, the housing market is distorted to the point where housing values are detached from rent potential, with all the value being driven by capital gains and tax offsets. This further leads to a situation where it’s often more economically viable to leave a house empty (and therefore not have to maintain the property or deal with tenants) while the value grows and the tax is written down.

Dude he’s losing money year on year and capital gains carry it through to make it profitable longer term. The problems isn’t “landlords make a profit”, the problem is “speculative investors are removing housing stock driving up costs”.

Through that lense this guy is no saint.

Because he has unrealized capital gains - in yearly income/expenditure their losing money but big picture, when they sell, they profit.

In Australia, rental returns are paltry (less than 2%) compared to any other investment, but steep tax concessions on and insane capital growth (often higher than 6% annually) incentivises speculative investment in real estate… This is what’s driving up the cost of housing to the cartoonist levels they currently are in. It’s not unusual for these speculators to not even bother with tenants, because like op suggests they often lose money maintaining the property, it’s cheaper to speculate and maybe renovate immediately before selling.

The problem has nothing to do with landlords and everything to do with speculators going for capital gains. Greedy landlords can be a problem where there are no rentals protections, but that can easily be resolved with regulation.

What do you think “math” is?

And I think it’s nearly universally acknowledged that ceding to the government the power to decide how its individual citizens should live their lives is a terrible idea. If we were talking about almost anything else, there would be an uproar.

Marijuana among many other drugs are illegal in New Zealand with no uproar. How is that different than cigarettes?

If you’re saying it’s tyranny to prevent people from taking actions, that the majority feel shouldn’t be allowed, that drive up healthcare costs then that’s one thing. However if your position on this is based on a liberal ideal of people being allowed to do what they want, then it should surely equally apply to the taxpayers (particularly if they are majority voters) who don’t want to pay for the decisions of others. Either way that is government intervention restricting individuals freedom.

I think it’s not right to say “the governments money” as if an administrative body that is beholden to the voters has true autonomy over how it’s spent - that is the populations money and should be their choice on how it’s spent. One can argue it’s immoral to refuse migrants access to the country and healthcare but that isn’t accepted as justification for open borders. I also don’t understand, assuming cigarettes are some special case different than immigration where morality should trump democracy, why it’s more valid to say this taxpayer control over how their money is spent should be restricted based on your moral judgement compared to someone else’s moral judgement who’s claim is cigarettes are immoral (for whatever their chosen reason).

The claim of smokers dying younger and therefore costing less is something I didn’t consider and is an interesting point (that very well could prove true). But even if you discredit the taxpayer funded health argument, there’s moral arguments around selling addictive substances, human pain caused by premature death and sickness etc. that could just as readily be made as any argument based around individual freedoms. Why should your claims on what’s moral have precedence over someone else’s?

Most new zealnders don’t smoke, if most new zealanders don’t want to fund smoking how is that different than any other drug being illegal? Would you describe illegal cannibas or prescription only medications as tyranny of the majority?

There are checks and balances in place to prevent actual human rights abuses. You still haven’t answered why tax paying new zealanders should be forced to pay health costs for smokers when the majority don’t support it. If banning smoking is tyranny of the majority, forcing taxpayers to fund smokers against their will is surely tyranny of the minority.

It’s a democracy, the people have the right to value different things differently if they choose. The previous administration ran for office with the cigarette restrictions as part of their policy package and people voted for that. They didn’t vote for alcohol or fast food or whatever else your claiming is the same, if people wanted to ban other things they have the right to vote accordingly.

New Zealand has publically funded health care. If the government can force me to pay for your medical treatment (via tax), why is it a stretch for them to prevent you from running up those costs by engaging in self destructive drug use?

In any democracy, the voting public should choose how tax money is spent. If the majority don’t want to pay to manage smoking related illness, or pay to enforce a two tiered medical system, a democratic system would restrict or ban smoking.

Nothing screams safe like a solid unibody chassis with no crumple zones, a high center of gravity, terrible visibility and an ride height that forces pedestrians under the wheels in an impact. safe

Yeah I guess I instinctively defaulted to terrorism because, like you say, “terrorist movement” is a kind of nonsense combination of words