They’re also saying it’s a limited-stock item with only 150 ever made. Sure, buddy.
Sell 150 each of 100 very slightly different designs, claim they’re all limited edition.
(Or, this being Trump, just outright lie and call it political interference when someone points it out)
Couldn’t find it
Is there any country that doesn’t suck?
AES?
Edit: Found it, “Actually existing socialism”
A grad is being sent to your location
I’m not sure how you plan to do that in a way that can’t be defeated by an angle grinder.
Trump needs lead water pipes to get votes.
Azula-coded
The classic “Buy a reputable brand, cut costs and coast along on the reputation until you can sell off all your shares and move on to another company”. Bonus points for using legalised embezzlement share buyback.
Nah he’ll declare that the United States has become a fascist dictatorship and probably spout some lies about election rigging.
People talk a lot about the genericisation of brand names, but the branding of generic terms like this really annoys me.
I’ll use the example I first noticed. A few years ago, the Conservative government was under criticism for the minimum wage being well under a living wage. In response, they brought in the National Living Wage, which was an increase to the minimum wage, but still under the actual living wage. However, because of the branding, it makes criticising it for not meeting the actual living wage more difficult, as you have to explain the difference between the two, and as the saying goes, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.
They’re against anyone else indoctrinating children.
I only ever read one, and all I remember of that was some kids being chased into a church by some demons, who then burn it down to get to them. The kids are put on trial for “forcing” the demons to burn the church, and they have to convince their lawyer not to throw the case because he’ll be executed if he wins.
The cynical “Don’t idolize your politicians” line doesn’t teach people to read the tea leaves and pick better leadership. It just teaches them to throw up your hands and assume everyone is the same.
Saying all politicians are the same just rewards the worst politicians because it means they face no electoral penalty for their failings, and the better ones gain no electoral advantage from not stooping to those lows.
Does STAR have the problem of score voting that not giving every candidate either the maximum or minimum score (effectively approval voting) is effectively throwing half your vote away?
(also it looks like there’s a glitch because your comment appeared four times)
They’re both problems.
I cannot comprehend how this guy is favoured 52-48 to win.