ObjectivityIncarnate

Clickbait headline. Trump’s rant demanded that those reporters be tried for treason, is that not a bad enough thing to do, to make a compelling, and truthful, headline?

But no, because one of the possible outcomes of being convicted of treason is the death penalty, the headline says “demands death penalty”. Gee, I wonder why the headline doesn’t say “demands 5 years in prison”, another possible outcome of a treason conviction? Anyone want to take a guess?

Sensationalism is so pathetic.

Unironic major example of how “[size] dick energy” is a really stupid, and inherently body-shaming, expression in the first place.

The OP says “doesn’t work”, not ‘does work but not enough to satisfy an arbitrary threshold of “working for a living” so it doesn’t count’.

Nobody is saying owners do literally no labor

The OP literally says “doesn’t work”. Is “doesn’t work” not equivalent to “no labor”?

when the Trump Administration gives us our tariff refund

Who is expecting this to actually ever happen?

Nonsensical reply, but since you obviously don’t understand, I’ll explain:

“Temporarily embarrassed non-millionaire” is a complete straw man. No one being labeled that way actually has the mindset of ‘I expect to be that wealthy one day, so I’m going to oppose this in my own future self-interest’. People just like to pretend they do because it makes it easier to dismiss their opposition when you characterize it as nothing more than foolish selfishness.

It’s intellectually equivalent to people who think ‘reptilians’ are controlling everything in the government. Yeah, that “explains so much”, too, because you can attribute anything to that. No evidence it’s actually the case, though.

Additionally, when someone says, for example:

squeezing more taxes out of the ultra-wealthy isn’t going to make any difference until we change how wasteful the spending of tax dollars is, we already take in enough taxes to do everything we want, look, our average government spending per person on healthcare is the highest in the world, yet our coverage and outcomes are outdone by several other countries, no excuse for that

people like you and someguy3, in my experience, just respond with an accusation of bootlicking, because it’s the intellectually-cowardly, easy response, compared to actually addressing the argument.

Being deceived by the party into thinking a certain thing (tariffs) would have a different effect than it would actually have, in fact disqualifies the situation from LAMF.

Think about the ‘template’. There is zero ambiguity/deception about “eating faces”, the person voting for the “leopards eating faces party” expects face eating, and that is exactly what happens. What they don’t expect is for the eating to happen to them, too. And a major element of LAMF is that the assumption that the face-eating will happen to others and not them is something that the voter fabricates from whole cloth, all on their own. The “leopards eating faces party” doesn’t ever say or do a thing to imply they’re only targeting certain faces.

Firstly, rule #3, this isn’t a “high-quality source”. It’s a blog that’s apparently been caught pretending to be The Daily Wire on Reddit by posting under an account named “dailywiire” (example). The first link in the article, in the text “reporting total liabilities”, you’d expect to link to a primary source about the bankruptcy, but it just links to a completely unrelated other article on the same website.

Dug a bit more, and oh look, it’s completely ripped off of an article from last October from a completely different source.

Secondly, this isn’t even LAMF, as the primary thing negatively affecting him here is tariffs, and there’s no evidence he was ever in favor of them. In fact, the article implies the literal opposite:

In a 2020 BRAIN article, Lupton-Smith explained that EBC could not compete on price with Asian-made e-bikes, so he aimed to create customizable bikes with as much U.S.-made content as possible to reduce tariff exposure.

For LAMF, the party you voted for must actually do the thing you explicitly supported them promising to do, with the crux being that you incorrectly expected/assumed the thing to be done to others and not you. If, for example, you voted for Trump because of his promises to bring down prices of groceries, and then he wins and grocery prices instead go up, and you’re complaining about those prices going up, that’s not LAMF, at all.

Reductionist generalizations tend to, yes. That’s their allure.

Doesn’t make it accurate, though.

Maybe Kamala can end 6-7

It’s already over, lol, you’re showing your age, too.

oled people

It’s a good technology, but they’re not actually sentient, okay?

I see what you mean now; your wording was ambiguous, specifically “do”.

anyone impersonating gestapo would post anything worse than they already do

sounds like you’re saying ‘would post anything worse than they already post’.

You haven’t been on the Internet very long, huh?

they’re platforming and subsequently legitimising them.

You could make that argument about them being allowed to have an account at all, but simply marking that account in such a way that informs the userbase that it’s not a troll/parody account or something, but the actual organization?

That doesn’t “platform” them, they’re already on the platform at the time this happened. And confirming that something asserted to be true, is in fact true, is a good thing.

It’s basically giving uncle Sam a list of targets to hit next.

How, exactly? Even if you use your real name as your username (which no one does), unless it’s very uncommon, that still won’t uniquely identify you.

Source?

What an idiotic article, from the headline down.

Locally replacing some letters with some other letters is going to make Microsoft’s CEO cry? Really?

Also, I’ll not be using Chrome, lol.

For there to be squatters, the landlords had to have this property open and unrented for a while.

Huh? A squatter is most commonly simply a former renter who stops paying without moving out. The property is not vacant at any point.

Uh…

https://youtu.be/vpZf-svlXnQ

They’re each trying to put their own spin on it, there is no actual distinction in the words, just in the subtext/implication.

The former implies it’s a lacking of a necessary thing, the latter implies it’s the avoidance of an unnecessary burden. It’s completely subjective whether a child is one or the other to someone.

It’s a broadcast of one’s own biases to consider either of these terms more ‘valid’ than the other.