ALoafOfBread

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I guess all public statements would essentially be "under oath" and would be held to that standard. So the questions would be 1) which statements are public and 2) what constitutes a lie.

It can be proven that someone has lied - for instance, if they have said something on the record previously that indicates they had foreknowledge that what they said was false. It'd be a large administrative burden, so I imagine that only consequential lies would be prosecuted. But the law would also be ripe for abuse - an opposing political faction could scrutinize everything a public official says, sue them for everything that wasn't true, and tie them up with court appearances and fees for a long time.

Anyway, it'd be very difficult to consistently enforce this law and prevent it from being abused.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 91 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

Biden is only like 18mos older than Trump. They're essentially equally old. Like a 2% difference in their ages.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Imo the price of those was justified solely by fraud. I.e. they lied about picture quality being better, etc. I also don't know that demand for those was all that high and am even more skeptical that it'd be driven by price.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That typically only works for luxury goods, but yes. A good that inverts the effect of price on demand is called a Veblen Good.

But that strategy probably wouldn't work for something like rice or shampoo or socks or drywall putty unless people start using those as status symbols.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Not illegal anymore bucko

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have a couple of relatives who lived in the USSR and they were also very happy with their lives there. They liked that they had all their needs met by virtue of being a citizen, they had a good standard of living no matter what kind of job they did, they got tons of vacation time and the government would pay for them to go on vacation.

I think they believed in the socialist project more broadly, but they weren't as ideological as this woman seems to be. I think they were socialists because of what socialism could do for them rather than champions of the revolutionary cause or whatever. That's part of the beauty of a post revolutionary, functional state: people have the luxury of not caring about politics so much if they don't want to.

Also, idk if it's just the editing, but grandaughter is disrespectful as hell and needs to be hit with a sandal

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You want to check my shape, let’s do push-ups together. Let’s run. Let’s do whatever you want to do. You may call me old, but I'm just old school. I'm cool. I'm ice cold. I've got Baja Blast flowing in my veins. Pop pop's jacked up on the Dew and will take you out behind the woodshed. That's how they did it in my day and that's a fact, Jack.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Or because it's stupid political theater giving Trump's base an out when he inevitably says some dumb bullshit during the debate and loses. He obviously never expected that ridiculous request to be granted. The act of playing along is an act of weakness, so it's never going to happen.

Also they're both going to be on drugs. All presidents are given various drugs. Some to keep them alive, some to help them concentrate. It's no big deal, it's a demanding job.

Edit: forgot Obama actually did show his birth cert. Shouldn't have played along though

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 49 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Is he a frail, senile, old man? Or does pop pop crave the BLAST of tropical energy from an ice-cold MOUNTAIN DEW BAJA BLAST!?!? Which is it, repubs?

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it isn't going to be that effective a phrase. People don't understand why having lots of money (hoarding wealth) is a bad thing, necessarily, and it sort of implies that, if they were to just spend it it'd make the initial hoarding fine.

Gotta also focus on the fact that they essentially stole that money from workers through labor exploitation. The bare fact that they got the money to begin with is the problem, not just them holding onto it. If they were to spend it all on horrible capitalist enterprises rather than hoarding it, that'd be even worse. Even if they spent it all on "philanthropic" efforts, that's still worse than the workers having their fair share and the government being able to actually have that money to spend on social programs through taxes.

view more: ‹ prev next ›