You went to a lot of effort here to present that very clearly, and I salute you. I’d like to think others here are just blinded by their own ideals, and that’s why nobody is answering, not because they were just arguing for a side they didn’t believe in and don’t have response to that.

The CEO of Merck should have to explain that to the victims in person. They should really get in there, offer a supportive hug if it feels right.

That’s because he’s a patsy. The judges he put through have done enough and will do more

I ate your onion and was about to quibble about the New Hampshire accent.

Riker being deaf

Oh my god. I thought George Lucas had lost a lot of weight and it was a shitpost

Yes, because people don’t want to do that unless there’s a corrupt reason for it, like with Taft and Jackson. It would be way too much to ask of a non corrupt person.

How can he deny the holocaust while calling himself a black nazi?

That’s why the hatter was mad

…but you think Andrew Jackson and Taft were doing what was best for the country?

My point is that it’s too much to ask of her to be president for eight years and then continue nobly serving her country.

The people who still want to be in politics after that aren’t doing it for good reasons.

Did you read anything past that? I agree that it’s bullshit to say that the poverty levels are basically the same and I don’t know why on earth they’re using statistics that don’t reflect the vast difference in average wealth between the 70s and now.

They don’t consider that a reason to feel better about though, rather something to be ashamed about. They go on to talk about how the root of the problem is our economic system, compounded by our awful policy choices.

I don’t know about Quincy adams, but the other two do not represent what I want more of in American politics

Because of the placebo effect, all you really need for anything that’s not outright poison to have a positive effect on average is a convincing enough practitioner. Ideally people have narrow criteria for judging that, but it’s just so ripe for exploitation, every scammer can try a different tack, and some are bound to slip through.

IMO, the solution is a system of tight regulations on the definition of medical advice and the qualifications required to dispense it. I can also see that this one specifically would be hard to legislatively prevent without training and licensing yoga teachers, for example.

They began testing a vaccine for smoking based cancer a few months ago. Emphysema and COPD are still things to worry about, but cancer might not be for long.

It’s surprising that you intended to agree with the original commenter whom you replied to, but sometimes it do be like that.

Innocent and guilty have formal legal definitions and informal, everyday ones. OJ Simpson was found innocent of murder, but I think it’s probably pretty likely that he did it with intent. Those can both be true.

I’m infinitely disappointed that the response was not: only if you’re going to lie during the interview

In their comment history, I see discussing exercise, talking about their (positive) social interaction with their community, and arguing (politely) about niche leftist issues. You may not like it, but this is the ideal lemmy lifestyle. Yours is a bunch of catty speculation at other people needing help because they disagree with you.

Libel, like library

You hear that, campaigns for abused children?