I mean, the VP does still have to win elections to get there, it's not really undemocratic in that regard, there's no garuntee. And it probably gives more relevant experience to the position than just about any other job

By selling pet insurance, I suppose? Though I guess that requires that the puppies be owned by someone fortunate enough to afford it.

It sort of counters itself to some extent for me, in that I can use my aversion to spending much unnecessarily to force myself into doing things, or avoid overindulging in things that my poor self control might otherwise make an issue, it just creates more stress than if I would just function in a more healthy manner.

On the contrary, its been one of the bigger issues in my life, I just have such anxiety over spending money on one use things like food that I cant stomach buying frozen pizza

honestly, frozen is pretty unnecessary for easy pizza though, the hard part of pizza is making the crust, so if you want personal pizzas, get a cheap pack of pocketless pita breads to add sauce and cheese and whatever else to, and then its basically the same as making a piece of toast with a bunch of toppings. takes about the same time to cook up as a frozen one and probably will end up being cheaper. Make it in a pan with a little oil and the crust will probably turn out nicer than frozen pizza, even.

Tbh I have to imagine paarthy has a hard time getting snacks. He lives on an inhospitable mountain, can't just go down somewhere else without causing a panic among everyone who sees him and risking hostility, and it's not like the greybeards can bring him much consider they just get what supplies people bring them, which are probably intended to feed a few human monks and not also a huge dragon on top of that.

Instead of draining it, they could build the dam between Finland and Estonia, to force them to sail the long way around Scandinavia to reach it.

I thought the "getting killed by doctors infecting a bullet wound with bad practices" thing was Garfield?

Isn't it kind of the nature of the left to bicker with itself though? At some level, conservatism seeks to preserve an existing system, or at the extreme end, bring back a system recently removed. There's some room for infighting between the most and least extreme there, but for the most part, it's a goal that is easy to unite for. But the left, at it's most basic level, seeks to change things. And changing things is not a goal that inspires unity quite so well, because to change things, one needs an idea of what things should be changed to, and what you think things should be may not be what someone else thinks things should be, even if you both want change. If it so happens that what someone else wants to achieve is in your view even worse than the status quo, then you can't afford to unite with that person, because there is the risk that your efforts will further a goal you find even less tolerable than what you get by doing nothing, even though what you both want is change.

saying we are too divided while casting blame is entirely self consistent, if one's actual implied position is "we think everything bad is your side's fault, we want it to stop existing, and then there wouldnt be a division anymore".

The reporting I've seen was that someone in the crowd was killed by this, just not Trump himself, that implies that whatever was fired at least was deadly.

No, but he also does not look suicidal enough to have someone shoot live ammunition right next to his head and trust they make the shot perfectly.

I dunno, there is some minor utility in that you can gauge how major an event is, or at least is perceived to be, by how many posts are made about it shortly after happening and how long they continue to appear or persist.

this reads like conspiratorial thinking tbh. Its easy to grab at the idea that this is somehow Trump's doing, but things like this do sometimes happen

I highly doubt that, staging something like this would be an insanely dangerous move, a slight miss from the shooter in such a scenario would be lethal, and given other people at the event seem to have been killed, it seems clear that lethal rounds were used. Trump may be a fan of ridiculous stunts, but he's also pretty self interested; I do not think he would risk his own life for such a stunt.

I understand the impulse to not want someone one agrees with politically to have done something like try a political assassination, and then immediately leap to the idea that the notion that the event might help the intended victim's political chances is just a bit too convenient and therefore must mean they orchestrated it, but it must be remembered that, whatever views one has, or groups one is in, or identities one holds, as long as they are not so obscure as to be shared by only a handful of people, it is statistically likely that there will be people who are on your team or side of group who are willing to do something like this given the chance, just by virtue of such people making up a fraction of the population.

Trump is hated by a lot of people, myself included and a large fraction of the people likely to be reading this too I'm sure. It is not at all unrealistic to imagine that someone hates him enough to try to kill him.

Here's the thing: Trump's politics do not stop with Trump. Killing him does not kill the fascistic movement he's contributed greatly to, it has a life of it's own, and even had he died today, whoever replaces him would still be peddling the same kinds of things, except they'd now have a martyr to rally Trump's old fanbase around, one that, by virtue of being killed, many people are going to feel reluctant to criticize. As such, I feel that this attack, assuming it was politically motivated (and I figure the odds that someone shoots at Trump for reasons unrelated to his political agenda are quite slim, so it's probably a safe assumption) was a mistake- I fear that it will have helped Trump's agenda more than hurt it, and would have done so even if it was successful in killing him.

Now, Im not saying this to be one of those "violence is never the answer" types, I do recognize that there are situations where the only hope one has to survive an openly hostile political force is overwhelming violence; but it must be recognized that such an effort is extremely risky, it has significant drawbacks even if successful (such as setting a precedent legitimizing political violence, which anyone else may use, or causing collateral damage), and carries a significant risk that when the shooting stops, you'll be on the losing end. As such, it really should be a last resort, and seeing as Trump isn't even president yet, hasn't even been voted in, and doesn't yet have a legislature stacked up to ensure he can actually carry out his agenda, we're not yet at the point where it is the only option left to stop him. Employing it now makes it more likely that we reach that point.

This has the interesting implication that the mirror "sees" what shows up in its reflective surface and not outwards like the "eyes" would seem to indicate

tbf, if I ran an intel agency, after all these incidents, Id probably have someone "leak" fake classified docs on the warthunder forums or other similar places once in a blue moon, to spread misleading information to rival agencies as to the capabilities of my nation's equipment. Both to blend in with a place idiots are known to actually post such info, and if its found out my agency was doing this, to cast doubt on the validity of any real docs from my side that were leaked before. Doesnt seem like itd cost much of anything to do, so there would have to be only minimal benefit to be marginally worth it

I bet he doesnt want the tax rates from back then though...

Vore.