Perfect, anyone who is incapable of understanding this concept, please do block me. That will save me the trouble of having to explain to people who’s minds are made up and don’t want to rethink their opinion in light of new information.
So, since you only see what you want to, let me spell it out. They already have various categories of rape. Like aggravated rape and such. These are like rape+. I am saying a more descriptive term like that should be used to highlight the heinousness of the crime. But you refuse to see that. You just want to be righteous so bad you will make up something to be righteous about.
Yeah, but we know some judges and jury’s would accept this excuse. So using a more descriptive term would better represent the crime to those who might otherwise consider it less serious than it should be.
One is rape, and the other is like rape+. But the plus is getting lost without a more descriptive term.
So the guy is also accused of not stopping when she said stop. That is also rape. Do you not see a problem with calling them both rape? Which sounds worse, 2 counts of rape. Or 1 count of rape and one count of <something more descriptive>. To me the second one conveys that he has a pattern of disregard for women beyond just one situation. I also think the condom thing shows intentional deception, where as he could claim he was too far into it to stop when she told him to. Combined as seperate things, they are more incriminating.
You loaded a lot of BS into my words that wasn’t there just to feel superior. Be a better person.
Then don’t be. Rape is too overloaded. Find a more descriptive term.
This headline is BS. Trump doesn’t think that far forward. End of the day tops.
Ah, but it is your fault that you don’t. The definition of direct democracy is not what you say it is. You have repeatedly made false claims. Where as I have not.
You put added words that I didn’t say. Nice try. The specifics you picked out tell me you already know the answer. Good job googling. Clearly you also know your are wrong, so now you are trying to change the statement to fit your interpretation of what I said. Fancy.
Hm, you should maybe google that before you say it.
Also, I would like to see a workable plan for increasing what we vite for without going full direct. But it’s really hard to remove the influence advertising can have on such thing.
When people say democracy, they usually mean direct democracy. That ain’t what we got. We have a representative democracy, often called a republic. And even at that, the party establishment control who we can even vote for. So we only get to choose from the representatives they give us for the most part. So what we have is the illusion of choice.
You of course know that america isn’t really a democracy. It’s a republic by design. And of course what it is in reality is a whole nuther something.
They don’t write the laws. They don’t even read them. They have even admitted to this. Some lobbyists writes the laws, and they vote based on how much miney they got from that lobby, and what the polling numbers say people “think” of the law. They don’t need information from the Pentagon for any of that. Besides, the mandatory reports are the result of an existing law. So it is more about compliance than about making new laws.
So this is odd. You felt the need to nitpick what I said, showing a detail orientation skew. But your response shows you didn’t read the details of what I said, showing a lack of detail orientation. So what gives, are you detail oriented or not? What drove you to make that comment?
Seriously, I can’t think of a better use for AI. Fuck the stupid politicians who will say and do anything to get elected.
If they are reports to congres mandated by law, they are probably public information. They don’t mandate the ones that have the good stuff.
Excellent attempt at a mic drop. You wouldn’t want to go and admit that you completely misread what I have been saying all along. That would just be horrible.