Just go on a trip every birthday. It works for me.

Slow down, my friend. First, recognize that women have and do vote Republican, too. As their friends or other women in their communities have to deal with horrible situations that are even vaguely similar to these, you can imagine how quickly their views are going to shift.

Actually, you don’t even have to imagine it. You can just look at some of the data we’ve seen from early voting around the country. It turns out that when you have laws that f*** over women in obvious and horrible ways, a lot of women react negatively to it. A fair amount of men, too.

The employees are more important than the boss. So yeah, I do count those jobs and feel it means something significant. Also, what does “logical” even mean to you? If the boss cut his own pay, he could have kept the employees. That’s just as logical, isn’t it? So you’re not talking about logic, are you.

If you want to talk about values, let’s do it. Please explain why multi millionaires (and richer) matter more than everyone else. Please.

Even if everything you wrote is true, none of it applies to the United States because we have the electoral college. Sorry, but it’s not Europe, and we have our own weird system.

First, don’t panic. Harris and her staff, and Democrats around the country, they have planned for many shady actions on Trump’s part. Details are scarce because they don’t want Trump staff to have a heads up.

And then everything depends on the details.

But remember, anything that looks like a coup d’etat could easily get the military or spy agencies involved. And if they move, it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS says. As a result, it’s very hard to predict what would happen in various extra dramatic situations. There is no precedent; precedent wouldn’t mean anything anyway.

Why would they waste time trying to explain? The problem lies with your understanding, not their actions.

But look, I’ve voted third party a lot, and I could tell you what other activities I do to make the world a better place. If I did, would you stop saying this kind of thing in the future? Do you promise?

Raising questions? No. The only question is how far, how much, how many people will die.

Just like you, right? Just like all of us who are posting instead of campaigning.

Prison? …No. You’re just wrong. That’s bad no matter what.

That’s not what the Supreme Court said, though. Only official acts have absolute immunity. Murder is not usually an official act.

And as always, if you’re talking about a coup d’etat, the question is if the military or spy agencies will kill you before, during, or after it. When the rule of law is out the window, you must expect physical violence.

Also immediately redefine income more broadly. Tax law says it’s one narrow thing, but in reality a lot of money comes in. Let the law march reality.

I feel there’s a potential suicide joke here, but it would probably end up in bad taste.

I have a question for you that needs answering first. Offensive to whom?

You want to trust him after what happened in Ukraine? Are you out of your mind? And he’s admitted that he chats with Putin on a regular basis.

I think you answered your own question. If taking drugs actually makes you a better person, of course it’s OK. That’s true for both physical and mental considerations.

But look, you put everything into one definition. What is “better”, who decides, and how do they decide? If you don’t have anywhere to go, you probably won’t get there. Or maybe you will get there but you won’t realize it.

There is much debate on all kinds of drugs, but I can tell you that some of my friends have had various experiences that are relevant. For several friends, acid or shrooms helped them deal with some harsh trauma. For several other friends, various uppers helped them handle ADHD relatively effectively. But of course we all have different problems and goals, so the burden is right back on you to figure out what you want to do. There’s no way around this basic fact of life.

If the facts of the case are clear to you but they aren’t clear to doctors who actually live and work in the state, and are risking getting locked up for years or decades, and large hospitals that are part of gigantic corporations that have expensive lawyers working for them, maybe it’s because they know more than you, or maybe it’s because they are more worried about being cautious, because they know that the cops and the DAs down there are eager to arrest people.

All of which is to say, we don’t even have to look at the text of the law, because people are telling us the actual effect of the law. You’re pounding the statute but the statute’s not the problem. The enforcement of the statute is the problem. So you can keep on pounding it, but your energies are misdirected.

I think you need to take a step back and stop talking about income tax. Instead, talk about wealth distribution overall. What about businesses? What about corporations? What about passive income? What about savings that’s passed to children? What about inheritance tax? What about tax fraud and tax evasion? And I meant to separate those explicitly, because there are many weak points in the tax code that allow for companies to take advantage of the ability to send money overseas, for example.

If all you’re doing is adjusting the standard deduction or the base exemption or the top threshold for social security payments, you’re ignoring the gigantic high-dollar figures that are happening with the billionaires and the largest corporations in the world. And if you ignore them, then there’s no way you can fix the corruption that’s plaguing modern society.

Of course I think you were trying to keep your focus narrow, which is a reasonable thing to do, but it’s also worth noting in at least one comment that the big picture involves much more important questions about how we should allow wealth to be redistributed.

Hundreds of doctors and their lawyers disagree with you. Of course they could provide medical services, and see if local law enforcement decides to arrest them and lock them up. Or they could withhold medical services, because that’s what their lawyers say is a reasonable interpretation of the law.

In other words, it doesn’t really matter what you or I think. It matters what doctors and their lawyers believe is likely to occur. And we know what that is, because they’re telling us out loud, and they’re showing us through their actions.

Of course you’re entitled to interpret the law however you want to. I think many of us have done that over time, and sometimes we realize that we got it wrong, because we see that lawyers and courts don’t agree with us. Probably this is one of the times that you need to recognize what’s actually happening, and realize that your wishful thinking is just that. I’m sure many people would be happier if reality matched your thoughts, but it doesn’t.

You didn’t tell us when he asks if everything is OK. That is a large omission, and I hope you can update the original post with examples of what led up to the question being asked. Also, what is the setup there? Are you working at Subway making sandwiches? Do you have adjacent desks? Do you show up to work with black eyes? We are left wondering what’s up.

Certainly anyone who repeatedly asks “Are you OK?” is exacerbating some issue, but I would be hesitant to offer any advice about what you ought to do without reading more details.

(In other words, the missing missing reasons applies here just as it did in the original scenario, for those who remember it.)

But that’s not what happened. If the lawyers are saying that some open source groups can’t work with open source groups in Russia, as Linus indicated, that doesn’t mean either group dislikes the other group. I don’t think this is a question of animosity.