Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.

But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?

So you’re saying my comment is a worse take than literally everything MAGAt and Trump have done and said over the past years ? Really ?

Yes, UBI gives people much, much MORE money than a one time bribe.

If it’s so stupid, explain to me what is legally the difference between a politician promising to pass a UBI law of they’re elected, and a politician promising to pass a law governing a one time government payment ?

No, it’s not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn’t be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they’re not already working to fix those issues.

What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven’t moved a fucking mm.

And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it’s effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn’t easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.

So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can’t start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?

And wouldn’t this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.

In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.

Can you imagine the never ending month long shit show from Republicans if Obama had talked to a reporter like that ? You’d never hear the fucking end of it.

So then why isn’t EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?

So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?

A) who says I’m lying

B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises

If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life of they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.

It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.

So where’s the line ?

Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people’s healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to “vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like”.

You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.

I live in Germany, and over here unless your employer can present a damn good safety critical reason for why you must be sober at work (e.g. operating heavy machinery) it’s not even legal to randomly drug test employees.

For your standard office job, or McDonalds cashier, or even high level office positions it would all be illegal for the employer to (randomly) drug test you.

As long as you’re not operating dangerous machinery, it’s none of your employers business what you do off the clock at home, even if that’s consuming illegal drugs. They can (obviously) ban you from being high at work, but they would reasonable suspicion to accuse of you violating that, and potentially trigger a test (which means effectively the thing that is banned is for your performance at work to be impaired by drugs. If you work equally well high as sober, and don’t reek of weed when you walk in, you can pretty much just work high without risk of much consequences)

Very insightful

That’s just objectively wrong, WA become popular long before Meta bought it, and once it was popular, people kept using it simply because everyone else also uses it.

And the reason it became popular is because SMS were relatively expensive in most of the world outside the US, wheras internet messengers require only a tiny amount of data per message, meaning even when mobile internet plans were expensive, the cost per message for an internet messengers usually still worked out to way cheaper than an SMS. Also, for a lot of people not having any mobile internet wasn’t much of an option, so if you have to pay for mobile internet anyway whether you use an internet messenger or not, then internet messaging is completely free for all intents and purposes, since you’re paying for the plan anyway, and the messaging won’t use up a noticeable amount of your data (as long as you don’t send/receive lots of media), so why would people pay for costly SMS ? And WA simply was (one of) the first mobile internet messaging apps with good features that worked well. And as soon as it started taking off, netwerk effect made it become exponentially more popular in those countries.

If you don’t own a car, or can’t drive (at the moment) for some other reason, in a lot of suburbs in the US you literally don’t have a choice.

Where I live in Germany there’s also a lot of supermarket delivery, but they’re generally picked and delivered by people working directly for the supermarket, not random gig economy dudes of the street, so since they have access to the stores inventory system they will automatically know what is available (and since the order app also has that access, you can’t even order anything the supermarket already doesn’t have in inventory at the time of ordering), and either automatically cancel, automatically substitute or send you a notification to pick an option if something is out.

If nothing else you can be damn fucking sure they won’t even attempt to fulfil wishes that constitute straight up crimes (such as exposing yourself to a minor).

As for everything else, they probably don’t have any super specific rules beyond that, what tthey likely have some kind of genericly vague, vibes based, catch all term that “wishes have to be in good faith and good taste”

Even if he weren’t lying, it would still be negligent homicide. If you point a gun at someone, you are responsible if they get injured or killed. Doesn’t matter if you pulled the trigger, mishandled the gun or a magic fairy pixie materialised and pulled the trigger for you.

The mere fact that you pointed a loaded gun at another person already makes you responsible per se in my book.

As much of a fan as I am of gun control, expecting gun owners to have a safe that is literally, physically impossible to break into is wildly unreasonable

Imo, if it was your gun, unless it was literally stolen from a locked gun safe, anyone who dies by it is automatically your fault.

Doesn’t really matter what the circumstances were. If anyone is even in a position to be injured or killed by your weapon, it usually means you acted negligently in either handling or storing the weapon.

The glass of wine is likely due to a selection bias in Tea Total people. Most people who are completely sober, are so either because they are recovering alcoholics, or have other health issues.

Most people who are healthy and have no prior alcoholism issues drink at least occasionaly, which introduces a selection bias favouring people with health issues as strict non drinkers, which causes not drinking at all to be correlated with worse health than drinking occasionally.