Knightfox

You might be right that it is an implicit threat and as a threat it constitutes verbal assault, but you'd have a hard time making any real headway in court with that, especially in a he said/she said situation. It might be a crime, but it's one which will see almost no prosecution.

Part of the problem is that polling has been fundamentally flawed for a while now. Polling in 2016, 2020, and 2024 all showed Trump as losing and the polling agencies had to artificially weigh pro Trump supporters higher in the polls because they weren't being adequately represented. It seems that a major portion of the problem is that some number of liberal/socialist poll respondents don't end up actually voting and some number of conservative voters don't end up responding to polls.

That's the thing though, what's amazing about planes really depends on your knowledge base or what experience is specifically being enjoyed. If you don't understand how planes work then the difference is moot because whether seeing or doing the entire thing is magical. If you do understand how planes work you might know that the crazy thing isn't flight, we knew how to do that since approximately 1800 when the first gliders were built, the crazy part was generating enough power to make powered flight possible. If you understand how flight works and are still enjoying the experience of flight is where wonder still exists.

You know the wonder of flight still exists because some number of kids and adults would pick flight as a super power if given the choice.

The argument being made is a rather poor one. In the example given, the waiter walked 10 feet to you, I would agree that you shouldn't have to tip.

I'm ambivalent on tipping culture, if we can institute a fair minimum wage then I'm fine with getting rid of it, if not then shut up and tip. All that said, the things we tip for has gotten way out of hand. Tipping used to be 15% for good service while some people were giving 20% because prices had remained low. Now with food prices increased businesses and wait staff are encouraging 20-25% and tipping options are being added everywhere.

My rule of thumb now is 20% for standard wait service (taking my order, bringing my meal, refilling beverages, and cleaning the table afterwards). If any of those elements isn't being fulfilled then I do not give a percentage, though if someone is going around filling drinks I'll probably leave a dollar or two. I also don't give a percentage tip for drinks that don't come with free refills, instead I will calculate the 20% tip without those beverages (typically alcohol) and then leave $1 per drink.

The right believes that the 2nd amendment exists so that the public can overthrow a corrupt government, in this faulty logic they believe that some normies with AR-15s can overcome the US military. Unlike January 6th the current political right also wouldn't hesitate to use that military might to crush a violent revolution. At best what you are talking about would result in a civil war, assuming the military splits evenly as well, and at worst would result in the obliteration of the rebels. Given the number of Punisher symbols I see on military persons I wouldn't bet on them supporting leftist revolutionaries.

I'd like to add that in the US people rarely think of it as extra either. In most places in the US we also don't include taxes on the menu listed prices, but you know they will be on the final bill going in. The semantics of whether there should be tipping or not is hardly the line people should be arguing. What should be argued when discussing tipping is management abuses around tipping (like paying out others, stealing tips, or forced tip sharing), mandated minimum tipping, what items should be tipped and how much.

There is a ton of room to debate tipping culture in the US, but complaining about doing so isn't the right place.

Ok, how do you propose doing that? A violent revolution?

And then he'll either walk away glad he dodged a bullet or slip drugs into her drink and probably not face any real consequences. People don't seem to understand how the Rogan/Musk/Tate loving Trump supports think. Just a reminder, a higher percentage of women voted for Trump in this election than last so I don't think the political right is going to be significantly impacted by this.

Eh, I'll concede that she wasn't screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren't encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn't turn out because they didn't like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:

1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don't historically come out to vote to do so or,

2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.

Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don't anyways, isn't much of a threat or motivation.

I don't know, at this point I'm starting to ask myself if it's the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.

If people didn't turn out because Democrats aren't appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn't to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it's extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America's social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.

It’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I think arguments about who has a claim aren't the real question here. Recency vs historic rights to a region aren't enough and really never have been. The whole argument comes down to who has the power to hold the region and any arguments to the contrary are naive. Israel has the power, Palestinian's didn't want to play ball, so Israel took the ball home. A large part of Israel being able to hold the region has come down to geopolitics and capitalism. A lot of companies have headquarters and branches in Israel which makes a lot of money. Hamas, like the Taliban, are not expected to be good for big business. On top of that, Israel is friendly and cooperative with western allies and is one of the few such in the region. The west is not going to trade a friendly but harshly conservative Israel for an unfriendly and even more conservative Hamas.

You can talk all day about who deserves what, who has rights to what, and what the moral thing to do is. At the end of the day the world is going to follow the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold makes the rules."

It's kinda hard to call that a threat. It's more accurate to say it's an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.