Wait until he notices the C's in “Pacific Ocean”.

Remember when she wore a jacket with the words “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a migrant child detention facility in Texas?

Remember when she wore a jacket with the words “I really don’t care. Do U?” when visiting a migrant child detention facility in Texas?

It's not like it was a hostile take over. They played their part when Musk talked shit and they sued him to follow through with the purchase. They could have easily kept it, but they wanted the money instead.

Do it!

I hope a significant number of them get new jobs and quiet quit to get that double paycheck for as long as they can.

Here you go. Skip to roughly 1:30 mark for this quote.

For all of the doom and gloom of that view of the big picture, I do see a lot of beauty and good in the little things. That's where I like to focus most of my energy.

It's not like everybody woke up one day and "ah shit, everything's fucked! How the hell did that happen. This is unprecedented!" The scale and tools might be new, but that's about it.

The problem is that "continue on as normal" basically means to continually get progressively worse. Greed and oppression will increase. Division and bigotry will keep growing. Science and logic will be ignored or manipulated by those seeking power. This will ultimately culminate in some sort of horrifically deadly breaking point. Then we reset a little bit and start the cycle all over again and again until the humans go extinct.

I know that this is an incredibly pessimistic take, but that's my view of current events.

It's an actual quote. The portion used here starts at about the 1:30 mark.

a source that records this type of information requires a people to provide legal proof that they’re breaking the law as well as providing evidence that opens them up legal & financial liability; but i’m sure you knew that

I am not aware of that. Nor of any such organization existing. Could you name what these resources are? I would be interested in learning more.

the closest thing you can get to it are surveys done by pollsters and that’s private information and is only shared to subscribers who are sometimes also journalists who write articles that sometimes shared it on reddit

Are you aware of any articles written by these journalists? Can you share a link to the reddit post where you learned this from?

in order to shut down a counter argument and help support your point.

I'm not trying to shut anything down. This is not a "I'm right your wrong" discussion. You have your experiences which you have used to form your valid opinion. I have my experiences that I have used to form mine.

As for my "point", it was a request that people "please try to keep perspective of what is true risk / reward for pursuing vs walking away". Is that what you are arguing against?

Purdue doesn’t make fentanyl, they make oxycontin.

Doh! You are absolutely right. That was a mixup on my end. Thanks for catching that.

You seem to have a similar myopic view of the crisis but instead of evil Mexican immigrants and drug cartels being the sole problem it’s the evil sackler family.

It was not my intent to suggest that the problem lies solely on the supply side. I was responding to the subject of the article and not attempting to share my views on the broader and more complex topic of drug use, regulation, abuse, addiction, and the ancillary topics associated with them.

In order to solve this problem we need to look at the demand side

I agree and by (wrongly) referencing the Sacklers, my intent was to highlight how America is not addressing other factors contributing to the problem of drug addiction. Problems like how the pharmaceutical industry has a financial incentive to create addicts.

I would argue that by locking the door, trapping the aggressor in the same room with the cashier and other customers, the intent of the cashier was to avoid theft and not to avoid getting hurt.

To go back to my original point, I personally do not think that he exercised good judgement in evaluating the risk vs reward of his actions.

He placed the value of his employers property above the value of his safety, the safety of the other customers and the safety of the rest of his employers property should the aggressor resort to acts of violence or vandalism in an attempt to secure his freedom.

You are making several claims here that I'm not sure are accurate.

What trend? Do you have any sources I could review to support that there is a trend and that your scenario is not an exception?

Do you have any sources I can review to support that most armed assailants will not resort to violence when confronted by or prevented from fleeing by a lone civilian?

Do you have any sources I can review to support that driving is more dangerous than confronting an armed assailant?

Is the suggestion here that the only people who support the electoral college are those who don't want the president to represent the majority of the voting population?

If the risk of physical harm or potential death was worth the reward of keeping that job, then that was the right decision for you. To me, no job has ever been worth the risk of violence or harm to myself or any other person.

I'm not not passing any judgement, just asking people to stop and think about potential consequences before acting.

Edit: Having worked at gas stations / convinience stores, fast food, and retail, I can assure you that not all gas stations or similar employers will fire their employees for not confronting robbers.

I don't know the details of the exchange in the store, but it sounds like it would have qualified as a strong arm robbery. The cashier was not giving away anything, the other person was forcibly taking it. Not sure what employer would fire somebody for being robbed, but that would factor into the risk / reward consideration. Is the risk of being required to put your physical safety at risk worth what I assume to be a minimum wage job? Maybe, for his situation, it was.

All of this over $3.80.

If you ever find yourself in an escalating situation, please try to keep perspective of what is true risk / reward for pursuing vs walking away.

focus on fentanyl trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border as the sole root of the overdose crisis is dangerously myopic

I'm gonna need a citation for this "sole root" claim. I have not heard either candidates claim that Mexico was the sole source of a drug that was originally manufactured and distributed by the American Sackler family through their American Purdue Pharma company.

Harris calls for increased border agents, but I don't recall her or any member of her team ever saying anything that would link trafficking of any narcotics to immigrants.

Maybe they meant "sole focus on addressing"? Cause I've also not heard either candidate address the myriad of problems with the US pharmaceutical companies and the individuals who run them, other than the occasional reference to predatory pricing which has been, at best, an attempt to drain the ocean with a teacup.

Either way, in our current climate of politicized sensationsm reporting, this deminishes the legitimacy of the article for me.

An increase of CBP officers and funding is not inherently anti-immigration. It's the usage of those agents and funds that makes that determination.