Yeah, its much more accurate to say “the idf are necrophiliac child molestors and everyone in office is too, but possibly indirectly.”

Release the Trump files!

Spammers go for the easiest targets. If you do stuff like this, they might redesign their system to make it LESS likely to send to you. Keep in mind theyre targetting the elederly, mentally handicapped, and the emotionally desperate. They specifically DO NOT want to target the educated, technologically literate, and those that will waste their time. By attempting to technologically limit them from their scams, you make it more difficult for them to target you and it makes it obvious theyre not worth your time.

Its not about making yourself scam proof, its about making yourself an unappealing target.

(This all applies to scam emails, dunno if it has any effect if the goal is phishing but i would imagine so. If they can phish 5 people in the time it takes to phish you, youre no longer their target.)

Edit: this is why scam emails look obviously scammy, with misspelled words and grammarical errors. Its not a mistake, its an attempt to preemptively weed out people who want to waste their time

So this right here is a picture of you agreeing with what i just said I’m still not going to debate you over whether or not i support women, my post history speaks for itself and i dont need to justify myself to you. But if youre going to continue posting factually inaccurate bullshit for sympathy points when theres actual real issues then yeah, imma call you out on it.

Was this sexual assault? Yes. Does being undeniably sexually assaulted absolve her of all possible crimes, future, past, and present? You certain seem to think so, considering the mere discussion that there MIGHT be more going on WITH THE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO is sexist.

Youre not fucking reading at all, so yeah. Im not going to respond to you directly, but if i see your bullshit elsewhere ill call you out there too.

Edit:had to bold my last statement, they immeditely proved my point yet again.

You realise people can see your post history, right? Massively misrepresenting what happened might make you feel good, but it doesnt change the facts.

You were told multiple times that the assault was real. You were told multiple times that sexual assault is a massive problem in this area. In this comment thread, you even agreed with someone saying the exact same thing you were arguing against yesterday.

At risk of you not reading it, yet again, i shall once again reiterate: sexual assault is a crime that should be taken seriously. However, when you are in a position of power, your actions get analyzed with a higher level of scrutiny. In this case, it was discussed that there were multiple massive news stories that were important in Mexico, and that the timing on this was worth looking into as a possible distraction.

Jesus Christ, nuance for fucks sake. If you legitamately think that anyone is God’s chosen angel that can do no wrong and tell no lies because they are a woman, you are braindead. No one ever stepped up in support of the dude, he was universally condemned. No one said “well she shouldnt have been wearing that”

As the leader of a country in a turbulent period of time, your actions will be analyzed from every possible perspective. It does not matter you gender.

She had guards with her. She was originally supposed to be driven around, but she decided to walk. Not sure how they got so close but this wasnt a planned trip.

Cool, in a not super cool way. Nvidia is kinda scummy but the work they do is valuable. I appreciate you dropping the facts on me, but im not sure how to feel about them.

Yeah, but dont they also have the largest promisory debt? Havent they loaned the most most money that they dont actually have?

Itll be nvidia and openai primarily, id have to imagine

Nice bait, but I’m not going to feed into that. I guess this conversation is over, glad to see you’ve completely abandoned your argument after realising it was wrong. Tbh it was a lot easier to convince you than i thought, but the facts stand for themselves i suppose

Only if they lose. Also, itd be a sequel to emu war 2. They lost twice.

If I’m reading the edit correctly, cappucino is saying that women being harrassed is a real problem in Mexico and that Morena is fucked up enough to use it as a distraction from other serious issues.

im not going to debate whether i stand for womens rights with you. But again, nuance.

So there is clearly a driving factor behind that, it would seem more beneficial to address that instead of a blanket ban that is guaranteed to make things worse. Wonder why smoking is so prevalant there?

Edit: dodnt get a clear answer on why, but it seems smoking is deeply embedded in their culture. 43% of men aged 15 or older smoke, while its only 4% of women in the same group smoke. Theyve also been trying to put an end to smoking for almost a decade now, not sure how much it has helped as i just cant find much info on them.

The issue is that during the prohibition, the governement started selling poisoned alcohol on the black market. Its not wild to speculate that the government currently has a hand in all the fenanyl going around. The issue with banning it isnt that it works/doesnt, or that it limits people or anything like that. The issue is that when it is banned, there is no governmental oversight on ensuring the product is safe, and the government has every reason to poison those getting it from the black market. People are going to die over this in preventable ways.

Nah m8, you right. Somehow repeatedly missed your last statement. Sorry for the snarkiness.

I saw the “almost every sex offender is a man” part, but i missed you actually answering the question somehow. Genuinely sorry

Edit:seriously thats wild, im guessing i got hit with a serious case of assuming

…so you’re just ignoring their question to substitute your own. Very nice strawman, but it does appear pretty malicious at this point.

Not who you responded to, but evidently someone needs to point out that you didnt read their question, or you maliciously misinterpreted it.

Edit: nope they did actually answer the question, im just shockingly bad at reading which is very unusual for me.

…yeah, you can. Are you implying that no giverment has ever performed false flag attacks?

Im not on either side of this, only learned about it yesterday. But it is a wild take to say that because you recognise a problem, you are suddenly magically incapable of looking at nuance.