They don’t need to sit that many. It’s not an interstate route that runs thrice a day and carries 300 people in each run. For it to be an alternative to cars you need to have lots of route and they need to be quite frequent - which means less people in each minibus.

No. It’s from the Fallen Angels miniseries.

This does not make an awful lot of sense. The reasons scammers have to filter for the dumbest victims don’t apply to politicians:

1. Scammers don’t want to waste resources chasing bad leads. Sending the same email (or emails generated from the same template) to huge amounts of people is rather cheap, but when someone takes the bait at some point you’ll need to assign an actual person to deal with it (I’m not 100% sure this reason still applies today, since you can use AI, but it may not take you all the way and it’s still more expensive than generating an email from a template) and you’d rather not waste that effort if the chances to complete the grift are low.

   Politicians don’t have that problem, because at not point do they need to go one-on-one with individual voters (the bottom feeder activists may do it, but that’s a separate attack vector than party leadership going on media). Having the smart voters not buy into these announcements save them neither time nor money.

2. If someone is going to figure out the scam, the scammer would prefer they do it as soon as possible. Of course, long after the scammer is gone is even better, and not at all is best, but if they can’t get away with it - sooner is better than later. If you figure it out as soon as you get the email, you’ll just ignore it - and maybe delete it and/or block the address. Most people won’t even try to report it, and even if they do there is usually not much that can be done. But if you figure out the scam after you’ve started to send them money - you are going to want your money back. You’ll have more information can potentially be used to track them (like the details of the account you transferred the money to). And you’ll be better motivated to involve the authorities. It’s safer to filter out the people who are smart enough to do that and make them leave before they have skin in the game.

   If you figure out your politician lied to you - what are you going to do? You can’t rescind your vote. You can not vote for them in the next elections - but how is that worse than not voting for them to begin with? Worst you can do is vote for their opponent - but I fail to see why a disillusioned voter is more inclined toward that than a non-voter or someone who voted to a different party. “Yes, they’ve ruined the country, and if I was their supporter I’d punish them by voting to the other party - but since I didn’t vote for them it’s not really my problem so I’ll just not vote”.

3. Scammers only really need a small fraction of their potential targets to take the bait, because they’ll be stealing lots of money from each such target. Having too many victims can actually be risky because it raises the chance someone will do something about them. Maybe even someone competent.

   They can afford to filter.

   Politicians can’t.

   Politicians compete against other politicians, and they need a plurality to win. They don’t get to be picky. Even in the USA, the number of people with more than one brain cell is enough to tip an election’s result. You can’t just say “I don’t care about the people I can’t easily fool” because these people will for your opponent. The 16% who fall for scams won’t get you your victory.

Did you really dodge a bullet though? Or did the bullet stop midair and changed direction to move toward what was up until now the most logical location to dodge to?

Yes, but a much more defensible one. To refute a lie of omission you need to present the omitted information and show how it is relevant. To refute a lie of actual falsehood you just have to present the truth and point out the contradiction.

I’m not saying he’s not a liar, I’m just annoyed by his stupidity.

It’d be more of a spin, or a lie of omission, at most. Either way it’d be less stupid.

Weird thing is, he didn’t have to lie. He said that the price went from $1.5 a dozen to $4 a dozen, but it’s not like his argument would have been that much weaker had he used the real price $3…

Some of you have never Wanna be the Guy and it shows.

Bold of you to assume I’ll ever feel okay again.

Well, obviously you have to remove the slots before eating the soup. You guys really don’t know anything, do you?

Found it. It’s from 7 months ago, so I assume that cube is long gone?

The cat in the back is blurry. Do you have a better picture of it?

Read his comment. Then read the post’s title. Then read his comment again.

Something of literally human value may be in his basement.

Just because you’re undocumented doesn’t mean the IRS will give up on taking your money.

Sir, I’m gonna have to inspect your basement.

Should Greece really be on that list? The only criterion where it’s not grayed out is “Awarded Parts of China to Japan”, which actually means “signed the Treaty of Versailles after WWI”. And unlike many of the other countries that signed it, Greece did not get anything to itself from it.

This may be the first confirmed case, but it’s probably not a good idea to make it the poster case for pro-choice. Let’s look at the facts:

• She was pregnant with twins, and wanted an abortion.
• She couldn’t legally do it in her home state Georgia, so she had to travel to North Carolina and get abortion pills there.
• A few days later, when she was already back home, she started to suffer from severe complications.
• The doctors in Georgia could not legally perform the procedure that could have saved her life - a surgical removal of what remained of the fetus - because it was to close to abortion.

The article says the clinic in North Carolina could have performed that procedure, but does not state why she was not brought there. Maybe her condition was too bad for the long travel? Maybe she was evacuated to the nearest hospital (a decision which does, generally, make a lot of sense) which could not have signed her away for an illegal (by Georgian law) operation outstate? Maybe it was medically and legally possible to drive/fly her there, but it was too expensive for her? Either way - it is clear that the ban on abortions in Georgia (made possible “thanks” to the Roe vs Wade overruling) is the direct reason why she could not get the treatment which could have save her life.

BUT!

The pro-life camp can easily pin this on the abortion pills, claiming that a nation-wide abortion bad would have prevented her from receiving them and therefore would have prevented her death (and the aborted twins’ death. They won’t forget to include that)

Irrelevant. The point of these analogies is to demonstrate the logical fallacy

Here is a better analogy: since it is inconceivable that all the runners will win the race, the most reasonable conclusion is that they will all lose it.