Many people are giving wrong answers. Cognitive dissonance is NOT simply holding two opposing ideas in your head. Cognitive DISSONANCE is the uneasy feeling people are supposed to get when holding discongruent ideas at the same time.
Some people do not feel cognitive dissonance at all even while openly voicing the opinions. Great examples are all over politics. If one is for women having the freedom to make their own medical decisions, but oppose abortion bejng legal, those are two opposing views that SHOULD trigger unease and make them reconsider one position or the other.
A better example is people that believe laws should apply equally to everyone, but then go on to say Trump should totally be immune. That SHOULD cause dissonance, but it doesn’t for far too many.
I definitely remember some people screeing about Bush and Cheney wanting it, but IIRC, everyone was treating it like suspicion at most.
The Epstein conspiracy theory was accepted FAR more readily, but then that’s basically guaranteed to be true to some degree, even if it was truly just the jailors being incompetent fuckwits that wanted to take justice in to their own hands.
The only thing I remember people being remotely close to believing was that Bush was so incompetent that he allowed a terrorist attack to happen.
It’s not really a theory that Bush was an incompetent fuckwit, but it’s highly debatable if they knew enough to stop it.
Then get rid of the non-functional ziplock part altogether. That’d save way more plastic.
Everyone is in ‘a’ class. It’s a classification of the populous. Do you work for money, or does your money work for you?
If you receive a paycheck or have to budget what so ever, chances are you are not part of the classification of shitbags that push the propaganda.
I mean, you seem to be assuming that muskboy cares about any of his children.
He just hates that one more because she exposes him for the hateful shitbag he is.
The justification is absolutely stupid no matter who attempts to use it.
They explicitly lose their protection if used for offensive military activity.
If soldiers are being treated in a hospital, it very much does NOT become a valid target. If soldiers are merely hiding in a hospital, it explicitly does NOT become a valid target.
No, it cannot. Not a state-based law that the feds don’t care about and other states will tell them to fuck off over.
Not unless they are operating in Texas, accessible to Texas cops, with property seizeable by Texas authorities.
That’s because they were facilitating actual, across-the-board federal crimes.
Not looking at titties.
I could see states that have such draconian laws working together to attempt to do anything about flagrant violators, but otherwise Texas has yet another pointless, toothless virtue signaling “law” on their hands.
“Operating in the state” and “accessible in the state” are different.
Much like a business doesn’t have to have a specific state’s business license to sell to customers of a different state, a website does not have to comply with all laws everywhere just because the laws exist. If they’re operating in Texas, they will. If they’re accessible from Texas, that’s Texas’ problem.
That would require jurisdiction to charge them anyways. They do not have such power.
You might get to see that in Russia with how Putler is screwing things up.
That’s why they’re asking people and not reading a history book.
Removed by mod