Haha, that was my point.

Would they have good coffee?

You forget that he’s a drug addicted narcissist who’s not as bright as his PR team.

With marvel, they were only starting to link a larger universe at that point. It wasn’t captain america 8. Each of the individual heroes has dwindles after a few outings.

I think James Bond is the only major franchise I can think of that has maintained a level of quality with that many movies. There is some up and down and a change in tone and style with new actors, though.

But they’ll have some AI machines instead, so the shareholders will be happy. The shareholders of a different company, but still…

Wear and tear is specifically not allowed to be charged for home rentals in Australia. Damage that is not wear and tear can be I would assume it would also apply for car rentals but I haven’t checked.

He already has, up to this point. In fact, big parts of the party tried to support his competition. They failed. He’s another in AOC mould. He may be good or great but there is an increasing trickle of progressive candidates.

The more that win by being good the more that can win without being so good. He may not be the Dems saviour but he’s a step in the right direction and a worrying sign for Republicans and establishment politicians.

No, I’m pointing out, again, about the reduction of votes they got. They are the only party with the potential for seats to support ending genocide. They had less votes and lost seats.

I’m not saying it was their only issue but it clearly wasn’t an important issue for Australians based on that.

If it was important to Australians, more would have voted for the greens. Australians either didn’t care or supported genocide instead.

It’s not like the USA where it was a hold your nose situation. We have preferential voting. If people cared about other issues, they could still preference the greens for their genocide stance, of they deemed it important. they did not.

Yes, based on many. However, that implies that people don’t care about the genocide, which is what ive repeatedly said.

If you want to be more precise, they cared about everything else more, which is a different way of saying they don’t care about it.

No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.

Yes, especially tricking kids into surgery, despite all the research saying transgender surgery is less regretted than many successful cancer surgeries. And despite the fact that usually gender affirming care for kids is puberty blockers to allow them to make a firm decision when they are older. In fact, to help prevent the fact that kids are more suspceptible to persuasion and confusion.

Irans response is pretty clever so far. Proportional and restrained, with warnings. I don’t doubt that’s more because they know the USA Israel wants a war and trump is foolish enough to be led into one. Of the repercussions were less and they matched equally, they’d have done more. I wonder if next is spread into Qatar, UAE and Saudi. All the regimes playing proxy wars are now having them come home to roost.

That’s what China see,Ed to do too.

Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.

So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.

Sticking to principles is the opposite of flip plop. I agree, they are not pragmatic, though. However, no other party with a chance at a seat was anti genocide. If they did the same or better, the argument could be made that aussies care. They did worse nationally. Aussies don’t care.

Yet, the greens received less votes and were the only party with an anti genocide agenda. Like America, Australia was uncaring at best.

The country gets the representation it voted for.

Isn’t cougar specifically older women that favour younger men.

The alternative, where a government can restrict the actions of companies in other jurisdictions is more scary.

How can they prosecute someone who fights back when the person they fought was wearing a mask? It would be self defence.

Well, he is a convict.