Serious answer? Just wait 4 years. Rename it to Project 2029 or 2033 or 2037, as often as needed. That's the really exhausting part. Now that they have this plan, we have to defeat it every time. The figurehead is not as important as the plan. They'll be another candidate willing to become a dictator, I'm sure.
lemmydripzdotz456
joined 8 months ago
It may just be a difference in use case. I don't use navigation apps for my daily and local trips. I use navigation when I'm going to be driving hundreds of miles to a new location and don't already know how to get there.
If your primary goal is finding out how to get from A to B and not caring about the very fastest way to get from A to B right now, then you don't need traffic data.
I do not understand what is happening here. I do not understand why you are spending your time like this. I don't know why there seems to be a few users dedicated to downvoting people.adding context to a sensational - if true - headline. I don't think I'm going to succeed at this, but I have some free time so I'll try one more time. Here's a hypothetical:
Say there was many who went crazy and stabbed 30 people at the mall. Half of the victims are white and half are black. This is inline with the racial demographics in the area where the population is about a 50/50 mix of white and black people. A headline is written that reads "Man Stabs 15 Black People".
Now, this headline is completely accurate and truthful. The crazy guy totally stabbed 15 black people. However, they also stabbed 15 white people. Only including part of the data in the headline gives the impression that the man was only stabbing black people. He totally wasn't and that totally isn't what the headline says, but it is what it implies.
The author of the headline could have and should have said that the Bible did not include the entire constitution or that it left out most of the amendments (including those ending (most) slavery and allowing women to vote). They could have but they didn't. People choose words intentionally. In this case, they chose words that made people believe that only those two amendments were left out. Any user could read the article and find the whole truth there. Outrage drives engagement, though, and engagement sells ads. I get why the author made the choice they did. It was not factually wrong and it probably achieved their goal of greater engagement. That doesn't mean it wasn't misleading.
Here's some bits from Merriam-Webster. Mislead: : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit : to lead astray : give a wrong impression
Also, if the intent was to include only the amendments that Republicans like, I would have expected at least the 11th to be there.
My lord? Yes? My lord? Yes? Let's get digging! Whoa! What now?