Good on OP for seeking challenges to their existing view points and being open to changing them upon compelling enough thoughts. In a genuine way no less.

There’s a clearly distinguishable line between acknowledging existing legislation and producing value judgements on politicians.

Off the top of my head the only European food product I consistently buy is Kerrygold butter. But I could use a domestic version. Other than that I’ll on rare occasion buy a wine that’ll be from Italy or France rather than a domestic.

The only international foods that really make up any significant part of my grocery list are fruits from the tropics.

Don’t buy land with an easement you don’t want on it. You can tell the seller to talk to the company and have them negotiate the removal of the easement as a condition of sale. They might be willing to buy back the mineral rights.

But barring that if this is a non-negotiable for you don’t buy it.

Because eggs are seen as a very reasonable weekly purchase that a consumer can see a price delta in over a short period of time.

Of the 14% of Americas imports that are from Canada under half are in energy or transport fabrication. The energy hits are much quicker to fix by importing more fuel from other nations.

I agree that the US auto sector hit will be harder but as for energy high enough tariffs will lead to a complete rejection of Canadian energy imports for US companies. This will be a loss for the US. But it will hurt Canada more. Tariffs are a zero sum game. The only way to win is to get everyone to agree to not play.

https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/import/usa/can/show/2022

Canada is not going to damage the American. 74.5% of Canadian exports and 56.2% of imports are with the US. On the other hand Canada makes up 14% of US imports and 15.8% of exports.

If any plan killed the American economy every one else is going down too.

This is incredibly stupid as an economic counter plan for a nation whose number one import and export (>50% respectively) is the US. Compare that to the US’s highly diversified trade portfolio. Trump would clap back with a 100% general tariff on Canada.

American trade can survive without Canada. But Canadian trade can’t survive without America.

Really silly question tbh. Trafficking drugs pays for itself and the torture. The CIA may be the only government agency making a net profit.

Your question asks more about the person answering than any country. What is and isn’t a human right is debated matter many agreed upon but others are seen as archaic or political posturing. Are we talking positive and negative rights? Freedom of Contract? Right to Healthcare? A right to jury trials in civil cases? A right to selfdefense? The right to speak freely even unsavory words?

Then you’d have to weigh one right against another. Finally you’d have to figure out if those rights are simply paper promises.

On Boost still showed up

It depends. Look at the usage license for the font you’d like to reproduce. It may be published with a very liberal license that allows reproduction. You can always ask for permission.

Realistically if we accept the idea of Canada joining the US they’d likely join as their current provinces (then states).

This would allow Canadians to have a voice in US elections which currently have large political implications for the nation.

I don’t see Quebec joining the US. Current Canadian law grants them protections the US wouldn’t be willing to match. They’d likely become independent.

Despite Canadian identity being based on not being Americans there are large cultural similarities (given English structural roots).

If it were to occur Canada would likely get some consideration like the preservation of their healthcare system (a point of national pride) and a period for other states to join in on it.

The US would be more blue politically but I would expect catering to northern provinces given they’d have disproportionately high representation.

Steam allows games that let people role play being a pervert on a Japanese train. I’m not sure they’ll take action on this.

center/center

I like most of the changes he did but he really should have kept the original with this one.

one of the arguments you used.

It decidedly is not.

I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.

I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.

Wow .26mm of disparity is a lot for such a crucial part. It may not be a high end printer. But seriously? At $280 USD I’d expect the pulley to be tighter tolerance.

My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.

The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.

Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.

If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.

The bullet is heavy. The pressure wants out it’s easier to breach a little bit of brass than to move a heavy bullet. The greatest risk here is the fragmentation of the brass casing.