Define “legally”.

One cool trick they do is that they “write” a book and the PAC buys all the copies to “give out to promote the candidate”. The profits go straight to the politician and books are recycled or whatever.

I guess they don’t lock/unlock constantly because that would be annoying in stop and go traffic.

Jim Jefferies is not in the program. I think he was invited, accepted but was later dropped. Still, for me that’s the only disappointment. I don’t know or care for all the rest but I liked Jefferies and I thought he had some good takes and interesting things to say. I think in the end all of them just get old and lose focus. Expect Carlin. He was sharp till the very end.

I actually think Democrats would not fight as hard if this shutdown wasn’t favorable to Republicans. I think Democratic leadership are actually trying to help Trump. Or maybe not actively trying to help but they don’t see Republicans achieving their goals as something negative.

Most modern cars automatically lock doors when you reach certain speed (like 20km/h). I checked and automatically unlocking door on impact is a separate feature that may or may not be present in a car. So I think you won’t be able to open most modern cars from the outside after a crash. The only difference is that you will open other cars from the inside without issues while in Tesla you have to use other door handle in front seats and it’s really complicated to open them from the back seats. Is that right?

So they are lying but their argument is “foreigners cause crime which is worse than demographic issues so we don’t want foreigners” which is logical. Logic != truth.

Exactly! You got it now.

I think you missed the part where I’m not saying immigration is bad. I’m just explaining how people who oppose immigration think.

No, I’m not. I am starting from the premise that there is an objective reality we all have to deal with and that different individuals have different subjective preferences, and everything else logically flows from there.

That’s just something you made up. Logic doesn’t start from objective reality and preferences. It’s just a tool.

If A then B. If B then C. Therefore if A then C.

I don’t have to know what A, B and C are in some objective reality for this rule to be true. I can see you struggle to understand that logic is abstract and separate it from facts you want to apply it to but that’s just what logic is. You’re basically confusing logic with truth. To decide what is true you have to start with some objective reality and apply logic to it but you can apply logic to anything. You can apply it correctly to Harry Potter or to invalid facts. You will not reach truth but you’re reasoning can still be logical.

In a world where someone would prefer that. You can’t apply logic to preferences. When I got to a dentists for a filling I ask them not to give me local anesthesia because I prefer the pain to the numbness. 99% of people I know don’t agree. It doesn’t make my choice illogical, it just means I have different preferences.

No, I’m getting what you’re saying.

Yes, I can see that.

“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are MORE dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s a logical statement.

“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose A”. That’s logical.

In this case, to change the outcome you need to attack the facts. You have to prove that vaccines are in fact LESS dangerous and then, using the same logic, the person will conclude that he should vaccinate his kids.

“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are LESS dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s illogical statement.

“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose B”. That’s illogical.

In this case you’re not going to argue the facts. The person already thinks that vaccines are LESS dangerous but his logic is wrong. You have to fix theirs logic and they will arrive a the correct conclusion.

The original case of anti-foreigner sentiment is the first case. The logic is valid, the facts are wrong. For some reason you’re not getting the difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content.

So they’d rather crash into civil unrest because ignorant people have a hard on for the old days?

Yes, exactly. That’s a perfect summary.

Sure, but that’s taking the concept of what’s “logical” to absurd extremes.

No, it’s just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn’t have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn’t mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements. “All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds”.

You’re still talking about how they are wrong but not how they are illogical. You can still apply logic to lies. It doesn’t make them true but it also doesn’t make it illogical.

It matters if we’re arguing who’s right. If you just want to understand their mental jump it doesn’t. Of course those people are ignorant, misinformed or have ulterior motives but their believes are often logical. It’s like not vaccinating your kids because you believe vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Or course it’s wrong but if you really believe it, being anti-vax is logical. Where it stops being logical is in the MAGA movement. They want to drain the swamp by voting for a criminal and want to fight pedophiles by electing one. It’s just a cult, there’s no logic there. The far right movements in Europe/Japan are build on misinformation but still need to invent logical arguments.

What’s illogical about it? How can you even apply logic to personal values and opinions?

Without getting into discussion about how right or wrong they are those people are primarily worried about the identity of their country. They believe that sustaining the population growth by letting in big numbers of foreigners will destroy their culture. They prefer to suffer the consequences of population crisis than live in a country with different values and traditions. Is it supremacy? Sure it is. But it’s also logical.

Importers knew they are coming and stockpiled products beforehand. Now the stocks imported before tariffs run out and tariffs are impacting prices. On top of that they are starting to import different products for Christmas (like toys) all of which have tariffs.