|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
Charlz Guybon posted:No way this can be legal its not and it will be a dumb court fight.
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
So how long until all these dumbass laws cause businesses to up and leave deep red states?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:No way this can be legal It's their TOS, and the dumbass Taint of America has no jurisdiction over loving twitter TOS. Good god between this and the absolutely pathetic Arizona Maricopa recount, is there any other sad pathetic whining the GOP would like to do as a flaming trash barge of a political presence? Like what the gently caress is the recount in Arizona supposed to even loving do? Biden has been President for a 100+ days. Assuming on the utterly minuscule chance you even flipped Arizona with the insane loving margins in any way that is not incredibly laughably fraudulent, what does that do? He still lost the election. You still lost. You will continue to lose, because you are loving losers who can't win without cheating and whining. How does anyone anywhere take this group of Fuckheads seriously? Just arrest all of the seditious trash, leave the few moderates to reform their party if they want, and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It's their TOS, and the dumbass Taint of America has no jurisdiction over loving twitter TOS. A state could make a term in a contract illegal, like how some common rental lease terms are illegal in some states. The problem is that it's unconstitutional, not that a state has no jurisdiction over a company's actions.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:A state could make a term in a contract illegal, like how some common rental lease terms are illegal in some states. My bad. wouldn't it then be easier to just not have your social media service in Florida? I feel like that's the end result
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It's their TOS, and the dumbass Taint of America has no jurisdiction over loving twitter TOS. Whenever I read a post like this I do a mental exercise where I try to replace a few words or names to make it sound like this last few years is something that could equally well have happened in the 90s or 80s or whenever, in which case we’re all just overreacting and being dramatic because this is what we’re going through right now and that’s what we magnify. But fucks sake, it just doesn’t work. This poo poo is bonkers, there is no precedent, there are literal carneys and nazis and mass murdering psychopaths in our government and we’re not doing poo poo about it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It won't be, and they are dreaming if they think it'll be upheld in court. Yeah, it's a combination of throwing poo poo at the wall to see if something will stick, and red meat for chuds who will see this as their politicians fighting the good fight against liberal tyranny.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Like what the gently caress is the recount in Arizona supposed to even loving do? Biden has been President for a 100+ days. Assuming on the utterly minuscule chance you even flipped Arizona with the insane loving margins in any way that is not incredibly laughably fraudulent, what does that do? It's the same poo poo with Benghazi or Hunter Biden. Everyone on the right knows there's something there, and the lack of evidence is just proof that they haven't looked hard enough. If they stop investigating, they have to face the truth that maybe they were wrong and the Democrats won the election legitimately, and that is an idea that they will do anything, anything to prevent confronting.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
isnt FL one of two states where high production level porn is made? seems like they would try to keep as silent as possible on any internet reg laws that are in the interests of Disney, MPAA or RIAA, or the tech bros in CA.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:I'm 4 months sober now after 4 years in and out of rehab and ERs, and my best friend is currently in the hospital with likely terminal liver cancer. Congratulations. Yeah idk how you'd ever legally codify it, but it's 100% the case that most drugs (alcohol included) aren't for most people. And that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing! Plus it's pretty staggering when you stop using to finally start to see how completely alcohol pervades almost every way adults socialize.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RylandKY/status/1388181953959108610?s=19 https://twitter.com/CasinoOrgSteveB/status/1388290720717492227?s=19 Churchill downs valets (pronounced in the british manner its horses not cars) haven't decided whether or not to strike tomorrow yet but its shaping up to be a complete clusterfuck if they do. Work stoppage on saddling the horses and no one can cash in their bets.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:isnt FL one of two states where high production level porn is made? Disney got a carveout. The law exempts any company that "runs a theme park in the state" Guess how many media companies do that?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:https://twitter.com/RylandKY/status/1388181953959108610?s=19 Yikes. The track workers union comprises the valets, outriders (the people who lead the horses to the starting gate), maintenance workers, concessions workers, basically everyone who makes the show go on. Grooms are non-union and often employed by the trainers instead of the track but they would not scab for the valets - they would just feed, water, clean stalls and leave. Jockeys have their own (quite strong) union and they would be in solidarity with the track workers so if the strike goes there is no way the racing goes on. edit: for what it's worth I have heard nothing about this from racing news outlets and they typically report every grievance that horsemen have (there is no love lost between track owners and everyone else involved in racing including the reporters) so I guess nobody is taking them that seriously...yet. Youth Decay fucked around with this message at 05:21 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:12
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Disney got a carveout. The law exempts any company that "runs a theme park in the state" Twitterland coming soon!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Disney got a carveout. The law exempts any company that "runs a theme park in the state" Universal Studios too, right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:17
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Disney got a carveout. The law exempts any company that "runs a theme park in the state" twitter buys a lovely-rear end tilt-a-whirl in panama city sticks a food truck selling 10 dollar elephant ears and twitter bird plushies and bans DeSantis out of spite.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:It's their TOS, and the dumbass Taint of America has no jurisdiction over loving twitter TOS. Republicans: "The government should not interfere in the affairs of private business! The free market will decide!" Also Republicans: "No, not like that!!"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:22
|
|
|
BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:twitter buys a lovely-rear end tilt-a-whirl in panama city sticks a food truck selling 10 dollar elephant ears and twitter bird plushies and bans DeSantis out of spite. why would they sell palmiers? those are terrible cookies. man I miss Fried dough, 2020 was the first time in a long time I didnt have a summer fried dough treat.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It won't be, and they are dreaming if they think it'll be upheld in court. Plus, when the SCOTUS says "this is incredibly unconstitutional" the GOP gets to claim it's been infiltrated by communists and you have to vote Republican in the next election so they can fill any vacancies with people who are right of Mussolini
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 05:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this is not really true Can you expand on the bolded, please.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 10:31
|
|
|
Anyone who thought Manchin would agree to give up all his power by supporting DC statehood, or PR Statehood for that matter, was dreaming. Get new Senators in and hold the House in 2022.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 11:05
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:They certainly give it out like candy to misbehaving children. Knock it off with this ableist poo poo. Attitudes like yours contribute a great deal in making it difficult for folks like me to obtain the meds needed to live normal, functional lives. And for making it twice as difficult for women to receive a diagnosis in the first place. It’s not 1990 anymore. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 11:46 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Twitterland coming soon! Pretty sure I have been to a run down convenience store along I-10 that had terrible bathrooms most of which were not flushed. That sounds like what twitterland would be.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 11:46
|
|
|
nerox posted:Pretty sure I have been to a run down convenience store along I-10 that had terrible bathrooms most of which were not flushed. That sounds like what twitterland would be. That could be confused for reddit, tbf.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Anyone who thought Manchin would agree to give up all his power by supporting DC statehood, or PR Statehood for that matter, was dreaming. Get new Senators in and hold the House in 2022. It's worth noting that Manchin is always playing this game and taking any hall pass on any foregone conclusion (which this was, because of multiple other dems). He is substantially likely to have not have took a stand blocking DC statehood if he were the deciding vote for DC statehood. It still puts us back at what you said: 'get new senators and hold the house' is really the only solution. But the question of what in the Democratic caucus is blocking this is probably not going to point to Manchin, and he makes it hard to piece it together by the way he plays this.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:I'm 4 months sober now after 4 years in and out of rehab and ERs, and my best friend is currently in the hospital with likely terminal liver cancer. Congrats, it's a big change and will absolutely make your life better in the long run. I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. How is your own health? Is there a thread to talk about substance abuse? I'm going through my own reckoning about alcohol use disorder and would love to ping ideas off people.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
Can Manchin be pointed to as the deciding factor for any vote that was bad for the democrats? I get that it’s easy for people to be pissed at him but as far as I can tell he has never been the deciding vote for the GOP or against the Democrats. It’s actually kinda impressive how well his little song and dance continues to work, and as Manchin himself has pointed out all the mud that progressives throw at him just helps him get re-elected.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Knock it off with this ableist poo poo. Attitudes like yours contribute a great deal in making it difficult for folks like me to obtain the meds needed to live normal, functional lives. And for making it twice as difficult for women to receive a diagnosis in the first place. Did I miss what this is in reference to? I thought their post was about alcohol and meth, and that the analogy of candy and children was literally about candy and children.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Politics and elections aren't about policy, they're about perception. Manchin makes a lot of noise about being independent and conservative, therefore...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:Can Manchin be pointed to as the deciding factor for any vote that was bad for the democrats? I get that it’s easy for people to be pissed at him but as far as I can tell he has never been the deciding vote for the GOP or against the Democrats. It’s actually kinda impressive how well his little song and dance continues to work, and as Manchin himself has pointed out all the mud that progressives throw at him just helps him get re-elected. Huh, no I don't think he has been. He says a lot of stuff, but I'm not sure if he's ever actually done anything that backs the things he says up. At least not yet.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
That's also a hard claim to evaluate as votes that will not pass are not likely to be brought to the floor.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
LASER BEAM DREAM posted:I'm 4 months sober now after 4 years in and out of rehab and ERs, and my best friend is currently in the hospital with likely terminal liver cancer. I put the priority on people's autonomy. If an adult wants to do drugs (or eat a lot or gamble or pay for sex) let them do it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Smeef posted:Did I miss what this is in reference to? I thought their post was about alcohol and meth, and that the analogy of candy and children was literally about candy and children. Its in reference to Adderal, which, while not methamphetamine, is an amphetamine. Its one of the drugs used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which is a chronic mental condition usually diagnosed in children that affects things like mental focus, concentration and impulse control . It started being diagnosed heavily in the 90s and there was a backlash, with some people saying that it was ovediagnosed and a lot of the people who were diagnosed with it were just undisciplined. Hence the 'handing out meth like candy ro misbehaving children'.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:So how long until all these dumbass laws cause businesses to up and leave deep red states? I mean, this has already been happening a little bit this year.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Its in reference to Adderal, which, while not methamphetamine, is an amphetamine. Its one of the drugs used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which is a chronic mental condition usually diagnosed in children that affects things like mental focus, concentration and impulse control . Quick question but what is the difference between and methamphetamine and an amphetamine?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Anyone who thought Manchin would agree to give up all his power by supporting DC statehood, or PR Statehood for that matter, was dreaming. Get new Senators in and hold the House in 2022. They need something like 4-5 extra seats to not only offset Sinema and Manchin but to have a reasonable chance (they'd really need something like 7-9 more seats in the Senate to make it a near sure thing) at also offsetting the other Blue Dogs who'd probably vote it and other Progressive changes like $15 min. wage down. There is like maaaaybe 1 seat the D's (in PA going by Sabato's map) can get in the Senate in 2022 and the others are all varying degrees of increasingly longer shots. But even a repeat of 2018's very pro D voting probably won't get them another 4-5 seats in the Senate. And 2022's Senate election map is a class III which is considered a favorable map for D's. 2024's is going to be very favorable for R's though unfortunately so its not reasonable to get your hopes up too high even then. The D's should have a much better economy and COVID should be fairly well under control by 2022 which are the 2 big factors in their favor along with a favorable election map. There is also some reason to believe that many of the people who'd vote for Trump won't show up to vote for typical establishment R's too which is a VERY good thing for D's. The main factors going against them are that typically in mid term elections the party in power loses seats in either chamber of Congress (partially due to dumbasses who worship bipartisanship + voter apathy) + R's are doubling down on voter suppression harder than ever + R's still get to gerrymander more districts than the D's this time around which can easily offset nearly all the changes in demographics over the previous 10yr in states they control. D's have got a shot at maintaining and possibly increasing their control a bit in both chambers but it'll likely be a nailbiter and big wins for either party in either chamber are pretty unlikely. At least that's how it looks right now anyways. Technically lots and lots of things can (will really) change between then and now but realistically the US voting population is pretty polarized between the 2 parties and there doesn't seem to be much that'll change that between then and now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Its in reference to Adderal, which, while not methamphetamine, is an amphetamine. Its one of the drugs used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which is a chronic mental condition usually diagnosed in children that affects things like mental focus, concentration and impulse control . I'm sure we all remember the South Park take, which was "just hit the kids more and they'll shut up"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Can you expand on the bolded, please. Modern Monetary Theory seems - as commonly discussed - to veer from trivially true things to wildly incorrect assertions based on misunderstanding those trivially true things. It is much like the laffer curve - it is trivially true that at 0% tax and 100% tax you're probably getting no taxes, and your ideal tax rate is somewhere above 0% and below 100%. That is trivially true and useless. The conclusion drawn from it - lower taxes, get more revenue! - is, as everyone here knows, entirely false. People who appear to not be economists have seized on modern monetary theory to argue, basically, (1) if a country issues debt denominated in its own currency, that debt doesn't really matter - you can always print more money to satisfy it. Further, that (2) because the sovereign issues currency, taxes and spending aren't really "taking" and "spending" money in the way you envision it, but instead "destroying" and "creating" money. Combined, these are used to effectively advocate that debts/deficits aren't really relevant. When MMT is correct, it is basically trivially correct in that it is not wrong, per se. (2) is basically this - sure, you can think of it that way and just by thinking in that way you have not said something technically wrong. It is not, however, a useful way to think about government taxing and spending at all. (1) is in a sense trivially true - yes, a government can inflate its currency to nothingness and thus effectively abolish its debt. But in a more accurate sense, you are effectively saying "you don't have to declare bankruptcy to eliminate your debts! just commit suicide!" It is a fantastically stupid approach. A country can just default on its debt! Just ask Argentina, which does it with such regularity that if you have an Argentinian government bond you are legally considered a sucker. Defaulting on your debt is bad, but it is infinitely better than hyperinflating your own currency to basically (but not technically!) default on your debt - because you get all the downsides of defaulting on your debt AND you have wrecked your ability to issue your own currency for the foreseeable future, at great additional cost to your economy. How Should You Think About Taxing And Spending Of A Government? If you want to understand taxing/spending/deficits, a dumb model where you are creating and destroying currency isn't helpful. Instead, eliminate the model and go straight to what is actually happening. A government requires labor and materials. Our government employs hundreds of thousands of people. It has immense amounts of material things procured for it (e.g. road building materials, military hardware, or just plain computers for those hundreds of thousands of workers). That labor and materials comes out of the wider economy. A government must have a mechanism for obtaining it. That doesn't have to be by money! The government can simply compel labor - for example, the military draft. A government can compel labor in other ways - ancient governments would require forced labor from free people as a form of taxation, or just enslave some portion of the people under its control. It can simply obtain material in kind - for example, medieval kings might just requisition food for their army as they passed through instead of paying for it. But at the end of the day, the government takes goods and services from the wider economy. Over human history we have learned which methods are better at causing less collateral damage (randomly requisitioning poo poo-tons of goods - not a good method) and/or are more moral (it is, generally, frowned upon to run your government with slaves these days). We have, generally, settled on taxation: citizens pay taxes in money (not goods), and the government uses that money to purchase goods and services in the market like any other market participant. That money can be its own locally-printed currency, or it can be commodity currency (e.g. gold). But at the end of the day, the principal reason we do things this way instead of directly compelling the provision of goods and services is that it works much, much better - people prefer to pay currency than be compelled to labor and you can get specialists, taxing in money instead of taking the goods you need encourages rather than discourages the production of those goods. But everything the government uses, it has taken from the wider economy. It has done so directly (seizure of the goods it wants, compulsory labor for services) or indirectly (cash taxation, and payment for services and goods), or something in between. At the end of the day, any method of funding a government involves this transfer. You can model it in different ways, but that's the core thing that is occurring. As long as the government is paying for goods and services, the money for that is coming from somewhere. How Does Our Government Work? Our government, as everyone knows, taxes people to obtain money, and spends money on goods and services. But our government spends more on goods and services than it takes in in taxes. Where does that excess come from? In our system, it comes from the holders of US debt. If I buy a government bond, I forego some goods or services I could have, in exchange for a promise I will obtain money from the government in the future to obtain goods and services. The expectation is that this payment (denominated in dollars) will allow me to purchase approximately equal or greater goods and services in the future. Purchase of US government debt is voluntary: it is not a tax (requiring everyone to purchase debt would just be another form of tax). You pay interest on that debt. How much interest depends on the market for capital. For the past decade+, that interest has been effectively zero or negative because we have been in a demand slump. This is not usually the case: when there is more demand for capital than capital, you will pay higher interest rates. How Does Taxing and Spending Impact The Economy? Taxing acts as a drag on the economy. It has to: it's taking goods and services out of the economy (indirectly). Spending, on the other hand, generally acts as a boost to the economy - you are increasing demand for goods and services and offering a profit to provide them. When you're spending more than you tax, you can be benefiting the economy. If you are taxing more than you are spending, you can be reducing the economy (this can be beneficial when the economy is in a bubble). That's not always true, but it's generally true. Keynesian economics - the basically correct form of economics - says that over the long term you should borrow money in recessions to benefit the economy, and then overtax and pay that money back in boom times, to deflate the economy. This is because recessions are usually demand-driven - there is less demand for goods and services than the economy could supply, so you create new demand. Further, boom times are also generally demand driven - there is more demand for goods and services than the economy can supply, so you need to reduce that demand (to avoid creating asset bubbles). Overall, you should not run a deficit because you want to be most efficiently matching the money you take out vs. you put in. What Are Alternatives To Issuing Debt? Sometimes a country wants to spend more than it can tax, and it can't or won't issue debt. It can then fund its spending by "seniorage" - printing new money. The government takes in $100 billion, it prints $50 billion, and then spends $150 billion. Where did this additional $50b of goods and services come from? It came from the only place it can: the wider economy. The government got $150b of goods and services, so in some way it extracted $150b of goods and services. The only question is how. Generally speaking, it did this by inflation. It made its currency worth less: $1 of currency before the creation of the additional $50b bought you more goods and services than it does today. What you have effectively done is instituted a tax on cash holdings. This is considered a tremendously bad idea, generally speaking, because it is how hyperinflation happens. If the government is simply minting currency to pay its debts, that currency will generally trend rapidly towards being worthless. It's not hard to evade this implicit tax - you just trade your local currency for a different one. A rich person with WeimarBucks sells them and buys dollars, and puts those dollars in a bank account - and thus doesn't pay this tax. But that enhances the drop in value of the currency (many people want to sell it; few people want to buy it) and you get a hyperinflationary spiral. At the end of a hyperinflationary spiral, you effectively lack the ability to issue a national fiat currency. This is a bad thing, because a national fiat currency does a lot of natural balancing of imports and exports that smooths out the country's business cycle. If your country uses the currency of another nation, that can seriously damage your economy if the economy of that nation doesn't match yours the currency will move the opposite way it should, deepening recessions and inflating asset bubbles. Now, sometimes - when you are in a recession where demand for goods and services is lower than the economy can supply - you don't cause inflation. Here, you are doing exactly what Keynesian economics suggests you do - you are creating artificial demand. You've just done it through a different method. This unusual case is what has happened since the financial crisis. The Fed has printed a lot of currency and used it to create artificial demand. The key thing here is that the Fed is kept very separate from the rest of the government so that the Fed doesn't get pressured to create money to fund the government - instead, it uses its money creation powers only to balance the economy (and, it is paired with the power to effectively destroy that created money at the appropriate time - something governments operating via seniorage generally do not do). This is all well understood by Keynesian economics and is why the Fed - despite republicans - has taken this course since 2008. It is not something MMT has shown anyone. What Does Modern Monetary Theory Tell Us? Nothing. On debt - yes, you can fund your government, if it issues debt in its own currency, by printing new currency to inflate that debt away to nothingness. You have now effectively defaulted on your debt - that you did not "technically" do so won't matter to anyone. But you also ruined your ability to issue new fiat currency. That was a stupid thing to do as well, because you can just say "guys we're not going to pay our debt, sorry" without wrecking your currency as well. Either way, you're not issuing new debt anytime soon. What does it tell us about our deficits? Nothing. The MMT answer is basically "it doesn't matter" or "it doesn't matter until it causes inflation". The first is nonsense. The second is trivially true but Kenesian economics already told us that. MMT appears to be a backlash to Republican economics, which tells us that our deficit means we are spending too much. MMT wants to preserve and enhance our spending, so it says "deficits don't matter". But does our "structural" deficit (the deficit we run overall, not just today) actually tell us? It tells us that we are spending too much or our taxes are too low. And the actual answer is (b) - our taxes are too low. The deficit should be fixed not by cutting spending, but by increasing taxes. Republicans believe you can't raise taxes. People advocating MMT appear to have accepted that principle, which is a stupid principle. It is arguing to, essentially, ignore the deficit. But we shouldn't! We've fixed our deficit in my lifetime - when President Clinton raised taxes. We re-created it again in my lifetime - when Bush II cut taxes. We would trivially fix the deficit by returning to Clinton-era tax rates, and have plenty of room to grow spending. There is no reason to accept this stupid republican principle of "never increase taxes" and create a new, stupid, economic theory around it. People tend to argue MMT in opposition to Republican economics, say republican economics are stupid, therefore MMT is right. Yes, republican economics are stupid. But they're not real economics. Keynesian economics is the gold standard, not the babble of the republican party, and you need to do better than that, not "it is an immutable law of the universe American taxes cannot go up". We agree our government needs to supply more goods and services than the taxes it raises pay for. We should not solve that by some nonsense about how money isn't real and we're creating and destroying it every second where the conclusion is a laffer-curve esque "we can just have a free lunch!" We should just fix it by raising taxes. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:26 on May 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Quick question but what is the difference between and methamphetamine and an amphetamine? Methamphetamine is both longer-lasting and far more potent and iirc is inherently more neurotoxic than amphetamine. There is also a huge difference between therapeutic and recreational usage of these substances. The positive effects of stimulants for someone with ADHD will persist well beyond any sort of “high” when first starting adderall, so there’s no need to constantly ratchet up the dose. If you’re chasing that high on a regular basis than you will need to constantly increase your dose beyond therapeutic levels.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
I should note there might be some merit to MMT in other aspects, like refining Keynesian predictions or the like - just not at all in the way it is used in political discourse.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2021 16:58
|
|