Was coming to say this. Not a fan of pharma companies by any means, but the price reflects costs associated with Drug Discovery, R&D, clinical trials, building and/or modifying manufacturing equipment to commercialize at scale, etc. Once setup, it's cheap to run, but a lot of capex to get to that point. With all of that said, the biggest problem with this drug is they had to an invent a problem for it to fix instead of using drugs that already work. This drug has been repurposed about 3 times because they haven't actually made money off of it yet. If we had an honest FDA they would condone Hydroxycholoroquine as effective therapy and Gilead would have no choice but to lower cost of remdesivir to compete, (i.e. let the free-market dictate). However, lobbyists don't get paid to let the free market decide the outcome, and they don't bribe government officials because they want it left to chance.
The cause? Bad parents. The end. As a kid, if I fucked up and got arrested, I knew I was spending the night in jail. No one was going to come to save me, even though they easily could, I knew they wouldn't. The "privilege" I grew up with was earned with respect, hard work, good grades, obeying curfew and any other rules imposed on me. If I performed poorly, there were consequences. If I got bad grades in school, my parents would tell me to study harder, read more, take better notes, pay attention in class, etc. They would not call and complain to the teacher. Bad parents, protect their kids from any negative consequences, and they grow up wholly incapable of dealing with any adversity. The ironic part is kids are manufacturing fake adversity so that they can be a part of a cause and virtue signal. The other problem is social media. Nothing but narcissists seeking validation from acquaintances and strangers over the internet because they have a warped concept of self-worth (ties back to bad parents). Cause is Bad Parents, which is exacerbated by gratuitous social media usage.
They might view that as the most favorable card in their shitty hand. They are panicking. For the most part the left will vote left and the right will vote right. They are fighting for the middle...and most of those people want to be left alone. Ruining their lives, destroying their careers, and burning their cities is not winning them over. They may realize that they can never get these voters back. Additionally, the level of fraud needed to overcome this massive gap is becoming exceedingly more difficult. Offing Biden and starting a civil war could be their hail mary.
The real injustice is absolving criminals of accountability for their actions and pretending that they are not the cause of the effect that they bring upon themselves. Players love to say, "Cops shouldn't have shot him in the back." But none of these players say "Jacob Blake shouldn't rape children, assault police officers, resist arrest, fail to comply with authority, and escalate a situation that necessitates the need for the use of lethal force." What is privilege in this country? It's not having to be accountable for your actions.
Definitely think that they are trying to save themselves from the embarrassment of their low ratings. Not sure what their TV contracts look like, but the ratings could be so bad that the financial ramifications for the following year could be enormous. Their Criminal Lives Matter rhetoric has backfired and they need to pull the plug and start fresh and hope people forget about their love for China, Criminals, and hate for America and it's citizens.
Game Theory. Prisoners Dilemma. They are going to sing so loud, they'll make songbird McCain look like a patriot. Do they want to take the fall for the heinous acts of the Clinton Crime Family? It's one thing to go down in history as a traitor, it's another to be remembered as a traitorous satanic pedophile. Too many people in the game, too many opportunities to be betrayed. The first to sing gets the best deal. If they don't take the deal, I suppose the alternative is suicide, assuming that's a better option. Sociopaths tend to only look after themselves. Only a matter of time. One reason to drag the game out... you don't know who is talking or what they've said, they're all pinning their hopes on congenital liars to keep quiet.
These people are being very loose with the term "into" in this scenario. Sidewalks are for pedestrians. They are illegally walking down the middle of the street. Did they have a permit to close the road for their riot? Irrelevant if the driver drove into them (he didn't) because they're in the middle of the street illegally.
Q is likely an intelligence op to circumvent normal channels of communication which are controlled. The movement is premised on free thought, logic, and evidence. Information is disseminated in code, because the exercise is to inform the public to think for themselves and do their own research, question information, and debate ideas freely. Q doesn't openly say what is going to happen, because that would defeat the point and would make Q no different than MSM and telling you a narrative of what to think, and not how to think. Q is dangerous because of this. It's deprogramming the masses by teaching them how to think again. Some of the information shared by Q is intended for the public, some is intended for the Deep State. Information is fluid, you need to keep your enemy off-balance and guessing. That's why you have spooks that try to hijack narratives (ala Alex Jones) so that the credible information is dismissed because it is attached to other insane ideas which are not relevant (Lizard people). Most conservatives are already free-thinkers, however a lot of people that are apolitical align themselves with the left, because that's what seems to be the populist movement. If you understand game theory, it makes perfect sense. The seed has been planted. MSM can't control it, this is why it's dangerous. If you come across an "idea" yourself, it is more likely to take hold, this is the purpose of Q...enlightenment. Q breaks the conditioning, and then dominoes fall one by one.
Some for sure, but I would find it hard to believe that "most" were birthed by parents born in those years. Average age of conception is early mid-twenties for most boomers, so your premise would be based on this generation conceiving mostly in their 30s, which would make the average age of conception highest in boomers compared to every other known generation in history. However, we know this is not true.
Problem is that people are not taught to respect law enforcement in this country. I would say 99.9% of policing problems would be solved if people complied with directions from police officers. This would be especially true if you have a weapon or pose physical harm to the officer. I have yet to see a suspect fully comply with a police officer that ended in a deadly shooting...it never happens.
I don't think these people understand how psychologically devastating this is for black people, or maybe they do. Essentially, you obliterate their self-esteem to the point that they only have self-doubt and are never sure if they really earned anything in their life. Was everything they "earned" really just charity. Ultimately, they are left unfilled, and unhappy because they are not allowed to compete and win on their own merits. Additionally, it only reinforces doubt from the other races in black people they come across because they are unsure if they are truly worthy of their role or position in society. The guilt that a normal person must feel to be given praise for things they did not earn has to be tremendous. If you end up being a sociopath it won't matter I suppose, but most people would be burdened by accolades or achievements which they know they did not actually earn. Can I be proud beating Usain Bolt in a 100m dash if I'm only running 10m?
Boomers 1945-1964 --> on average children would be born (1970 - 1989) Genx - 1965-1980 --> on average their children would be born (1980-2005) Millennial - 1981 - 1996 --> on average their children would be born (2006-2021)
So millennials on average were likely raised by younger boomers and older gen-xers. Most probably born to parents who were born 1960-1970.
The problem is society believes that men and women are exactly equal, but biologically this is not true. Men and women are complimentary. There are many things women can do exceptionally well that men cannot, and vice versa. By having both parents in the home you have more discipline and balance in a child's life on an aggregate level. In addition, they can offer greater emotional and financial support as well as share household/parenting responsibilities. This is not to say that you can't have a child raised by a single parent that excels while a child raised by both parents is a burden on society, just that generally this will be much more rare. One explanation for why single mothers have more difficulty could also be explained by biology. That is, larger swings in hormones affecting brain chemistry, the emotional response it creates, and the subsequent decisions that arise from that. Some women are very aware how hormones are influencing their mood and actions, others are less aware. When you're single, you lose a potential sounding board to gauge the appropriate decisions. With that said, there are likely several other contributing factors. My other thought is that men are more likely to demand discipline and respect and less fearful of seeking the child's approval, making them less prone to manipulation. Lastly, these are all "in general" theories as there are single mothers who are great and single fathers that are not.
"Jacob Blake is an incredible person."