hence why bear bangers exist

So, you don’t need guns.

if we didn’t have our firearms things could’ve gone ugly.

So, you shot at the bears?

So, is 16% smaller than 40%?

shouldn’t we have access to these same tools?

Do you live in an area where you’re at threat from grizzly bears?

farmers who defend their property from varmints don’t serve a purpose to society

Farmers serve a purpose. Guns don’t.

16% is a majority?

Cars should be much more heavily regulated, IMO. But, they have escaped outright bans because they serve a clearly important purpose that’s beneficial to society. A gun doesn’t.

Why would it be progress to switch to Europe’s standard? What’s the cut-off amount that would make switching not worth it? There has to be some number if you’re being objective about it.

is also realistic enough to know that a gun, or even a few thousand guns, won’t do much against rocket-armed aircraft…

Which is what the civilized word has been saying to the US for decades now, but gun nuts in the US insist that people need to be armed so they can rise up against a tyrant.

For no good reason other than guns lead to deaths. That’s a pretty good reason.

As for the voltage requirements that’s only a thing because the entirety of Europe is connected in one large grid. Obviously Canada wouldn’t be.

If you changed the plugs without changing the voltage / frequency, then every device sold would have to be compatible with both standards. For certain devices that would be difficult or costly.

Sure, right, like how they’re supposed to be used in an uprising against a tyrant… but when there’s currently a tyrant in charge in the US, nobody’s doing anything.

Or how they’re great at stopping a “bad guy” home intruder, but that home intruder never actually intrudes, instead the gun is just used in a domestic violence situation, or for suicide.

I don’t think Canada joining the EU is really realistic. It’s not about geography, it’s mostly regulation.

For example, all EU countries meet the “European standard EN 50075:1990”, which is about electrical plugs. Every device in Europe is compatible with that plug, and every plug meets that standard. Even Switzerland which isn’t part of the EU meets the 2-prong standard. Canada uses the NEMA 1-15 and NEMA 5-15 standards instead. And it isn’t just the plugs. North America uses 120 V at 60Hz, Europe uses 230 V at 50 Hz. I really can’t see a way for Canada to switch to the EU standard without a massive cost and/or a very long implementation period. And what does it gain? I much prefer europlugs and 230V appliances. My electric kettle boiled a whole lot faster in the EU, and things were retained in the socket much better than the dumb blade connectors Canada uses. But, I wouldn’t want to have to pay an extra $2000 in taxes (x 40 million or whatever) just to switch to this slightly better standard.

That’s just the start of it. There are different standards for roads, vehicles, health and safety, basically every aspect of life. Canada could switch to some at great expense, like changing all road signs. But, AFAIK being truly part of the EU would mean switching to all EU standards, unless special exemptions were made.

IMO, what would make more sense is just closer integration: free movement of people, free movement of goods, maybe closer collaboration on research, health and safety, etc.

Any US state that wanted to join Canada would have to reckon with the “guns” thing. Even states that align with Canada in most ways still have a lot of gun nuts, even left-leaning gun nuts. Meanwhile, Canada has slowly been tightening already fairly restrictive gun laws. One glance across the border makes Canadians convinced that guns just escalate problems, they don’t solve them.

I use a credit card, which are standard in my country.

Also, even ignoring the Epstein stuff, she stuck with Gates while he was doing a lot of really unethical things at Microsoft. She either liked him, or liked his billions enough to stick with him for a long time. She doesn’t get a pass because she started spending the billions she got from him in the divorce for charity. Where did those billions come from? She was standing by his side as he raked them in by illegally using his monopoly to crush competitors to Microsoft and threaten Linux / Linux users with patent infringement, lawsuits, etc.

You’ve made a plan for them? Do they know that?

Almost every country around the world has a free way of moving money between people without using an app or third party website. It’s just a standard part of banking. I haven’t looked into it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Paypal has bribed and lobbied to keep that kind of functionality out of the US. So, the US has a shittier, more expensive, less convenient, more privacy-invasive version of what everybody else takes for granted. Just like with medical care, taxes, etc.

Epstein’s “day job” was being a socialite. He was the guy who knew everybody. If you wanted an introduction, he could do it. He was the guy who made sure that the riff raff stayed out, even if they were rich.

I’m pretty sure that everybody knew he was always around “young women”, but I strongly suspect that most of the people he interacted with didn’t know about the child sex abuse. They were there for his “rolodex”.

But, the end result is that because he was the guy who knew everybody in a position of power, his network shows who has the power. My guess is that at least half the people he had in his network were not into child sex abuse, and didn’t know that he was involved in that. But, I have only the world’s tiniest violin to play for those people. I think they’re guillotine-worthy because of their abuses of power, and how they hoarded obscene amounts of wealth. For far too long, the ultra rich have had a good public image in the US. People should have been furious with them just for hoarding all that wealth. And, the Epstein folks are the ones who not only hoarded the wealth, but spent it to gain power, which they used to warp society to benefit themselves. So, now everybody’s disgusted with them and hates them, it’s for the wrong reasons, but at least they’re hated.

My crimes will be explored in as much depth as possible in any extensive biography

Probably not. Without any investigation it will all be speculation. Biographies are written for a commercial audience. Who’s going to buy a biography of Andrew? People who like the royals, not people who hate them. If he’d actually appeared in court, the biography would have to address it. But, with it all just speculation, they can mention the speculation and move on.

It’s possible that some of the people who met with Epstein did it because they knew he could introduce them to other rich and powerful people. They might not have known about the child sexual abuse. Or they suspected something, but thought that Epstein was always seen with barely legal 18-year-olds, and that that was the extent of it.

I personally don’t think that Epstein introduced himself to billionaires by saying “Hi, I’m Jeff Epstein, I rape children, are you interested in raping children too?” I don’t believe that being a billionaire automatically means you not only enjoy raping children, but are excited to share that hobby with other people. Epstein probably sounded them out, investigated them, and only went into details with the ones who weren’t going to expose him. And, most likely, he got blackmail material on anybody who he did share his “hobby” with. He probably kept anybody who he thought might expose him at arms length, and he only let them see him with girls who were 18+.

So, while that plausible deniability exists, I’m sure Andrew wants to be able to claim that he was buddies with Epstein, but was so clueless that he never knew about the child sexual abuse.