Did you even read my comment ? I never even came close to claiming the two things are morally/ethically the same, I literally state exact opposite explicitly more than once.

But legally both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters an unconditional direct financial benefit, if the politicians win their election. How are the situations differently LEGALLY ?

No, it’s not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn’t be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they’re not already working to fix those issues.

What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven’t moved a fucking mm.

And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it’s effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn’t easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.

So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can’t start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?

And wouldn’t this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.

In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.

So then why isn’t EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?

So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?

A) who says I’m lying

B) in what utopia do you live where politicians never break campaign promises

If I stand outside a voting center and promise to give each person 1000$ a month for the rest of their life if they vote for a candidate I like, that’s illegal.

It I stand om stage at a campaign and promise that, it’s called Universal Basic Income, is a legitimate policy suggestion and perfectly acceptable campaign promise.

So where’s the line ?

I understand the answer. My question is simply, why isn’t the answer to my comment also the answer to OPs Post ? Legally, the questions are pretty much equivalent, yet I get downvoted to hell for mine, but OP finds nothing but agreement. You people are applying the law differently, because you dislike Trump, but like UBI. And whilst I agree that UBI would he good, amd Trump sucks major ass, the law does not, amd should not, care about that.

Both situations are a politician promising to pass legislation that gives voters unconditional financial benefit, if the politicians win their election.

You’re all hypocrites. Yes Trump is a piece of shit, yes he almost certainly has no intention of following through with this, and yes his motivations are absolutely disgusting, but purely legally it’s no different from any other direct financial campaign promise, and if you can’t accept that just because Trump is a piece of shit, then you have a problem.

Though this becomes wishy with politicians/parties. You offering to pay for people’s healthcare costs if they vote for your favourite candidate would probably be illegal, but a candidate promising to institute universal healthcare is just a campaign promise, so this law leaves a very legitimate open question of when something a candidate says stops being a campaign promise and starts being a legally problematic bribe, because ultimately all campaign promises boil down to “vote for me and I will do something good for you/something you like”.

You could very much argue that a candidate promising UBI is effectively not very different from what Trump promised.

If you don’t own a car, or can’t drive (at the moment) for some other reason, in a lot of suburbs in the US you literally don’t have a choice.

Where I live in Germany there’s also a lot of supermarket delivery, but they’re generally picked and delivered by people working directly for the supermarket, not random gig economy dudes of the street, so since they have access to the stores inventory system they will automatically know what is available (and since the order app also has that access, you can’t even order anything the supermarket already doesn’t have in inventory at the time of ordering), and either automatically cancel, automatically substitute or send you a notification to pick an option if something is out.

If nothing else you can be damn fucking sure they won’t even attempt to fulfil wishes that constitute straight up crimes (such as exposing yourself to a minor).

As for everything else, they probably don’t have any super specific rules beyond that, what tthey likely have some kind of genericly vague, vibes based, catch all term that “wishes have to be in good faith and good taste”

As long as the river crossing doesn’t take (significantly) longer than around 5-10 minutes, there’s probably enough air volume in that bag for CO2 levels (which are actually the more accute problem in an airtight space, not oxygen) to remain acceptably low

That bag probably has enough air volume to last someone around 5 minutes (give or take, probably give since that’s based on adult respiratory rates, and that’s a kid) before noticeable symptoms of hypercapnia (too much CO2, which will become a problem before oxygen deprivation does) start setting in.

Depending on how wide the river is, that’s not actually too much of an issue.

If there was an air outlet, the water pressure would force the air out of the bag. It’s clearly inflated at pressure in the image, proving it must be (mostly) airtight.