NateNate60 @ NateNate60 @lemmy.world

帖子

31

评论

1,558

加入于

2 yr. ago

I am deeply offended by that. I worked in a municipal government for several years and I can assure you that there are plenty of Republican civil servants who take their jobs just as seriously and act with as much impartiality as their Democratic counterparts.

Like I said, to dismiss someone as "biased" only because they have the opposite political orientation is Trump-level reasoning.

Wait until we have six or seven votes on these comments and maybe then we can see

I don't consider mere membership in a political party as very strong evidence of bias. There are only two viable political parties in America and "membership" is nothing more than ticking a box on a form. Even I'm technically a Republican despite being a "woke lefty" because I just wanted to vote against Trump in the 2024 primary election and because it causes the Republican Party to waste money mailing me "get out the vote" campaign material which I immediately throw in the recycle bin.

Civil servants are allowed to have political leanings. This doesn't make them automatically biased. That is Donald Trump-level reasoning. Just like he was wrong to attack the New York prosecutor who happens to be a Democrat, I'm not going to attack this guy just because he happens to be a Republican.

I don't think this is at all a valid counter-argument as all of these powers can equally be given to civil unions, if they aren't already. In my eyes, if you propose to someone and "get married" and want to give your spouse the legal powers associated with what was previously marriage, you would register a civil union.

No civil marriage doesn't mean that people can't connect themselves legally; it just means that you have to register a civil union to do so. All of the points you raise are easily defeated by just defining civil unions to replace marriage in all respects. The system is already very close to how I describe. You can "get married" at a church or wherever else and in most countries that does not mean anything until you have registered it with a local registrar. I'm just saying that the thing that happens in a church is "marriage", and the thing that happens with the legal paperwork at the registrar's office is called "civil union" regardless of the genders or sexualities of the parties involved.

I cannot. You can only realise it's been used after it has already happened. I can try to think of a sentence all day but I will not come up with one because it can only come naturally.

Am I reading this wrong? The article seems to indicate that he's just a civil servant prosecutor? Is there any indication of bias?

I don't get what the annoyance is with "6-7". I've been using it for years and it just means "approximately" or "thereabouts".

invest in company

someone else says "your investment is worthless"

angry noises

Honestly I don't know why the state is still in the business of giving out marriages. Who gives a shit what other people want to call marriage. The state should not even have the authority to perform marriages at all. It should be left as a cultural or religious institution. It has no right to legislate what is and is not marriage. The only thing that should be available is civil unions, being defined as a financial and legal union of two or more consenting adults.

That way, anyone can "get married" at their local church, at a secular ceremony, or piss-drunk in a pub by a barmaid. It would be legally vacuous and has only the meaning that the parties ascribe to it, or that is given to it by the religious authority they choose to follow. But if they want to be legally joined together then they would go register a civil union at the local registrar's office.

If you're a bigot and don't consider two men in civil union to be married, cool, whatever, the law should not care about your opinion. You can privately think "those two are not married" all day, and be right in your mind. The only people whose opinions matter are those who want to call themselves married. There is no institution of "marriage" to defend, because you've already won. You can consider marriage to be anything you want and be right. Now you can leave other people alone.

These are not the same thing. At least in America, these terms are only superficially similar in the sense that they are "people who say they love their country".

When someone points out a country's shortcomings and how it could be fixed, a patriot listens and makes plans, while a nationalist denies those shortcomings exist or blames them on external factors.

When someone says we should learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, a patriot pulls out the history books, while a nationalist instead goes through them with a black highlighter.

When someone burns the country's flag as a protest, a patriot asks why, while a nationalist will say they should be thrown in prison.

When abuses of power happen by the police or government agents, a patriot will demand an investigation and accountability, while a nationalist will say that actually, they deserved it.

If you are going to accuse me of being a fascist, I will not expend the energy needed to displace that belief.

Trump decorated the Oval Office in his typical Trump style. Over-the-top gaudiness which seems high-class only to people who have no class to begin with. All Trump products are like that and have always been known to be like that, from his hotels to his various other shitty spin-off products.

Agreed. There are some people who are so far gone that it's better to cut them off and try to isolate them (i.e. Taliban), but the night is young with Syria and we can still encourage them to develop in a positive direction. Ultimately, with Bashar al-Assad now a prisoner of the Kremlin, a stable and peaceful Syria is in everyone's interest.

I've always thought this was a weird thing to attack Trump on. There are so many more valid attack points that surely this one didn't need to be invented.

The president of Syria was indeed at one point a member of an al-Qaeda affiliate. And he is an Islamist. But at the same time, since he came to power it's undoubtable that Syria, and indeed, himself, have moderated in this respect and while human rights abuses have not disappeared, the situation has improved a lot. Nobody will pretend that the good cancels the bad but at the end of the day he's a pretty grey person and I think calling him an "al-Qaeda jihadist" is unfairly dismissive of what he's actually done for Syria since he's come to power. To my eyes at least, he doesn't act or think like a terrorist; he acts and thinks like a man who is president of an extremely unstable country doing what he can to keep things together. Is it perfect? No.

I feel like being the leader of a group which toppled an authoritarian dictatorship and doesn't immediately go back to ruling with an iron fist, he has enough credibility deserves at least a chance at redemption. I expected it to turn out like how it was when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, and so far his government has exceeded (these very grim) expectations. But history will judge.

The hater becomes the hated

I have not been paying much attention to this. What are some examples of AOC and Mamdani defending Jeffries?

I did hear an NPR interview with Ro Khanna (member of Congress representing California 17, discharge petition signatory) today, where whether he had concerns about the authenticity of the files to be released, and he did say that he did. When asked further how he could be sure that the files so released are complete and accurate, he said that it would be dumb to attempt a cover-up or incomplete release, because many of the victims' lawyers have already seen the files and thus would know if the released files are incomplete, inaccurate, or inauthentic.

That being said, I do not expect Trump and his crack(pot) team of advisers to have the metal acuity to judge the probability of a successful cover-up correctly.

Linux Mint is great for my 80-year-old grandfather. No Microsoft account BS, and the interface is simple enough for him to learn. He only uses the computer to look at his investments online using Microsoft Edge and play Minesweeper (GNOME Mines seems to be an acceptable replacement for him), and look at old family photos. It runs great on his 6-year-old computer.

It's hard to argue that Windows 10 isn't way better than Windows 7 in terms of user interface, workflow patterns, security, and feature support. Despite the fact that Windows 10 comes with a lot of useless junk. Hell, even the junk it came with (Microsoft Edge, Cortana, OneDrive) is more useful than the junk Windows 7 also came with.

And similarly, while people have a lot of nostalgia for Windows XP, from an absolute standpoint, Windows XP is complete ass as an operating system. It was only good in comparison to Windows 2000, ME, and 98/95.

I think it's more likely that they'll just release all the files except for those which mention Trump and his allies, or edit out such references and pass it off as the genuine article.