SaltSong @ SaltSong @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

585

Joined

5 mo. ago

I know all the words in that sentence, but they don't cake any sense, strung together in that order.

This strikes me as a terrible idea.

My what, now?

Because we built a system where only 34 people in the entire nation get paid too look as far as six years into the the future. The president, and 1/3 of the Senate cap out at 4 years. The House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate can see 2 years ahead. Most CEOs and industry leaders are limited to 3 months.

Extra History did a good video on her.

Bloody well done, that woman.

I have specific interests.

Thank you for this. Now I know hire to turn them off.

I'm just there for the porn, these days. Any sort of meaningful interaction with people happens elsewhere.

Attacking any remaining trust in the US government, I see.

Contrary to the narrative, you don't become a billionaire by taking risks.

They will balk at the cost of owning/operating even a single Arleigh-Burke destroyer.

They don't need one. They need a sniper.

they have been too cheap thus far.

I'm pretty sure that Bezos had enough money to bribe moderate chunks of the army.

Primary them. Vote them out. Better a known evil turn an ally that betrays you.

That can't be good.

These things happen. My father served on a CV long ago, and he claimed that they pushed several aircraft over the side if they were deemed unreparable out of ship resources.

EDIT: Also, I think that's the first Houthi kill of an F-18.

That will be helpful, but for ducks sake. . .

Can we please get some sanity in the white house?

Chattel slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy. There’s no fuzzy area to debate the point.

I would agree with that. Can you point to where we were discussing liberal democracy?

For any policy authored by the enfranchised majority that impacts the disenfranchised minority, its passage and execution is categorically and indisputably undemocratic.

So no laws involving children or immigrants, then?

You're doing exactly what I'm arguing against. You're attributing a bunch of other qualities to "democracy," and demanding that they be treated as part of the actual definition.

I think we are done here. You're arguing against things I'm not writing.

One-Person, One-Vote is the generally recognized answer.

Yes, that is the general answer for who gets to vote. But as I describe, that doesn't guarantee fair.

To get what we think democracy means, we need as fair system, (who gets to vote) and a fair election. (votes counted properly)

But you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that a restricted voter population is a good thing. I'm arguing that it's still a democracy, provided it meets certain qualifications. I'm arguing that words have meanings, and that we shouldn't be letting 1960 anti-red patriotism trick is into thinking that "democracy" means anything more than leaders appointed by voting.

A bad democracy is still a democracy. An unfair democracy is still a democracy. A corrupt democracy may be a democracy, depending on the nature of the corruption.

And the Wright Flyer was an airplane.

I don't think something can rotate relevant to itself. If all of reality was the earth, and nothing else, how can you tell if it's spinning or not?

Please use small words if you try to answer this. I know a decent bit of applied physics, but once it turns to pure math, my head starts to swim.

Carefully trimmed sticker?

EDIT: Ah, I see you've handled it. Carry on, then.