assassin_aragorn @ assassin_aragorn @lemmy.world

Posts

21

Comments

3,115

Joined

2 yr. ago

And it doesn't matter what reason they have for doing nothing. At the end of the day, they still do nothing

For one, I think this was already required. I remember having to enroll in selective service.

For two though, whoever calls another draft is dead in the water. It's commonly accepted that starting an actual draft is political suicide.

That said, it would be nice if we could codify that and ban the draft.

This is common strategy to the right -- they try to convince everyone that there's violent criminals everywhere that no one's taking care of.

I thought this guy was a high schooler at most, but a 20 year old college student?

Fuck that. Actions have consequences. He's more than old enough to make his own choices and be held accountable to them.

On the upside at least I guess, now whenever someone googles this guy, this story will come up. So long as HR departments do this, he's fucked.

Oh lovely. Now when they ram a bunch of fishermen from the Philippines in international waters, they'll also kidnap them.

AMERICAN IMPERIALISM

Ironically most of these people also tend to make arguments in favor of Russian imperialism when they talk about how NATO is actually to blame for the war and Ukraine should accept a peace agreement.

"The candidate has done nothing to earn my vote, so I'm not voting for them."

"wtf why aren't people voting for the candidate I support?! They must just hate everyone and be a fascist since they can't see the obvious righteousness of my candidate"

These people never realize that this is a two way street. If candidates are going to earn votes, that means their candidate has to earn votes too and not just accept them for granted. They have to build bridges to achieve their goals. You can tell that those burning bridges don't actually care about their espoused virtues -- they just want to be right and stick it to their enemies.

If they couldn't get 5% in 2016, they aren't getting 5%.

Note also that Perot got >5% in 1996, but that did nothing for third party politics. The Reform party doesn't even have name recognition.

You want third parties to be viable? They need to start local and build a base from the ground up. They need to start having significant presence in state politics and legislatures, and we need to see them have a modest bloc of senators and representatives in Congress. Even if a third party did win the presidency, they'd be a complete lame duck with no Congressional support.

You should be asking yourself why third parties aren't doing this, and instead wasting money on presidential elections and conventions. The sad truth is that we don't have a third party because we have no serious third party contenders. None of them want to play the long game to actually win. They'd rather just grift donations.

It's almost like it's noteworthy that the US is not unique in this shittiness, and it's fucking awful of all the countries who did this.

The information about Russia did not come solely from the State Department: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/us/politics/covid-vaccines-russian-disinformation.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

And frankly, with the disinformation campaigns we definitively know Russia is doing, Volodya Ilich, it's not farfetched to think Russia would do this. Especially considering how brutally Covid hit Russia and the vaccine skepticism they had domestically.

The article says Biden shut it down in Spring 2021. Turns out your comment is completely wrong -- Biden shut down the program faster than it implemented insulin price caps.

This is why the person replying to you mocked .ml. You can't even read the damn article.

Technically, accounts were still in place afterwards and they didn't properly clean up the disrespectful mess of a program, but that isn't what you said. You said shut down the program, which demonstrably happened quickly.

It's fucked up when we do it, it's fucked up when Russia does it, it's fucked up when China does it. This is terrible.

Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.

This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.

I literally just ran into a .ml user who thinks Ukraine should stop being interested in NATO because it makes Russia mad. They're actively advocating for and defending imperialism so long as it's from a country they like.

They've got no foundational principles. It's all based on if they like the country or not.

to focus on starting to genocide the Chinese

So, in other words, you're saying that Trump wants to commit more genocide, and the assumption is correct?

So you're saying that as long as Ukraine does what Russia wants, the war will end -- because Ukraine isn't allowed to make sovereign decisions that upset Russia?

You're advocating for imperialism. Guess that's okay with you as long it isn't the West doing it, huh?

Has that worked well where it's been implemented?

We'll need it anyway to produce existing chemical materials sustainably. It may not be the best energy carrier nor most efficient, but it shines in specific applications. Vehicles are a promising example.

I mean ending weapons to Ukraine is a terribly idea. That would be like ending aid to Gaza. The only thing keeping Ukraine from Gaza is the military aid. Without it, it would end up in a similar position to Gaza in the eventual status quo.

If we want to prevent more apartheid states and neocolonialism like Israel/Gaza, we need to keep arming Ukraine.

The really key thing here is letting Ukraine decide what Ukraine wants to do. This whole war is because Ukraine wanted closer relations with the West over Russia, and that's their sovereign right. They aren't a vassal of Russia that has to do what they want. As long as Ukraine wants to keep fighting, we should help them fight. If they want a peace treaty, then we help in peace talks. They should get to decide their own destiny.

And that's what really makes Ukraine different from other armed conflicts that the US has meddled in. And it's why we need to keep sending them arms. Ending the supply like she wants to would be devastating.

I mean, it's hard to argue with that. It would still be genocide, but at least kids wouldn't be dying.

God. It's fucked up.

There's companies working on it! We're just broke

And yes, this is definitely the dirty kind. It may still be an improvement on using natural gas directly, but there would need to be a fairly comprehensive analysis to tell for sure. One possible advantage though is we could start building up a hydrogen infrastructure that we can then feed green hydrogen into and completely replace the dirty hydrogen.

Anyway though, you're right to be skeptical. It's important though to look into the details to determine if it's legitimately green energy or if it's just oil companies greenwashing. We need to shun the latter while we promote the former.

(There is a grey area, and it's the same as electric cars -- if we're using electricity from the grid to power cars, and electrolyzers which make hydrogen, is it truly green? I would say this is acceptable for the same reason EVs are acceptable. It'll become completely emission free once the grid is run on renewables.)