Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AA
Posts
21
Comments
3,115
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It's a tricky line to balance. The entire Democrat base doesn't want to say fuck Israel, we're pulling out (even if I'd like for us to). So far she seems to be balancing quite well however.

    There really isn't anything wrong with Israel going after Hamas. They have that right. The problem is that they're just bombing blindly and going "did we get them?", and it creates a situation where those they hurt now have the right to seek revenge against the Israeli government.

  • Kamala has been pretty consistent on saying that what's happening in Gaza is absolutely unacceptable and she cannot turn a blind eye to it. It's the most harsh rhetoric we've seen from people in high leadership positions.

  • Are we doing the “Chinese Weather Balloon” hysteria again?

    If the US sent a bunch of weather balloons into Chinese airspace without any warning and they approached government and military sites, would you say the same thing?

    Without explicit permission from the government it is a breach of sovereignty. The US had the right to annihilate all of those balloons the instant they passed into US airspace -- just like China has the right to destroy the hypothetical US balloons as soon as they pass into Chinese airspace.

    For how often China beats the drum about sovereignty, they should know this.

  • No I think the person who fires the gun or drops the bomb is far more culpable than the person who gave them the gun/ammo/bomb.

    The person supplying the weapon still bears responsibility and guilt and is culpable. But they are not as culpable. The actual murderer is always the most culpable and the most guilty. Those who aid the murderer are culpable and guilty too, but far less so.

  • This is a classic case of the differences between lawful good, lawful neutral, and neutral good.

    Lawful good would feel conflicted but settle on conviction, because it was premeditated and not self defense.

    Lawful neutral would convict and feel no conflict at all. The law was broken, nothing else matters.

    Neutral good would not convict, because they don't think the law adequately handles this kind of situation.

    The problem is, within the legal system, neutral good is seldom an option -- by definition it's going to be some kind of lawful. And that sucks here.

  • we need a party for the younger people at this point that would fight for living wages and universal healthcare for all

    Bruh, younger people couldn't even show up to vote for a Democrat primary candidate who was fighting for those things. If they can't do that, they're sure as hell not going to be able to make a party lmao. And I say that as someone who was one of the younger people in 2020 and voted for Sanders in the primary. Young people needed to get their shit together, and based on 2022, it looks like they finally are getting there.

    Oh, and lowering prescription drug prices helps a lot of people who aren't geriatric, you fucking ableist. It would've helped me save a thousand or so over the last few years, at least. And that's not accounting for my surprise medical emergency early this year. If you aren't going to get off your high horse, then get out.

  • You sound more like an agitator trying to sow resentment than someone who actually believes in liberal values.

    There is a group that masquerades as "leftist" but they don't actually believe in any leftist ideals. The only thing they care about is "Democrats bad", and they want to see Democrats fail. Everything else is secondary. They'd rather see Trump win so they can say "I told you so" instead of seeing things get even a little bit better.