The well-being of the world should be everyone's problem. It's just that with the largest economy and comparative power in the world, the US has a greater responsibility than most. Queue the Spiderman quote.
Idk their economy definitely has benefitted from stuff like international shipping (which their “world police” have been essential in protecting) it’s just that they allow their oligarchs to seize most of the profits. Their government definitely didn’t take up the role out of the good of their hearts!
"The West" is essentially the group of nations attempting to abide by a moral code. It is not always, or maybe even often, successful, but there is a vast gulf between their morality-based approach and what China, Russia, DPRK, and other fascist/semi-fascist nations are doing.
Nah the west pulls plenty of shady, awful crap but that’s just a reason for the west (and everybody else) to try to be better - it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for other countries doing evil shit.
Huh, when did you make such a commitment? Sometime in between of toppling democratic governments, installing dictators around the world and invading sovereign nations?
Well the moral argument is obviously false on its face.
But the microchips argument is also bizarre. Taiwan isn’t the only country that makes microchips. In fact the US has been spending large amounts of money to stand up domestic chip manufacturing. And China is also the leading global supplier of plenty of other commodities. Why is it that only matters for microchips?
So first, the US having military bases surrounding China is tied into why they disagree with their neighbors. They allowed the US on the boarder so it makes sense they aren’t stoked about it. The US has at least 750 military bases around the world in 80 countries. The next closest country has 145 bases and thats the UK. If we want to reference imperialism, then starting with the US is the most practical based on this alone.
In addition, only 12 countries consider Taiwan as an independent country. Regardless if this is correct, the actions the US has recently taken with Taiwan is without question increasing tension in an already tense situation.
Furthermore, following the numbers on the Uyghur women being forced to have contraception implants would mean each woman has 8 impants. This makes absolute zero sense. The fact the US media’s primary source on the Uyghur situation is an outright lunatic does help make it all add up though.
All in all, it takes two to tango for sure. Yet the US seeing it’s global power drastically decline makes their moves less obfuscated and vividly more desperate.
If you’re concerned about human rights, why gloss over the US being notorious for human rights abuse? They have the largest prison population ever, comprised primarily of minorities who were obscenely experimented on during MK Ultra. Plus the prior and current treatment of Native Americans or the 6,000,000+ innocent citizens killed in the war on terror. The US is no longer even classified as a first world country. But it doesn’t matter cause the news said the US is definitely the best choice for the world police.
Are you for bombing Mexico to stop the opioid crisis too? While the idea is gaining traction stateside, it takes minutes to understand of the 14,000+ pounds of fentanyl seized at the Mexican boarder in 2022, over 90% was from US citizens. But logic is totally overrated when it comes to international law I guess.
The Americans doing bad shit doesn’t make it alright for China and Russia to do the same bad shit. Is it alright to keep slaves just because the yanks used to do it too? Is torturing and executing prisoners acceptable behaviour to you?
It’s not imperialism when the bases are invited and accepted. These bases open up because the host nations are worried about China and the US is the only country that has the scale to oppose a murderous regime from dominating the region.
It’s not that the US hasn’t also done bad things - it’s that they’re seen as a safer bet, despite those bad things, for those countries maintaining their independence.
Please give me an example of where the US was invited in by the people of a country. That certainly didn’t happen in Japan, Korea, or the Philippines unless you’re a fan of right wing dictators.
im sorry. i wish more of your neighbors cared about stories like yours and threw that ass clown out of power. i hate him and what the republican party has become.
What are you even talking about? The original commenter began trolling by on purpose stating some basic fact even these people whose will you support would say is not true. There is no constitution or state that calls itself Taiwan.
Yes I know what you mean, but see, there is ROC whose contitution currenlty says Taiwan is only a region, and the PRC, who says the same. This is what I adressed before. And besides, by the poll you mention, that even undermines it, as when the rest supports things stay the same, means the majority supports Taiwan is a part of ROC.
ROC is a loser of the Chinese civil war, a separatist state, currently full with American funded politicians that paratize on the Chinese territory. And there is no state or constitution that calls itself Taiwan. Therefore the original commenters statement is plain wrong. I don’t even know why somebody can make a false statement, and when called out, everybody in response come with complex analytics besides the point. I don’t even understand what you mean.
Do taxpayers of one nation see their taxes spent in the other? No? That's because Taiwan is not China, and China does not own Taiwan.
No laws passed in China have effect in Taiwan, China has zero say in how the country is run, but everyone has to pretend that Taiwan is part of China or else Pooh Bear will throw a bitchy fit and invade.
The Chinese State is heavily invested in Taiwan, it’s clearly not just an independent country.
China will only invade if the West keeps arming them, because China won’t tolerate an arms buildup in Taiwan. That’s a perfectly reasonable stance. Imagine China started shipping billions of dollars of weapons to Puerto Rico lol
Pooh Bear
Ah yes, calling a Chinese man a yellow animal. Definitely not racist.
Calling Pooh Bear the name that he earned from dissidents in his own country is not racist. The fact that he sends people to prison for it is insane. And the fact that you, as a tankie will deny reality is also insane.
Pooh Bear is a single man. It's not racism when your insult only applies to a single dictator. Tankies love to scream racism at calling Xi Pooh Bear, but are really just mad that we all make fun of their favorite dictator.
As to Chinese investment in Taiwan. Since you can't read the article, just know that Taiwan bans investment from any company connected to the Chinese government, and has tightened those rules to include international subsidiaries.
Other sources I've seen have put the grand total of allowed investments in Taiwan from China at less than $6 billion US. In other words, a rounding error to their GDP.
The USA is heavily invested in China - does that make China a province of the USA? Does IMF investment in Africa/Asia mean that the West is morally justified in invading them whenever they decide to buy weapons off Russia?
It tells me that most people prefer an eternal cold war to escalating to a hot war. If China backed off and made it clear they would not attack, those numbers would change.
China can’t actually do that without Taiwan making a reciprocal agreement to stop engaging in military buildup against China. Peace requires an agreement on both sides. Otherwise, Taiwan could just build up endlessly and then attack China because it left itself vulnerable.
Let us imagine China started giving Puerto Rico billions of dollars in military hardware. What do you think America’s response would be?
China threatens to invade daily, so Taiwan should stop preparing to be invaded? No. Fuck off. China needs to knock it off and stop threatening to invade. Full stop.
Taiwan isn’t a potential rape victim, it’s a guy constantly telling everyone he’ll kill any motherfucker that sets foot on his land and is constantly building up his stockpile of weapons and ammo.
Guys like that often end up becoming mass shooters.
To my mind, it sure seems like Taiwan is like a home owner with small kids who is constantly telling people that their neighbor with unchained pittbulls is dangerous, and then gets criticized for putting up a fence to keep the unchained pittbulls out of their yard.
China is like a rabid dog here, and you're saying Taiwan shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? Do fuck off.
"Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 "They also will answer, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 "He will reply, `I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
-Some Socialist Groomer Theater Kid
I’d bet any amount of money that most of not all of this bill’s co-sponsors profess (at least surrounding election time) to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and a striving to be more Christlike. And all of them seemingly impervious to cognitive dissonance.
I'm an atheist who believes strongly in separation of church and state, but I would dearly love for this to be appended to the law as an amendment. The place is already a theocratic nuthouse so might as well use that to do some good for a change.
Lol@ ‘any American politician’. ‘Any American politician’ is a candidate to rule literally on top of the graves of the Native Americans’ their ancestors genocided…
Truly the US is Israel in it’s final form. Which explains all the excusing you see
This is not genocide, this is regular war. That is why it is called war. Mass casualties of the civilian population happen ALL the time. Nobody cares about it most of the time though. In war the most extreme and brutal things happen every day.
So you think Israel’s actions are not justified. Then let’s talk about something from the past, with a whole lot of casualties:
The US destroyed two large cities in Japan with A-Bombs in WW2 causing Japans surrender.
Indiscriminate bombardment of civilians is not "war" Joe, it's fucking terrorism and genocide.
"But I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using,”
Of course! Indiscriminately shelling a densely populated civilian population for weeks surely couldn't add up to such numbers! Let's just split the difference and call it two or three.
Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but Israel is a terrorist state. Civilians are caught in the middle because we allow the terror to continue.
Do NOT apologize for mass murder and coordinated, deliberate terror.
The bill also gives people the ability to justify use of “defensive force” upon an unhoused person in instances of criminal trespass, including “unlawful camping” on the owner’s property. This would allow property owners to use deadly force against unhoused people on their property without facing criminal consequences.
Sounds like Kyle Rittenhouse is gonna get his mom to drive him to Kentucky. Seriously though, this is fucking disgusting legislation. Homeless people are dehumanized enough but Kentucky is on the verge of legalizing hunting them for sport. What vile pieces of shit those 45 Republican co-sponsors are.
What the smart psychopaths will do is march up to them with a gun and provoke the squatter to try to block it. Now they “fear for their life” and steadily force is justified. Pull a Rittenhouse.
I would assume that this is just the first in what will be a widespread effort among red states to do the same.
Simply because banning abortion is essentially guaranteed to lead to an increase in pregnancy-related deaths, and that's a statistic that undermines the conservative position.
And it's ALWAYS the case that when truth is contrary to conservative positions, the positions don't change to accommodate the truth - the truth is hidden to protect the positions.
Good! They always think if they just put “mom” or “liberty” in their title people can’t question their beliefs. I’ve talked to right wingers who can’t figure out others don’t think like they do. There is very little perspective over there.
Except those victims who were in federal prison for possession who are now all free. Those victims, I think it helps significantly.
As the article notes, Kamela Harris has come out in favor of big marijuana reforms. Also, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act already passed the house in 2022. I honestly don't know what happened that it died in the Senate or why it didn't go anywhere, but do you know anything about Biden being specifically responsible for that?
But despite support from top Democrats, the legislation is highly unlikely to move in Congress during this election year. Republicans, many of whom have opposed federal cannabis legalization, control the House, and none have signed on to the bill. Congress has also labored to perform even the most basic duties of governance amid deep divisions within the Republican majority in the House. And few must-pass bills remain, leaving proponents without many opportunities to slip it into a bigger legislative package.
It's honestly a little bit weird that this story, which the natural packaging of would be "Hey here are a bunch of Democrats working again on getting marijuana federally legal, which is apropos because some more minor things Biden did to loosen marijuana laws are just now coming to pass", is being packaged as "HERE'S HOW BIDEN IS FUCKING US ON MARIJUANA AGAIN".
Here’s a 2-minute video Rich Seigel, a brave Jewish man from New Jersey. In that video he protested what he called the illegal property sale (perhaps one of the ones mentioned in the article) of Western Bank homes in a racially-restricted event. He also succinctly describes how the March 10th event broke both US and international law and why he refuses to let ethnicity = justification. “As Jews, we don’t get to fly under the radar and break the law and hide it in a synagogue.”
Not a single self-proclaimed “liberal” politician in the West ever complains about how, by trying to pass itself as “The Jewish Nation”, Israel has been slandering the image of all Jews, including those Humanists who happen to be Jews, a large part of them being highly educated Westerners who are very much the opposite of the old-style ultra-racist religious supremacists that dominate in Israel.
If there is one thing this whole situation has made painfully clear is that if indeed it’s all about “shared values” as we’ve been hearing from Western politicians for decades, then the values they share must be those of racial supremacism, as they’re clearly not Humanist values.
Unsurprising you see the likes of Germany choosing “good jews” from “bad jews” (like how recently a german university revoked and invitation to an American Jew professor because he had criticised the acts of Israel in Gaza), same as in the old days.
Yes, I’ve noticed a lot of No True Scotsman fallacy as well, where dissenting voices are determined to be “not true Jews” or “antisemitic, self-hating Jews”. In December the US Congress passed a law that explicitly states anti-Zionism = antisemitism, even over the objections of many members (mostly Democrats) including Jewish member Jerry Nadler. Here’s a short video of Nadler calling the bill “either intellectually disingenuous or factually wrong” and explaining how Jews he has represented oppose Israeli policy without being antisemitic. Netanyahu has stated multiple times that anti-Zionism (in context = opposition to his policies) is the exact same thing as antisemitism.
There is an official, governmental, international battle to standardize what Jews are allowed to think. It completely disregards the fact that Jews are like any other ethnicity in that they represent a huge spectrum of beliefs and moralities, from saints to villains and everything in between. It’s been proven time and again that judging people based on genetics or birthplace/residence only leads to injustice and suffering.
As I said in another post, the real problem is the cohalition of closet racist supremacist that has formed around Israel, who simply support genocidal white supremacism and colonialism (and remember, Israel has been heavilly portratraying itself as a Western nation for decades, so they’re treated as “whites” at least when it comes to a conflict with those deemed non-whites such as Palestinians)
The reaction of most of Western power elites has nothing to do with Humanism or treating people fairly (Jews or otherwise) and all to do with Racism, especially Islamophobia, so you end end up with shit like non-Jews deeming actual Jews as anti-Semite (the kind of “traitor of the race” slander that the Nazis so loved)
I suppose that, for anyboy who hasn’t been really thinking about it and observing the theatre of Western politics with a skeptical eye, the biggest surprise is how Liberals - who have always portrayed themselves as anti-Racism - turn out to be heavy supporters of genocidal racist supremacism.
There’s a lot of shit governments calling themselves islamic, christian, hindu nations. Smart people won’t let themselves be baited by any of these fucks
Maybe the thin, thin, “oh so thin” silver lining on this big black cloud which is the Israeli Genocide in Gaza and the behaviour of Western power elites with regards to it, is that more people with humanist principles who, because of being part of the majority etnicity in their country (thus unlikelly to have been the target of racism hence not quite as keenly alert to its many faces) let themselves be swindled by certain self-proclaimed anti-racist western elites, will become keenly aware of all the racial bating and profound racism still around us at the highest levels that’s portrayed as natural and even as “positive”.
Take away the bullshit that’s been spinned around the subject in the West to make it “politically correct” and you get to the core, which is that judging or treating people differently because of their etnicity is racial descrimination, and doing it on the “positive” side is as much racial descrimination as on the “negative” side.
The NAZIs themselves didn’t only do negative discrimination, they also did “positive” discrimination towards various favoured races, especially the Arian Race, so maybe people should be having a good hard look at the people with discourses excusing and supporting even the most evil of deeds of the governments of nations who are self-proclaimed representatives of “favoured” etnicities.
The entire mental architecture of racism is alive and well in the modern West, and in it’s modern clothes it remains wrong, no matter how much some closet racists try and paint their kind of discrimination of judgement and treatment on racial grounds as “positive”.
It looks like both of the people referred to moderate but as to your point about modern, I wonder if there has been that much of a change in the last 20-30 (or 50 or 100) years as much as perhaps modern technology providing a louder megaphone, and as a result greater “reward” for being more and more–outlandish–to put it politely?
I don’t wish that pain and suffering on anyone. Ever her terrible ass.
That said, she’s 100% the type of person that would get the medical care, and never mention it on the trail, and continue to try and win over the nuts who want a ban.
She already lies to her base in order to get votes.
Some people deserve bad things to happen to them no matter how unethical it is to wish for, or do. Unethical maybe, but justified entirely. Our society is up against the clock on ecological and social issues and being ethical in the current system will not save it.
I don’t like to play devil’s advocate, but there is a sliver of light between “I am fine with” and “I will push for” a federal law. Both terrible stances given the makeup of this country.
TLDR; some guy you never heard of is running for the Republican nomination for president. In September, he sued to have Trump removed from the primary ballot in Alaska and dozens of other states. The article makes no mention of an upcoming trial date or anything said or done by an election official or judge.
I never try to be too hopeful with the current Supreme Court, but if they struck down the Private Right of Action, that would mean that if you brought a Private Right of Action case to the Supreme Court, they would refuse to even hear your case, because you don’t have standing to bring the case.
However, the Supreme Court has recently heard cases that were brought as Private Right of Action cases. So, ruling against Private Right of Action would be going against the precedent of this exact Supreme Court with the exact Justices who are currently seated. If they were going to strike down the Private Right of Action in the future, then they should not have heard those recent cases in the past.
So, there might be reason to be hopeful.
However, if I have my numbers right, all of the conservative Justices except one swore, under oath, in their confirmation hearings that they considered Roe v Wade to be precedent. And despite that, all of them struck down Roe v Wade, which means they were lying under oath in their confirmation hearings. So, these conservative Justices are obviously not afraid to be lying hypocrites.
I think ideally that lying in your confirmation hearing should be enough reason to remove you from your position, especially if the position is that of a judge. You were confirmed under false pretenses.
They didn't actually lie under oath. They say that the ruling is precedent and settled law. They do not say that they would not overturn precedent.
And they will always argue that you do not want a justice that is not willing to overturn pass precedents. If not for overturning past precedents, segregation, etc. would still be legal.
I think its expected for a conservative to make bad-faith arguments. In principle I agree that since justices are not supposed to be partisan politicians should not be asking how the justice would rule on a future case. But it is bullshit that the nominee doesn't have to give real answers to their thoughts on past cases.
You expect Chief Justice Robert’s Supreme Court to follow set rules precedents and ethics? LoL! They’d vote for A on Tuesday and against A on Wednesday if it meant getting a fatter paycheck!
Russia paid off one side, so only the other side complained.
Israel pays off everyone except progressives (who won’t take it), and moderates/conservatives never give a shit if progressives complain about anything.
Israel can fuck right off, right now, after breakfast, in the afternoon, this evening, tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, ten years from now and in the 26th century.
They can fuck off and never, ever, fucking come back.
In fact, Elon Musk is feverishly working on a geostationary orbital platform that beams images of Moses down to Tel Aviv to chide the Israelis and tell them that their new promised land is on Pluto, and that Israel is too infested with impure outsiders for them to safely remain there.
It’s not Israel, it’s an American pro-Israel group which is a meaningful difference legally.
And it’s not racist if they’re targeting her obvious and proud pro-Palestinian political opinions and policy objectives. Republicans are funding a candidate against the only Palestinian congress person too, that isn’t racist. They are against her policies.
truthout.org
Hot