Yea, I'm having a hard time believing those claims. Beating gravity requires a lot of energy, and oil still has a very high energy density, so that's why no one's really talking about electric planes. Driving range of 200 miles and flight range of 11 miles would've been plausible to me.
The US has loads of trains. This is a huge misnomer. The US has one of the most complex commercial-industrial train networks in the world. The problem is the commuter one uses the same tracks and is massively underfunded.
America has one of the worst run freight rail networks in the world. Plighted by decades of deferred maintenance and destruction of existing infrastructure in service of the all mighty operating ratio.
Amtrak would be far more reliable without the American freight rail industry clogging up the lines with massive super trains and refusal to make capital improvements to the network.
First, the US would need to have more locomotive manufacturers than you can fit in a single sprinter van. We've abandoned rail so thoroughly that we have to have foreign companies manufacture most of our rolling stock these days.
We’ve abandoned passenger rail, but not freight rail. The USA consistently ranks as one of the top users of freight rail (and by many metrics it is the top user of freight rail). The issue is that most American cities outside of the northeast corridor tend to be far enough apart that you are going to be better off flying. High speed rail hasn’t really caught on yet, but I suspect in another 15 years it’s going to be lot more common now that it’s starting to look commercially viable
We have just about the dumbest freight rail operators, though. They care so much about cost curves that they regularly turn down highly profitable expansions because it would make the line go down. Being highly profitable isn't good enough when the line isn't going up. It also makes them absolutely allergic to capital expenses, not to mention how extreme their cost-cutting measures are (especially re: labor) even at the expense of safety. Cutting $10 of cost by rejecting $20 of new business is a bargain in the eyes of these morons.
Not to mention the pure madness of the track & right-of-way being privately owned. That shit is just bonkers.
I wonder how much worse our rail mode share would look if you did a comparison of countries without including unit trains. I suspect very, very much worse.
Also average rolling stock age is what, 20 years? And there's still units from the first days of modern roller bearings in service? Yeesh.
I am not at all expert in the matter, but aren't freight rates heavily regulated? That would likely put a damper on expansion -- if you can't easily increase price in response to demand, the default strategy will be to milk your existing resources for every drop. Any expansion will detract from profit margin.
I wouldn't say that at all. I would describe it as the opposite, an unregulated hellscape.
They build and maintain their own tracks at their own discretion except when the public steps in to fund a particular project. There are rules about operating their right-of-way... many of which they have a standard practice of completely ignoring and nobody does anything about it, especially when it comes to the law that they give passenger rail preference.
They mostly can set their own prices, with only market competition controlling what they set them to. The STB is pretty toothless even when there is a complaint of anti-competitive behavior.
Outside of a small number of high-volume passenger corridors, they have complete freedom to set their own schedules. In the last decade, they've started increasingly operating trains unscheduled and calling it "precision scheduled rail". In actual practice, PSR is just running the longest trains they physically can and having them leave the yard exactly when they're full and not according to any clock. They theoretically need to show right of way to passenger service, but their trains have gotten so big and long that they are physically unable to show right of way and so they just don't.
The mandatory safety rules are pretty minimum, especially when compared to things like air travel. Enforcement of Environmental Protection rules and post-incident safety reviews are pitifully enforced.
They're also the only private industry specifically exempt from the NLRA. Just the rail industry has a largely weaker set of worker protections than every other American gets.
I'm sure I could keep coming up with more examples. But as far as I've ever seen, the only thing stopping them from expanding service is an unwillingness to do so. Regular Old Market bullshit short-term financial goals are preferred even if they are not sustainable and long-term sustainability is unacceptable because it would hurt short-term financial goals.
The industry doesn't really need more regulation though. Because what it needs is nationalization, at least of the track and ROWs.
Just in case you're not aware, armored trains are (or were) a thing. In the US they were used from the US civil war to early in the cold war (at the end there to transport nuclear weapons).
In the rest of the world... the most recent use is by Russia in their invasion of Ukraine.
Statistically close to all trips are within a couple of miles of home. US average vehicle miles traveled per person per day are a staggeringly high 25, yet still, nearly all trips people make are very close to home. Good pedestrian and bike infrastructure is enough to cover virtually all of those trips. You don't need roads for cars. You don't really need trains. You don't need personal aircraft for sure. You don't need autotaxies or any other weird techbro drone solution. You just need maintained, pleasant bikeped routes where you won't feel like at any moment you may get mowed down by a F250 SuperDuty. But we deliberately design spaces to be unpleasant and unsafe for anyone outside of a car to stop people from walking even though designs like that are WAY more expensive for the taxpayer.
High-speed rail and intercity mass transit are super neat and I'd love to see more of it. And that's definitely the kind of trip a "flying car" is primarily confronting. But it's not even the real problem that needs fixing. Trips to a park, grocery store, and bar are the trips that need fixing, and the fact that we encourage and sometimes even force designs where you NEED cars to make those trips is madness.
There's very little correlation between cities with good bikeped culture and cities with good weather. The only factor that's highly correlated is quality of the bikeped network. This idea is a flat-out myth.
Other countries mange this with proper clothing and a variety of alternative public transit options.
Rain Capes are a popular solution for rainy weather when cycling.
Or you chose to avoid the bike that day and take the bus/streetcar/metro/etc.
I live in NYC and by far my favorite aspect is being able to decide between a variety for transit options that best suit the specific trip I’m making. For example, I typically commute by bike, but if it’s raining I can easily switch that trip to be on the subway.
and bar are the trips that need fixing (...) and the fact that we encourage and sometimes even force designs where you NEED cars to make those trips is madness.
It's utterly baffling to me that bar culture is so alive in America where we have to drive everywhere. It seems like a fucking obvious problem that everyone just ignores. Under what circumstances is a person driving themselves to a bar, parking there for a while, then leaving unimpaired? People should be protesting this in the streets; why does no one seem to care?
It's worse than that. I would venture that in nearly all US places where a new bar can be built there is a required mandatory minimum number of parking spaces to build next to it to ensure it's "easy" to drive to. Which doesn't even work, but that's a separate screed.
Most civil engineers and urban planners don't even think about it because that's not the job as they see it. The professions surrounding urban planning and development largely just consider the codes and manuals to be received wisdom and so carry out their teachings uncritically.
Literally all VTOL ideas are like this. People are totally oblivious to the fact that helicopters are VTOLs, so anything that tries to mimic that ability is just building a terrible type of helicopter.
I fucking hate, and from the bottom of my heart, how Biden is funding the genocide in Palestine, but I’m still going to vote for him this time, because we just can’t have a person like Trump in the white house, period. I still can’t figure out how he got in the first time. I’d never let my 10 year old lead a country, yet we let Trump do it for four fucking years. I, too, am sick of this “the lesser of two evils” bullshit, but this time I’m giving it a pass because of Trump. We already have a crumbling country and can’t afford another four years of this dude.
Ten year old?! Thats a high bar for most republicans these days. They want knee jerk and whining. Thats something most 10 year olds are already figuring out doesnt get them what they want.
I think Joe Biden is maybe the best president of my lifetime, and I’m going to vote for him with my head held high even though I live in a red state where it doesn’t matter at all. I wish things were simpler in the Levant, but I appreciate that Joe Biden is between a rock and a hard place with Israel. It’s not like he can just take Bibi out. He’s not Boeing. That said, even if I laid the entire genocide at Biden’s feet (which, while he’s not blameless, is absolutely not appropriate), he would still be head and shoulders an improvement over Donald Trump.
For that matter, I’d absolutely let my 12 year old run this country before I’d let Trump have a second term. My kid is brilliant, and more importantly, unlike Trump he listens to advice, can take no for an answer, and gives a shit about having a functional democracy four years from now.
A second Trump term is an existential threat to the nation. Hold your nose, hold your neighbor’s nose if you have to, but every able-bodied patriot owes it to their descendants and their patriotic ancestors to prevent a second Trump term.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
He has all but said he would cut Israel loose to do whatever they needed to finish the job.
The use of Israeli aggression is not a point of comparison when viewing the differences between trump and Biden.
Edit: and I apologize for the late edit - FWIW Biden has become critical of Israeli actions and offered some aid to Palestinians (Yeah, I absolutely agree it isn’t enough) while trump would prefer to wash his hands of the whole Palestine thing. That is a notable difference.
It isn’t the potential for denial that initiated my reply, it’s the fact that people declare US support of Israel is a strike against Biden when comparing Biden to trump as a reason to consider not voting for Biden. This is a false comparison and it is the point I am making.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
Because Democrats are suppose to be better than that. But, apparently, they actually aren’t.
This is about the Democratic party. This whole “vote for the least fascist candidate” has reached a breaking point. It’stotally beyond the pale and isn’t just about whats best for the next election cycle. People simply cannot actively support a genocidal party because it runs fundementally against their core values.
We’re not talking about compromising on tax policy or economics here. We’re talking about fully mask off genocide support. It’s deeply unconscionable to anyone who has a moral compass.
No, you’re not listening. Stop fear-babbling about fucking Trump for one fucking second and consider that voting for Biden is voting for genocide. It’s putting your own name to it.
While that clearly means nothing to you and you’rejust fixated on your own self-interest, consider how non-sociopaths might view this choice.
Ok. GFY for making the “if you vote for Biden you vote for genocide” argument while completely ignoring trump would do the same. You’re just a damn shill for the right wing. Useless MF.
I would honestly get yourself checked out by a psychologist. Normal people are not this incapable of understanding why someone might have trouble voting for a genocidal fascist.
Like, yes, you disagree, but I’m talking about how easily you’re able to support genocide without blinking an eye and then getting angry at other people who won’t actively support genocide.
The level of selfish disregard for even attempting to understand is really disturbing. Like, you understand that there are people right now that have relatives in Gaza being killed with the bombs that Biden gave Israel, right? You understand that Biden spit in those people’s faces when they asked him to not support genocide? Intellectually you can at least wrap your head around that, right?
lol, keep making stuff up about me, tankie. Keep throwing innuendos at me couched as reason so everyone can read your anti-Biden propaganda instead of what’s actually being discussed. Repeat it every single reply like a good little fascist.
E: quick trip through your post history says this is all you do, trash talk democrats and Biden, repeat genocide over and over while never a single mention of trump policy. Well, a quick stop in a porn community to jerk off for a break, right? How’s the propaganda job pay? Any good? Or do you just do it voluntarily out of pure hatred?
If voting for Biden is voting for genocide, then not voting or voting third party is voting for Trump, genocide and the destruction of democracy in the US.
The destruction of democracy in the United States has much deeper roots, and has been in-process for a long time. How long the effects have been visible is arguable, and the manifestation unpredictable, but fundamentally, a voting system which doesn’t allow people to express their actual preferences, well, isn’t representative of people’s actual preferences.
I can’t think of any more-profound way to state that truth at this early hour. A “democracy” which doesn’t reflect the will of the people is a democracy in name only, and we can only keep the “lesser-evil” streak going for so long before we’re so far into evil that we “have to” vote for a candidate materially supporting genocide so we don’t get the candidate who supports genocide without having non-actionable “concerns” about it.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
And hence why I won’t vote for Trump either. It’s not that hard to understand.
“I still can’t figure out how he got in the first time”
Easy. He was propped up by democrats, namely Hillary Clinton.
If we reach a point 40 years from now when your choice is between a dem supporting 5 genocides and a republican supporting 10 genocides, are you still going to be militantly democrat and lash out at leftists who are sick of the whole thing?
In this hypothetical we wouldn’t have the option to vote 40 years from now because dim bulbs allowed an insurrectionist to be elected. Donald will also accelerate climate fuckery so anyway we’ll be too busy squabbling over what meager food comes out of the remaining arable regions.
By not answering the question and participating in the process of this hypothetical choice the outcome is Israel is supported and Joe Biden loses the 2024 election.
Nope. I’ve stated this in multiple posts on other platforms, this is my last time going with this “lesser of two evils” bullshit. Because at some point, we HAVE to believe that it is intentional. I mean, what happened to “fool me once…”?
So if a Trump presidency means the end of democracy in America, why hasn’t Trump been outlawed?
Why is Biden focusing on banning TikTok instead of truth social? Why weren’t the courts getting stacked 2 years ago? Why are the democrats’ obsession with “precedent” and “civility” taking more primacy than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would mean the end of democracy?
By propping up Trump, the democrats have effortlessly oriented you such that you now give blind support to a genocidal regime. You’ve given the democrats a blank check. The democrats would rather lose to Trump and usher in fascism than shift left in the slightest way (halting genocide).
Also, epic reddit catchphrase my good sir. I tip my hat you, for you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Biden is not funding Israel. The United States government is. Even if he wanted to stop the aid (he doesn’t), he doesn’t have the power to just ignore laws passed by Congress. Trump did that with Ukraine and got impeached for it.
I mean, he fundamentally does have the power to veto laws. There are potentially negative political consequences in doing so, but he certainly has that power.
Certain important people need to keep selling spyware, drugs, guns and war to keep themselves and their associates employed. As for whether the funds or the actual work (conflict) available is sustainable is for everyone including the accountants to consider.
The other problem is that war doesn’t really die, we just displace where we choose to fight, and how, if we imagine physical and cyber world peace for a moment, for the USA or China to reduce its military capacity by one third, or one tenth, we would see absolute chaos, thousands unemployed, the losses in maintenance and equipment, military supplies, medical, etc, nobody would win.
Any complex society where financial and other systems operate needs a minimum degree of social enforcement to maintain. Whether that can change like a function or is something that depends on a country’s GDP is another issue.
Just consider that humanity would either need lots of free time, energy and money or it would literally need to feel incredibly threatened by something on earth, which we all could not fight to control in order to actually fund going to space or even the moon, and I doubt a triple whammy of pandemic, food shortage or severe draught and floods could do it, it happened in the Bible and people literally just found more dumb reasons to do more dumb things, and no lowering mens testosterone or telling guys to shave more often wouldn’t do shit either. If people don’t find reasons to explore or learn, they find reasons to fight/play fight, it’s pretty normal, and if anyone remembers their childhood, usually it’s pretty much the same across generations.
It doesn’t sound to me like he thought he was above the law. He seemed to know the consequences. He just didn’t think that Trump should be above the law. Or, at the very least, above presidential decorum.
It's not just Trump. It's Roe v. Wade, it's Black Lives Matter, it's critical race theory and transgender panic and banning books and trying to build a Christofascist state and denying climate change and supporting murderous cops and demonizing science and acting as Russian propaganda puppets and helping covid spread and kill people and ....
How many troll headlines like this are young voters going to accept? Every headline like this just screams, “Young voters are to f*cking stupid to understand.” Seriously trolls, this is the best you’ve got?
Is it fair to say that the overton window is only moving right when we are still making progress moving it left?
The overton window isn’t a zero-sum measure. It can expand simultaneously in both directions. Given that we have nazis in the street now, I’d say it’s not correct to say that it’s moving only left either.
That has little to do with whatever political machinations are occurring and more to do with housing and necessities inflation driving labor pressure as a lagging inflation indicator.
Think of it as a tectonic/landscape thing rather than the stupid games people happen to be playing on the landscape.
Of course if any of them had their heads out of their own asses, or the asses of their owners, they might recognize this and start adapting…
I could sus it like you think Biden moved it right (lol), but that requires you ignore Trump would have actually moved it rght, which is exactly the Overton window is moving it as left as you can every step, but why the fuck am I bothering even with this you’ll just say but but but but but but Biden bad! I’m out.
Self-righteous bullshit. I want to solve problems someday and that’s precisely why I vote for Democrats. Letting Trumpists take over now will make any progress vastly harder for the foreseeable future.
Ah, so since one of your two options doesn’t give you everything you want, you’ve decided that you’re okay with the one that wants to take away everything you have. Cool story, good luck with that.
It has to be supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth, not exacerbate it.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
Also, try letting people use their own words. You were wrong about your assumptions and hyperbole, but i think instead of admitting you’re wrong you’re just going to assume more.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
…effectively no-one, as far as country-wide population statistics are concerned? What percentage of the vote went third-party in the last three elections? Gary Johnson (8 years ago) got a whole 3%, and that was massive compared to anyone in the past 30 years… basically unprecedented. Those numbers barely broke 1% last time.
I’m sorry, but no, it doesn’t. Most people are just living in a reality where voting third-party gets the worst option elected, because that’s historically its only effect.
Look, I’m not gonna fight you, it’s clear that your mind is made up. Just think about the probability of your choices, and think about how much you appreciate the ability to even vote… because that’s the actual argument, here. Trump has laid out his plans, and you’re welcome to ignore them, but most people don’t have that luxury, they need to vote in ways that don’t have a chance to lead to their culling.
You’re making false assumptions about what people’s voting habits say about what they want, drawing absurd conclusions as a result, and then doubling down on your false assumptions even when real people tell you what they want why they vote the way they do. Here’s a clue for you: other people know their own beliefs and motivations a hell of a lot better than you do. It’s supremely arrogant for you to think otherwise.
Literally yes, in the voting system that the US has. This isn’t some ideological hill I’m dying on, this is basic statistics and understanding of elections.
How do you get that? By moving the Overton window. And how do you get that? By VOTING. But it seems you want to yell at a cloud instead. Something tells me you’ll just keep at this ‘whoo is me’, so I’m out.
Wrong. The party that can “move left” went to court to assert their right to do what they want regardless of voters, and have an equal hand in moving the goalposts anytime a third party comes close to the requirements for inclusion. Hell, just look at their messaging - they don’t even talk about Republicans or their policies, they just namedrop trump then blame leftists for all their woes.
“MoVe ThE oVeRtOn WiNdOw (even though they openly and pointedly snipped completely off anything left of mid right genocide Joe)”
The answer is guillotines and anyone who says otherwise are well off liberals who would rather have Trump than redistribute wealth and resources.
The Overton window is not something that can be changed electorally. Candidates can only get on the ballot in the first place if they’re within the Overton window, as anybody outside the window is “radical” or “extreme”, and the existing political powers forbid their candidacy. The electoral window is moved outside the electoral process, and only then can the electoral system permit new candidates with new ideas.
Lol yes it can. Why are we having idiotic discussion to disband the EPA? Because Trump won an election. That moved the Overton window, drastically at that. Why can’t Biden do ______? Because the Republicans still have a very real chance of winning. When the GOP has no chance of winning, then the Overton window can move more.
Meanwhile, the Overton window has been shifting right radically. Seems like this lesser of two evils nonsense is actually doing the opposite of what you claim.
Moved because Trump won an election. But you want to suggest that’s just random? C’mon.
*Btw it’s moving the Overton window, not lesser of two evils as you want to put it. You want policy number 426? You have to vote for policy 1 first. You have to walk before you can run.
What are you talking about? We have been moving rightward ever since the Clinton administration, baring a handful of social issues. Are you genuinely telling me that we are more left leaning now than we were under the new deal politics before Reagan?
All we’ve progressed in is gay and civil rights, which is good. Economically and by most other metrics, we’ve slid Faaaaar to the right.
It’s not a good look for your position on slow incremental change that the entire apparatus can collapse in one election.
You said radical, that was Trump. You think Clinton change was radical? No that was Trump. Can’t forget Bush either! You know the one that lied his way into war. But you want to suggest everything was all Clintons fault or something? C’mon be better than this weird game you’re playing. Like really, do you think it would be more right or more left without Bush and Trump? That’s the Overton window.
BTW Clinton had to be moderate because he was going against an incumbent.
Yeah I could go over different issues, but you’re already trying to poopoo them away. So I’ll broadly address economics with we have regulated capitalism. One party wants to remove regulation (Gop because I think you’re trying to be obtuse) and be entirely free for all, no EPA or anything. And one wants proper regulation (again, Dems because think you’re trying to be obtuse).
My issue is that while we squabble over social issues, the ruling class fucks us with fiscal ones.
Greed and the growing disparity in wealth is the worst issue we face as a species.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder. Each option results in a loss because we don’t want actually want to address the disparity in wealth.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder.
…and you think we need to lose harder?
Or do you actually believe that the system that has had the same outcome literally every single election has a chance to produce a different result? How many third-party candidates have received more than 1.5% of the vote? I’ll help: exactly FOUR in the past HUNDRED YEARS.
Or do you actually just want Trump to win and are using your enlightened centrist persona to disguise that fact?
I think a slow loss is still a loss and we shouldn’t cheer when people like Biden get elected over people like Bernie.
If you notice, the disparity in wealth is still growing at an increasing-rate. That’s why “the economy is doing good.” Not for me or you. But for the rich people who control who we can vote for.
The minuscule amount of support for third parties exemplifies the number of people who actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
It really puts into perspective who is a useful idiot, and who is not.
Because a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn’t care about your ideals. Until we have a different system, literally your only hope of effecting change is to vote for one of the two partied candidates and work locally to influence your party from the bottom-up.
Voting third party doesn’t send a message you want it to send. It doesn’t send any message at all except “I approve of whatever you choose for me.”
Because capitalism profits from genocide. The question then is, are you ok with diet Palestinian genocide or would you prefer the supersized Palestinian genocide combo with a side of homegrown genocide?
You misspelled Netanyahu. Also you will have egg on your face from head to toe when you find out what Biden is really doing to stop the killing in the Mideast.
I just want one of the “You can’t vote for Biden!” people to outline what I should do instead. What’s the play here? Dismantle the government? Sure, outline your plan and let’s see if it has any merit. Protest? Great, tell me when and where but it doesn’t preclude the need to vote.
They talk big, but if their entire plan begins with “don’t vote” and ends with “bitch about it online” then it’s not a great plan.
Until there are some kind of real penalties for submitting unconstitutional legislation, we will not be able to stop these clowns from abusing our state legislatures.
Until you get clowns like we have in the Supreme Court shooting down women’s healthcare rights and this too becomes weaponized against the Democrats because those rights are somehow “unconstitutional”.
I say blatantly which would be different in legalese but basically, if it is directly without need for interpretation such as saying gay people cannot be teachers which is directly discriminating against sexual orientation, then you’re out. Meanwhile if it’s later found to be unconstitutional due to interpretation or implementation such as stop and frisk then you’re not removed, though any laws copying said law that was already found unconstitutional WOULD then cause you to be removed because duh we’ve been here before.
Edit: also, only said outed from office and not banned as if it’s used to remove people they could still be voted back in with a special election or whatever, similar to what happened with jones/pearson being removed using bullshit.
It really should have to pass some form of nonpartisan review before being able to be introduced. I hate that as a private citizen, I have to track possible legislation and make time during the day to tell them that it’s clearly unconstitutional, have them pass it anyways, and then wait between 2-10 years for the courts to tell them (maybe).
Informally, I believe this has been resolved by having the state attorney general sign off on most legislation as to its constitutionality. In my state, the attorney general is a shitheel. But, he has called out anti-gay legislation as blatantly unconstitutional and a waste of time and money. The lawmakers want headlines and ALEC money. They don’t give two shits about it being lawful or costly or harmful.
If I insinuated they could block it, that wasn’t my intention. It is basically a check without teeth. They can make a stink about it and a recommendation to the governor before signing but they have no legislative power.
Until there are some kind of real penalties for submitting unconstitutional legislation
Who Watches The Watchmen?
Who gets to decide what constitutes “Unconstitutional Legislation” and dole out the penalties? The courts (stacked with conservatives)? The police (staffed with fascists)? The voters (caged until only the Republicans have a functional majority)?
At some level, this is a popular movement of the Elect. It isn’t just Ron going off on a limb. He’s got enormous financial and social support from other like minded white supremacists.
That’s not something you can combat without an organized opposition.
Yes, this is the danger of fascism playing with language.
They aren’t trying to be logical or fair. They aren’t here for debate. They’re here to do what they want to do, period.
Which is why they also inevitably fall apart, (eventually) they can’t even have that conversation internal to the movement and agree on what it is they want to do.
Yes, this is the danger of fascism playing with language.
It’s more than that. It’s a power dynamic.
At some point you need a large group of people in positions of power supporting a policy in order to enact it.
Even reducing this down to liberal v conservative, you’re not going to find a political body favorable to liberals when it is stacked with conservatives.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines for a while. If I call 911 and submit a knowingly false report, I get charged with a crime. If I submit knowingly false paperwork to the government, I can be charged with a crime or at least infraction and fined.
But these people we elect who have entire staffs that are for making sure they always have enough information are submitting blatantly unconstitutional laws just to get them passed through a majority congress to be again and again shot down at the judicial level should really face consequences.
Though I don’t know what that would be without it being used to easily punish political opponents. If there’s a law that does this and gives the judiciary more power, how will it be used when conservatives control those 2 branches?
Considering that it's already illegal to force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or even stand for it, this is at best idiotic, and at worst, a gateway to overturning the bit about the Pledge and opening the gates to political indoctrination of children.
Right-wing performative patriotism is there to stop people from thinking that their country could be better, because of course it’s already the best.
Actual patriotism is the act of improving your home to be worthy of pride.
Remember when conservatives were freaking out at Colin Kaepernick because he wasn’t doing the performance right? Because he was trying to bring attention to the plight of black folks in our country? It’s because they confuse nationalism with patriotism; they were pissed at Kaepernick for “hating America,” when he was saying “we should be better.”
The nationalists don’t want to country to work for everyone though.
On nearly every single issue, not only is he “better than Trump,” he’s actually good. On the environment? Actual progress in the form of a massive infrastructure bill that invests in green energy sources and tamping down on pollution. On education? He’s made student loan forgiveness a central tenet of his policy agenda. On the economy? He’s gotten inflation under control and the economy is actually doing great now.
The elephant in the room is Israel and Palestine, of course, but I wish people would pause and think before knee-jerk reacting to… not even his policies there, just headlines about his policies.
The fact of the matter is that the Middle East is a fucking mess and Israel is currently run by a government hell-bent on making it ten times worse, but Israel actually falling and the conflict overtaking the entire region would be a global catastrophe. Biden is doing what he can to pressure Netanyahu over the insane and genocidal treatment of Palestinians while not giving Iran and others the sense that they have free rein to invade. (And for FUCK’S sake, can we stop pretending Iran is suddenly the good guys? They’re supplying arms to Russia.)
This is a nuanced, complex, and fragile situation, and like it or not, Biden is exactly the right kind of person for the presidency at a time like this. Not only that, Trump would make it ten thousand times worse on purpose, because it would please Putin to see Russia’s influence in the Middle East overtake that of the United States.
There is literally only one sane choice on the ballot this year.
Well, I kind of agree with you, but I also think it's important to consider all of the other things on your ballot--congress, governors, state legislature, ballot initiatives, etc... There are still many important decisions to be made.
And to your point, I think that we can (and need to) make democratic improvements, but a lot of those are going to start at the state level too.
I think it’s possible. Generally, some form of ranked choice is happening in democratic strongholds. Shut out the fascists, and you get a broader range of Democrats.
I actually think it can be fixed, but doing so is hard work. It requires:
Full and unreserved repudiation of Trumpism/fascism.
Codifying the norms and standards he violated (and continues to violate) into law.
Creating federal legislation that clarifies exactly what “emoluments” are to prevent the office of the presidency from ever being used for self-enrichment again.
Going after every single Russia-compromised politician. Make politicians scared to get in bed with Vladimir Putin.
Figuring out a way to cut off the sewage pipeline leading from Russian troll factories to our TV and computer screens.
If we’re shooting for the stars, for election reform, I think we might need proportional representation. First-past-the-post is only one problem in our first-past-the-post, winner-take-all voting system.
There are issues with that sort of system too, though I’d consider it preferable. We have a decent distribution of parties in parliament here in Sweden, but it’s still kind of tough to find a party you really jive with. At least you have options, but generally it’s all compromises and nothing really fits at all.
I think that’s always going to be the case. I’m not sure how to fix that beyond direct democracy, and even then, you generally still have to have some group drafting the laws and most people only get to decide yes or no. Trying to govern a large group of people on a large number of issues is just a hard problem.
Oh, absolutely. The most despicable thing about him is also very Trumpian: He’s maintaining a grip on power to try to stifle an ongoing corruption and bribery case against him.
The sooner that man is out of power and in prison, the better.
So obviously I don’t want to see the massacre of the Israelis any more than the Palestinians, but if “Israel fell” why would the conflict overtake the whole region? Israel’s existence, and constant poking of the hornets nests, is the catalyst for instability in the region. If it went away, wouldn’t there be relative peace over there? I’m not advocating for it… Just a thought experiment.
First, because any such fall would be slooooooooow. Israel wouldn’t fall quickly, it would take a long time and would be absolutely catastrophic for everyone on all sides of the conflict, because they would take a lot of Iran and others with them.
Second, because it would reduce western, secular influence in the region considerably, while massively increasing Russia’s influence. Russia doesn’t give a shit about stability and quality of life in the region, they just want vassal states from which to work to expand. Russia doesn’t think any country that isn’t Russia should exist, especially near them.
The Middle East is a mess. Israel is hated by literally everyone around them, and I guarantee you that Russia is waiting in the wings for us to do the stupid thing and stop backing Israel. It would solidify Russia’s ties with Iran, weaken America’s stance in the Middle East, and make us look bad internationally. I guaranfuckingtee you that if Israel gets glassed by its numerous opponents in the Middle East because America held up aid over Gaza, that shit will be spun WORLD WIDE as America giving in to Antisemitism, which will be hung STRAIGHT on the Global Left’s shoulders. It’s fucking transparent. And calling Biden a genocidal Zionist just plays RIGHT into Russia and the Global Right’s agenda. Again, if you’re saying that bullshit, you’re either part of the Right-Wing attack on the Left, or you are a useful idiot being leveraged by the Global Right as a weapon to hit the Left with.
Oh, if I only had more Upvotes to give you, kescusay. :)
I guaranfuckingtee you that if Israel gets glassed by its numerous opponents in the Middle East because America held up aid over Gaza.
I don’t see how america holding up aid will instantly result in Israel getting glassed. It should be theoretically feasible to stop aid to Israel unless a) Israel stops its murderous campaign in Gaza or b) Israel comes under attack from a non Palestinian country. Unless Israel will fall within a few days, the US should be able to back them in case of an attack even though aid was previously being held back.
Israel is hated by literally everyone around them…
Not to mention that Netanyahu staying in power (similarly to what will happen with Trump) is the only thing keeping him out of dealing with legal accountability. He can’t afford to lose any power.
I’m a little confused, I didn’t realize that US stop supporting Israel would make them look weak. It would make them look strong in my books, especially if all the money is used for Ukraine.
As someone not from a western country, people always hated US using their military to police the globe.
Edit:
The situation is like the strong boyfriend defending their crazy partner. They look weak for bending over backwards for craziness.
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but disagree with you minimizing the conflict with the rest. The Israel Palestine conflict isn’t a mess because it’s in the Middle East or ancient tribal grudges or religion or any of that. It’s because one group wanted another group’s land and so they decided to take it even though people already lived there. And now a genocide is happening. Same thing happened in the US, Canada, Australia, it’s basic settler colonialism, but happening recently enough that we can try to stop it this time. He’s acting way too slow. It’s a hard line for a lot of people, and for good reason. That’s the biggest crime you can do basically.
It’s one of the simplest situations in the world right now. And Biden hasn’t done anything about it but words and some small aid towards Palestinians. He needs to start taking actual action to stop the killing and start denying weapons to Israel, censuring them in the UN, using sanctions, things like that, that they’d be doing for any other country, like Russia. Netanyahu is making Biden look very weak. Iran has no reason to invade, that’s a silly worry. There’s no evidence that would happen. And Israel can defend itself with all the weapons they already have. The only reason Biden is acting slow is because he’s a self-professed Zionist and Israel Stan, and has been his whole life.
And Iran isn’t the “good guys” but that also doesn’t mean they’re the “bad guys” for retaliating when they’re attacked, that just invites other nations to keep doing that. Same excuse we give for helping Ukraine stop Russia. International law is there for a reason. The US has done plenty of horrible stuff to all of South America, that shouldn’t give them the freedom to start killing our officials or attacking near or at embassies. In this situation, we’re the ones defending the bad guys trying to ravage this conflict, which is Israel.
But on all other topics, Biden is good. But this is just an important one for a lot of people. This is the most we’ve been involved in causing ethnic cleansing since manifest destiny and the Native Americans. We have the chance to at least not enable a genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign from a country that we directly supply the weapons for, and we’re blowing it.
Religion is used as an excuse now, but revisionist Zionism was actually originally a very secular movement. Now it’s one post of the Zionist tent but still not the only one. In the same way that religion in the US is often just a means to end to gain voters and power, the same is true in Israel, but to gain land.
And there are conflicts between the various powers involved, it’s how Israel succeeded to even become an apartheid state, Britain and France really fucked this situation up good, for example, but it all still comes down to a population trying to displace another population. Usually everything other argument is put up to obfuscate this fact. I’m just trying to cut through brass tacks (is that right? Just realized I’ve never used this phrase lol). Of course I’m simplifying out as well, and there’s a history to learn about it all, but people often use it as an excuse to dismiss because it’s too “complicated”. It is, but not as much as people think, is all I’m basically saying.
I just like to think that we’re currently playing the Weimar Germany game. Let Trump win and you’ll have given the Republicans decades of power if not more. They’ve been planning for years to control the government through the supreme court, you think this is the worst they can do?
For those wanting acceleration towards collapse, that’s not guaranteed, and will cause many deaths in the process if it does, and there probably still won’t be any guarantee or high likelihood of some sorta takeover by the proletariat or what have you. Seeing as how most of the militant groups in the US are likely to be right wing, all you’ll have is a right wing take over after a collapse.
It’s not surprising. The Boomers took all the wealth and opportunity their parents created for them and hoarded it. They are the “me” generation, caring only for themselves.
I actually think it’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Baby Boomers all die off and the Millennials have to fix the shit that they caused. We may actually see the new age of prosperity
This seems more like an example of wrong place wrong time because nowhere in the article does it state that they were specifically targeted. What it does say is that they lived right next to the fence and that they and their neighbors both had safe rooms. To me, when you (and your neighbors) feel the need to build a fortified room to protect yourselves during a potential attack that says this area is potentially very dangerous.
Also, stop conflating the Palestinian people with Hamas. Not all Russians are committing war crimes in Ukraine. Not all Americans stormed the US capital on J6. Not all Saudis were on planes on 9/11. We do not need to further dehumanize ANY of the people who are now suffering through this now and the MANY who are continuing to have suffering brought upon them.
Nobody can excuse attacks on civilian populations for revenge. This goes both ways. And whether or not this poor sweet lady and her husband are still alive, I'm sure she would be equally abhorred that her life's work is being used as an excuse to undo the very thing she worked towards.
Edit: I've been informed all homes in Israel must have safe rooms by law.
Sadly most people are way too fucking dumb and uneducated to have nuanced opinions, but you can’t blame them fully when they’re so busy working all day that they can’t afford to spend time reading and learning from quality sources
nowhere in the article does it state that they were specifically targeted.
Basically nobody was specifically targeted. Hamas simply flooded in and started raping, murdering, destroying and taking hostages indiscriminately. People from various countries and religions, old women, children and babies, even pro-Palestinians advocates like these people. It was straight up terrorist madness, and now innocent people in Palestine are suffering as a result. A textbook cycle of violence.
Because it was still basically part of Britain, not independent. Like Canada wasn’t it’s own country until 1867 when we were made independent from British control.
We are currently using the word state for it’s sovereign meaning given the context of this conversation, not for it’s meaning as a part of a country. In the context of this conversation state is equivalent to country.
Words can have more than one meaning and you are being disingenuous by conflating ‘state’ as it implies to the U.S. internally and ‘state’ as in a sovereign entity, which is how it is being used in this discussion.
Yes we are. We are using state as a sovereign territory. That is the context of this conversation. I’m sorry you failed to pick up on that.
Age of a state has nothing to do whether it is sovereign or not.
Yes it does. Canada is 156 years old, not 400 and something, because we gained independence in 1857, even though we’ve existed as part of the British empire since the 1600s.
Yeah the area has always been a provincial administrative division but I’m pretty sure the last time there was a sovereign state controlling that general area, it was a Crusader kingdom. Before then, it was Judea before the Roman conquest. Relying on historical sovereignty isn’t a very good argument since the area wasn’t sovereign before 1948, and it was divided by UN mandate in 1948.
Every country is a settlement, you’re really not making a point.
Look into the chain of events that caused Israeli/Palestinian enmity, then what caused those events, and so forth. You’ll find the only innocent side here are the civilians.
So then Israel (not it's people, but the military) know exactly who they murder now? So when they now and in the past murder civilians there's also no excuse?
I didn't know that about the safe rooms, thank you for the context.
The article states she lived "right next to the security fence" and while I'm sure it's within the border that still doesn't mean it's a great place to build. Nobody said it was a settlement.
There's no excusing the attack, rationalizing who they attacked or how they went about it. Again thank you for pointing this out because it highlights that this was either an indiscriminate attack against anyone and anything Israeli or that they were purposely trying to spoil the sentiment of those who would speak out against what now comes after. Were they just that diabolical or was it an attack of opportunity in terms of location and defense? You tell me.
Edit: also, aside from all that. I'm truly sorry this happened to your country and your people. I wish you all peace and an end to the bloodshed.
Formally, capitalism is only economic and not political system, while communism is both. Democratic capitalism is quite different from dictatorial capitalism and anarchism-capitalism, for example. Countries like Sweden, China and Iran, they all have capitalism, but political systems are very different.
usatoday.com
Hot