Carrolade

@Carrolade@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Carrolade,

How about just Feds? I have to admit that would amuse me somewhat.

We’re literally the Feds.

Carrolade, (edited )

There’s unfortunately more to it than that. It is on peaceful protestors to make sure they’re not supporting violent organizations. Just because I say something, and someone else says the same thing I say, does not make that person automatically my friend and ally.

Everyone who fights against some evil is not automatically a good person. It’s just not that simple in real life. Evil fights other evil all the time, look at gang wars and cartel violence.

There’s more to this than a simple smear campaign, and if we just try to brush it away as one, we are only hurting our own cause.

edit: We don’t want to be the equivalent of a “good cop” that covers for other corrupt cops, just because they’re “on the same side”. It’s hard, but we have to be better than that.

Carrolade,

This is correct. The 60 vote threshold is to break a filibuster. Filibusters having become steadily more common since they changed the procedures for them that removed the requirement for a filibustering Senator to actually stand up and talk the whole time, which put a functional, biological cap on the potential duration of a filibuster. That cap no longer exists. This is sometimes called a “no-talk filibuster”.

Carrolade,

Looks like 1975.

Seems it was an inadvertent result from a rule designed to allow the Senate to pursue other business during a filibuster, so it wouldn’t hold up all Senate business.

Here’s a couple links, and there’s also a long wikipedia article on it.

constitutioncenter.org/…/filibustering-in-the-mod…www.brennancenter.org/…/filibuster-explained

Carrolade,

The tiny home movement is a lot older than that, but yeah, more or less. Only distinction is that people usually want more of whatever given product, except with homes, where upkeep means having “too much house” can be a real life pain in the ass. It’s just more hours out of your day, having to upkeep any given room from weathering and getting dirty. Then it just comes down to personal preferences.

But they are definitely liked due to being cheaper, no question.

Carrolade,

Ukraine drops mobilization age by 2 years and suddenly gets big influx of new weapons.

Putin: Okay, how about a ceasefire?

Carrolade,

Hey, a semantic argument. Yay.

This is why I think the term ethnic cleansing is underused. It’s much simpler and has less history.

Carrolade,

You sorely overestimate how easy it is to get a trained animal to walk in a perfectly straight line. They do not get magical perfect-line-walking powers just because they are animals.

Carrolade,

This almost makes me think they’re trying to fully automate their publishing process. So, no editor in that case.

Editors are expensive.

Carrolade,

Wouldn’t you want a pediatric hepatobiliary surgeon? A four month old is going to be a tricky case, I’d think.

Carrolade,

It’s much easier to say that an intentional blockade of food is leading to starvation, and that is a clear war crime. Very simple argument, easier to prove.

Talking about a bombing campaign is more difficult when soldiers are mixed in with the civilians. We may be able to point at the situation and say “that’s clearly fucked up”, but courts don’t work that way. They have to acknowledge that in a war, the army is allowed to destroy the combatants of the enemy. A certain amount of collateral damage in the form of innocent lives lost is allowed by international law. This makes it all much murkier and more difficult to prove what is or is not a genuine war crime. They can’t wing it, or guess, or go by what it “looks like”, they have to prove it, which again, is difficult.

Starvation and depriving food aid though, very easy to prove.

Carrolade,

It’s really not that wild. You win elections by appealing to voters. You could take a gamble that you can inspire the younger generations enough to vote in larger numbers, or you could try to appeal to existing older swing voters. You can’t always do both simultaneously though.

Carrolade,

I guess I’ve just seen it enough times that it is no longer wild to me. It just looks like typical cold calculus and risk-averse behavior.

Carrolade,

It’s a coalition, and like all coalitions, it has a wide variety of sorts in it. We’re not together because we like each other, we don’t like each other. Nobody says we do, that I have heard anyway.

The two party system allows them to shift further right though. The further right the GOP goes, the further right the dems can go to try to vacuum up disaffected voters. I’m pretty sure parts of the GOP coalition know that too, and it factors into their strategy of getting some of their way even when they lose.

It’s about casting the widest possible net though, not lasering in on any particular subset and trying to make them happy. I don’t think anyone is perfectly happy currently, damn near absolutely no one.

Our solution is to try to make our positions more popular with the public, though. Not to try to pressure the party apparatus to appease a certain inner faction and pretend it won’t cost them with others. It will cost them elsewhere, the best we could do there is try to argue it might be worth it. But would it? Can that be guaranteed? Because if there’s one thing I’ve gauged about Biden, it’s that he doesn’t like taking big risks.

Carrolade,

I think your feelings of resentment are clouding your judgement.

The essence of your argument seems to be that progressive policies will strengthen the hand of dems in a large number of elections. Can you back that up with data? Because when I look at electoral maps of the country I just don’t see it. It would strengthen their hand in progressive regions, no question, but those aren’t where the battle is being fought.

I would love it if you were right, but having lived in middle America often enough through my life, I just don’t see it reflected in the attitudes of locals.

Carrolade,

I just don’t see how closed vials could threaten the lives of anyone, much less an entire building. It’s not a loose powder or something. It probably was a threat, but those are common these days. They wouldn’t evacuate if it was a letter with some generic “gonna kill you” threat written on it.

When I say stunt, I mean the evacuation was a stunt. Threats are a dime a dozen, if they evacuated for every one they wouldn’t get much done.

Carrolade,

They must not pay much attention to most protocols, because I seem to remember lots of threats flying around the past couple years with no mention of big evacuations.

Carrolade,

I don’t understand why that would call for the evacuation of a building. Sounds like a stunt to me.

Carrolade,

Cigars and beer? Eugh. That’s like a really nice, high percentage dark chocolate and marshmallows. Or a big, beefy red wine paired with chicken breast. A cigar needs something equally strong and complex to punch back against it.

I mean, maybe like a really good stout at room temp or something might be decent with a mild cigar. Really though, I’d want an oak-ey liquor of some sort.

Carrolade,

And strategic depth in case of a ground invasion. You know, like Russia, because that’s clearly not enough, as anyone can plainly see.

Carrolade,

Israel’s survival is not threatened by anything short of large-scale pre-emptive Iranian nuclear barrage, or civil war.

Claiming your actions are necessary for survival is a very old trick, commonly used by authoritarian regimes as a convenient excuse.

Carrolade,

Good luck getting any of that through the Senate.

Carrolade,

I think the term ethnic cleansing is underused. It’s a strong term with a clear, unambiguous meaning that people can still stand against. It does not run afoul of the fact that when many people hear “genocide”, they don’t think of formal definitions, they think of WW2, trains and gas chambers, and attempts at thorough extermination at a large scale.

Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, begs simple questions, like, what is the ethnicity being cleansed from? Simple answer: their land. How are they being cleansed? Killed, driven away or assimilated into another culture. What, exactly, is being cleansed? That group of distinct people right there, their name is whatever.

It’s clear, concise, and very hard to argue with from any sort of semantic position.

Carrolade,

Kinda funny to see The Bulwark here. Strange times we live in.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • GTA5RPClips
  • DreamBathrooms
  • everett
  • magazineikmin
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • tester
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines