The Spanish football federation has threatened to sue the 79 women’s football players who signed a letter in which they refused to play for their country as long as the federation president, Luis Rubiales, remains in his post....
If anything, the US’s engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn’t (shouldn’t(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.
Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I’d say they have a fighting chance.
I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.
I don’t get it, why try to keep him from running? Especially if you’re a Democrat, letting Trump run would split the Republican vote and almost guarantee a Democratic victory.
There are still 3rd parties in the US, a prime example in US politics that would equate to this would be the Election of 1912, where President Wilson won against the incumbent Republican, President Taft. The only reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt ran as a Republican adjacent candidate under the “Bull Moose” party, which effectively split the Republican vote and prevented Taft from getting all of the Republican vote.
If Trump runs again, it is likely he will be running as an independent candidate, which will split the Republican vote and allow the Democrats a sure win.
Are you kidding? Should we not give narcan to OD’d drug addicts? Should we keep people from dying from lung cancer because they smoked? Should we not try to help people dying from liver disease because they’re alcoholics? They chose those situations, right?
Should criticism be able to be voiced without burning literature? Yes. Do I think climate activists should be able to be heard without disrupting people’s commutes by blocking traffic? Yes.
Unfortunately, sometimes activists are ignored without an unusual act of protest, and protests should not be considered hate speech unless they’re directly calling for violence towards a group. I don’t think burning a book falls under that category.
With all that being said, the government should not be responsible for deciding what a person can or cannot do unless they’re actively hurting another person.
Come for the memes, stay for the tax advice (aussie.zone)
France to spend €200m destroying wine as demand falls (www.bbc.com)
The French government is allocating €200m (£171.6m) to destroy surplus wine and support producers....
Spain football federation threatens to sue protesting female players (www.theguardian.com)
The Spanish football federation has threatened to sue the 79 women’s football players who signed a letter in which they refused to play for their country as long as the federation president, Luis Rubiales, remains in his post....
Mr. Rogers setting the example (i.imgur.com)
Ask why the cops need this (lemmy.world)
Florida Lawyer Sues Trump to Disqualify Him From 2024 Race (www.thedailybeast.com)
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution bans anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the U.S. from holding office....
Alberta woman dies after being denied transplant for refusing to get COVID vaccine (nationalpost.com)
Hallo? (sh.itjust.works)
Danish government will introduce new law to ban burning the Quran (www.euronews.com)
Me_irl because of this damn heat (lemmy.world)
Pharmaceuticals (lemmy.world)