#politics
1 messages · Page 10 of 1
should, are we good at it, fuck no
The issue is that there is no magical solution here
there isnt
each solution has it's own bunch of potentially disasterous caviants
Idk, cali isn't burning the whole year, improve stuff the rest of the year then
It's all great saving the earth from global warming until you relealise that you fucked up and killed off some species nobody discovered yet, etc, etc
I think we are creating more problems to fix a solution that goes back into the primary problem
the number of birds killed yearly, sometimes even endagagered species, which get rekt by solar or wind installations...
Ah yes, wind turbines shredder brids
We're still also not able to recycle 100% of the toxic materials from these panels
We are not at all able to recycle carbon emissions
I mean, better a high % than 0, but, that toxic material ends up somewhere
I'm not saying that we should still be burning fossil fuels
Nobody here is saying that
I think zyphys is saying that
no, there are other solutions than fossil fuels and solar/wind
Such as?
nuclear/geothermal/hydro?
hydro is an ecological disaster too
Hydro and geothermal are extremely independent of location
And hydro can take even more area too
But like, hydro works great for norway for example
Nobody uses that land anyways 😂
We got a bunch of hydro here too
There is a method of storing energy via momentum where you spin a disc in a vacuum. It was a cool idea few years ago but I don't think it went anywhere.
Cool thing about hydro is that you can easily control it and power it on if needed
The issue is that it's only really good for fast bursts of power and can only store so much
we can also store power by piping water up to higher levels.
That I mentioned before, pump storage
So, great for absorbing stuff like transients and brown outs, etc, but, for actual power in the case of a fair chunk of renewable generation capacity disappearing, it's only useful if you're able to respond fast enough with your low inertia generation
think it's low inerta, or the high one, I forget
Regarding solar panels recycling and reading what people say: the amount of panels we need to recycle today is a drop in the bucket as compared to what we will need to recycle in 10 years. It doesn't seem logical that the infrastructure already exists to do 1000 times the recycling that we need to do in the current state. My point was partly this, partly that solar panels cannot replace fossil fuels completely, and produce toxic byproducts and emissions in both manufacturing and recycling.
As others have stated, the solution is not a simple one. For starters it will not be a single thing that solves it. It will likely involve fossil fuels in some capacity for a significant time, and it will likely involve solar and nuclear. For starters current fossil fuel combustion efficiency is only at about 35% compared to energy potential.
I think that will play a huge role in the future, as electric vehicles become more desirable it will push the automotive industry to make more efficient combustion engines.
ICE's are already slated to be banned in a few EU countries, even the UK
(it took a few seconds to figure out whether you were talking about the engine, the US govt agency, or the train)
The thing is that we can already get electric vehicles into the requirements of most drivers, especially when you consider that humans generally need pee/walking breaks when driving for lengthy journeys, only real holdouts are mostly long haul stuff
Also if that video is using reputable science, in 2050 the EU will have 5 trillion metric tons of solar panels to recycle a year
I should say if its projections are accurate and can be applied to the EU
Currently from what I can tell there is a single PV recycling plant in all of the EU (France). They recycled 1,800 metric tons in 2019.
The plants target is 4,000 metric tons.
The 4000 tons is 65% of the EU's current recycling needs.
I don't think those projections are accurate though
man, I need to see netflix's stock price
ICE is dead, I doubt there is any investment happening there
Pretty much all big cities in europe have plans to ban them
That PV recycling plant in france will have a capacity of 50 000 tons in 20 years it seems, and it's only one of many facilities part of PV cycle
The thing is that we can already get electric vehicles into the requirements of most drivers, especially when you consider that humans generally need pee/walking breaks when driving for lengthy journeys, only real holdouts are mostly long haul stuff
@mystic ermine only real problem with EV adoption is price and charging. Both can be subsidized (we still subsidize every liter of diesel in germany.........), For example, my dad build a charger at home for his leaf, he gets 50% by the gov + 500 euro flat, as a bonus for having PV on his roof. So the charger was free
But the issue is, that not everybody has a single family home with a dedicated parking spot, for me, living in a flat in a big city, it would be really hard to charge
I could charge at supermarkets (often even free), but that would be super dum, since I currently get groceries by foot
So like, we would need to outfit a ton of public parking with chargers, which is really expensive and logistically hard
So idk about that one, maybe it's solve able with technology and fast charging, so I could drive to charge somewhere and just wait 15 min or smth
Like tesla's superchargers, near my best friends' is one
And half of the cars there don't have a german licence plate since Belgium and the Netherlands are much better at subsidizing EVs...
Joe Biden: "Cause if you could take care, if you were a quartermaster, you can sure in hell take care runnin' a, you know, a department store uh, thing, you know, where, in the second floor of the ladies department or whatever, you know what I mean?"
yeah, I saw that clip
Is this really from Trump's campaign? (Not able to watch video yet)
It's really impressive how they've tried hard to focus on Biden mentally when there are so many regular concerning things Trump does in that area. Kinda weird when they could have just stayed quiet on it and probably not see it come up much for either side.
yeah
They are both too old for the job of you ask me
But I guess that's just a continuation of the strategy? Claim (regardless of truth) the other side does something, so when you do it people can say "both sides!"
No disagreement from me there, mini.
But some people are going to say "They're both old so why vote for either" which worries me considering there are some pretty extreme differences in what each of them want for this country, but people are both-sides-ing themselves into nonsensical excuses for not voting.
The issue is that that is just what the current system enforces
anybody with a shot of getting that far up in the party and in a position to run for the seat has generally been around for so long that it's insane
Ppl here are generally 60
Merkel is 66, but she was around for ages
It will be so weird to not have merkel
I wish she would do another term
even tho I don't like her party
Same
I mean I don't really care anymore but looking at all the possible replacements she is still the best
She should be in retirement considering shes been around for 14+ years...
actually
maybe longer if not counting merkels current position
yeah, been in politics since 1990
jesus christ, held the same/similar electoral constituency since 1990
I wonder if thats some record
Let's talk about smth different
This aired in TV at prime time here
Am 8. September ist ein Feuer in Moria ausgebrochen. Seit dem Feuer haben sich für die dort untergebrachten 13.000 Menschen die ohnehin schon schrecklichen, unwürdigen Lebensumstände dramatisch verschlechtert.
Bereits vor dem Brand standen wir mit Bewohnerinnen und Helferin...
(begining has english subtitles, rest is in english)
so anyways explosive trees
if the moisture in the tree is superheated very quickly, it could cause an explosion right?
idk if that is possible with normal fire conditions
(if its possible for the fire to cause water to heat up that quickly)
I think this is just an translation error and trump didn't understand that
ya idk, I just saw exploding trees, idk anything else about what was said
Like if he talked to the leader of austria and he said explodable instead of flammable because he's dum, and then trump just picked it up cause he's dum
explosive trees lmfao
I can't believe am defending trump, lol
i watched the video, from what i heard he compared explosivity in terms of how quickly fire can spread, the explosive nature of fire not sudden combustion
he said they're so dry that fires get huge fast
and im not trying to defend him either but thats what he said
fuck that carrot in any case
clearly though, the fact that trees are so dry that a spark lighting one on fire being able to turn into a huge forest fire is a clear indicator of extreme climate change, which he denies
maybe he'll start to understand that he half agreed with climate change there by admitting the trees are so dry they are explosive catalysts to huge fires
but that's wishful thinking
yeah, I agree that climate change for sure, contributes to the speed of the spread of wildfires, but its hardly the biggest contributor to that speed
getting hotter, tree dries out heavily and becomes extremely flammable, many of said trees in a concentrated area allow for a small fire to turn into a huge one, once huge the winds can blow it into other areas
exactly what happened, that's not conjecture
I think he talking about forest management
sure, but if you do more controlled burns, and better forest management, you don't have nearly as many of those trees
Which I know nothing about
US stopped doing good forest management in 1920
1935, policy was, any fire should be put out by 10am following the day it was spotted
yeah, he is, but he admitted that climate change is a thing (which he denies) via admitting that wood is getting drier and drier. but i digress, there are multiple topics occurring here. of course if they upped the forest management and cleaned up dead trees and did controlled burns the issue would be better, of course. there are two issues (probably more issues, but we haven't discussed them yet)
even the Native Americans did controlled burns
well "controlled"
but I mean purposefully set fire to large areas to clear out dried stuff
yes, of course, however we get wildfires on a yearly basis which essentially wipes out any debris for next year (a natural "forest management" if you will)...so each year, the fires are occurring because of new "fuel" that has accumulated over time. this year, the worst the fires have been, therefore started off of "new" fuel, yes? then why did they grow so much more ferociously? is that "bad management" or is that perhaps "the fuel got even drier than it ever has before"
or is it both?
:)
well like always, its never one thing. there is hardly ever a single reason for something on this scale
But denying the climate catastrophe certainly doesn't help, lol
and only mentioning climate change when talking about fires, doesn't help either
yeah, the state level has its problems and they need to up their pro-activity but the head of the executive branch at the federal level denying climate change is a huge problem
wasn't pointed at anyone here, was talking to all the blue governors who are talking about climate change exclusively regarding fires in their states
Well, because that's what's affecting them right now
i mean, it's both. forest management needs to be upped to reduce fires starting to begin with; BUT because that's not happening, fires will start. The point of the matter is, if climate change isn't addressed AND forest management isn't improved, the fires will get worse year to year. If climate change is addressed and forest management is NOT improved, fires will continue to happen but ferocity will decrease. If both are addressed, then we get the best of both worlds with less fires that are less ferocious.
And they generally didn't push to leave the paris climate accord
It's literally both.
right, and simple said its bad to deny climate change, and all I said was its also bad to deny (not talk) about management as well
and then I pointed at the west coast of the US and said they are only talking about one part of the problem
I made a spreadsheet https://owo.whats-th.is/78FrTMU.png
you're like your spreadsheet
1 under forest management/climate change = addressed; 0 = not addressed
1 under ferocity/regularity = happening; 0 = not happening
shithole score is self explanatory unless you're leaf
Well that's fun
So in Wisconsin the DNC has secured less options on the ballot via the court system, removing the Green party from the ballot.
yikes
What is the US greens party like out of curiosity
I know in some countries, the "Greens Party" are somewhat... interesting, while in others the parties with that name are amazing
It’s the 3rd party
Most people don’t know/care about them, and they never win anything
The green party in germany is currently taking over
Especially for younger ppl and in cities
They were kinda radical years ago, trying to ban everything, but now they know what they are doing and will most likely be the second highest party in the next federal election
And forming a coalition with merkels party
Our Green Party is just people who are disaffected by the other 2, but then they realize green has never won anything so they come back to one of the real parties.
Well, US system is just screwed beyond repair at this point, since it makes coalitions impossible, so it's borderline democratic
Yeah the Green Party in Aus is also doing amazingly
Like they’re not taking over yet, but they’re gaining a sizeable portion of support
This was our city elections last week, 16-24 year olds
Volt is another really progressive new party
Spd would be Democrats and cdu would be republican
Overall it was this
(the blue one is just the rest combined)
But it only looks like this in big cities
Elsewhere cdu is still at 30%
I assume Grüne is green? 😛
Here the overall first preference is around 17% for greens, but for some seats we either win or get within 1%
There’s a clear trend towards the Australian greens party which is great
Can confirm that Grüne is green 🙂
The problem we have is with two party setups, we have the exact same thing over here where there are basically two parties who are in the media spotlight, and otherwise smaller parties don't really get much in terms of coverage or heard
Only real new "big" party we had was UKIP
For us we have 2 parties that are functionally identical due to both taking money from mining companies, then the greens that the newspapers blame everything bad on
One day, the entire public is going to realise how shitty news companies are...
one day...
News companies here are great
Or well, the reputable ones
Of course there is a German version of what the sun is in the UK
But generally it's not hard to get decent news coverage here
We don't really have a trustable news source over here, tbqh
In this timeless clip, Prime Minister, Jim Hacker explains to Sir Humphrey and Bernard the importance of the papers and who reads which one. Hilarious BBC British comedy at its best.
This is a commercial channel from BBC Studios. Service & Feedback https://www.bbcstudios.com...
Some guy near me posted on his business page that he'll no longer service black people due to "security concerns"
His page is deleted and all his business listings are mysteriously gone now
The problem I have with the "two party system" is people buy into it. It's not really a system, it's just what has eventuated due to the democratic process (I don't actually think democracy is the most effective government system, but it's the fairest when it comes to treating all people equal, that is a whole other topic though). You have demagogues and news outlets and brainwashed people convincing the populous that "if you don't vote for x or y, you may as well note vote".
That is the biggest issue. Parties wont get coverage if people don't vote with who they think will run the government the best.
Oh man. RBG died
Also you have to consider most democratic systems give a certain level of power to elected officials, generally in their own district, and usually in the House of Representatives.
She was 87
Did she still do like 30 push-ups a day? I remember that being a story at some point
Yeah, it was expected a replacement would have to be nominated in the next term, she had been struggling.
Yeah, there were a bunch of stories about her having to go to the hospital
There was a news article yesterday saying she was probably passing soon.
Time to see if Mitch is gonna confirm someone in an election year
You just knew this would happen.
The issue is though
This election year is particularly volatile, and both candidates are probably going to contest it
Is the SCOTUS involved in that?
Breyer
I mean, if trump nominates someone, and the senate confirms it with a simple majority, it’ll happen. Senate can still confirm after the election too right?
Lame Duck
SCOTUS wouldn't be involved here
pretty much within state control how to hold elections
nothing really in constitution to dispute
So if the presidential result is contested the SCOTUS has no chance of being involved?
Well no. It did in 2000
Yeah, that's what I thought
i mean you can petition the scotus with anything
but the chance that it will actually cause something is questionable
we'll have to see who he puts on the court
and how quick they're accused of sexual misconduct
The Thurmond rule, in U.S. politics, posits that at some point in a presidential election year, the US Senate will not confirm the president's nominees to the federal judiciary except under certain circumstances. The practice is not an actual "rule" and has not always been fol...
So it comes down to the Senate
I mean, a lot of “rules” get thrown out.
they break that all the time
Yeah a guideline
Also it's not very clear cut the point when this takes effect
If trump does nominate, he’ll probably pick a woman. He just released his list of potential nominees a few days ago. Idk who else is in there, just that Ted Cruz was for some reason
Filibuster in the context of a super majority in the Senate overruling a presidential veto?
No, the filibuster essentially means that anything in the senate needs 60 votes
But I think the republicans got rid of that for judicial nominees
But only for judicial nominees
I really dislike the reuse of these terms.
It’s not reuse
Filibuster is a term to refer to debating legislation until time runs out basically.
Someone can filibuster a vote, and it takes 60 to break a filibuster
My prediction: Mitch McConnell will not wait. He will push through a reliable conservative before the election as a ploy to prop up Trump's low support.
prob
Low support where?
The appointment of another Supreme Court judge could be precisely what Trump needs to re-energize his flagging campaign.
Which is bad for America.
I mean... I’d much rather trump appoint a conservative then literally anyone Biden would pick.
I mean, of likely voters, he has a 56% approval rating.
The last time this happened, McConnell used the election as an excuse to deny Obama an appointment, now McConnell will conveniently cast his prior opposition to the side for Trump.
Yeah, he probably will. And ya it’s hypocritical. And also, pretty sure if the roles were reversed, the same thing would happen. All politicians are hypocritical, it’s not party-specific.
Biden is suffering dementia, he's likely to just pick whoever he's told to pick by the DNC (and probably get their name wrong).
Biden is suffering dementia
[citation needed]
Trump cannot even utter a coherent sentence or even think for himself.
He's a weathervane, even moreso than Biden.
I mean, you deny it. I don't think many people will agree with you at this point. He needs a teleprompter even for one on one conversations these days.
</rant>
He needs a teleprompter even for one on one conversations these days.
Trump uses a teleprompter for about 5 seconds then starts rambling about antifa.
they're both bad, biden less bad
Trump has achieved things the Obama/Biden campaign promised to do, then quickly forgot. Though who's less bad is mostly opinion.
Trump is ruining the american hegemony imo and I dont like it
Yeah, he's not interested in the establishment.
Many from both sides of the establishment dislike him.
I cant imagine that's a popular opinion since a lot of people here aren't from the US I believe
But man he really likes screwing over our allies
Needless to say, I think shit is going to go down
And I dont like that
Yeah, I dislike that you like the hegemony, but it's just your opinion.
Pretty sure a lot of Democrats are going to be thinking about court-packing
Court-packing?
yes
Expanding the size of the Supreme Court to "pack" it with judges more favorable to Democrats.
Nothing in the Constitution says that you can't have just nine judges.
I always found it odd the government elected them.
Or had that level of control over it.
I don't think the establishment is the hegemony though?
You can dislike the establishment and still be for the hegemony
I'm considering the hegemony just to be the influence the US can wield over the rest of the world
Ah I see.
With regards to trade deals and military presence
Yeah I'm for the US pulling out of all the endless wars.
I'm for countries manning up and providing their own defense forces.
Things like trying to get Europe to give more money to NATO, basically things we do that give the US more influence over the world
The American Military Industrial Complex is rife with corruption.
Europe should give nearly the same as the US in funding.
The EU GDP is like 18.7 trillion, USA is like 21.2 trillion I think?
I dont like him for other reasons too but for a pure policy position that's why I think trump needs to go
Well, in the past mass rioting in election years has favored the republicans by an additional 6 to 8 points in affected areas compared to prior election years.
My guess is it will be a landslide, and polling of likely voters suggests that.
I think if the Democrats nominated a better candidate it would be easy. Tulsi Gabbard would be my pick.
Sanders in his glory days would be another okay pick
I thought Pete was ok
Well he's part of the establishment now though, tows the party line
Cant stand Sanders but I would've voted for him if he was the pick
If he had more of a backbone I'd agree
well everyone that protest voted for sanders must be feeling really great now that yet another justice has died and trump gets to stack the court 5-2
That protest vote really helping america grow more liberal hmm
I don't really like his policies but I think he's much more liked than Biden
I'd be more for him if he condemned their actions
(most popular dem in 2016 if I remember right, but DNC nominated Clinton)
Fuck them, that's not how Democracy should work
I mean she still got more votes than him right?
He wasn't on the ticket, or do you mean votes by registered Democrats?
Primary votes
I'm not sure
Primary
idk what you mean by most popular dem
Hillary received the most votes in the primaries
She also received the most votes in the actual election but that's a separate story..
Many polls showed that Sanders had more popular support than Clinton, as much as 15% higher.
Sure, demon, got more votes but we have to let the flyover states count for more or they'll feel sad. 😛
?
calling the flyover states "the flyover states" is probably a contributor to trump winning in the first place
Interesting move
Also they'd be banning interactions with Tencent not epic and riot themselves as I think these aren't Chinese companies in it of themselves
At least epic isn't not to sure about riot
fucking fuck i just saw RBG died. We are so fucked.
i fucking hope something can be done to delay trump as much as possible
have to hope some republicans will side with dems on this and show some morals
❤️ amaranth 😄
what are morals anyways? I thought everyone in congress are completely spineless and self serving for their own gain
in all reality, I think trump is not looking to sit on this
im pretty sure almost every president that has had the chance to make a nomination in an election year has done so
however, I do not like it when a person of power becomes some martyr for a cause
yeah
looks like 2 republicans will abstain if they try to confirm a nominee this year
but that's not enough to stop it
(Romney and Collins iirc)
its all politics really. Who ever controls the Senate will do whatever they want, so long as their supporters are fine w/it
and since tribalism is at an all time high, "my side can do no wrong"
although, it looks like both a majority of dems and republicans want hearings held on a nominee in 2020
https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2020/09/19/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court/
and that poll was taken before Ginburg's death
Hm, welp
This kinda puts the last few pieces together
Yay plastic!
I personally think it'd be detrimental to the campaign to replace the SCOTUS justice now, unless he does it as like a bipartisan thing, "We're going to work with the Democratic Senators and find someone who they'd vote for too".
While the tribalism is high, lifetime Democratic voters who've been swayed could easily have that soured by something like that.
Honestly, if I wanted Biden to win, I'd hope they forced a replacement through.
The harrisbiden-harris administration would be weird to see if that happened
I personally don't think he'd last the full term. But if they get in we'll see.
If Rasmussen polling is correct, which historically it has been (predicted the Trump win, and a 1.7% popular win for Clinton, actual being 2.0%), it is looking unlikely. They poll likely voters.
Think they even picked every state.
lol, that was hilarious. Harris called it the "Harris Administration with Joe Biden" and Biden called it the "Harris/Biden Administration" in the same day
Yea, I'd be surprised if they did win, DNC really needs to find better canidates to shove forward
this is really why the days of the party elders in the smoke filled room picking the candidate were better
Yeah I agree, I don't personally like the DNC but they had some really good ones this year that they didn't promote heavily.
Well, have you seen him in some of his talks? I thought I was bad when my brain is having horrible days, but, damn
the top dudes in the party picked a guy who represented the values of the party
Tulsi Gabbard to me would easily win against Trump.
rather than the people picking someone who "sounds" the best but isn't really running on the party platform
And kamala was picked right after her own nomitation fell flat
It's almost like they're trying to fail
Half the time he says racially curious things "If you don't vote for me, you're not black", etc. The other half he forgets where he is, or the name of President "my boss".
He's even forgot that he's running for President.
I don't think he's racist, I just think he doesn't think as quick as he used to. which will happen to literally every person on earth
I don't think he is either, just like I don't think Trump is.
But he says some really racially curious things.
trump, just says what he thinks, and sometimes its nuts, and then he usually walks it back later
And was responsible for the anti-crack legislation, which has been called racist legislation.
what happens when you dont really have a filter
I mean, that's part of why trump was basically an amazing "fuck you" vote
Yes, rich ass reality star, but, he's as close to your average joe in his manner, he says what he things, which is such a difference to... well.. teleprompter..
My take on his personality, is he's a businessman, who's running the USA business now, so he wants it to be prosperous.
it is really interesting how a new york billionaire managed to get the average working-class american to respond to him
you would think there would be no connection there
he worked in the private sector compared to half the asshats in congress
So he's not interested in playing party politics, he will ignore that bullshit to get what he thinks will make it prosperous done.
I think that he manages to show more that he cares about people, vs caring about policy
Yeah, well he comes across as one of them
I mean, he banned travel from china
Correct
There's no premeditation behind what he says, essentially, is how it comes to me
Also the things the news pick at him on, I think those are deliberate too, we all know they're going to complain, but they focus on small things because he spoon feeds them the lines
Yeah pretty sure that's an act, I may be wrong
I dislike him as a person either way
At least with how much he tends to tangent off, it sorta flows into that off the cuff I've not been regirgitating this in the mirror for the past few weeks
I'm curious what you think about the fact he downplayed SARS-CoV-2 based on advice from the chief health advisor.
also journalists dont have access to trump all the time
I dislike it, but I understand it.
Yeah Democrats too.
My understanding of USA politics too, the Governors and Mayors are more responsible for the issues USA faces than the President.
it wacist to ban china
And yea, it's really more down to local states vs the government as a whole
Correct, interesting.
trump would basically need to call each 51 states, get a plan together, agree on it, and push everybody on it
I'm guessing you guys who think like this are not Trump voters?
You don't have to answer
I know that's a hot topic
though now we litterally have people on twitter screaming to burn the system down...
I'm a brit, I'd of voted for trump this and last election if i was there
I'm Australian, but have family in the USA so visit a lot, and talk a lot about politics.
well, they have been doing it since day 1
I'm in firm belief that if HRC won we'd be in the mist of ww3
its just they dont want to tolerate trump winning in event it does happen
Well the Democrats didn't give people a good choice in my opinion.
hillary is a war hawk
i can remember two presidential elections in my life where the democrat's strategy was basically to point at the republican and go "cmon i suck but anything is better than THAT guy right haha" and they both lost
1622
11211
I mean, they literally go from obama who from my handful of friends didn't go down, even one in minnesota, her mother basically ended up having to get a 2nd job and could still hardly make ends meat
Yeah, and Trump has pulled troops out of countries, brokered peace deals, that no leader of any country I've ever heard of past or present has ever done in my opinion.
The like of which*
its not the status quo for the last 20 years
to somebody who's almost entire run of being in office has been involved with scandal after scandal
If Obama who did barely anything for world peace can get the Nobel peace prize, Trump deserves it.
and now, you've literally got somebody who kinda scares us when we thought trump was bad with his ability to get a sentence out
I'd argue he made world peace worse, but that's probably highly debated.
Well, the east is a hell hole
Yeah it is
If Obama who did barely anything for world peace can get the Nobel peace prize, Trump deserves it.
neither of them really did anything to improve peace
trump has been worse peace wise
Might want to look into all the peace deals and troop withdrawals he's doing.
but the fact that presidents can get that in the first place is 
I agree with that last point.
Does the nobel peace prize really stand for much?
in science yeah
I think trump is keeping china in line at the moment. China is itching for a war for expansion and control over key regions
trump doesn't have a plan and changes his mind in mere seconds
He also had historic sit downs with North Korea.
that's his foreign policy
it's not good or stable
and the NK thing wasn't a big deal
That's what the media would like you to think
I dont think there needs to be a stable policy
NK was drained of money cuz they made nukes
(cuz of sanctions)
and then they were desperate
and came to US to please trump
because he's a simpleton to please
giving trump press cycles is what he likes
NK knew exactly what they were doing
yeah, it was a PR stunt overall
was still PR
Of course, doesn't make it any less historic
We also have not heard much of them since then
yeah, they have been off the radar
historic has an association of positive to it
USA didn't give them monetary aid if I remember right
doubt
Which is also historic. Many presidents have caved to their constant sabre rattling
Giving them money will not stop them being insane, just gives them more money to not give to their impoverished people and use to develop weapons.
we need to just stop giving them money and see if we can see about bolstering south korea and japan's defense
Obama did a lot to dismantle the Taliban, so there's that.
The peace deals he's negotiated though are meaningful even though the NK stuff is mostly PR
the US pretty much is SK's defense lmao
yeah
yeah, I wonder
Surely ISIS will use that wisely.
in reality, that was a total mess under trump's administration
Which was?
isis
Ah yeah, Trump did it.
By giving ISIS weapons and money?
??
The US and Saudi Arabia supplied them with a majority of their stuff.
lol no?
the US at least
from what I remember, ISIS has a few weapons from the US but not provided by the government
Obama used Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden, and used a record number of drone strikes (which wasn't necessarily a good thing; Reuters had several journalists killed by US drone strikes).
The only reason Bengahzi 2.0 hasn't happened under Trump is because the US created Special Purpose MAGTAF (Marine Air/Ground Task Force) which is designed in-part to avoid that.
do you have any source for that because that's probably total bs (james)
I can find a source, basically they gave weapons to Syrian rebels and trained them. Then ISIS obtained them obviously.
Lets... just level a mountain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Nangarhar_airstrike
So it's indirect, but most of their kit is from that choice - instead of getting authorization from Congress.
Which rebels are you referring to, particularly?
Look up... uhm.. Timber Sycamore
It's a classified CIA operation arming and training Syrian rebels to fight and overthrow Basha al-Assad
Bashar*?
A lot of the ISIS weapons came from that supply line.
It's how ISIS got American BGM-71 TOW's.
yeah, indirectly, we poured a shit ton of weapons into the middle east
well, it kind of is a big giant battle royale game since we got involved
This is effective campaigning
I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. https://t.co/TuRZXPE5xK
119427
419887
lulw
if you're not british please keep sharing this as much as you can we need as much support as we can possibly get #uktransrights https://t.co/9tPYoTzGRa
446
307
I think the process is meant to rule out mental health (though is dysphoria some disorder?) along with making sure that a person is 100% positive they want to go through something life changing.
Though I don't think having some random hearing panel is a bit much if it's absolute strangers, which I find really odd
Everything but the panel seems very reasonable to me.
Oh yeah that's for sure
-Live as your gender for at least 2 years AFTER diagnosis
That stuff is so stupid. Basically you have to "present" as your gender while everything else stays the same. And every time someone wants to check your ID or anything you get outed against your will
unless you're a kid, i think you should be allowed to do whatever you want to your body
I mean if you're a kid and you have enough money to transition on your own at that point just let them have it.
Either way I don't think transitioning can change your legal sex.
I disagree with the "after diagnosis" aspect, but not the measures to ensure that there is actually an "issue" there
theres hormone blockers for that
but if a 5 year old wants to
@pure jetty the government CAN decide since they run the healthcare system
Right but kids are definitely not going to have enough money for the operation.
or puberty blockers to be more precise
the government CAN decide since they run the healthcare system
im not saying they can't, rather they shouldn't
They will either have to get their parents money or from some sort of sponser.
The thing is that those drugs cause long term effects, and their usage can have as many issues as people suffering from GD in the first place
but yes that's a downside to public heathcare
transitioning should NOT be a revolving door
Not really Cat, theres not really a downside to puberty blockers
Yes, there is
There most certainly is
Compared to dysphoria? not really
Compared to Dysphoria a mental disorder?
dysphoria, a mental illness that the sufferer has no control over, vs puberty blockers which the sufferer DOES have control over?
I don't think y'all realize how bad the wrong puberty can be for trans kids
dysphoria is not solved by transitioning at such a young age
I'm not saying that
I think puberty is generally a tough time for all kids.
I have some idea, but, I'm not there; There are known issues with long term usage of blockers, which is why you often have to have routine checks, etc
i think aurora is right on this one
I'm saying puberty can be paused until you're older and ready to decide and be sure
I guess blockers are better than nothing, but they're not without harm
Yes, it can be paused, but it does have long term potential side effects, including fertility issues
The problem I see is independence from medication
its why I dont see people who are trans in rural areas as much as in the city
but
I cant say that to be sure
If you're trans you're gonna have fertility issues either way when you decide to medically transition
The issue with transitioning being more treated like a revolving door these days is that the number of people de-transitioning has also followed the upward trend, and the issue is that this treatment does have side effects down the long course which can impact people as much as those pre-transition
Yes, but what if you're not trans? what if you just have other MH issues
I don't see any stories about trans people who are poor and in third world countries. Most of them are in first world countries with a lot of resources and no worry about what's for dinner the next day.
I don't think that this is something that we should be allowing people to rush into
It's very much so a first world problem
The numbers of de-transitioners is really small tho, and people keep pushing that it's like half the people when in reality it's more like <1%
There obviously needs to be the help available to people, but, we also need to balance the checks
@opal moat where are the numbers though?
Yes, but what if you're not trans? what if you just have other MH issues
thats why you have medical guidance along the way
Depending on how you count? Did you legally transition and then detransition, or medically, or surgically, theres lots of paths you can take^^
Wait this is addressing who? What's the context?
detransitioning at any point is a detransition
Basically, nothing in the UK is changing
The panel thing sounds like a total embarrasment of BS which should be scrapped
You need to also realize that not every detransition is due to you're not trans
doctors signing it, err
I dont know about the NHS, but since its public, does it also provide medication?
The "real life test" with the 2 years is also pretty bad
I don't think there are any real good number on this topic that we can go off of.
yeah, I can see why the insane requirements being a thing
I mean, I already said that I disagree with the 2 year one, that's kinda just extending it out further, but, I do semi agree with the nature of "trying it out"
ofc
now I wonder how much hormones/blockers cost
I mean, cost really isn't relevant, just ensuring that you're not causing as much harm
I mean, it matters when there is a cost to make it
The entire process defo needs to be redefined, but, I somewhat agree with there being some form of balancies in place to try to ensure that people are treat efficetively
I can talk about the process on how to change your legal name/gender in germany if anyone is interested
How about just make it so doctors are responsible and liable to making sure peoples transition is smooth?
I mean, I pay 9GBP ish iirc for a packet of 0.05Gbp pills, so that people can get their 12GBP meds for 9GBP
@white wing then no doctor wants to assist in that
Part of the issue is that there isn't enough doctors
you cant force a doctor to ensure a transistion is smooth
well then I don't see why you should be forcing doctors to do something they're not comfortable doing.
That's not the issue
The issue is that you need specific training to deal with issues like GD and MH in general
there are a lot of factors in the transistion, and a doctor can only do so much
they cant force you to take medication
if you don't have that training, you can't sign off on it
you don't have to take medication if you don't want to
im saying that as a general in the US system
if you're trans you don't have to medically transition if you don't want / need to
I personally just wanna frollic down the street in a pretty pink dress
Well then if they have the training then I think they'll be more than willing to take the responsibility of making sure the transition is a smooth as possible.
doctors cant tell you what to do
Well they can but they can't force you to do what they tell you to do.
Well then if they have the training then I think they'll be more than willing to take the responsibility of making sure the transition is a smooth as possible.
but theres like one doc for a thousand patients in that scenario rn
they can look after the process, but you cant make them liable unless it is classified as malpractice
Well then we need more doctors for that field then. If there is a supply the demand will rise to meet it.
and again, they arent personal doctors, they do have other patients to care for also
then tell college kids to get moving towards stem or medical...
If new doctors see that there is people in need and they are willing to pay for operations then they'll probably study up on that subject.
if yall have any questions regarding trans stuff btw you can always ask me
Seki thats not how it works
Weird that's how I think it works.
no, thats not how it works, they cant study it as in read a book
No one pays doctors based on operations or on what exactly they do
lmao that's not what I'm saying at all.
they do need to undergo licensing to say they can do said operation or field
Right
I don't see how that changes what I said though.
That is in-line of what I was talking about.
No one pays doctors based on operations or on what exactly they do
its also expensive to gear up towards another medical field
or can be
depending on what the field needs
though usually you have hospitals for that
I never talked about existing doctors though.
I also never implied the doctor gets payed based on operation. They definitely get payed on what exactly they do that's why there are different fields.
there are different fields because you need different fields because medicine is complex af, not because you need to pay them differntly
Right and as a result the different fields get payed different amounts.
GP is going to get payed a different amount to an orthodontist, or even an anesthesiologist.
unless I'm getting the phrasing wrong for GPs.
yes, in general thats true, but if you're working in a hospital as a doctor you don't get paid differently if you do heart stuff or lung stuff
You get paid better depending on your skillset and certifications you have
yeah, if you are part of a hospital/hospital group, its usually the skillset and certifications that dictate prices. for a normal practice, it is usually set by the owner of the practice
or doctor, depending on the situation
I'll just ask my Doctor friend for clarification because from everything I know that sounds right but implying that a heart surgeon gets payed the same as an neurosurgeon sounds very wrong.
The thing is how expensive it is to get down into some of this
UK recently in the past few years killed off some grants, which is BS as nurses, etc, training to join the NHS basically get left in so much debt, and even then, you still have further stuff to learn over the years
The costs involved in learning and getting the stuff you need to perform specific surgeries is crazy
Yes that's why doctors get payed a lot because they invested time and money to learn their craft.
Well one of the reasons.
To my understanding, you'll generally have training and spec's in specific things, like, there is the core course which basically gives you the general basics, but, heart surgens are typically... well, trained on the more advanced side of heart surgery
Yes and depending on what you specialize in you get payed more or less. I don't see how that's wrong....
There's also a huge absence of evidence transitioning helps people in this position.
The rate of depression and suicide is the same before/after from all the studies into it that I've read
@shut vine Now before I get any flack for saying this, I do think there are instances where mental health problems do get masked for transgender changes and whatnot. There are instances where a person doesn't feel attached to the world or has a very distorted view of what is going on.
Not entirely sure what you mean, but I think it's a complicated topic
Do Republicans think Democratic voters have short memories? https://twitter.com/FoxReports/status/1307773195982966789
I'm going to tell you, the dual insult of Garland/Ginsburg will activate Democrats this election.
Don't be surprised if they inflate the court to 13 members
Discouraging conservatives to vote for a Republican Senator in a tough re-election fight to own the libs https://t.co/t6pFXiQ7bW
220
1248
Weird way to own the libs
A majority of both dems and republicans said they think the senate should vote on a nominee in an election year
ITT: people surprised parties are upset when stuff doesn't work in their favour but are willing to do it when it's their time
I don't think so about that... McConnell sort of backtracked on his original view because it was politically convenient
After all, the Supreme Court is more valuable to them than the presidency or even control of Congress.
We're entering the second Lochner Court era, which would take us back to some seriously dark times.
Bill Barr's move here is stupid, but also totally obvious and meant to score political points. More political football. The president and his cronies do not like opposition and this move seems designed to try and pressure the cities to suppress BLM altogether.
The administration's constant crowing about antifa and anarchism if anything has only hardened antifa resolve.
They target BLM and antifa but not white supremacists, coincidence?
the SCOTUS is only super valuable because congress doesn't do its job. It creates vauge laws, and so more and more "law" is created by the judiciary. which isn't how its supposed to be. Its actually really interesting. Congress is, in effect, giving up a bunch of its power. Something that was never expected
probably cause policitians don't wanna go on the record about something, only to have it bite them later in their career. I mean, a prime example, is the stupid 9/11 reauthorization for use of military force in the middle east.
I find it funny how the president says that "anarchists" support Biden... actually, anarchists wouldn't support Biden, at best perhaps they'll half-heartedly vote for a Bernie Sanders (a social democrat by the way), but they really want to see the state go away altogether.
If Biden Wins, CHINA WINS
Actually, you've been fighting China for a while now and China has been winning so far.
At best, you maybe shut down Huawei, but you totally folded on TikTok and trade.
I love how the USA has been fighting "china" for so long that in my opinion I trust China almost more than the USA now
wdym "trust"... U.S. doesn't have people in "re-education camps" because of their religion
U.S. doesn't prosecute daughters of journalists who say critical things.
Let the theocrats have another term and they'll make re-education camps for non-Christians run by Betsy DeVos.
well US have people on their borders in camps as well
Oh, and we already have border camps too.
yeah, cause they broke a legit law, not some "law" about being the wrong religion
prosecute them for what?
Oh finally, Biden made a good ad. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1307491919384260609
I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. https://t.co/TuRZXPE5xK
197375
723489
It's a great ad as Biden lets Trump's mouth do the talking
I will end political rambling by saying that AOC is right. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1307704248197668864
3 Reasons the GOP want to take RBG’s Supreme Court seat:
- To gut your healthcare
- Take away your birth control & control of your body
- To further dismantle our civil rights https://t.co/ZIMXf8dVco
28110
109115
Granting congressional representation to the roughly 700,000 American citizens who live in DC (including me) is not “total war.” It is a vindication of the most basic principles of democracy. https://t.co/rhC7XvUo4l
4208
23695
But the problem is that the Senate still favors rural areas... which elect Republicans. Even if you admitted DC and Puerto Rico as states and split California into 3 at least Democratic-leaning states, Republicans still have a slight edge.
with the progressives talking about "packing" so much recently, its hard to see that and not think, oh, they are just trying to "pack" the senate
Well... it makes sense, you fight fire with fire.
why is it wrong to add a new supreme in an election year?
its been done like 18 times before
Because McConnell started it and Democrats are extremely angry.
well no, mcconnell didnt start it, pretty sure the first one was 1808.
the reason mcconnel gave for not confirming garland was stupid. but it really boils down to, whoever has the senate gets final say. That is how it was setup
McConnell should burn in hell, that's what he should do.
ok, see that isn't a reason for why its wrong 😆
The way Dems see it, the GOP stole two seats on the court, and now they're angry.
McConnell is playing with fire and doesn't care.
Which means Schumer might get the spine needed to checkmate McConnell.
well tbh, if the dem majority leader hadn't gotten rid of the 60 votes thing... so can't I just say, "well the dems started it".
After all, McConnell probably knows the GOP Senate majority is probably dead and needs to go out in a flash of glory. He is doing it in classic McConnell fashion.
Anyway, I don't want to talk more about this.
if you think the GOP stole two seats, then you don't understand how elections work. Its about convincing people that you have the better idea, or at least that their idea is bad. democrats apparently didn't do a good enough job to take back the senate earlier.
The senate favors rural because it's not based on population
The house is meant to be based on state population
I don’t mean to get political or anything, but what the fuck is a toaster?
It's a electrical device that heats up slices of bread
Based
His original view was technically that he thought the Senate was voted in as a check to Obama's power, and that he wasn't planning on confirming a nominee in an election year.
Conversely his view is now that he thinks the Senate was voted in to get Trumps agenda done.
I think the more important thing is that this hasn't been done before, while it's a not a law, it may seem "wrong" to many people.
(regarding McConnel)
well we cant leave the position empty unless someone would love to be absent for rulings
Regarding reeducation camps, and comparing them to illegal immigrant "camps", is actually pretty disgusting. China imprisons its own citizens and "reeducates" them or harvests their live bodies for organs.
detention centers are different from what china is doing
They are executed via organ harvesting.
Correct, which is why it's disgusting to compare them.
if it was an actual concentration camp, we would see even worse conditions
but these people in these centers do get stuff to live day by day till they get released
either into the country or expelled out
and I find it disgusting how democrats wanted to defund ICE to make it more like a concentration camp
Never heard about that, though not overly surprised by either the fact I didn't hear or the fact it possibly occurred.
I dont think it occurred, but back in 2018 it was some sales pitch to guilt trip americans
I meant more specifically that it wouldn't surprise me if they were campaigning for that.
republicans arent saying close the border 100%, no one gets the fuck in, but I think we need to control our border, and a wall is required to prevent the bad elements in
ie, drug lords and gangs
I also do think we need to prevent people from coming in to be exploited
Most people are unaware that the plan does not just involve a wall.
It also involves technological measures, and human elements.
yeah, cameras, equipment to detect underground movements, etc
I'm not convinced it will have significant impact, but I'm not convinced it wont either. Reasonably speaking something has to be done though.
well a lot of people say they can fly over the wall... with what money and equipment...
nevermind if they fly into a US airport, they are fucked either way on escaping
I think the sea is a more logical method
however you can have military installations on either end
It's a lot harder to police than the air
yeah
That being said, people do come up with the strangest things against it
the gulf is the best bet when it isnt hurricane season
going via california doesnt seem ideal
but again
time and money to do that
and if there are organizations that promote boat passages, they can be refused entry into US ports of access for repairs
along other things
Either way, you know there is an issue when 3% of your population are illegal immigrants.
even then we dont know the true numbers
3% is a very conservative number.
Most estimates put it between 3.2% and 3.6%
Considering 1.5% of the population is sent back at least yearly, stands to reason that the actual current number should be higher than that.
If each of those individuals that gets sent back cost the taxpayer 1,000 that's 50 billion dollars a year.
yeah, sadly at this point, we cant afford to chuck out 3% of the population
what really needs to happen is to stop people from coming in illegally over the border (ie, not going through a border checkpoint, and not given some visa or permission to go through), then try to pave way towards citizenship
I mean, isn't all of America build on immigrants?
The issue is, that there is no real way to immigrate into the US properly
all of everywhere is built on immigrants. the US is just more recently built on immigrants
wasn't europe populated by other species in the Homo genus? someone wiped those guys out.
I would hope our society has evolved since then, lol
And like, yes, Europe, especially German, is also really accepting to immigrants, especially after the second world war, our economy was basically rebuild by Turkish immigrants
France and the UK have tons of immigrants from their colonies
I thought it was pretty difficult to get into those scandanavian countries
and yeah, U.S. immigration is a mess. should be mostly merit based (for non asylum-seeking folks) instead of random lottery.
Not really, I think it's Sweden who gifts you citizenship after 4 years of working?
I just read an HN comment thread about Indian caste system
Lmfao
That shit is so fucked up
It's like apartheid, but with 5000 different levels
I mean, this transfers over into the US
Yea, that's part of the horror is that these systems exist everywhere almost, you should see how bad the paki's are (And, I don't mean that to be offensive...)
What there is no proper way to immigrate to the united states?
I joke with my bestie about how money scrimping her father is, but, that's just shop savvy and smarts, etc; But, to a lot of indian/paki families, money and showing off is everything, associating with people who have less is somewhat of a discrace and something to sorta "spread about" with others
My family is all composed of immigrants lmao.
Also, people don't have much of an issue with immigrants as others will try to make you believe
A lot of it is getting rid of the violence surrounding the border, the number of sexual assaults that occur to people crossing the border
Maybe there needs to be some steps taken to make it easier for people who want to legally cross to do so, but, that's almost fuck all to do with illegal immigration
there should be a faster process and maybe some holding system for people who say they are seeking asylum.
Well, yea, the timings for some stuff is just fucking crazy
Like, approval for a job visa is often in the range of years if you don't luck out on the lottery
well the US visa system is somewhat competitive
which makes the problem worse
but again, you have drugs and human traffiking going across that border
I mean should it not be competitive?
There needs to be a balance of allowing your own citizens
we cant give everyone a visa
I mean, over here they complain about the polish taking jobs
especially the lower end is where they complain about
But, it's all the jobs they're willing to do and work hard at
you don't see white british people flooding all the construction jobs, etc
I mean, usually lower end jobs that get taken by immigrants or low income households
college people dont usually go into construction to be a grunt
need to keep their hands well manicured
Which is why im not a big fan of the college system
its too white gloved
I mean, you need trained people on all sides
but I dont see trades like carpentry or plumbing in colleges being promoted
if they even provide it
historically you go to a specific trade school for those types of jobs or apprentice under someone
Saying that immirants are taking your jobs is not a good argument if they are paying taxes like you. Its a different story however if taxes aren't being payed.
you dont go to a traditional Uni for that
apprenticeship? havent heard that in a long time
unless you get more into the architectural/engineering side of things
The thing is that these people who are complaining are generally the people who won't even look at stuff like a toilet scrubbing job
apprenticeship still very much a thing albeit more so on the specialized end of those trade jobs
and yea, apprenticeships are one of the best ways to go into trade
less of ye olden "ur my slave apprentice" though anymore, they frown on that
Some will have you basically in college once a week or something so you can learn some of the more technical aspects, but, bar a brick laying course, the best way to learn how to lay bricks is to... well, lay bricks
yeah, I went to a trade school for highschool. it was very nice, sadly the local normal highschool didnt even promote trade till they were badly bleeding students due to the voctech
it was a force push to college
whether that system is working is a different argument, given the lack of skilled trades people
is that a failure of culture, the training, the job market, the economy, etc etc
is a rabbit hole that is still argued about constantly
I dont think college is as important as many people say it is. Ive worked with many people from college either working for or got a degree. the difference between me and said person was that I wasnt paying for a degree, but otherwise had the same pay
It's mostly important to get you into your position in the first place at most places
once youre there, experience is king in most fields
pretty much
I did IT work, not compsci, but I know how a PC works enough to understand what to replace whats broken
The thing is that there are gains to having the technical understanding, especially in terms of understanding how stuff is rated, etc, etc
I do understand how a processor works at a basic level
but I didnt need to learn 4 years of compsci and programming lectures
IT is a really horrific one for colleges, etc
I had a physical network rack at school, and I put it together and had it doing work
lol
The schools are often lacking in stuff like equipment or teachers to actually teach stuff
We had a PC course and it was literally, "whip apart the machine, swap out a card, put it back together and network them"
Now, for me who already has a maybe slightly above basic understanding of networking, that's trivial
yeah, had a spare lenovo PC sitting around, and I threw it into a spare server chassis
That lesson I got the joys of being able to halp around
( i mean, it's either that or i spend my hour being bored af)
there was 0 documentation on the front board headers
so I said fuck it, let me plug the PSU in and start probing the pins
but yeah, I think we need to promote trade more
I mean,by grabbing out a multimeter, you went far above what an average IT techie would do these days
I got a network rack in the basement
The thing is that there's no real deep level training
I think we only ever did soldering once in HS too, ofc, somebody also loved to play with the molten solder
I was kind a taught to solder by my grandfather, or, at least got into it, nothing like getting a TV for the cost of a capacitor
there are some horrors where stuff like macbooks use components so small that soldering generally requires tips specifically designed for those smaller components and using a magnifying glass all day
yeah
You're not even taught to wire a plug these days
Which, in part, I understand, it's not needed as much these days and people are dumb, but, stuff like changing a fuse
My landlord does a few student places, apparently he gets calls for breakers tripping quite often, as people are just not taught about this stuff, so the landlord has to send somebody out to take a look at it
I mean, I find it funny how im going to work with this one software that schedules other software. The scheduler has an auto backup/snapshot feature thats enterprise only, but you can manually snapshot it. So, I could just create a job that execs the snapshot command using the same software...
It's a shame that through-hole components are being phased out of production. 10 years from now, breadboards are going to be a thing of the past.
i only see them in earlier prototyping now adays
Slovenia just doing the same bs as always.
Didn’t see that coming. Huh
"Nothing improved for their lives, and they're still protesting? They should really just give up."
where is that quote? I don't see it in the article
It isn't. Just imagining the reasoning for those who switched supporting->non-supporting. :3
they probably don't like riots
yeah, thats what I think
Peaceful protest -> No change in the threat to their lives
Angry but peaceful protest -> No change in the threat to their lives
Violent protest -> No change in the threat to their lives
Running out of ways to escalate while much of the country tells them to stop whining and just deal with it.
iirc there have be violent protests for quite while now
like, the grand jury thing that happened today with the cop who killed breona taylor. do people understand what a grand jury is?
its a bunch of people that you live with, deciding what happens
and besides these riots attack their local businesses
who does that hurt exactly?
aren't those people living under the same system, dealing with the same issues?
yet apparently it's OK to fuck their shit up because?
absolutely cannot win the support of people if shit like that is accepted
the videos of people just yelling at people who are sitting there eating at a restaurant surely don't help the protestors/rioters case
iirc there have be violent protests for quite while now
I wasn't really clear in my writing, but I mean this has been a problem for decades and decades. Still not resolved, so yeah some people are going to feel that all that is left is to lash out violently. What else do they have left to try doing in order to get it fixed?
going after your own people is unacceptable
those people work hard for their business
we live in a republic, you have to make an argument to convince people to vote for your issue. and if enough people make it an issue of theirs, then politicians will listen, because they want to win. and if they don't listen, an opponent will come along and take their seat
and justifying rioting is just going to cause division
because obviously ruining people's shit is fucked
and if Joe Smith over here thinks this is a HUGE ISSUE and doesn't understand why everyone else doesn't also think that, they you have to either explain it better, or its not actually as big of an issue as you think.
and "explaining it" by yelling in someones face and breaking their stuff really is not going to endear them to your cause
rioting, especially against your local businesses (who haven't done shit really against the cause), just makes the movement look like total cancer
and it kinda makes it cancer
we live in a republic, you have to make an argument to convince people to vote for your issue. and if enough people make it an issue of theirs, then politicians will listen, because they want to win. and if they don't listen, an opponent will come along and take their seat
It falls apart at "you have to make an argument to convince people" because this has been going on for far too long.
you have to either explain it better, or its not actually as big of an issue as you think
Please, say those words to the families of all those murdered by cops. Tell this to those who experience racism daily as a part of their lives. Tell this to those who suffer in a system that's built to keep them down. "Your life isn't improving because you just aren't explaining your struggle well enough, or maybe it isn't that big a deal!"
rioting, especially against your local businesses (who haven't done shit really against the cause), just makes the movement look like total cancer
and it kinda makes it cancer
This sort of reasoning, that actions by a small part of a group condemn the whole thing, basically tanks any sufficiently large group or movement and thus doesn't seem a healthy way to judge things.
this small group tends to not be condemned by the larger movement
even you tried to justify it
Explain how it's "built to keep them down".
Tried to explain it, but sure, okay. Let's take this partial sentence: "They should stop being violent, they should [ ] instead"
What's left to go into the blank space? What will get people's attention that hasn't yet been tried? Looking for ideas.
Since when was the objective to get people's attention?
I'll try "Call their local congressperson".
Frosting, here's some light reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#United_States
I'll try "Call their local congressperson".
Oh, you're not being sincere in this. I'll back out now and get some sleep now 🙂
I'm being sincere, maybe you're just not receptive to people of different viewpoints.
probably a better idea then going after your own community's business
Are you referring to calling your local congressperson? Completely agree.
uh huh
like going after your own community is actually just gonna go nowhere
and it's totally fucked
these people live in the same system they do and manage to get some success and the solution is to fuck these people? how cruel
it's just fucked man
If not insincere, you are woefully uneducated on civil rights struggles in the US. Calling their local congressperson? Wow! Nobody has thought of that one, surely getting on the phones now will fix it. Why didn't MLK think of that? ._.
MLK didn't support rioting from my knowledge
AFAIK he only started being for non-violent protests later on
sounds like he realised it wasn't a good idea?
He was always in support of protesting in general though
In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?
- MLK, Jr
In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?” https://t.co/Als3jhxaGH
33557
67052
Moreso I think MLK was adapting to a changing political atmosphere rather than disagreeing with violence
AFAIK his movement was fairly into only reacting with violence to violence, rather than instigating the violence
I only know small amounts of the MLK stuff though, mostly know about the Black Panther Party stuff rather than MLK - so I may not have the full picture there
Really though, I need to get sleep or I'd continue ranting about how disingenuous some recent arguments have appeared. 💤
I lived in Alabama for several years (Birmingham) but my memory's a little fuzzy.
@TheKingCenter @benfowlkesMMA We need the final solution, not the final analysis.

Part of me thinks they don't know what the final solution is
And I'm not sure it's the solution they want
I dunno, look at some of his recent retweets
I think he might know exactly what he is saying
Is that somebody from the Minecraft community, or just some random person on the internet?
It's the entire issue that moderators face in communities
Local governments have been moved from the protests to the actual riots
You do not gain support by attempting to murder people
You do not gain support by destroying the businesses of those supposed to be on your side
You do not gain support by attacking people who you disagree with
and this isn't purely one sided, but, the narrative goes from "What can we do to deal with these protests" to, "how do we get these people off the streets so they're not burning down our city"
If not insincere, you are woefully uneducated on civil rights struggles in the US. Calling their local congressperson? Wow! Nobody has thought of that one, surely getting on the phones now will fix it. Why didn't MLK think of that? ._.
The Voting Right Act wasn't passed until 1965. MLK only lived until '68, and the 9th Tennessee congressional district didn't have an election until 1966.
So that gives him ~2 years to do so, in the infancy of African-American representation.
I forgot congressmen take office the year after the election, which means he had ~1 year to do so.
That's now two states where the cops have brought obviously-bullshit felonies against legislators who introduced modest police reforms. https://t.co/ZINrXb3Sq3
5294
15532
The proposals that include prosecuting the Ku Klux Klan and Antifa as terrorist organizations, making Juneteenth a federal holiday and efforts to bolster Black economic prosperity.
Spoiler: this will probably amount to peanuts if he wins another term. This looks like another desperate ploy to shore up minimal black support.
Also, I find it hilarious that the Trump-Barr administration would continue to refer to antifa as a "terrorist organization"
Antifa isn't a group, it's a movement.
And I bet their definition of "antifa" is quite wide. You know, even the mild-mannered social democrats in the DSA have targets painted on them by some of these people.
ya know, im pretty sure im against making juneteenth a federal holiday. at least within the next 5 years. I had never heard of it before this year, lots and lots of people havent. Obama never mentioned it once during his 8 years, and im solidly against having a reactionary government. and that feels extremely reactionary. If people are still making a big deal out of it in 5 years, then sure, im all for it.
plus, more holidays when the government doesnt have to work but pretty much everyone else does?
im not
if its a texas thing, and people in texas have recognized it for a while, can't it be a state holiday? I think that's a thing
it is recognized as a state holiday in texas
because its almost always only government employees who dont work
everyone else still works. so its kinda like the government giving itself more time off, on taxpayers dime
but again, its not really about more holidays, thats a after thought, its about being reactionary
I think the only federal/state holiday that should be added that lets people get time off is when we go to vote
Based
also, antifa isnt just a revolutionary movement, it is a "decentralized" group.
There isnt a single group that controls antifa
They’re antifacist, of course they are decentralized
eh, antifacist, facist, same thing to me considering both smash up things
its just facists havent really been a thing in the US.
and no, trump isnt a facist
what the fuck
^^^^
@bleak echo ?
we need this https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/governments-antitrust-suit-against-google-go-big-and-do-it-right
U.S. antitrust enforcers are reported to be crafting a lawsuit against Google (and its parent company, Alphabet). The Department of Justice and a large coalition of state attorneys general are meeting this week and could file suit very soon. While it will reportedly focus on G...
yeah, big tech needs to be broken up
however, the problem is how to break them up
google's core services are usually interconnected with each other
will it happen? most likely not
considering how big tech is in government
Ok, so here’s a COVID-related question, what amount of deaths is acceptable to fully re-open schools and businesses? There is a number that isn’t 0 right?
we should re open everything, with guidelines to protect people with comprimised immune systems
and covid response should be done on a state by state basis (which it has been doing)
if new york or cali want a full shutdown, then sure, they can violate people's freedoms
and politicians know what good for the people are?
We reopened nearly everything here, but like, ppl here are somewhat sane, we wear masks and everything, and we have about 1 or 2k cases per day
which state?
ah, but yeah, these people are elected
But like, we managed to defeat the first wave rather early, while the US still seem to struggle hard
yeah, us is really dictates by state level response. feds did functionally nothing
I think it was new york and florida that suffered the most deaths?
yeah, im in ny, got hit really hard in the beginning but we are almost back to normal now so
to be honest, I am not surprised about florida
because muh retirement and entertainment
oh
new york has more deaths
here are some great heat maps
ny got hit hard early, but that was almost entirely NYC
but yeah, im not worried about covid, mainly where I am, population density is low and im not at risk with some comprimised immune system
but
I dont plan on risking people who do have comprimised immune systems
I will wear masks and whatnot
ive seen enough reports of significant long term conditions for even perfectly healthy people that i dont wanna risk it if i dont have to
I just hope this election cycle just ends fast
I hope that he loses so he can finally be put into a retirement home
yeah... but I dont see trump stuttering as much
trump doesnt forget where he is
he has a very strange speaking style, but trump knows whats happening around him
where? ive watched some of trump's speeches, he doesnt stutter
though yet again, its more new york/new england talk
im not talking about speech content, or style. but trump understands his environment. there are times biden sure looks like he doesnt
he says what the people want to hear
at least his supporters
ive only seen biden be "hopeful" after august, since bashing trump does nothing
which surprises me how the fuck the media continues to bash trump on everything, when their goal should have been to snuff him out of the limelight and focus on biden... oh wait, I dont see biden besides in ads
none of this has to do with mental state. this is about speech content/style.
Zyphys said retirement home
to be honest, there are politicians that should just retire, 20-40 years in politics should be MORE than enough
there really needs to be some service limit in higher ranking government positions
they get rich enough lol