The US should nationalize Starlink. If private business decisions are going to undermine world stability then those decisions are antithetical to any kind of peace and need to be treated as the threat that they are. A single person picking sides shouldn’t result in a casual body count that Elon never is punished for but it now does and he looks to be getting away with actual manslaughter.
The response we’ll see is the DoD making their own Starlink, but with $500 toilet seats and $100 hammers. Aw, forget the Starlink, we’ll just do those.
They didn’t, but with the amount of publicity it got they probably didn’t find it worth the investment since he likely wouldn’t be able to work anymore.
Scientologists poisoned the dog of one of the victims for speaking up. After that dog died the victim got a new dog which was then poisoned. They did what they could to shut her up.
It’s not that rich people are treated incorrectly, it’s that average people are treated too harshly. Rich people get what everyone should get: A way to defend themselves.
Nothing came out of the rammstein case. It was concluded that the statements given were false by the Berlin public prosecutors office.
To be fair, I think that is one of those cases where someone says something about something happening, and a whole bunch of people hop on a bandwagon saying the same thing to try and get something out of it. I mean some of the shit they were saying was straight up satirical, the “Suck Box”? Give me a break now.
Lynn even made it a point that Lindemann did not rape her, and then a bunch of women came out and said that he did but never testified against him in one of the safest countries on the planet to do so. The only thing I think is suspicious on rammsteins’ behalf is that they distanced themselves from Makeeva, but perhaps she was spreading rumors about her role with the band? Who knows.
Lol how do you out yourself as a misogynistic fuckface mansplaining shit they don’t actually understand without just saying it? Say this bullshit right here.
It’s pretty obvious who you were talking about buddy, don’t play stupid fucking games with me, we aren’t children.
And wow, you’re going to assume that I’m all of those things because I mentioned that Germany takes rape VERY seriously and if allegations are true (they have very invasive investigative procedures), then they should have persued it because justice will absolutely be served? You are an actual piece of shit.
I refuse to further this conversation. You should take time to think about what you said to another human being. You are so fucking rabid that you called me those things when I even presented potential evidence AGAINST them, just that the evidence for them heavily outweighs everything else. You have absolutely no idea what my views are and you automatically assumed I’m one of the worst kinds of people imagineable.
There’s definitely not another actual human being on the other side of that screen, other people definitely don’t matter and don’t have feelings just because you can’t see them.
It’s incredibly disheartening to look back at the relation between the U.S. and Vietnam with the frame starting after the end of WW1. Had Ho Chi Minh been given the time of day it’s easy to wonder what could have been. The Vietnamese simply wished to follow the example that the U.S. had achieved with breaking away from Colonial rule.
Modern day attitudes really go a long way to show the true character of the Vietnamese. You hear of stories of the Christmas Truce, and opposing sides being relatively friendly after a war concludes, but the Vietnam War feels different. Between the racist dehumanization, war crimes and nature of the war putting civilians directly in crosshairs, you wouldn’t be a fool to think that such a conflict would instill a near permanent hatred on both sides. Yet that doesn’t appear to be the case. The overwhelming theme from anecdotes of meetings between former soldiers from both sides is an incredible sense of understanding and shared loss. And the onus of all of this lies chiefly with the Vietnamese. There’s no reason they should forgive or turn the other cheek considering it wasn’t a war they started, but that’s not a distinction that really seems important to them.
A country fiercely determined to defend its independence that has thrown off not one, not two, but three separate wars against such independence with each opponent being unarguably more powerful. I can hear an eagle screaming now.
Besides, this is the same Vietnam who kicked China’s ass in the very same decade that they forced the U.S. out of their country. At this point I wouldn’t bet against the Vietnamese in any conflict if my life depended on it.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let’s kill citizens united while at it.
Which I’m a huge fan of. Not sure why we’d vote for people who won’t agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
Aren’t you so lucky to be someone who can choose to sit on the fence and not suffer the consequences. Do you understand idiotic that statement is?
Jesus Christ, I hate to do Godwins Law here but just because when you have one side that is Nazi Germany that wants to dominate the world, kill all the undesirables, all that good stuff. Then you take a gander at the British; sure, they are a world colonial empire that deserves to be shattered but they are a democracy that DOESN’T dream of world conquest and killing everyone on earth, so any nonbraindead person would pick the side of the “br’ish”.
And you, over there just sitting there thinking “heh, one side has a small amount of evil while the other is the embodiment of evil so I’m going to do nothing.”
Sure, an extreme example, but the principal is the exact same.
Take Civil Rights, just because sometimes the civil rights people may be annoying and rarely takes a few things too far DOESN’T mean they’re the same as the horrific segregationists and the KKK, who’ll kill and lynch whoever they don’t like.
Imagine going “My choices are between the Nazis or the British Empire” and thinking the answer is one of them and not burning the whole thing down if that’s the best it can offer you.
You really are a dumbass, aren’t ya? Making an argument that the Nazis were all that bad.
I suppose that’s fair, any concession, no matter how small, will constitute a defeat to your side so you must stand your ground and defend the undefendable.
Oh the nazis were horrible. The British empire was worse. The Indian famine, intentionally caused by the crown, killed almost 11 million people. Why are you downplaying genocide? Couldn’t you pick a country that didn’t kill an equal amount of people as the nazis during the same time period to play the “good guys” in your scenario?
Hey stupid, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, they killed about 11 million in the concentration camps. Imagine how many would be dead if they enacted Generalost Plan.
So killing 11 million people is bad, right? If yes, why are you ok with the British empire doing it? It’s equal parts gross and hilarious that you’re downplaying their attempts at genocide by using them as the good guys in your scenario.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don’t vote, and corporations don’t vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn’t a failure of the politicians–it’s a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You’re never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there’s no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don’t tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don’t believe that for a second.
I guess I’d flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that’s the thing, they know they’re running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can’t do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren’t worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don’t see why this effect wouldn’t be the same for Congress and the Senate.
At what point do we start cheering for him so we can drag this out more? I am at the point where i am looking forward to the daily update on the cat and mouse game.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.