But when Trump told Russia to go ahead and hack the Clinton campaign and release the data, and like three days later, Russia did exactly that, that was fine.
In reality his campaign was working directly with Russian agents to get dirt on Clinton campaign. This was not just wishful thinking on Donny’s part. It was a willful malice.
Whoa hey, we may never know the depths of their anguish. No need to get salty either. Some people just play the game of life with the wrong controller.
Agreed. Yet, on the other hand, this article suggests the father understood the magnitude of his assholery in the moments before he suffered the consequences. He understood he had murdered his son and himself.
That by no means makes any of it okay and I don’t even think it is the bright side of events, but I take some satisfaction in knowing that motherfucker understood that those were his final moments and the final moments of his son, and that it was all perfectly preventable, and that he hadn’t done so - and all the money in the world wasn’t going to change that.
That is the exact level of suffering all these rich assholes who exploit and abuse the world and the people around them for fun and profit deserve, but so few get. Suffering never makes me happy, but there is something satisfying in that knowledge.
Hey man nothing wrong with dressing how he wants but boy is he a fucking asshole incel bigot who vastly over-extends his intelligence into areas for which he knows nothing about.
The failed deal comes after the Army National Guard blew $88 million on a deal with NASCAR, that also yielded 20 recruits, according to USA Today.
I can’t help but feel 88 million could possibly be used for other personnel retention efforts, which might help the fact that every veteran, positive or negative about the US, will tell you the same goddamn thing - don’t join, because the military doesn’t give a fuck about your wellbeing.
It was $88M for 0 recruits, per that USA Today article:
The Guard received 24,800 recruiting prospects from the program in 2012, documents show. In those cases, potential recruits indicated the NASCAR affiliation prompted them to seek more information about joining. Of that group, only 20 met the Guard's qualifications for entry into the service, and not one of them joined.
The $88M was National Guard spending on nascar from 2011-13. The 20 recruits who made the right choice were just in 2012, but the military.com article that daily beast is reporting on says 'potentially no recruits' when describing the whole nascar deal.
The craziest part to me is the 25k prospects yielding 20 qualified candidates. 99.92% were unfit for service.
I wonder what the reasons were. Probably some had allergies or some minor shit like that. With the amount of waivers these days, there’s probably only 20 people in the military who are actually fit for service
If they spend that $88 million on actually providing the benefits they promised it would have been not wasteful in the first place but also would have gotten more recruits.
So, per my understanding she (they) are not rich rich, they’re upper class and aiming to be nouveau riche.
The rich rich are actually quite principled on a lot of things, mainly self-preservation. It’s mostly the upper class or nouveau riche, like Trumps etc, who cause a lot of ruckus and lack principles because they have a social ladder to climb.
You’re understanding is wrong unless upwards of $10mil liquid (and I’m sure climbing rapidly due to the surge in book sales and more post-VP pick) isn’t considered “rich rich.”
I’ll admit to mispronouncing her name on occasion myself, but mostly because I associate it with two other figures who did/do pronounce it Ka-MAH-luh. I have to make an effort to get it right for her. But I am making that effort. And I have little doubt that these assholes are not.
I’m kind of afraid that I’ll mispronounce it in mixed company and make someone who doesn’t know me well think I’m one of those weird Republicans or something.
I have a friend I’ve had since high school with that name and with that spelling who pronounced it a different way (closer to ‘camera’), so I go there for a second sometimes without realizing it, but correct myself quickly enough.
I actually said it wrong in that way the other day even though I usually get it right without having to think about it too much. It happens. Once we start hearing it all the time it’ll be easy, but in the meantime it may help to think of it as being “Kamla” which comes out sounding just the same.
You’re right of course it’s racism, he knows his audience. But his schoolyard bully tactics always make fun of the unfamiliar, perhaps you mean Anglo sounding?
Because I’m pretty sure he would make fun of his own family name (Drumpf) if it belonged to an opponent. And I can’t imagine it would be any better if they were named Nieminen (Finish) or Svobodova (Czech) or Nikolakopoulos (Greek) etc. Same with first names.
I guess “Hillary Clinton” and “Joe Biden” are hard to mispronounce without making it sound even more obvious than he likes to be, so he took the opportunity.
It’s crazy that people think JD Vance had sex with a couch. There’s no evidence JD Vance had sex with a couch. It’s liberals that are perpetuating the idea that JD Vance had sex with a couch. JD Vance has specifically denied that he has had bare skin contact with a couch within a 5 year period. It’s ludicrous that JD Vance was banned from a Cleveland area IKEA after having intercourse with a KIVIK Sofa Chaise.
I’ll repeat, there is no evidence to believe JD Vance had sex with a couch. JD Vance is not a couchfucker.
The ‘monopoly of violence’ is a useful lens to use around things like this. Despite being less accountable than normal citizens for it, the state has monopolized violence to be acceptable for them to commit, but unacceptable for others.
The state will even often times will use violence to arrest or put down non violent situations or people as well. Like the student protestors, George Floyd and any number of other police killings we’ve seen.
I disagree. This particular state continues to give itself more authority without more accountability. Allow that to continue and you won’t have a state left either, well not a free one anyway.
Also studies about America’s Political system continue to show most people don’t really have a say in what happens at the federal level. You got swing states and thats it.
How long can a society remain free when the monopoly on voilence is given based on a minority of voters?
You're changing the subject, though. The state having the monopoly on violence is a trait of civil societies in general. You can break a liberal democracy in many, many ways entirely unrelated to that issue, which is ultimately just that individual citizens aren't allowed to enact their will through violent acts and instead must appeal to the state for restitution when they are wronged.
The US's issues aren't that the government doesn't allow its private citizens to legally act violently (the exact opposite is a problem in the US, in fact), and having a monopoly on violence doesn't bear one way or the other on whether a country's international policy is compliant with international law.
Never said that was the problem. Said it was a good lens to use. Makes a lot of people look real hypocritical. The disagreement was about the US’s monopoly on violence in particular being a good thing. Do anyones cops kill more civilians per capita than US cops? Because we know no one imprisons more people per capita. We have a lot of violence given electoral mandate by the minority. That’s the problem, and that in itself even threatens the monopoly as those in the majority going unheard realize they don’t have a lot of options. A riot is the language of the unheard. Similar effect.
Despite being less accountable than normal citizens for it, the state has monopolized violence to be acceptable for them to commit, but unacceptable for others
is no more true in the US than Finland or France. All modern countries legally prevent their citizens from taking violent action. This is normal. It's intended, it's a good thing.
The problem is with accountability for the agents of the state, which has nothing to do with the monopoly on violence, it has to do with the criminal system and how the use of that violence is controlled.
If you say the monopoly on violence is the issue with the US's police violence issue what you're saying isn't that the police should be controlled better in their deployment of force, you're saying that individuals should be able to shoot back at the police or, in fact, at anybody else they don't like.
Which is clearly already way too frequent in the US. The interpretation of exceptions to enable private violence, be it the right to bear arms or the insane "stand your ground" rules and other expansive interpretations of legitimate defense are part of the problem. The state's monopoly on violence in the US is too lax, not too strict. Which is mostly unrelated with the fact that the state deploys violence unjustly or without enough accountability or limitation.
Those are different things. I don't think you mean what your statement is implying, I think you mean the other thing, but that's what you're saying and you can probably see how that's a problem.
If you say the monopoly on violence is the issue with the US’s police violence issue what you’re saying isn’t that the police should be controlled better in their deployment of force, you’re saying that individuals should be able to shoot back at the police or, in fact, at anybody else they don’t like.
I’m saying in theory the monopoly of violence is given mandate through elections, and in the US those winning elections do not always do so by being the most popular. It’s an issue that goes higher than the police as the monopoly is transferred to those without an actual majority of support. The President is commander in chief of the executive branch, that includes the cops. The problems are coming from the top down. It’s considerably different than any of the other countries you mentioned.
You're talking about democratic legitimacy, not about the monopoly on violence. Non democratic countries also have a monopoly on violence for the state, it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the state to represent the will of the People.
If your argument is that the current electoral or political system in the US lacks legitimacy because it's not representative enough I can agree with that. But the monopoly on violence by the state is the same with or without that issue, and the lack of legitimacy doesn't change the fact that you don't want random people being allowed to resolve their grievances violently.
The use of violence against citizens in America remains an high outlier compred to more than most developed free countries. This isn’t simply a legatimacy of government issue, it’s also a use of violence issue. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Because nobody wants the government to stop being the only one who is allowed to deploy violence. So the monopoly on violence is not in question.
The solution to the government abusing its monopoly on violence is accountability and regulation, not to remove the monopoly and allow people to just shoot each other freely.
I didn't bring up legitimacy, by the way, you were the one to claim that the government doesn't have enough support from the majority. That is an unrelated issue, as far as I'm concerned.
I already adressed why legitimacy is an issue above.
I’m saying in theory the monopoly of violence is given mandate through elections, and in the US those winning elections do not always do so by being the most popular.
If it’s not given popular mandate it’s just another form of war. Again the whole point of this is to use the monopoly of violence as a lens. Thats how I started the whollllle comment chain. You seem to think that means I want it abolished, which no one’s said this whole conversation.
No, it's not "another form of war". Plenty of illiberal countries have a strong monopoly on violence and nobody conceptualizes that as them being at war with their population. That's absurd.
Making grandiose declarations doesn't make them make sense. I wish people took an extra breath to check what they are actually saying when they post.
Also, if you're not saying you want to abolish the monopoly on violence by the state what are you saying? Because that's the thing about monopolies, you either have it or you don't. As I've said above, control and accountability don't remove the monopoly on violence, and the US already has an unusually lax regulation on this issue. So what are you saying?
Im saying a few things. First and foremost im saying every politician condemning violence is full of shit. Secondly Im saying the monopoly on violence in the US is not a good thing for two distinct reasons: The system often give the head executive office to someone who doesn’t have a popular mandate, meaning the people they place in the positions to execute the state violence shouldn’t have the right to hold their position. On top of that no free country half as safe as American uses violence on its citizens more. That is not a sustainable model of monopoly of violence. Hell even the courts are both illegitimate and practicing violence, particularly against women. So it’s not even contained to the executive branch.
So in short, politicians lie, illegitimate officers are executing violence on civilians, and more violence on civilians than anyone else. How long does a country like that stay free? Because the answer could just be about 5 more months.
So what is a US where there is no monopoly on violence by the state in your view? Or rather, if it is a "bad thing", what is a good thing? How do you see this working?
The same way US prisons are a bad thing but no serious prison abolitionist things the solution is to instantly release all prisoners right now. We need to take corrective steps and if I knew the in’s and out’s of all those steps I probably wouldn’t be trying to have discussions on social media, and instead be writing books, running for office, or starting a movement.
So you know it's bad but you don't know what good looks like.
Please consider the possibility that this is because it's not bad at all to have the state, rather than private citizens, hold the sole ability to use force, and that the problems you've observed may be unrelated to that principle. Not that they don't exist, just that they are not caused by what you're saying they are.
You’re right and the down votes are reactionary. The alternative to the state having a monopoly on violence is even more violent parties. The benefit of a monopoly is violence resting with the state is that the violence is subjected to checks and balances. Perhaps those checks and balances aren’t as restrictive as we might like, but the alternative is unchecked violence.
Obviously we prefer no violence, and yes violence is abused by parties within the state. But that’s a separate issue. If we dismantled the monopoly, violence would skyrocket and what little regulation our institutions enforce would vanish. That’s objectively worse
The world is a nasty place, solutions being unsavory doesn’t preclude them being the best option.
I can’t believe you’re being downvoted for this. The only alternative to government monopoly on violence is that corporations and other citizens are free to interpret laws and use violence to enforce them. You really want Walmart running their own armed police squad? You want the kkk running their own legal military? You want your neighbour able to legally shoot you because they thought your tree was dropping leaves on their property?
It’s absurd that ANYONE would support broader adoption of legal violence. These people have lost their marbles.
[T]here exists a solid empirical paper trail demonstrating that lower cognitive abilities (e.g., abstract-reasoning skills and verbal, nonverbal, and general intelligence) predict greater prejudice. We discuss how the effects of lower cognitive ability on prejudice are explained (i.e., mediated) by greater endorsement of right-wing socially conservative attitude. […]
Right-wing ideologies offer well-structured and ordered views about society that preserve traditional societal conventions and norms (e.g., Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). Such ideological belief systems are particularly attractive to individuals who are strongly motivated to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity in preference for simplicity and predictability (Jost et al., 2003; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011). Theoretically, individuals with lower mental abilities should be attracted by right-wing social-cultural ideologies because they minimize complexity and increase perceived control (Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011; Stankov, 2009). Conversely, individuals with greater cognitive skills are better positioned to understand changing and dynamic societal contexts, which should facilitate open-minded, relatively left-leaning attitudes (Deary et al., 2008a; Heaven et al., 2011; McCourt, Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & Keyes, 1999). Lower cognitive abilities therefore draw people to strategies and ideologies that emphasize what is presently known and considered acceptable to make sense and impose order over their environment. Resistance to social change and the preservation of the status quo regarding societal traditions—key principles underpinning right-wing social-cultural ideologies—should be particularly appealing to those wishing to avoid uncertainty and threat.
Indeed, the empirical literature reveals negative relations between cognitive abilities and right-wing social-cultural attitudes, including right-wing authoritarian (e.g., Keiller, 2010; McCourt et al., 1999), socially conservative (e.g., Stankov, 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2010), and religious attitudes (e.g., Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).
There’s a reason conspiracy theories run rampant on the right. These people are so gullible, and a big part of it has to do with the fact that they are far less educated on average. As a result they tend to just follow news they want to believe in as opposed to challenging their own biases.
The data includes the “full names, email addresses, passwords, and usernames” of people associating with Heritage, vio said, including users with U.S. government email addresses. “This itself can have an impact to heritage’s (sic) reputation,” they added, “and it’ll especially push away users in positions of power.”
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.