Why would I want to bring another human being into this world? The planet is melting, greed is at insane levels, the future looks bleak. I don’t want my children to suffer and get thrown through the machine.
It doesn’t add anything meaningful to the discussion. Basically everyone is aware of those arguments. The top level comment states some facts (e.g. climate change), but does not offer deeper insight or start a discussion. Nothing was gained from reading that comment, so it may as well not have been written in the first place.
In order to turn it into a meaningful contribution the author of said comment should have added something more.
For example by going into how they feel those facts are insurmountable and therefore how they see the demographic changes as inevitable and what sort of effects this will have on their personal life/on their community/on their country. This can then lead to a discussion about the severity of the effects and people can contribute what they think possible solutions are.
Or for another example, one could use these effects on demographic change as a basis to start a discussion about one of the contributing factors. i.e. take the difficulties that arise from lower birthrates as an argument for better family oriented policies/for more climate action/against bodily autonomy (that one would certainly start a fierce discussion, lol)
I’m glad my parents didn’t think like that. I vastly prefer non-optimal life to not existing at all.
I’m also not going to have kids but I do it because of me, not because of them. I don’t understand people who think they are so wise that they can make this judgement for others.
I’m glad my parents didn’t think like that. I vastly prefer non-optimal life to not existing at all.
Glad you were fortunate enough for this to be the case. It’s not the case for everyone.
I don’t understand people who think they are so wise that they can make this judgement for others.
Funny you’d say that, since you’re the only one here judging others for their personal choices.
My partner and I are content with our choice. We would not be able to give a child the life they deserve, nor will the world give that to them. Sure, maybe in another world we’d be willing. But now? Not for us.
Like it or not, by making that choice for yourself you are deciding to not bring them into the world, same as us. The outcome is the same.
Intentionally driving over someone and accidently doing so both have the same result but I don’t think you would claim that there is no difference. Intentions matter even if the outcome is the same. I’m not judging your choices but your reasoning.
In my opinion this applies to having children aswell. No one is under any obligation to have kids and there are plenty of valid reasons not to do so and this can be anything from financial, time saving or just personal preference. However, to me it’s hypocritical to justify not having children by essentially claiming that their life wouldn’t be worth living but at the same time you yourself continue your existence here. You basically set standards and then don’t apply them to yourself.
Infant mortality used to be insanely high before modern healthcare and medicine. There was no social safety nets expect for the community around you. There was no gurantees about access to food and clean water not to even mention education. Looking at virtually any metric life has never been better and yet people say “it’s not worth bringing children into this world”. I’m sorry but to me that kind of thinking is just insanely cynical and misjudged.
However, to me it’s hypocritical to justify not having children by essentially claiming that their life wouldn’t be worth living but at the same time you yourself continue your existence here.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical. To create new life and to sustain life are two different things. While there’s a certain relevance, the act of creating life has more to it than simply sustaining life. Sustaining maintains the status quo which while not ideal, the opposite also means ending a life which has far greater implications that are closer to ending life.
It’s not hypocritical to think that bringing someone to life might be a net negative and also agree that to stop continue living would result I’m a net negative because of reasons like how there’s people who are reliant on them.
Just to add to your point: the only reason I’m sustaining my life is because other people depend on me, not because my current life is really worth living for its own sake.
From subjective experience theres no difference. The moment you cease to exists you could just as well have never existed.
Also not existing is not something you do. Choosing to prevent something for existing that otherwise would have is. We’re however getting quite far from my original argument here which is that not making children because you think the world is an awful place and life is not worth living is, in my opinion, a bad reason.
I think it’s mostly up to the reader at what tone they’re going to intrepret my writing. I don’t notice such color in that. Then again I’m probably autistic so what do I know.
13.8 billion years of nothing untill a bundle of stardust on a random planet called earth combined in such a way that it suddenly became aware of its own existance. To our current knowledge that is about the most complex thing that has ever happened in the universe.
Yeah, I wont be there to experience my non-existence after I’m gone, but I’m more than happy to be here now.
Friendly reminder to everyone that the rest of the world has signed on the United Nation’s Connvention on the Rights of the Child; the US doesn’t like that it could prevent children from being spanked, because God wants us to spank our children (spare the rod, spoil the child).
Religion is often a basis for the suffering of children.
the US doesn’t like that it could prevent children from being spanked
There’s that, but mostly some states don’t want minors to be exempt from the death penalty or life imprisonment, which would be a consequence of ratification.
(Also, the Venn diagram of those states and the ones where children can be married but can’t get a divorce due to lacking standing in court, another consequence of non-ratification, is probably a circle.)
Religion is a horrible cultural disease that causes unmeasurable harm, sure, but the USA has a well established tradition of treating children as subhuman and brutally abusing them in a vast variety of ways, many of which aren’t directly linked to religion.
Christianity doesn’t advocate abusing children at all. And most children that suffer are for non religious reasons, usually mental illness or sex trafficking. Religious people who are mentally ill just use it as a veil.
Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” Genesis 22:2
If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him. Leviticus 20:9
Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! Psalms 137:9
“If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites hshall be the LORD’s, and iI will offer it up for a burnt offering.” Judges 11:30-31
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. Exodus 11:7-8
“Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Genesis 19:8
As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. Deuteronomy 20:14
The fact that you quoted Judges clearly shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Judges is never prescription. It’s a documentary of the horrors the Israelites committed when there was no authority. It literally ends with
"In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."
Anyway, your Isaac story, you forgot the part where Abraham literally doesn’t sacrifice Isaac. It was merely a test of loyalty. God tells him not to.
Psalm 137 - That’s a poem by King David who was rather upset about the Babylonians ruining his kingdom. The last verse is eye-for-an-eye and imprecatory - where David was like “you murdered our children, blessed is the day when we can exact our revenge”. Of course that wouldn’t make it moral, as we know how Jesus spoke on the eye-for-an-eye doctrine.
Leviticus - These were laws for keeping order in a strained and threatened society in a deeply immoral world. That’s why there’s need for strictness and lack of tolerance, especially with the Israelites constantly rebelling as they did throughout history.
Exodus 21 (not 11) is about fair treatment of slaves in the time of the Exodus. We know Moses made concessions to keep them pleased. That’s why he required that slaves were treated fairly.
Genesis 19 shows Lot compromising with evil whenever people of Sodom. Lot was being threatened to have his house guests raped. Sure, him offering his daughters weren’t any better, but this is straying into victim blaming. Sodom got rightfully destroyed in the end. Again, this is description, not prescription. You cannot act like everything protrayed in the Bible is someone doing the right thing. It’s far from it.
Deuteronomy 20:14, the alternative was letting them starve in the ruined city.
Yes, and all of that is still pure fucking evil, no matter how hard you wanna spin it. You said there was no child abuse. Well there it is. I do not care at all how you want to explain it away. Sounds like nothing but devil worship to me.
The context is that a bunch of primitive desert nomads wanted to kill their neighbors, steal their land, loot their cities, rape and terrify their children, enslave the survivors and still feel like they were good, moral, chosen people. So they made up excuses about how the man in the sky said that what they did, and planned to keep doing, was all ok. So were they listening to God, the Devil, or were they just a bunch of men making stuff up? That’s the only context that matters.
The basis for your belief system is that these assholes had life figured out. You and I both seem to agree that they didn’t. So why do you keep defending them? Why do you believe in the religion built on their terrible foundation?
There’s no child abuse prescribed. Doesn’t mean that there are no descriptions of it happening.
I believe in the religion because a person called Jesus was Prophecied about, was actually born, performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, claimed to be God, then died and rose again back to life, was physically seen by many, before ascending into heaven.
And yet despite your protests, it absolutely does prescribe child abuse, genocide, slavery, rape, kidnapping, murder, and torture. It calls the men who committed those atrocities righteous. Christians only began to consider them crimes in the last century or so. You claim that followers of Yahweh should have just read between the lines to know that these were lessons for what not to do. But instead, for some 4000 years, followers of those scriptures enthusiastically did all of those things, because they wanted to and scripture said it was okay. The fact that you now believe those things are wrong is proof that you do not get your morality from those scriptures, but rather from the modern, secular culture in which you were born.
but rather from the modern, secular culture in which you were born.
🤣 and where did this culture get their morality from?
It’s absolutely obvious that you’re not supposed to use the book of Judges as “what to do”. The Bible isn’t entirely a list of instructions or commandments. It’s a record of God’s people.
Murdering and raping children has been a crime since… Forever. To claim that such a thing was permissible until the last century when “secular culture” stepped in to save it is incredibly unhinged historical revisionism. But of course that’s what you need to conclude something as mad as atheism. Scripture NEVER said what happened in Judges was okay. NOT ONCE. Israel literally got split in half over it. The Bible also makes it clear that NOBODY is righteous.
Romans 3:9-31 ESV
[9] What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, [10] as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; [11] no one understands; no one seeks for God. [12] All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” [13] “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” [14] “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” [15] “Their feet are swift to shed blood; [16] in their paths are ruin and misery, [17] and the way of peace they have not known.” [18] “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” [19] Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [20] For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. [21] But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— [22] the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, [25] whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. [26] It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [27] Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. [28] For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. [29] Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. [31] Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Except that Christians have been doing all that stuff the entire time. Because the book said they could.
Modern secular society looked at all the harm done by religion and decided those things were wrong all by ourselves. That’s the power of democracy for you. It’s so much better than taking life advice from ancient people who beat each other to death with rocks.
So I’ll ask you again. Why do YOU think genocide, slavery, rape, child abuse, and torture are wrong? Is the Bible the word of God? Is it just another book written by men? Or did Satan write it pretending to be God?
I do think that there are a lot of good branches of Christianity out there, where the main focus is on loving thy neighbor and opening the way to God to all people, not being exclusionary.
My experience of religion, like so many others though, hinged (more and more strongly over the years) on a literal interpretation of Genesis. One in which eating a bad piece of fruit causes inseparable rifts between parent and child; one in which the creator of all, the knower of all, created rules that unless I grovel and beg and pledge constant devotion, I deserved eternal conscious torment for existing. That’s an abusive belief. Especially to teach children.
That’s before the curse of Eve, for eating the bad fruit first, causing the pain of childbirth, hereditarily (the biggest cause of death in women throughout history), as well as god-sanctioned subjugation of women. (For example, a woman doing everything right knows not to try to teach a high school group–those are men that she’s not qualified to minister to. She knows it’s better not to vote in church matters, even if she’s allowed, because the head of household, her husband does that). This creates social structures that disempower women as a point of culture, another abusive trait.
Children also deserve subjection. They are to be obedient at all times, it’s literally one of the commandments. Our denomination taught that “Obey thy father and thy mother” also applied to all earthly authority over us. Authority and structure mattered more as a culture than understanding and insight.
And the social culture of church can feel toxic or stifling. Often outright sinning, even as a repetitive behavior is tolerated in church spaces (especially in cases of child or domestic abuse), but someone who has reason to think a little differently (like believing in Jesus without believing in Genesis, being queer, being progressive) is shunned or made to be quiet. They know from a young age that their voices can never be respected in those spaces, the number of sermons I heard about how evil/misguided/ other awful stereotype that non believers were supposed to be… It teaches othering, it teaches people to reduce other people to stereotypes of what the pastor says instead of what the person’s lived experience is.
This isn’t unusual for Christianity, especially in the States. My experience with abuse patterns in Christianity may truly not apply to you. But I think they apply to many.
And I’m not even going to touch on the abuse that happens to homeschooled children, often strongly correlated with religion.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience. However, it’s not that one deserves torment for existing, it’s that one deserves punishment for sin. If you look at the state of the world, it’s filled with sin. Societies cannot function because of greed, people are oppressed, madmen have nuclear bombs capable of destroying the world, and the constant suffering in Gaza and Ukraine, humanity is inherently evil. And we all have participated in that evil in some kind of way. Asking for forgiveness and trying to do the right thing isn’t a bad thing, it’s the correct thing.
With churches being toxic - every environment is. It doesn’t make it right. What people identifying as Christian do and act doesn’t represent Christianity as a whole. People will abuse children regardless, whether it be in schools, etc. I don’t live in the United States, I live in the United Kingdom, so I cannot speak for there.
Homeschooling isn’t a Christian doctrine. I personally think it is cringe retreatism and a good way to create an atheist.
What people identifying as Christian do and act doesn’t represent Christianity as a whole.
I mean, religions are what people define them as, use them as. If two million people use the Christian Bible to prop up child abuse, slavery, and sexual, then that is part of the tradition of that faith. Perhaps you didn’t ascribe to faith that seeks to sever people from God via thoughtcrimes. Perhaps the church you attend works to alleviate those injustices, and that seeks conservation of the planet we were gifted. But I know when I asked about racism at church, when I asked about what we as a congregation were doing about it, I was told that was a heart issue that we just had to pray people would resolve on their own. Women, again, could not hold positions of authority because that was against God’s will, gay people were sent away, but racists, what can you do? Again, my experience isn’t unique. There was never any talk of care taking the planet. Fair bit of talk about the dude who buried his Talent vs the one who invested it, though.
I think you identify a lot of real evils in this world, and people really do create a lot of problems. I fundamentally don’t believe we are overwhelmingly evil, and I think teaching people they are evil is more likely to create people who grow up to be evil. People live up to what those around them believe them to be. When people believe to their core that they are truly evil and cannot trust themselves, that they instead must trust the human layers between themselves and God., that’s gonna come up as trauma and/or abuse somewhere down the line.
And while any environment can become abusive, churches preach truth and morality; tied in with that is a strong sense of community and family. Trying to call out abuse from an elder or a pastor often results in the pastor getting moved and ‘prayed for’ and the victim pressured to forgive before is appropriate. They’re bullied to say they forgive when they are not actually ok. And the abuser gets to move on and find new victims. We’ve all seen the scandals about the Catholic Church over the last couple decades. The Southern Baptist Convention had a list of 700 abusers they covered for. But still don’t be a loud lady, that’s against God. The SBC is one of the biggest evangelical denominations in the United States. I don’t think they’re what Christianity is supposed to be. But they are Christians and this is how they express their faith, so this is how I understand Christianity.
Bad theology hurts people. And to pretend there isn’t bad is to be unable to fix.
If only his Mother had a Gun she could have Protected herself from her Son who had a gun and accidentally Shot her! That’s literally the ONLY way she could have saved herself!
Is that a third character in the middle back or is that Captain America’s fist with some orange effect in front of it? I’ve been trying to make out who it’s supposed to be but can’t get anywhere.
That was close enough to get me to The Rocketeer, which the poster is clearly what’s there. Good guess! I thought I recognized the helmet, but it’s just blurry enough that it looks like it could have been something else.
What the fuck is any politician doing at a convention for sneakers? If I was at this Sneaker Con, I’d be pretty pissed that this was where my admissions money was going since I paid for a fucking sneaker convention. Just because he brought a sneaker line to a sneaker convention doesn’t mean he should be let in.
And this is fucking rich considering all of the names around the extremely lazy and uncreative (as we’ve come to expect from Trump) product:
The website states the new venture “is not political and has nothing to do with any political campaign.”
If I was at this Sneaker Con, I’d be pretty pissed that this was where my admissions money was going since I paid for a fucking sneaker convention.
It would sure as hell make me less likely to walk in the door the next time the convention happens and if I didn’t know he was going to be there, I would have demanded a refund.
Maybe they shouldn’t assume all the people who went there were excited to see a rapist traitor who says he wants to be a dictator. Considering he was booed, that seems like something they should have considered.
Use it all you fat fuck. Use it all and leave Republicans with nothing to spend on ads. They already have nothing to campaign on policy wise. Might as well use all their money, too.
They are going broke across the country. Trump has been sucking up all of the donations and then spending on legal bills. He is going to be the end of the party and I’ll be watching with glee.
Would be nice if that would play out. Too bad his stupid base will just open their wallets to every cry for financial help because they are all brainwashed.
There is only so much they can give. Eventually his core base (the ones more likely to be on gov assistance) will run out of money. Eventually the puppeteers pulling his strings will stop funding him.
I’m not really a betting man but I would wager a decent sum that assuming the states and the feds keep up their investigations into the maggats, trump will be what takes that entire party down.
Do you know anything about finances/economics? Eventually they will run out of money. I’d bet in aggregate trump gets more money from the real players than individuals. Politicians (on both sides) have used fake supporters to funnel money into their campaigns for a very long time.
Ya, for 50+ million. That’s not a bunch of grandparents donating $50. That amount is like other countries, corporations and the rich friends with their interests in mind. And if he’s cozy with Saudi or other rich countries, the pot might not necessarily have a bottom for all intents and purposes of this voting year.
I mean, ya it’s also grandparents and stuff… but I cannot see that the vast majority of that money coming from them.
A one time $50 donation from 1,000,000 magats = $50 million. Given there are so many stories of magats donating their property, retirement funds, and every dime they have, and also that there are 38.8 million registered magats in the US (worldpopulationreview.com/…/registered-voters-by-…).
I’d not be surprised if they are almost entirely driving this, and also themselves into homelessness.
Ya, that math checks out, but man, I really hope not. I tried looking super quick (at work rn) and I didn’t immediately see any reporting stating people gave their houses, etc. Although I did quickly read PAC and Super PAC rules and the PAC rules are pretty tight on capping donations, and the Super PAC rules state that all donors need to be reported. So I am sure someone can find out where it’s really coming from.
I said nothing about trumps campaign. Trump better not win but his fund raising being used for lawyers is going to help us take back seats from them when they don’t have the money to advertise properly leading up to November. We already flipped Desantos seat. How many more are coming? Even if trump wins, if we can get enough control elsewhere we can minimize (but not prevent) more damage from him. Even better if we take back control and keep the Whitehouse, maybe we can actually get shit done.
Well here’s a wild idea, why not ride on a normal god damn plane like 90% of every other person who flies. Boom, can’t be traced by some kid then AND its better by a wide range for the environment. Nothing to see here but rich people problems lol
You ever heard of the curse of being famous? Imagine everyone took a love potion and everyone knows your face. Everyone around you is staring at you and attempts to speak to you, touch you, they might even actually worship the ground you walk on. Not only those that love them are around, but those that want to do harm. Cut her hair and sell it, harm her to boast about it. Who knows?
That’s a fucking hell I’d not want to live. That is why they don’t fly normal. There’s a reason that high profile celebrities don’t fly with the rest. It’s not necessarily a status thing, but a safety thing. There’s a reason the president has secret service and a private jet.
She’s rich enough to hire a private jet if that’s the problem. I don’t feel sorry for her at all. Or any other billionaire having their jet tracked for that matter.
She could ride in an anonymous tour bus, harder to track, she could even have a security convoy, and still save money and emissions. Billionaires are murdering us all, I have no sympathy for her or anyone with her wealth if they take private jets on trips that would take two hours to drive.
She could even have a private railcar! Easier to track than a tour bus but has a significant cool factor right now.
I commented on another thread elsewhere that it would be cool if musicians did private railcars and private trains, because just imagine the collaborations and how it would affect both rail infrastructure and musical tours. Plus the opportunities for media and fan interactions become so much cooler than with a cramped tour bus
You don’t have to own a plane to charter a private flight. She could just take private planes and not have to deal with crowds of people. Then you wouldn’t be able to track her plane, because she would be taking different planes. This is how most famous people deal with the issue.
Sorry, but this isn’t a reasonable take. Someone like Taylor Swift cannot go into the public without it being a huge security risk. This isn’t a TS thing, this is a “being the most famous person ever right this moment” thing.
And thousands of MAGA maniacs now thinking she is some villain. I bet she’s getting tons of death threats now. First AI porn, then conspiracy nutjobs on FOX news, then everybody is projecting the worlds failure to act on climate change on her (brilliant piece of fox news propaganda I must say now), and now this. It’s really not her week lol.
Okay but she’s actively choosing to be that famous. She spent 6 years with Joe living a quiet low key life, but she decided to do another breakout into more fame and this is the cost. Plus she could charter jets like other celebrities, or idk just not fly home every weekend from halfway across the world?
She could just rent a different jet each time. Would still pollute, wouldn’t stress out a college kid, would be more difficult for stalkers to track, wouldn’t have drawn as much attention.
not to detract from the seriousness of this crime, but it’s killing me that I keep seeing “decapitated head”, when it should be “disembodied head”. it’s his body that’s decapitated.
Good for her, but I’m gonna be real here for a minute:
Why isn’t she spending $16.5 billion on lobbying to ensure higher taxes for billionaires? As we’ve seen, House Reps and Senators can be bought for absurdly small amounts of money.
Oh wait, I forgot, it’s because she doesn’t actually want to be taxed. She, like all billionaires, still wants full control of what happens to her money, which means society still loses because we’re still reliant on billionaires pet projects to have any forward movement.
Charity is a farce, she needs to put her money where her mouth is and spend it on lobbying to remove tax breaks for people who have her vastness of wealth.
I strongly suspect she won’t, because this has all seemed like PR dedicated to making her seem “classier” than Bezos, despite her hand in growing a positively ruthless company with ruthless internal staffing environment.
Totally. This semi-reminds me of the story that was floating around yesterday (I think), about Arby’s Foundation wiping out student lunch debt for 8000 student in Georgia. Like, yes, that’s great, but also… how fucking sad we leave it to the “goodness” of billionaire’s charities so that checks notes CHILDREN CAN BE FED?? Sad state of affairs
Exactly. Why are the students in debt for lunch anyway? They’re children!
It’s literally the Orphan Crushing Machine. “We saved these orphans from being put in an Orphan Crushing Machine” while no one questions what the entire point of the Orphan Crushing Machine is to begin with.
Indeed, every individual who gets to repeatedly skim publicly-traded corporate profits just because they threw some money at it at some point, and then turns around and plays philanthropist… is essentially claiming money that could have been put into more livable wages and more reasonable work conditions for 1000s of people. And we’re expected to believe that money is better spent by them, precisely because they don’t need it.
Every other billionaire is spending their money on lobbying to get their taxes even lower. Maybe she could still have an impact through lobbying and influence peddling, but she’s outmanned and outgunned.
I’m not saying that she’s an angel. I haven’t seen anything in the press about her motives or political stances; you could be 100% correct. But paying politicians to go against all the other donors isn’t a trivial undertaking
EDIT: In this weeks episode of “Where Keeping It Real Goes Wrong.”
This is a good point, and it brings to mind something I ignored from my previous post.
A lot of the people in congress can be “bought” for so little while in congress because the actual “payday” they get is when they leave office and enter into a cushy job where they’re paid to do not much at all, because they’ve already done the job of getting bad legislation passed.
Scott is not in a position to be offering them cushy jobs at Amazon once they leave, so one of the main ways to “pay off” this class of politician is actually out of reach for her as an individual instead of as the head of a business.
It’s easy to get lost in frustration with having to rely on charity, but it’s good to step back and think about it a little more clearly for a minute. Cheers, mate.
You make a great point here. The way that I think about it is that when you have a certain amount of money, it stops working like money and starts functioning as straight up power. Part of the “exchange rate” when considering money as power is the commitment to the cult of the line - the line must always go up. If you opt out from this, money starts being more like money.
Fair points, but I’d imagine any single person attempting what you propose would automatically fear for their lives, becoming a huge target. That certainly would be the hero move though.
Trumplodyte gets removed from a ballot he goes to court and cries to get put back on. Biden voluntarily drops himself off of New Hampshire’s ballot and wins anyway. Take that you orange orangutan.
Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC. And it’s naive to think it won’t have a least a minor effect on turnout in a general where the polling numbers are already concerning.
Although, it’s a terrible look for Biden and the DNC
It’s really not, not at all. IA and NH are in no way representative of the country at large or key groups to the Democratic coalition. This is a great move that should have taken place a long time ago.
It’s a stupid move, does nothing but alienate voters. I’m not saying NH should be first, a better change would be to make it one day nationally, or maybe a couple batches if we really need that (but I don’t think we do).
IMO, no one comes out of this looking good. The DNC has shown that it is willing to invalidate entire states’ voices when they disagree on with state politicians. That’s a very bad look considering they’re still suffering from all their bullshit in 2016.
On the other hand, NH doesn’t get too declare in their own state law that they get to vote before anyone else. Throwing a fit because someone else gets to go first is childish.
Make primaries a single national affair and be done with it. Better yet, make the general presidential elections national too.
One day nationally is a horrible answer. It prevents lesser known candidates from competing at all. It puts the power back in the hands of large donors – a horrible system that we have only in the last few cycles broken free from. If we had national primaries, we never would have had Carter, Clinton, or Obama; and even beyond that, Edwards would have walked away with the nomination in 2004 and Sanders would never have even put up a fight in 2016. Even when these alternate candidates don’t win, they move the eventual nominee’s policies and the party’s platform just by being somewhat competitive.
Honestly, going back to smoke-filled rooms where the party bosses chose candidates would be a better option than a national primary. I swear to god no one on this site even thinks about second and third-order effects in passing.
I would be in favor of a constantly rotating schedule of when states go in the cycle each presidential election that goes through all the states in a predictable order defined well in advance. I don’t think it’s fair that New Hampshire and Iowa voters get more say than voters in other states, over and over again, decade after decade. I’m not gonna shed a tear for them in this case. But we need some sort of fair rotating schedule, not capricious changes based on the whims of party leadership.
I think we’re moving towards a significant pre primary campaign dynamic in the preceding years that lets us do one day primaries. Otherwise though we could do it over a month. Divide states by lottery into 4 groups, and randomly assign a group a week for voting.
New Hampshire having a state law that they always get to go first, for a national election, that’s been around for 100 years, is dumb as fuck.
It’s good this change is happening. The primary orders should shuffle around more often. No state declaring “we’re always first” within their state laws should be recognized at the federal level.
They should let the most populated states go first. I’m tired of having our votes count for nothing because half the candidates have already dropped out by the time they get to us, even though we outnumber the people in all the states that go before us. Those early wins and losses would really mean something if they represented a large and diverse population. Might make up a little for how underrepresented we are in the Electoral College.
You as an individual are under-represented, but you as a populous state are too powerful. If California primaries first , no one else matters.
When New Hampshire primaries first, you get a lot of meeting the candidates, an interesting survey result, but the result is still wide open.
Either way, it’s all of us in the middle who get shafted. We don’t get an early say but our vote doesn’t count for much with the big guys coming soon.
I’m torn about whether it is good to be a “safe”state. While it’s nice that we don’t get the nonsense or the robocalls or the mail or the ads, would it hurt to get some attention? Can we be treated like we matter?
The problem with that version is that, just as in the national election, the candidates will only really campaign in the purple states with a lot of independent or undecided voters. I’d like to see them have to reach out to a diversity of voters within their own parties first. I’m not saying it’s more fair necessarily, just that I think it would be good for the process and maybe help each party wind up with a better (or at least more representative of the party as a whole) candidate in the general.
At first I disagreed a bit, but primaries are changing from what they used to be, so maybe you have a point. Used to be that there wasn’t that much political noise the year before a presidential primary, but now we’ve got debates and all sorts. There’s time now for candidates to get their ideas out there and for people to know who they are. I don’t think that was the case in say 2016, where we really got to know Bernie as time went on and that raised his popularity.
I’m a fan of random order, all within 5 weeks. With polls being open over the entire week.
Helps get more voices in the say. With every state having turns seeing higher candidate engagement that only Iowa gets now. And candidates not feeling pressured to drop out right away because Iowa didn’t like them.
He rang the doorbell shortly before 10 p.m. and waited for someone to respond, Merritt said.
“Whoever was inside took a little longer than he anticipated to respond, and so he just waited at the door,” Merritt said, citing a statement Yarl gave to law enforcement investigators from his hospital bed Friday.
“He heard rustling around going on in the house and then finally the door was open,” the attorney said. “And he was confronted by a man who told him, ‘Don’t come back around here,’ and then he immediately fired his weapon.”
Yarl was shot in the head, which cracked his skull and left him with a critical, traumatic brain injury, the attorney said. While the teenager was still on the ground, the homeowner opened fire a second time, striking Yarl in the upper right arm, Merritt said.
And then
Merritt said the teenager saved his own life by fleeing and banging on at least three neighbors’ doors for help.
At the third home, Merritt said, the neighbor told Yarl to lie on the ground and put his hands in the air. He complied and then passed out, the attorney said.
a silo on a farm is where you keep your grain or your animal feed. "silage" is the term for the feed kept in there, and its' not likely human-edible. it also has a tendency to break down/decompose.
we also keep missiles in silos. but i think it's used more in the context of sequestering and storing.
You don’t mix your silos. A farmer would have one silo for rye, one for barley, one for oats, etc. So by saying everyone is siloed it means everyone is separated into tiny groups no larger than immediate family.
To add to what everyone else is saying, it’s often self inflicted via culture. When you’re brought up to treat people who look different as not part of your group, that’s hard to unlearn as adults and so it just self perpetuates and you end up with groups of people that never interact, sometimes fearing anyone not in “their group” for no other reason. Or even for flawed inaccurate reasons.
“And he was confronted by a man who told him, ‘Don’t come back around here,’ and then he immediately fired his weapon.” While the teenager was still on the ground, the homeowner opened fire a second time, striking Yarl in the upper right arm, Merritt said.
Isn’t that a proof he wanted a poor guy dead and just luckily missed the second time? What’s the ugly mess in some heads.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.