A majority of Democratic voters (57%) were ages 50 and older in the 2022 midterms, compared with 51% of Joe Biden’s voters in 2020 and 53% of voters who supported a Democratic House candidate in 2018. Just 14% of Democratic voters were under the age of 30 in 2022 — similar to the 15% of Democratic voters who were in this age group in 2018, but less than their share of Democratic voters in 2020 (17%).
Seven-in-ten Republican voters were 50 and older in the most recent election, compared with 62% of Republican voters in 2020 and 68% in 2018.
“Above everything, including profit, X works to protect the public’s right to free speech. But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable,” he added.
It’s important to note that one of Musk’s lawyers, not Musk himself, made this statement. That’s because lawyers are immune to levels of irony that would be lethal to an ordinary human.
They’re not mutually exclusive. There’s plenty of ways to buy ethically sourced meat. Local butchers often buy pigs, chickens, and cows to butcher and cut for consumers near me. The cows typically have a central barn where they have clean bedding and recycling water troughs, get fed every morning (maybe night), and are allowed to freely roam in a pasture whenever they please.
I eat about the size of my palm of meat every day, so over the corse of a year i probably eat 5-6 chickens, a sixth of a pig, and an eight of a cow. At those numbers, it’s totally possible to make ethically sourced meat work as a business.
A substantial percentage of people have access to food systems that allow them to thrive on plants alone, freeing them from a dependence on animal products. For these individuals, is ‘ethically sourced meat’ even possible? That is to say: if we know that killing a living being is unnecessary, is it ethical to do it anyway?
It's also great depression food if you eat it regularly!
And anyway, not everybody can eat all the same foods. Plenty of people can't eat beans without shitting their brains out, for example. Likewise with a lot of vegetables, though then it depends on the type of vegetable.
Honestly. I absolutely agree that it’s a great cheap and healthy meal, and it’s one I eat just about every day. But it tends to be the only suggestion I see people make in these threads. Like don’t get me wrong, it’s a great suggestion, but c’mon
In case you missed it, I made a point of scoping this ethical question to people who do have the means to make choices with their consumption. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask people to make ethical choices provided that they are able.
I wouldn’t tell someone not to shoot an oncoming attacker because murder is unethical. In the same vein if someone has no choice in what they can eat, it would be ridiculous to tell them to try to ‘make ethical choices’.
It’s an interesting question that probably has an individualized answer depending on who you ask. In my opinion, we have afforded their species comforts that no other species has. So a humane death and respectful use of their body is ethical in my eyes. Most wild animals die from infection or starvation and we’ve protected our domesticated animals from that horrible drawn out death on ethical farms.
I’d argue the most ethical course of action is to halt the breeding of additional animals for the purpose of slaughter. We have complete control of the situation here: not all wild animals die gruesome deaths, but a livestock animal’s fate is decided far before they are even born. It feels a little less than ‘humane’.
I agree that this is probably realistic but still incredibly difficult to call ‘humane’.
Here’s a definition from a quick web search:
Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.
Would you say that an individual who has the choice not to kill an animal and does it anyway is doing a ‘humane’ thing? Does it make difference where that killing happens?
The only ethically sourced meat is meat that’s hunted to prevent overpopulation. There is no ethical way to make two animals breed with the intent to cut their offspring’s life short so that you can eat it.
This is such a common phenomenon that it has a name: cognitive dissonance. If you already knew what that was, then your comment suggests another example of it.
I can exist within society and still be critical of it, quite frankly I’m not sure how else one exists.
You’re aware of how we treat produce pickers right? How we treat the people who sew your clothes together? Or the people who assembled the device you’re reading this on?
Cruelty to life exists at every level. If you’ve ever eaten chocolate, or had coffee you’ve participated in slavery.
A vegan that can’t resist antagonizing others over their diet is being rather counterproductive. It’s an easier lifestyle choice to keep your mouth shut and not be snarky than it is to completely change your diet.
It begs the question, if this person criticizing me can’t make an easier lifestyle change than what they want me to do, why should I even listen?
(And I’m going to get replies that completely miss the point and continue to moralize at me)
Most vegans can’t keep up the lifestyle more than about 5-7 years, as health issues start to creep in.
The diet isn’t as nutritious as they claim, and there is no good replacement for animal fat and protein.
The meat industry has problems. Don’t get me wrong. But they’re not at the same scale most vegans will tell you they are, and as it happens herbivores are much better at turning plants in to energy than we are. Plus it’s not like we’re treating the actual humans picking tomatoes much better than we treat cattle.
Gonna cite these stats or are you just parroting Joe Rogan? Obviously there’s a large amount of gastronomic variation among humans, some people can’t go vegan easily. But the idea meat has anything you can’t get from plants is absolutely a myth: I eat dark chocolate and nuts for iron, and B12 is in all sorts of shit from mushrooms to potatoes (and is easy to supplement with vitamin water or fortified cereal if not pills). And protein? Protein is the textbook example of this. Y’all just have some weird thing against broccoli and chickpeas.
That’s hilarious, people have no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever. Just look at COVID.
They use the argument that one person not eating meat won’t change anything. Ignoring the fact that they are literally deriving joy from suffering. It doesn’t have to be this way. I truly believe meat can be ethical, but when 99.8% of beef is factory farmed I do not have the option to ethically eat meat.
17 years meat free and every once in awhile I reconsider adding chicken to my diet. Then I see a post like this lol
If your question is genuine, these small farms you speak of are still breeding animals with intent to slaughter them. At the end of the day, the only meaningful difference with a small farm is that you can probably shake the hand of the person who needlessly killed an animal. Can’t get that at those big mean factory farms, that’s for sure.
Is it not the intent? A farmer generally isn’t going to raise an animal for fun. That wouldn’t be profitable, and small farms are already difficult to make a living on.
I can entertain the idea that I could walk up to a farmer and ask them what their intent is, and they reply, “why it’s to extract nutrition from land that is otherwise unproductive, of course!”. But the end result is the same in either case regardless of stated intent: animals are being killed unnecessarily.
To be clear, none of this applies to people who rely on animal products to survive (e.g. people in the unproductive land you mentioned). I’m talking about people like myself (and likely many others here) who have access to supermarkets and other products of a globalized food system. Like Uncle Ben said, with great power privilege comes great responsibility.
And yet, you couldn’t resist the temptation to be aggressive and further turn off people to the idea of going meat free, vs trying to kindly convince them.
You don’t necessarily have to be vegan to be a good person. I’m sure your chickens wouldn’t miss an egg or two every once in a while. It is pretty fucked up to claim that you love them, but also kill and eat them sometimes. Like, I love my cat, and because of that the idea of putting her dead body in my mouth makes me feel sick.
Yes. I do. I have a separate small flock. I feed my family a proportion of our food over half that I grow, rise, and make myself. It would be impossible with out the protein from the chickens. And before anyone says some dumb shit to me, you do the math of your monoculture grown vegan food and if you still think my overall footprint is greater than yours, you are wrong.
That must be really hard on you. I’ve killed animals before and that’s why I know I never want to be part of that and I never want to make anyone else do that for me. I know the statistics, people who kill animals are more likely to abuse drugs, self harm, hurt others, and commit suicide. When you kill animals you kill part of yourself. You have to, because our human instincts make us empathize with animals.
That’s why I’m vegan. I don’t pretend like consumer choices are going to save the environment - nothing either of us do as individuals matters on that front. I’m vegan because someone has to kill those animals and it fucks people up. Maybe you’re fine. I doubt it.
You are an insane person and a coward. You buy your food at a supermarket and are not able to comprehend the impact of your precious soy. As a matter of fact, your not even on my level really. You are probably a child. If you ever need help, call me.
what would you think of a backyard farm where chickens are only killed once they’re dead? or, are only basically killed when they would otherwise die from old age in the next, say, 2 months, to just put a random number on it? would only be killed when they are diseased, have cancer etc. Cause we already do that with people a good amount of the time, assisted suicide, hospice, whatever.
also what do you think of if we just ate like old people
I’d honestly be okay if someone ate their 17 year old dog that they had to put down because she broke her hip or whatever; they lived a good and long life filled with love and were put down humanely. I think that’s weird as fuck and I sure as hell wouldn’t do it, but I don’t have a problem with it. I guess.
You have to realize how ridiculous the concept is, though, right?
Well yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous, but I wonder like. How much of that is cause we just don’t do it that often? It’s sort of like if you saw someone just fill up a cup with their spit and then drink the whole thing. It’s nasty, but is there anything really wrong with it? I don’t actually know, I don’t know anything about the biology and consumption of a large amount of spit, I imagine it has to be pretty alright since we’re mostly consuming spit all the time, but I don’t really know. Just an example, anyways.
Can I have dibs on your dog? Or, put another way, are you gonna finish that?
Wow. I’m really fucking floored by y’all’s response. Where do you think your food comes from man? Seriously. I’m not being ugly, like you are, im trying to understand how you feel like you have less impact than I do. I am just able to take the responsibility for my own food
My food comes primarily from farms. I’m not saying I necessarily have less of an impact on anything than you, all I’m saying is that I don’t kill animals for food and I don’t pay for them to be killed.
This website, man, y’all are incapable of having a normal conversation. I didn’t say it like it was some moral high ground that my food comes from farms, I answered the question they asked.
You might want to consider that 1) this is the internet and tone does not carry over well and 2) almost all vegans who are vocal about being vegan are really pushy and holier-than-thou about it.
If you are not one of the latter, then thank you. But it doesn't convey well on the internet and that is how it comes across.
You should consider that the only way you will convince people to care more about random animals' lives is if you care about strangers' feelings. You don't change minds by attacking someone, whether it be a personal attack or a lifestyle one.
If it makes you feel bad when people tell you that killing animals is wrong, then you should look into not killing animals. How am I supposed to try to convince you to stop eating meat if I have to set my morals aside and say “actually there’s nothing really wrong with eating meat, and you shouldn’t feel bad at all about it?”
You're really missing the point, so I'm just going to let it go now. The amusing thing is that we're on the same side, but you do fall into that latter group I described.
How are you supposed to win new friends when you turn off people who are already on your side? You need to look into your tactics if you want to be effective. I'm sure you disagree, but I would really encourage you to think about it.
Yeah lemme make good close friends with some random on the internet, and see if I can convince them not to eat meat based not on any arguments about morality or anything like that, but just by being nice about the fact that they kill and eat animals and don’t feel bad about it
All we need to do is support our local slaughterers and never make them think about whether what they’re doing is actually harmful, that’ll really make them start to think about whether what they’re doing is actually harmful 🥰
Nah, I’m gonna be an asshole to someone who’s being an asshole
How am I supposed to try to convince you to stop eating meat if I have to set my morals aside and say insert opposing opinion
You have to do this basically every time you want to convince someone, occupying their position better than they can occupy it themselves and still coming out with the correct opinion is part of being empathetic and mature. There’s not really any inherent or objective morality to whether or not raising and then killing your own chickens is good or not. Someone who’s really invested in the concept of ownership as a specific right is really not going to care about your own moral code of infringing on the chicken’s right to not be killed randomly. They’re just going to say that it’s their right to kill their chicken, and that’s that. It obviously has to become bigger than that, you have to give alternatives, spell out why their ideological position doesn’t really work out at scale, give out alternative perspectives, you have to be intellectually honest and give them ground when they push back.
If you just kind of, resorting to occupying your own position forever, and then calling out other people that violate that position, then you’re just gonna be kind of blindly hitting other people for reasons that they don’t fully understand, like what happens on the internet constantly. It’s maybe more self-affirming to be someone else’s ideological landmine, but I think it’s probably harmful overall, because it’s a selfish short-term gain that doesn’t see the bigger picture. It prioritizes your own self-affirmation over someone else’s ability to be emotionally vulnerable and open to new ideas. Your own morals should probably not preclude you from being nice to people that you see as bad or evil or dicks. But then that’s just my two cents, I dunno.
Still, eating meat in today’s society is a choice you don’t have to make. Having a pleasant taste in your mouth on one hand versus climate warming, loss of biodiversity and animal cruelty. Even when locally grown. For me, the choice is not hard to make.
Tolerance is a social contract, not an ideal. If someone refuses to adhere to the contract, then they are not entitled to the benefits of it either. Hence, there is no paradox. When we say “be tolerant to all” what we mean is “please adhere to the social contract, and assume everyone else does so, until proven otherwise”.
The paradox still exists. You described a system that is intolerant of the intolerant. That system is therefore not tolerant. The paradox is that no system can be completely tolerant… Because intolerance would have to be tolerated, which would make the system intolerant.
Your response would be like saying the boot strap paradox doesn’t exist because I haven’t invented time travel. But, I still need to fuck my grandma or else I never will! Wait…
It’s not a paradox to say “I will be tolerant of anyone who is also tolerant.” Whether that’s a good foundation for society to be built upon is subjective I suppose, but it’s not a paradox.
The paradox only exists in a society that claims to be completely tolerant. The society you’re talking about doesn’t claim to be completely tolerant, but it doesn’t solve the paradox of a completely tolerant society. It, in fact, proves the paradox as the intolerant have taken over the system and are not tolerant of all.
I’m making no judgment on the societal system. I also dislike the intolerant. And… people who want to do back in time to have sex with their grandmother!
Yes, but I and the person you originally replied to weren’t talking about an idealized society that tolerates everything and everyone. The paradox only exists when you take the idea to its extreme. It’s very easy to define a system where people are tolerant, and replying with “b-b-but that’s not truly tolerant” doesn’t help anyone here and only serves to muddy the waters.
The comment I responded to responded to this comment.
I really wish more people understood the paradox of tolerance.
Seemed like I could defend the paradox in a response that ignored the existence of the paradox when the OP was wishing more people could understand it. But sure, i muddied the waters.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them.
Someone needs to explain to me why that’s an absolute/assured (the italicized part).
That seems like one hell of an assumption, and not a foregone conclusion.
Assume that the tolerant party extends tolerance to the intolerant party. The goal of the intolerant is directly in opposition that of the tolerant, and the tolerant must then tolerate (i.e., not impede) this aim.
The only direction such a conflict can move in is toward the will of the intolerant party, because any push in an opposing direction would require an exercise of intolerance from the tolerant party (or an adoption of tolerance by the intolerant party).
It can’t stay in a steady state, unless the intolerant actually accept/tolerate that state.
Why, because you say so? I completely disagree with this, and America’s proof of this.
We’ve always had intolerance in this country, but it’s never taken over, the tolerant allows them their moment to speak, but when a decision has to be make on what direction to move in, it’s always done in the direction away from intolerance.
There is no way to move back toward tolerance without a force opposing intolerance,
True, and that force is the majority disagreeing with the ideals and ideas of the intolerant, and not joining / following them.
and that can’t exist if tolerance extends to the intolerant.
Again, America is proof that you’re incorrect on this.
You need to understand something,.
Our adversaries will want us to not talk to each other, to be at each other’s throats, and trying to shape this kind of narrative of intolerance is one way of getting to that goal, and must be pushed back against at all costs.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying, but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
Americans tend to allow intolerance to some critical point, which then turns into conflict and usually violence until things simmer down to an acceptable level of intolerance once more.
Legislation does skew progressive, as you point out. That’s another example of society not tolerating the intolerant. And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant. But to explain the paradox in terms of the article you linked, you must start from a different premise.
but America’s history has not followed the premise of this paradox. That is, America does not unilaterally extend tolerance to the intolerant. Abolition of slavery, the civil rights movement, these things were not resolved by “live and let live.”
The Civil War was caused by people being intolerant of each other’s ideas. If the South had actually listened to the North, and stopped slavery, then that war would not have happened.
Plus the concept we’re discussing is about free speech, if physical harm or violence is done then that’s a different matter, and what was done to slaves is definitely something worth fighting for, to save them from that fate.
But Slavery was a boiling point from the founding of the country, where they argued about including that or not in the Bill of Rights, and on forward to the Cival War times.
The Civil Rights Movement was resolved mostly through nonviolent protesting, and the intolerant lost because the tolerant were allowed to speak. If the government had branded the Civil Rights people as being intolerant ( again, who decides who’s being intolerant) would we have our civil rights today? I don’t think so.
And the real-world solution to this paradox: tolerance need not extend to the intolerant.
Yes, it does, or else everyone becomes intolerant of everyone else, no one speaks to no one, and violence begets violence.
100% of people will not agree on what’s intolerant, and those who wish to silence others will use the “you’re intolerant” excuse as a weapon against them, so it must not be allowed to happen.
America’s worked fine so far on tolerance. It’s one of the founding bedrocks of our nation, and society.
As a citizen you have a responsibility to listen to your fellow citizens, even if you don’t agree with what they’re saying. Feel free to tell them back in no uncertain terms why they’re wrong, but don’t try to silence them, and their ideas won’t gain traction, and they will not gain followers.
The center will not hold, if we’re trying to silence each other.
That’s what people on here take as facts. A paradox on Wikipedia. Get the fuck out of here. No one needs to read that uslesss garbage. Who defines what is or isn’t tolerate? “Nope, your being intolerant of (insert crazy fucking shit) off the the gulags with ya. These people are as bad as their far right counter parts and can’t even see it. Dripping with the same hate that they feel for the “enemy “
Wikipedia lists 17 different references from the last 70 years on this topic. It is not a new concept. It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
Your entire comment is either disingenuous or asinine.
It is also literally evident in a variety of places that have tried the absolute free speech approach, such as 4chan.
4chan is not America. Free Speech seems to work fine in America, we’re still here.
And it isn’t about absolute free speech, it’s about giving everyone a turn at the microphone. You can definitely disagree with what someone’s saying, but you should never stop them from trying to say it.
It’s true the same way that the boxer with one hand tied behind his back will lose a fight. All other things being equal, the side that limits itself will always lose because they deny themselves paths to victory the opposition can use.
No, no they should not. Nazi speech should be criminalized. Just like yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre. Nazi speech is even more deadly and destructive.
Yeah, they say the same things about pro-trans speech.
The problem is, when you start policing speech, you open up the floodgates for people to pick and choose what is right or wrong to say. If it’s okay to ban ‘nazi speech,’ then what’s stopping the next congress from banning ‘trans speech’ or ‘communist speech’?
Nah. It’s up to us, as a society, to work together to keep these ideas at bay through discussion. If we try to ban people from sharing these ideas altogether, it will create a Streisand Effect and give them more power than they would otherwise have.
Unfortunately reality doesn’t work this way. A popular lie beats an unpopular truth. That’s a large part of why we can’t make any meaningful progress on addressing climate change.
In the speech in support of the ceasefire resolution, the Democratic Florida state representative Angie Nixon said: “We are at 10,000 dead Palestinians. How many will be enough?”
“All of them,” Michelle Salzman called in reply.
wow
The remarks came during a debate in the state legislature about calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s invasion of Gaza, which has so far killed more than 10,000 Palestinians, many of whom are children. The assault came after Hamas fighters attacked Israel from Gaza, killing at least 1,400 people and taking more than 200 hostage. … The Florida state house later voted 104-2 to reject Nixon’s resolution.
The resolution only called for a ceasefire?
On Thursday, Joe Biden said there was “no possibility” of a ceasefire.
The last bit you quoted about Biden is referring to statements he made about Biden asking Netanyahu about the possibility of a ceasefire and that Bibi told Biden there is none.
This is the correct answer. There will be no cease fire until, at minimum, the hostages are released. The other problem that the Israelis have is that there’s no evidence that Hamas has any intention of honoring a cease fire as they’ve willingly violated many such agreements in the past.
I don’t have a strong opinion as to what the correct choice is here for Israel, I’m simply stating the facts as they relate to the possibility of a cease fire.
If he wasn't, he's be called an antisemitic jew hater for daring question the Israeli narrative. Anything less than full throated support is akin to supporting Hamas according to a very large amount of stupid and/or intellectually dishonest people.
Reagan was seriously pro-Israel and started the whole US-supported Israeli military funding. source
Jen Kirby - You mentioned that the United States had a big investment in the Iron Dome. Why is that — what’s the US’s stake in this?
Jean-Loup Samaan - Well, first, historically, the US started cooperating with Israel on air defense in the 1980s. So when missile defense became a significant component of defense investment in the US, Israel was very quickly involved. There’s a history of close ties between both countries in that field. So it would seem, in a sense, natural that a consequence of that is to support something like Iron Dome.
I think it was around the end of Obama’s first term, in 2012, that the US put a stronger emphasis on Iron Dome in terms of budgeting. I believe it was probably not just the politics behind it, but also the strategic assessment that the priority is to protect and to strengthen the defense of Israel vis-à-vis these types of rockets.
Started? How geopolitically ignorant are you? A considerable portion of the IDF’s armaments (including over 100 fighter jets) during the Yom Kippur War were flown in from the US. This was seven years before Reagan. The entirety of Israel’s existence has just been the US and France dumping weapons. (Israel didn’t indigenously make it’s nuclear weapons, they came from France’s nuclear projects, just like how the Kfir wasn’t built using Israel’s non-existent aerospace industry).
I can smash on a keyboard and then write a citation to whatever nonsense comes. An intelligent person cross-references it with well established facts, and then decides if it’s probably true.
The idea that US support for Israel started in the 80s is refuted by hundreds of data points in Israeli history.
“It’s rude and uncalled for”
It’s totally called for. You could literally have read the Wikipedia on history of modern Israel and seen that it was patently false.
What do you think would happen to Israel if Biden came out and said “we will no longer defend Israel, everybody go nuts”?
Lebanon and Iran and Qatar and Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan and Turkey and Egypt and maybe even Russia would obliterate them. Israel is only able to exist because the US gives it unconditional support. Hence, the 51st state - an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.
Lebanon and Iran and Qatar and Yemen and Iraq and Afghanistan and Turkey and Egypt and maybe even Russia would obliterate them.
I have serious doubts as to the ability of some of these countries to be able to match up to Israel militarily, even aside from having other things to worry about at the moment - Russia in particular does not have the privilege of fighting two wars right now.
There’s also the fact that Israel is a nuclear power - they almost used their nukes in the Yom Kippur war, which is what prompted the US to actually start resupplying them. If an Arab coalition were to attack Israel now (especially with Netanyahu in power), there is zero chance that they wouldn’t actually do it this time, and everyone knows this. No one in their right mind would try and pressure Israel to that extent, and most foreign powers would be highly motivated to do whatever it took to make sure that didn’t happen.
Finally, if the US were to leave Israel alone, China would probably step right in to fill that void, and would be well-suited for it too, given that they have relatively good relations with most of the Arab nations (IIRC). So not only would the US lose a massive channel of influence in the region, they’d be allowing their largest geopolitical rival to consolidate their influence in the region as well - wouldn’t Biden be absolutely raked over the coals for that?
wouldn’t Biden be absolutely raked over the coals for that?
Ignoring all your speculation about Israel’s strength (I’m highly skeptical they could actually survive modern warfare - they have drone pilots, not infantry lol) he absolutely would. There’s a huge portion of the electorate that absolutely loves Israel and supports their genocide.
That’s not really a good reason to continue supporting them.
I’m highly skeptical they could actually survive modern warfare - they have drone pilots, not infantry lol
What gave you that impression? AFAIK the IDF is one of the best trained militaries in the world, and certainly better than most of their enemies - that’s one of the reasons why the casualty numbers during Yom Kippur were so lopsided in their favor despite being caught with their pants down. Plus, it’s not just drones (they don’t even use those for actual combat) - they have arguably the strongest Air Force in the region, rivaled only by Egypt, and Israel has a distinct technological advantage. The IDF haven’t done well as aggressors, but defensively they punch well above their weight class - you’d hope so, given that they spend over 5% of their annual GDP on defence.
That’s not really a good reason to continue supporting them.
If he loses the next election, do you think whoever the GOP gets in will be better for Palestine? As it stands, Biden has courted Israeli favor less than I expected (current events notwithstanding), probably because Democrats were majority pro-Palestine for the first time in 20 years. He’s already said that he wants Israel out of the West Bank (even before October 7th) and that, and it sounds like he’s been applying some pressure in that regard.
That said, I do think he’s been a bit too passive thus far, and while I have my speculations as to why that is, I don’t see how any of them could justify the apparent lack of push back. A complete ending of relations is out of the question, but he should be able to push for more restraint, and as far as I can see it would be in his best interest to do so. Unless of course what we’re seeing now is the restrained version, which doesn’t really bear thinking about.
The fact that Hamas keeps destroying their tanks because they aren’t accompanied by infantry. They’re all just desk jockies pretending to be a military.
This isn’t the military that fought Yom Kippur, that was 40 years ago. This is the age of the sons, they’re soft and untested. Basically just prison guards.
If he loses the next election, do you think whoever the GOP gets in will be better for Palestine?
I think Democrats will unify against Trump and call for a ceasefire, and if they control the Legislature they can keep him from making anything worse.
Toyota is selling a basic (no ABS brakes, no airbags, crank windows) pickup in the rest of the world for $10,000. They could probably sell a version with the optional safety equipment in the US for $15-20k. But they will not sell it here and mess up the $50-100k luxury pickup gravy train.
At least they aren’t doing what the big 3 do with their trucks. A mid range XLT F-150 will cost about the same as a fully decked out Tundra, and a fully decked out F-150 will set you back over $100K, but these were sold for $50-$75K just before the pandemic, so what changed? They just decided to charge more due to greed.
Me too. Otherwise, I am clinging to my '99 Silverado with 8 foot bed, single bench seat, and crank windows. (And no, it’s not my daily driver. I only use it when I need to move a Big Dumb Object, which is often enough in my line of work that it’s worth it.) I’m holding out hope that someone will finally make a usable electric work truck, but that chance was never that great and seems to be getting slimmer with each passing minute.
And before the fuckcars crowd jumps down my throat, my insurance charges me precisely $165 per year on this piece of shit, and it costs me $40 a year to keep it plated. That’s less than the cost of renting a U-Haul twice after you add on all their bullshit gotchas and fees.
My truck is a tool. It is not a vanity item or a luxury. Not only do I not need it to have leather seats, power everything, and a moonroof – I don’t want it to, because I will just break all of that stuff and it does not do anything to actually make the vehicle useful as a truck.
ahh, it could be the multi vehicle discount. are you doing some kind of per-mile or low-driven-miles program? 'cause any beater truck just on liability limits is still almost double a regular car policy for me
Nope. I have the same full coverage as my other vehicles. (I haven’t tested just how “full” it is, though.)
Insurers use actuarial tables and byzantine math to calculate your premiums. Possibly their magic chart just shows that my make/model/year is low risk. For grins some time, get an insurance quote on a Dodge Ram (assuming you don’t already have a Ram) and a Silverado or Sierra of the same year. I’ll bet you a penny the quote you get on your Ram will be significantly higher. Despite it functionally being the same vehicle to you and me, to an insurer the Ram is the one statistically more likely to be owned by a drunk driver and/or a moron.
It’s the same thing with my FZ6R. That bike has a detuned R6 engine in it and gets from 0-60 exactly as fast as an R6, but its insurance premium is like a quarter as much. But more dudebros buy and crash R6’s, and only silly old men carefully ride FZ6R’s. Or something.
Yeah there’s no way they’re ever going to touch the cash cow that is the Tacoma. If they had any desire to, they would have started selling the Hilux here decades ago.
This is the only reaction people will have when the article drops about her getting fired. Then she gets more viewers, and probably makes more than she ever would have as a teacher.
This is ridiculous. What she does on OnlyFans has absolutely nothing to do with her performance as a teacher and it is disgusting that teachers that we desperately need are not only getting fired for being forced to do outside work to afford to be able to live and also buy supplies for their own classrooms but that they’re getting excoriated for it.
she could be held in contempt, but if commenting on questions which could incriminate her, she can absolutely plead the fifth, and appeal the contempt charge. you cannot be compelled to give evidence that's self incriminating, you can be offered a deal for your testimony, but you cannot be compelled. that's what taking the fifth means. you can't be compelled, but you can be asked, and if you refuse to testify on fifth amendment ground, the government simply has to make the case without your testimony. this is middle school social studies stuff, man.
Next up they will advise women to carry a note from thier husband or father detailing where they are going so they can avoid suspicion. The cops will pull them over and ask for thier papers.
The only reason his grandkid is still alive is because he wasn’t QUITE stupid enough to put live rounds in his ‘attention getter’. What a moron.
I’ve seen a guy shoot his daughter in the leg at a public outdoor range because he cleared a misfire in his handgun incorrectly. She lived, but goddamn. It only takes a second of inattention to kill someone and it happens all the time. These people do not treat firearms with respect. It’s not a fucking noisemaker or a penis replacement. It kills, instantly.
This is why, while I support recognizing the right to self defense, I do not support Constitutional carry. Something this dangerous should require regular safety training. I felt the same about driving.
See this kinda stuff is why I don’t own a real firearm. I grew up with guns in the house, went shooting with friends and my dad. I don’t need a way to accidentally kill someone around.
Sort of. He was actually killed by a bullet that had lodged in the barrel from a previous issue with the weapon. The blank just fired the bullet that was lodged in the barrel.
People have killed themselves with blanks though, usually screwing around pretending to commit suicide and then accidentally doing it. I remember reading about an actor that put pistol loaded with blanks up to his head and pulled the trigger. There’s enough gas force coming out the end to put a hole in you at that range.
Yea, the only way a properly made blank can be dangerous is if the gun barrel is close enough for the ignited gasses to do damage from what I understand. So if you put the barrel right up against something, the gasses will push through and take a chunk with it.
Sorta, yep! It happened in two parts - for one scene the gun had homemade cartridges with primer and and an actual bullet, but no gunpowder, so that the ammo looked real in close-ups of the gun. At some point that round was fired and the primer was enough to discharge the bullet, which lodged itself in the barrel.
Then, later on in another scene, they loaded the same gun with blanks full of powder and primer but no bullet, so when fired they’d get the usual bang and flash. Except, since there was a bullet lodged in the barrel, the blank round still had enough force to propel the bullet out the rest of the way and into Brandon Lee.
It happened in such a freaky way that it feels like there must be more to it, but just as likely human stupidity and bad luck.
I didn’t look up the actual incident so I wasn’t actually aware of that. What I was trying to say is that I think there’s this thought in a lot of people’s head’s that blanks are completely safe and they’re not. At close range or if there’s some debris in the barrel a blank can be dangerous.
Oh I never took it that you were challenging me. I was a little amped up. I get pretty indignant whenever I see easily avoidable gun violence. People who leave their guns out for children to find, I’ve read about a guy who was showing off his new laser sight and shot his girlfriend’s child killed him or her (I can’t remember which), the stores feel endless. it really boils my blood. I appreciate that you gave me the details. I always thought it was a foreign object, like a pebble or something, that just happened to be in the barrel.
This is why charging a juvenile for taking a nude of themselves with creating CSAM is the dumbest shit ever…
It gives these kids an actual valid reason to not tell anyone. And the blackmailers can ask for worse than just money. It could lead to actual physical abuse in some cases.
Without that law, anyone being blackmailed could just turn to the authorities without a care in the world.
As a former teen boy, I would give zero fucks if the cops saw a pic of my dick so that some catfish who tried to blackmail me would go to prison.
But it wouldn’t need every victim to go forward, just a few and this wouldn’t even be a thing because the risk/reward is complete dog shit for the scammers.
Right now they know that their victim going to the cops is unlikely because they’d have to confess to a serious crime. So the scammers worst case scenario is they just don’t get money.
Read the article, the director of the freaking FBI is on to this and cooperates with foreign governments to catch the scammers. It wouldn’t take many coming forward before the old inheritance scams started looking better for the scammers.
All they need is victims to come forward, and this would accomplish it
For real. I’d be more worried about what the police would do to my kid than anything they might be able to do to catch the blackmailer. Reporting it is a zero-sum game. And the district attorneys are responsible for this being the case, 100%.
I applied to over 100 remote positions before finally throwing in the towel and taking a hybrid position. There’s a finite amount of remote employers and they are unbelievably picky as a result.
I fear this is going to be a turning point for the party to turn fully against Ukraine. McConnell apparently argued forcefully in favor of keeping the funding intact, but got overruled by most of the caucus, including Thune (one of the top candidates to replace him). And this is the Senate Republicans we’re talking about, the House caucus is even more openly antagonistic.
Keeping Democratic control of the White House and Congress next year could be key to Ukraine defeating Russia.
Seven senators — John Kennedy (R-LA), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Ron Johnson (R-WI) — and one House member, Kay Granger (R-TX), are all in Moscow over the Fourth of July holiday this week for talks with Russian lawmakers and officials, according to reporting from the Washington Post, NPR, and investigative reporter Julia Davis.
A month later, you had Rand Paul in Russia on Trump's orders.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.