IttihadChe @ IttihadChe @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

290

Joined

5 mo. ago

1. Interesting. I was under the belief that disability benefit requiments basically meant "unable obtain and maintain full time employment due to a disability". After some research it seems it's more about how much money you earn than how many hours you work.
2. Are you not conflating Part Time/Hourly and Full time/Salary?

70% of Americans work full time and just under 60% of American workers are paid hourly wage.

For example, every factory I've worked in has been Full Time hours with hourly wage pay.

It's mostly Managerial/corporate positions that are salaried afaik.

Why would the Democrats vote this through in 2026. Epstein was murdered during Trump's first term, in 2019.

The Dems had a house majority from 2019-2023 and never released it.

From 2021-2023 they had the house, the Senate tiebreaker, and the presidency...

1. They are all very good ways of framing the current system as the only system, one which you must just accept.
2. I literally painted an outline above of what it looks like, not just in my mind but in reality. The Muslim/leftist community drew a line on the Gaza genocide, and the Democrats crossed it. The Muslim/leftist community then worked together to make it known that the Democrats were now our enemy for crossing said line.

The Democrats can either cross back, or they can continue their fascist march, while you defend them.

You must exit the slide because if you don't you will inevitably find yourself supporting fascism, just like how the democratic party defenders are defending Genocide, something I'm sure you all thought would be a solid line only a few years ago. But you crossed it, and will continue to cross any other lines until we reach full implemented fascism, at which point you will wonder why "nobody resisted"...

If you reward rightward shifts with your vote just as well as you reward leftward shifts. Why would they ever move left, instead of banking your vote and trying to secure more and more rightist votes by moving right? How do you beat fascism by marching along a fascist line?

That fight looks like placing your line in the sand, and once it is crossed those on the other side are your enemies, lest you end up following and drawing new meaningless lines.

That fight looks like working within your communities to spread education and recognition about who those enemies are, and building structure in your community so that when the enemy is identified you can work together to ensure the enemy feels your resistance.

After which, they may just cross that line back over, recognizing that you now see them as an enemy and not an ally, and that they need you if they wish to have success.

If they don't, then that just further reveals their intention was always to march rightward regardless, the only difference is you are no longer marching alongside them and have instead set the groundwork for opposing fascist enemies.

"Pay attention in school, kids, lest you miss learning what a king is"

~ defender of kings prior to their overthrow.

"Pay attention in school kids, lest you miss learning what an autocratic dictatorship is"

~ Cuban Batista defenders prior to the revolution.

"Pay attention in school slaves, lest you miss learning what a slave master is"

~ Southern slaveholder prior to the abolition of slavery.

Yes, when you confine your thinking to only exist within the current system, thats all you can comprehend.

Here's the thing though, when the choice is between two slides towards fascism, A steep one, and a slightly less but still increasingly steep as you descend one, the only way to escape fascism is not to choose which slide you take, but to build an off ramp.

You will not defeat the system from working within, you need to build external power structures.

So would this not be worse for, for example, people on partial disability benefits who are allowed to retain benefits while working part time but not full time employment?

If nothing changes for them but they are now registered as full time employees, they lose their benefits for nothing in return. Who would this help?

I'm not saying that the law would require all wages to stay the same, I'm saying that without the law specifically stating that wages MUST raise to accommodate, they will stay the same, resulting in overall less payment. We can't even get a federal minimum wage increase, certainly not a full wage increase tied to an hours reduction.

Yes, why? The example would still ring true with a reduction from 40 to 32 hours.

No, settling for "less bad" instead of fighting for good is what makes the "less bad" continue their march towards fascism.

Very telling you see the only option as voting for "less bad" or "waiting" for them to magically change leftward...

They will never change leftward unless you force them to change.

We are already more productive than any other time in history and we don't have a 4 day work week.

If we did get a 4 day work week, the owners would not scale our pay to accommodate for less hours on the job. 15/hr over 50 hours would turn into 15/hr over 40 hours, not 18.75/hr over 40 hours.

It's true that "both sides are bad" is what led us to being closer to fascism than ever.

But you've got it backwards.

The "less bad" party being able to count on securing votes simply by being "less bad" allows for the "more bad" party to lead the march, and the "less bad" party to follow while still being "less bad". This creates a slow march towards fascism while maintaining the illusion of choice in the population instilling passivity as they can always just "vote for less bad".

1. How does it provide any further perspective? "They actually don't deserve their land because they were colonized by the British"?
2. Why would you expect the Palestinians to accept a plan to give half of their land away to a violent colonial expansionist ideology. Should Poland have peacefully given half their land to Germany to avoid the invasion? Do you really think that would work anyway, or is it just an excuse to blame the victims for their own genocide?

Edit: Also, since then Palestine has called for the partition borders to be enforced, and Israel/their allies were the ones to deny it. Israel only ever supported the plan as a means to an end, further colonial expansion.

How does that effect their privacy/security?

Wait politicians were telling people to take their phones and opt-in for fundraisers? I never saw this, what was the reasoning besides "give us money pls"???

You saw a report from SCMP on a different report from an Israeli Newspaper, in which the Chinese embassy within Israel denies the prior reporting with the statements

"The embassy finds the contents of the report to be incorrect. As a matter of principle, China firmly opposes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, and continuously strengthens its enforcement capabilities regarding non-proliferation."

The embassy further stressed that "China never exports weapons to countries engaged in warfare and maintains strict controls on the export of dual-use items. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China upholds a cautious and responsible approach to the export of military-related goods."

Why is the reporting of Miriam Adelsons Israeli Newspaper more trustworthy to you than Middle East Eye?

"U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.

In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on "national interest" grounds. "

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

It's material support for a country under attack from the west and their genocidal puppet, when they could have just as easily refused them.

Idk why y'all never want to give China props unless they're doing Trotskyist permanent revolution or whatever.

If they've already shot down F-35s with inferior/older equipment doesn't that show that they already have the systems capable of effectively defeating F-35s?

The only thing I see in that article is that it wouldn't be as effective as it could be due to their lack of their own fighters and an AEW&C, not that it wouldn't be effective.

No it doesn't. Taiwan is part of China, the PRC rules China.

If Trump and most Republicans lost the next elections, and this led to a violent split between Democrats and Republicans rather than Trump and the Republicans ceding power, with the Democrats ultimately pushing back the Trumpist insurrection until they fled to Long Island, where they slaughtered most people living there then claimed to rule the entire US from the island.

Trumps Republicans would not still have claim to the entire US just because he ruled for 8 years (and Republicans far longer), and wouldn't rightfully have claim to Long Island itself. It would be an occupation of American land by a far right nationalist faction, nothing more.

You only disagree with regards to Taiwan because the west sides with the nationalist occupation in an effort to oppose the communist ruling party of China.

The ROCs(Far right nationalists) initial rise is inseparable from the PRC (Communists) as they were working together to Reunify all of China at the beginning.

After the breaking of this alliance by the ROC, purging the PRC to establish their far right nationalist base, they only lasted about 20 years, before the PRC regained far more support, resorting to the ROC ultimately retreating to the island of Tawain while the PRC continued focus on the original goal of uniting the mainland, which it achieved, and has thus ruled far more of China longer than the ROC ruled the sections they held.

By no stretch of the imagination can you claim that the ROC has rightful claim over the whole of China.