halcyoncmdr @ halcyoncmdr @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,751

Joined

2 yr. ago

What's the over/under on her removal only being because she's a woman? Went to the top of the removal list only because there's this bizarre focus on the damned place by Trump otherwise she would have slipped under the radar for a while longer.

They're all going to say they're new hires and weren't educated about any limitations.

DOGE isn't technically new, that requires Congressional approval, Trump just renamed The US Digital Service, a little known department tasked with digital modernization formed after the Obamacare website issues. Then he let Musk do whatever the fuck he wanted with it.

I doubt there's a single USDS employee still there, meaning everyone would have to be new hires with less than 4 months there.

"You can't put your hands on the students"

"Okay"

You don't have to be smart when you're born with a silver spoon like most of these fucks are.

Notice that the actual first generation wealthy aren't the vocally supportive ones. It's the generationally wealthy, the ones that didn't actually make the break into wealth, the ones lucky enough to be born into it.

There's a few exceptions, but they're the ones advocating most vocally for the heinous shit, not just the money making shit.

They just tell him what Putin would like to happen. No leverage necessary. Trump admires dictators, it's clear he wants their approval.

Just install Signal, say you're a journalist, and wait to be added.

I never discounted the meat and dairy industries. They're an issue as well. However...

Fucking almonds use 14% of the water in the State and 2/3 of that is exported. That's a ridiculous use of water for a single shitty crop no matter how you cut it.

Almonds could be removed from most people's diets entirely with very little change on their part, hell most probably wouldn't even notice, and recovering nearly 10% of CA's water usage alone would do more than swapping showerheads. People would definitely notice the result of beef and milk availability dropping by a similar amount. You need to start with the things people won't have to make active changes for.

Dairy is a big issue, like you mentioned... And milk alternatives are much better than dairy when it comes to water usage. But even then, out of those alternatives, nut based options like almond milk use a lot more water in the process than something like oat milk or soy milk. If people are already reducing their dairy usage with alternatives, there should be a larger focus on the ones with larger impact.

Also, everyone always talks trees and CO2, they're a fraction of the global cycle, algae converts 40x as much CO2 as trees do. And it does so much faster, with a higher growth rate. But everyone is always so focused on the trees they ignore easily available alternatives.

Human usage of water, while massive, is a fraction of industrial and agricultural usage. A much larger impact would be seen from limiting controlled water usage for the growth of high usage crops.

Droughts and water utilities' excessive use fees.

You should really be complaining about things like water heavy crops not having more limitations. 80% of controlled water used in CA is agriculture. Of that, 20% alone is used to grow tree nuts, like almonds, and 2/3 of those nuts are exported internationally. So just nuts are using almost as much water as all non-agricultural use in the State, and shipped overseas. Almonds alone use more than 14% of all agricultural water in the State. Maybe the State needs to start actually look at limiting crops like that, since that would be much more effective than shifting the burden to individuals.

But it's more profitable to convince the masses that they need to do something personally, and buy new "efficient" or "environmentally-friendly" products to do so, rather than dealing with the actual problem.

Many of us have been comparing ICE and the SS since it's inception alongside the Department of Homeland Security post-9/11.

9/11 ended up being way more successful than Osama Bin Laden could ever have imagined. It just took an extra 25 years for the Republican party to destroy the country from within like he wanted.

My formerly happy in-group had a former army medic and current RN that fully supported all the crazy Republican COVID bullshit, while actively seeing those "treatments" do absolutely nothing at her job every fucking day.

Not all doctors and nurses are smart just because they graduated. Like with any job that requires a lot of memorization, some people memorize well but can't actually problem solve in the real world beyond it. You'd think a former Army Medic and Trauma RN wouldn't fall for that shit, yet there she is to this day still.

Probably just the way multiple sentences easily added up and the writer didn't bother to convert for consistency. X months for one crime, Y days for that crime, etc.

There's nothing knee jerk about it. That issue literally only applies to capital punishment. Remove capital punishment and your point disappears, so that should be the focus since it would solve both situations simultaneously.

Instead, you seem to be using it to justify not doing anything at all for the other 99.99% of crimes where that would never even apply. Which begs the question of why you want to continue to let false accusations receive minimal punishment?

Ok, you seem to want to actually argue about capitol punishment, not false accusations, derailing the conversation for whatever reason.

If your issue is with the extreme of capitol punishment, then you deal with that separately, because that doesn't apply for 99.99% of crimes on the books. If there's no death penalty for the accusation, then whether it should apply to false accusations is irrelevant.

Purposeful, false accusations should result in the same punishment as the accusation, across the board regardless of the accused crime. Don't falsely accuse an innocent person of something if you aren't willing to accept the same sentence for your knowingly false accusation, seems pretty simple.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption, that a simple accusation by itself means something, it doesn't. They don't prosecute a mistaken eyewitness for false testimony. A simple false claim doesn't bring the wrath of the system down on someone to the point where they are charged for those false claims, you've got to show a complete disregard for reality and the system for things to reach that level.

People lie about shit all the time, especially to police, very few reach the point where they are prosecuted for those lies. The ones that rise to the level where they bother to actually do something about those false claims should receive the same full punishment of those false accusations.

If you knowingly falsely accuse someone of murder with the intention of having them be prosecuted and sentenced for a crime you know they did not commit, then you should receive that same punishment, not a slap on the wrist like a year of prison and some fines.

Whatever the sentence would be for the false accusation, yes.

These situations where people are being convicted for these false accusations don't come from simple misunderstandings or poor testimony, they come from people purposefully making false accusations and even fabricating evidence. It's effectively conspiracy to defraud the government and waste resources as well.

If anything I'd say the sentences for these should even be higher than the accusation punishment, since these people are purposefully trying to ruin the life of the accused and abusing the justice system to try and do it for them.

Slander that implicates an innocent of a crime should carry the sentence of that crime. His life is forever changed, and is forever linked with that accusation, regardless of his innocence.

That's the original simpler definition, but as with many words and phrases, time has changed the meaning in real world usage. Modern usage of the term should probably be referred to more as Revisionist Zionism, but everything gets simplified for modern short attention spans.

This is characterized by territorial maximalism and the idea that Israel should conquer more territory, at any cost. This is clearly the modem day Israeli government perspective. Settlements and the denial of Palestinian rights are a core part of Revisionist Zionism because of that. It is not compatible with a two-state solution, much less a one-state equal rights solution. Which is why it needs to be separated from general antisemitism.

I also have to say though that they've had nearly 80 years to figure this out with Israel being the de facto leadership because of British decisions post-war, maybe it's time that the Palestinians had a chance instead. It was those British decisions after all that took the land promised to the Palestinians for their assistance, to create Israel in the first place.

Here is everyone's nearly daily reminder that there is a difference between antisemitism and antizionism.

Criticizing the Israeli government and its leaders is not the same as criticising all Jewish people.

The Zionists want to conflate these things so they can hide in plain sight and have people that aren't paying attention defend their war crimes.

Never underestimate political apathy.