meowMix2525 @ meowMix2525 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

594

Joined

2 yr. ago

Israel Keyes admitted to at least one of these but probably did tens if not hundreds. Had caches across the country of supplies and weapons. He was only eventually caught cause he got sloppy and I think had a body or something on his property at some point. Didn't admit a lot to the police cause he didn't want media attention and for his daughter to find out, a lot of information is gleaned from missing persons that coincided with where he happened to be at the time (phone pings, plane tickets, etc), and he traveled a lot.

There's a long-running podcast detailing what is known about him, called True Crime Bullshit.

I mean yeah between Ukraine/Russia and Lebanon/Palestine/Israel It's not hard to see why a bunch of capitalists would be bullish on defense right now. Don't really need to look at the stock market to know that.

The learning lesson there is just how much money is invested in seeing war break out and creating need for more weapons. Anyone pushing for war very likely has a vested interest in seeing it happen, especially those with the means to shelter themselves from the consequences of war. Add in the fact that capitalists are very good at getting what they want from the US government, and even better at sheltering themselves from consequences.

So, is the war just "likely", breaking out on its own out of nowhere, and capitalists just have a 6th sense for it, or is it being pushed and funded by capitalists who want the public to feel like war is inevitable so they will consent to escalating military intervention without much resistance?

Welcome to capitalism, are you new here?

That's news to me

I wasn't implying you were talking about defense, I was just saying that if you're only about money then you can make a lot of it developing weapons for the government.

Different universities specialize in different things. I went to an engineering university that issued mostly engineering degrees, plus a few business degrees. Both of my state's public universities also have fairly large colleges of engineering with quite a few engineering programs run by them. You're also not only competing locally, but with remote, outsource and H1B visa workers. There is plenty of supply.

God forbid you have to train an employee in the specialization you're looking for once in a while.

After telling a generation of kids to get stem degrees or they'll be doomed to flip burgers, I feel I have the responsibility to say this is no longer the case. The jobs still pay well but; between ghost job listings, recent layoffs, and every entry level job wanting like 4 years of hyper specific experience; I have observed it being nearly impossible to enter the job market or move around it right now, and the whole thing feels very oversaturated.

Unless you're willing to build bombs. Don't know much about that end of it cause I'm not interested in developing things intended to kill people. but that's where the money is if that's what you're about.

Why are you making that assumption?

Why bring the kid at all then? They already had a free and eager babysitter right there.

I feel differently. I don't know the ex or their partner of course but I see it as an olive branch. They share blood through their child together. They're going to have to be around each other regardless of how things ended. The only person who loses with this grudge being held is the kid between them.

I yield that I have never been in the position of loving someone and being betrayed like that. I know it evokes strong feelings and I'm not minimizing that, but it doesn't really matter at this point whose fault it is or who chose what. None of these bad feelings will ever change what happened or who that person is. The only thing you can change is your own behavior in the future and to manage your own feelings and expectations with that person so it doesn't happen again. Fool me once, fool me twice and all that.

So I'm not saying you have to forgive and forget. I wouldn't ever put the ex in a position of personal closeness or trust ever again. If that's what this is to OP then 100% stay home. However, if I am correct in seeing this as a chance to acknowledge what happened, move on, and lower tensions between them for the kid's sake, then I think it can be positive. It's also a valuable lesson for the kid to show them the ideal way for an adult to behave after interpersonal conflict, how they as an adult should ideally work through tough feelings.

It depends on the person though. If you can't move past those feelings, if you can't model the ideal, which would be completely understandable, then the best thing is probably not to go. Work together with the kid to help them understand the situation. Might be time for a heart to heart with them and to let them in on the feelings you've been dealing with so they can fully understand what's keeping you from going.

It's a 14 year old kid, they're mostly self sufficient at that point. Whether you're "stuck" babysitting or get to relax on your own I see it as a win-win. If the couple want to squander their vacation time solely with each other (in which case, why did they take the extra week from OP instead of just leaving the kid with him the whole time??) while OP gets to bond with their child on a free vacation, I just don't see how that's a punishment.

Leave it up to the kid, they're the one that wanted their dad with them and the whole reason he's invited.

Abandoning your kid, making them feel like a burden, to go fuck around with strangers, just to get back at an ex who happens to be the mother of your child, seems like an asshole move here. Please don't do this OP.

Edit: OP is the father, my bad. Editing now.

Definitely don't introduce a stranger to your child on a family trip just to make your ex jealous and/or take advantage of their new partner. This is a shitty thing to do. Just spend the free vacation with your kid or don't go if you can't be civil.

More than a few teeth/entire jaws were lost over this I reckon

Only for 90 days

Yeah, the problem is that the Republicans are the only ones acknowledging the hurt people are feeling right now, and providing any answers for it, even if their questions and answers are complete bullshit. The Democrats are completely derelict of their duty to counter that bullshit with real answers, so the bullshit goes completely unchallenged and people vote for the guy with answers.

The average voter doesn't believe fascism can happen right here, right now. It's unpleasant to think about so they don't, and the media they consume doesn't provoke that sort of thought. It's ignorance, not malice. You can't expect the entire country to be as terminally online as we are.

No. You're rationalizing an objectively bad campaign. "Playing it safe" would have been running a good campaign with popular policies and listening to voters' demands, running on improving the average American's material conditions and communicating what good they've done to that end thus far. Not picking up reactionary right-wing policies and trying to come out on top by completely ceding the issues to the side that invented them, hoping that cynicism alone will somehow get everyone to turn out to vote. The Republicans are not going to be beat at their own game.

I just thought the population would be more sober minded about the threat of ceding democracy to a demagogue who now has unchecked legal authority to remake society in his own image.

Most normal people don't want to believe that this is the case. They don't have to, they have had the privilege of ignoring it, for they are not the ones being persecuted. It's background noise and if anything it turns them off.

People care about healthcare, education, cost of living, career prospects, inflation, basic rights, y'know stuff that pertains to them in their everyday lives. If the Republicans are the only ones pointing that stuff out and offering any solutions, even if their reasons and solutions are bullshit and serve bigoted ends, people will be swayed to vote for them and will doubt and explain away all the negative media because it's unpleasant to think about.

Democrats just don't seem to be willing to champion popular policy, and that is why they lost.

Anyways, seems like we're only somewhat in disagreement.

We must be watching different elections and your version must have historic turnout, since americans are so enthusiastic about deporting immigrants and flattening gaza, no?

Cause in mine I just see two unpopular candidates except one of them has cultivated a delusional cult to propel them forward and the other has the american electorate convinced that being evil is non-negotiable.

No, I am very acutely aware of how we got here. Clearly their strategy did not work or they would have won tonight. It's a trick and you fell for it, hard. Of course you wouldn't want to admit that.

Anyone out there that is gung ho about the border and arming Israel was always going to vote Republican. Ceding the narrative on those only reinforced the Republican base, and not offering anything material depressed the Democrat base. The whole time they've been pandering to imaginary voters and you'll first gaslight yourself into believing those voters exist and your country is a horrible place of garbage people before you'll admit that your side could have done things differently to appeal to more voters.

I think we need to stop wondering why Republicans are doing so well and with that, lamenting that just over half of the minority voting population in this country will proudly vote for open fascists; stop imagining voters in the middle who are going to magically defect from the right if Democrats outflank them on the right's own invented issues; and start asking ourselves whose votes the Democrats are actually campaigning for if not ours.

If what you say is true, and I'm not suggesting it is- if our furthest left "viable" party can win on a platform that is funding genocide and barely opposing the fascists Republicans, then we were doomed no matter what.

Firsf of all, don't project your own arrogance onto the rest of us. Second, even ignoring Palestine, it was an objectively bad campaign. She didn't offer anything material to vote for beyond not being trump.