Biden Told Ally That He Is Weighing Whether to Continue in the Race
rwhitisissle @ rwhitisissle @lemy.lol Posts 0Comments 27Joined 2 yr. ago
rwhitisissle @ rwhitisissle @lemy.lol
Posts
0
Comments
27
Joined
2 yr. ago
He’s by far done more good than bad. Even the railway workers were resolved in the end (without a shutdown that would have fucked the inflation greed economy even more).
The issue is that by doing this he showed his hand. A strike has two sides to it: the side of the workers and the side of the bosses. Biden's interference, by executive order, shows which side he's on. It's very telling to me that we live in a country where Biden can make it illegal for thousands of people to go on strike, but he doesn't have the power to force a single corporation to take the deal that's on the table from their employees. Or if he does, he elects not to do that. Either way, a union has one single recourse against the company it works for: striking. If that's suddenly off the table, you are effectively toothless in negotiations. Also, it's fascinating you can say to thousands of people "oh, you don't want to work anymore? Well, guess what? You have to." Last time I checked, that's functionally indentured servitude, if not outright slavery.
There’s a good chance it was manufactured by a combination of Russia->Iran->Hamas triggering i
Not every single thing is a plan by Russia to destabilize the Western world. This conflict had been ongoing for decades. Is this particular escalation of it bad timing? Sure, but it was also a ticking clock.
The issue is also that he's gotten a lot done that people do not like or not done enough in some ways. They don't think he pushed for enough support for Ukraine. Or they don't like how he handled the late 2022 railway workers strike. Or they don't like how he's handling Israel's invasion of Palestine. And then there's the fact that he's the face of mainstream, neoliberal Democrats, who are just generally disliked by more progressive members of the party for seeming to never get things done (like codifying Roe v. Wade into law when they had the chance) and for being so arrogant that they fumble the ball constantly (like with the DNC and Clinton thinking Trump was a fucking pushover and then letting him get elected and functionally give the RNC the Supreme Court for the next 30 years). People are frustrated with Biden because they're frustrated with the party, and Biden is the party in a very real way.
Well, that's because Trump was a softball candidate who stood no chance at winning and only acted as a spoiler candidate in relation to other, actual potential Republican candidates.
I think what people believe is more a matter of environment, exposure, and upbringing. The Rittenhouses are victims of an ideology that they internalized because they were, in some very real way, made to internalize it. It doesn't benefit them and it exists purely to support systems of power that actively disenfranchise them and people like them. And "our" ideologies, however similar or different your beliefs and mine might be, are just as much a product of environment and conditioning. I'm not entirely sure I can draw the exact line where a society's failure of its own people stops and personal accountability begins when it's tied so intimately to how an individual believes the world is and should be.
I'm going to go ahead and post my hot take: I hate that these people are facing eviction and that they're faced with crippling medical debt caused by chronic illness and frequent hospitalization. I don't like these people. I don't agree with their beliefs. I think Kyle Rittenhouse did something unforgivably terrible and that his family likely enabled him and his actions. But I also don't want them to be homeless or to have to deal with medical debt, because those are things that I believe our society should guarantee, as inalienable rights, that no one, regardless of how odious they or their family might be, should have to endure. And I don't care that they (probably) believe differently.
Not sure why you were enabling HTTPS for a project that was not hosting an internet-accessible service, really. By which I assume you mean the service doesn't have a publicly accessible web based UI or API component. What were you trying to access and how? The only scenario I could think of for this would be that your custom software relies on HTTPS for secure communication within its own internal network (such as on a VPN) to send sensitive data back and forth between services. In which case that feels like overkill for a college course, since you shouldn't have any genuinely sensitive data that you need to secure if it's just for testing and demonstration.
I had a problem and then I tried to solve it by installing a snap package. Now I have two problems.
Not sure what your point is, but I have a hard time imagining love and acceptance not going hand in hand.
Looked up the article. They're mad that Dolly Parton, who is a very outspoken Christian, is specifically the kind who embraces the "God loves everyone and that means we should love everyone, too" ethos of Christianity. In other words, the author of the article is pissed that Dolly doesn't gaybash. What a fucking piece of shit you have to be to sit down and be like "you know what's wrong with this person? They aren't cruel enough."
Also, it's a movie and these people are actors with no meaningful genetic relationship between them.
Huh. Kinda looks like the front page of twitter. I hate it. I mean, I don't go to reddit anymore unless I'm forced to Google something and even then I gotta turn off my VPN first, but still. Yuck.
The party of states' rights and "keeping the government out of your private life" really like telling cities what they can and can't do in order to reduce the intrusion of the government into their private lives. I mean, let's be honest. This is basically being targeted because this is going to significantly reduce the number of non-violent offenders (almost all of whom are gonna be people of color, because damn if the cops don't love pulling over black people to try and find weed in their car) ingested into the prison industrial complex and the GOP has a fuckload of skin in that game.
Borderline? A lot of these are straight up apologetic. "Oh, it's okay for protagonist-kun to have sex with 13 year-old-chan because he's in the body of a 13 year old himself, which means he has the mentality of a 13 year old." Okay, cool...how many years of life has he personally experienced? 42, you say? Interesting....why don't you have a seat over here, random light-novel author-san?
Eh, not really. Always Online DRM is going to be even more of a thing in the future than it is now. It'll be so baked into the application that any attempt at patching it will take so long that it'll exceed the normal lifetime of the game itself.
Full self-driving without driver monitoring.
Which is just fantastically dangerous and poorly advised. Very appropriate for it to be called "Elon mode," if nothing else.
Generalizing is fine and a useful tool in certain situations. In others, it's not, and can in fact be very harmful. It's also sometimes good to explain why you support one versus the other in a particular scenario. Y'know...because that's how conversations work.
Crazy that you're the only person I've found in the thread that realizes this. Generational theory largely accepts that the concept of monolithic generations is reductive. Yes, people born in and around the same time can have shared cultural experiences, but the idea that those are what purely shape you ideologically or that you behave as a component of a monolith are ludicrous. And then there's subgenerations, microgenerations, etc. Just look at the sociological research of Karl Mannheim for a very complex discussion on the topic.
"And in a historical turn of events, every member of the DNC over 50 has elected to just...not vote this November. Calling it a once in a generation political upset, mainline Democrats have almost unanimously elected to...not elect anyone. One such non-voter was on record not outside of a polling station saying 'I can't in good conscience vote for someone who actually seems to stand for something. It's just not what you're supposed to do as a Democrat and it's not in accordance with any beliefs I might have had, if I had ever decided to have any.'"