Xhieron @ xhieron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

So you're suggesting that North Korea is demonstrating its ballistic missiles solely in order to deter the United States from unilaterally launching an unprovoked surprise nuclear strike against North Korea. ...

Okay.

Let's talk about this, I guess.

In the universe in which the US launches an unprovoked surprise nuclear attack against North Korea, I'd like to think we could all agree that the rest of the world, including other nuclear powers, would be united in retaliating, NK ballistic missiles or not. Sure, it's not impossible that the US government could become irrational, but that's I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that nuclear deterrence is about more than that.

Even allowing ad arguendo a Hiroshima-like escalation scenario, we don't actually need the US's nuclear arsenal to do that (see: Tokyo and Berlin bombing campaigns). That is to say--to the extent that NK being a nuclear power might play in an actual deterrence scenario, it's redundant. In all other scenarios, we're not using 1945 military doctrine anyway.

Citation needed.

What's there to deter? Anything NK could do to the US that would serve as a deterrent would immediately result in the US glassing Pyongyang. Lil Kim isn't Putin. He doesn't have a half-century of stockpiles to rattle at the US to pretend MAD is still a thing. And neither Putin nor Poohbear would lift a finger to stop it either, because NK's friendship just isn't that valuable, and it won't be for another several decades of pouring the entire GDP into buildup, if ever. US war hawks don't care about North Korea because they don't have to.

The behavioral crisis is the failure of ordinary people to riot, shut down factories and refineries, and hang greedy CEOs. The research is correct insofar as it suggests people should become more conscious of the fact that a few individuals are marching humanity into oblivion, but the time for more research is past. We already know what needs to be done. If human psychology predicts that humans will never voluntarily give up consumption--and it does--then we ought not be targeting mankind's goodwill toward the planet or even its foresight. Rather, our efforts--that is, the entire focus of every free society--should be directed wholly toward the annihilation of the institutions on which that consumptive philosophy depend and, where and as called for, the burial of those men who refuse to give them up.

Reason and education have proved insufficient. The remedy of a slave is not to break his shackles, but to kill the masters.

Hakeeeeeeem Jjjjjjjjeeeeffffries!

Joking aside, my gut says this would be a good time for the Democrats to extract some concessions from Johnson in exchange for his job--something they didn't really want to do for McCarthy because the calculus was different. I'm not sure that the circus is as good for them this time around (in part because "independents" might well decide that what the nonfunctioning government needs is a stronger GOP majority and a Cheeto). There ought to be enough ordinary-right Republican Reps to cobble together a majority without asking vulnerable Dems to vote to keep him.

If Johnson's to stay, the Speakership in general should just be weaker with a negotiated organizing resolution that gives Jeffries and the (barely) minority party more control--something not unlike what 50-50 Senates have done. I appreciate, however, that that's a tough sell even to the most center-leaning GOP. They might rather burn the place down, and I really wish that was more metaphorical. [And honestly, the MAGAs know all this, which is why the threats to actually remove him are probably all smoke. If he calls their bluff, there's only so many times they get to play the vacation card before their leverage evaporates in a coalition government.]

In any event, the reality is that a shutdown is bad for everyone, and by current polling, Trump can afford it more than Biden can. Unless something changes, the House is going to do nothing but make noise for the next 11 months, and the best way to curtail that is to put a lid on stunt's like Mace's this morning by getting the House back to regular business and order. It needs to not be in the news. For the rabid GOP base, a fractured GOP majority fighting amongst itself over the Speakership, screaming expletives and fist-fighting on the chamber floor? still better than a GOP that negotiates with the enemy. That leads me to think that the smart move is to get them to do just that: Johnson's already given up on holding the line, so in for a penny. It's worth keeping the Christofascist in the big chair if it means the bullshit impeachment hearings disappear because, say, for example, Jordan lost his committee assignments.

Is this a pipe dream? Sure. But I'm no professional strategist. The point is, this seems like an opportunity for the Democrats to get more out of the House than just setting some more records in Speaker Replacement Shenanigans III. Don't just let them eat each other. Eat them yourselves, you cowards.

In isolation it might not be. The problem is that 1 foot drop isn't the only thing happening. Over the same period, the sea level would be expected to rise a foot also. 2 feet is the difference between a resort and an underwater hotel lobby in many areas.

Sure, that might only affect the rich property owners, but you can bet the Florida taxpayers will be the ones footing the bill to ensure Miami still exists for our grandchildren.

He's already committing fraud and hiding assets. Convert him to 7 and scorch the earth.

Lawyer here: Lock'em up. Maybe this is a radical position, but these kinds of cases demonstrate the need to do away with absolute immunity for prosecutors and judges. Qualified immunity would be more appropriate, and unlike with police, there's never a question whether judges and prosecutors know their obligations. If you withhold evidence in order to take another man's freedom and it can be proved against you, you should go to the penitentiary, full stop. And if you sell kids to prisons in exchange for kickbacks, you should be hanged.

This is part of the problem with having a self-regulated profession. As much as I appreciate that the ethical rules to which I'm beholden are created by people who are similarly educated and have experience with the practice of the profession, we're well past the point that good lawyers and judges need to be holding bad ones genuinely accountable. 50 years of a man's life isn't worth a law license or a term on the bench. It's not even fucking close. If you want prosecutors to stop fucking around with evidence and you want judges to stop taking bribes, their legal responsibilities need to have the same teeth as the ones they wield against others. You perpetrate a fraud on the court and it costs an innocent man 50 years--you go to jail for 50 years. Lex talionis.

And if that kind of standard means people don't want to be prosecutors? Well, people who want to be able to withhold evidence shouldn't be prosecutors!

And this is an argument to fundamentally sacrifice the good on the altar of the perfect. Would it be better that minority positions, accomplishments, and experiences were taught as part of broader curriculums? Of course--but they're not. Doing away with Black History Month doesn't address that, because the alternative isn't a broader solution, but to simply do nothing. BHM is a bandaid, but if you rip off the bandaid, it's still a wound. With the bandaid there at least we're forced to acknowledge the wound.

Similarly, giving away cash in the form of loan forgiveness doesn't solve the problem of greed in upper education, but it does alleviate pain felt by an entire generation of working Americans. This is a perfect example of the problem: the fascists blocked the relief, and then what happened? Did we muscle down as a society and get to work on the difficult problems of moving higher education away from the current profit-motivated model? No, of course not. What happened instead? Right: Nothing happened. Tuition is still reprehensibly high. The only difference is that the last generation of borrowers continue to suffer, just like the next will.

The point is, BHM is not an alternative to systemic policy changes to address historic racism and other discrimination: it's a stopgap, and lobbying for its abandonment isn't lobbying for a societal pivot to more effective ways to address the problem. It's lobbying that black history not be taught at all.

What on earth are you talking about? Joe Biden tried to give 20k to each of them who went to college. And he would have if the--let me check my notes here: oh, right--Nazis in the other party hadn't sued to prevent him from giving away money.

I appreciate that Biden might not be some folks' first choice, but if you think young people believe another four years of Grampa Joe is just barely more tolerable than the deliberate annihilation of the Republic by fascist traitors, you might need to meet one.

Lol. A bunch of folks, including Donald Trump, are saying exactly that. It's part of the reason we're even having this conversation.

That all sounds perfectly plausible.

So instead he'll just drink and drug himself to death like the rest of us.

Estuans interius ...

Oh you bet your ass she does. She's seen the actuarial tables. Even if all of Trump's legal woes went away, his next VP would still be much more likely than the typical office holder to actually get the top chair. In a Trump and Biden match up, no matter who wins there's a reasonable chance the VP ends up finishing the term.

That old white guy tried to forgive my student loans, and he failed only because the fascists on the other side of the aisle want us to be poor so we can't supplant them. I don't care if he's a thousand year old Nosferatu. I will cheerfully vote for Biden with my head up and my eyes open. He wasn't my first choice four years ago, but he's been an excellent President.

I care a lot more about whether the President has good policy than whether he's in my preferred generation. More importantly, I trust Joe Biden with the federal government. There are a great many young Democrats, even some ideologically closer to me, for whom I can't say the same. Four more years of Grandpa Joe, especially with a Democratic Congress, could easily be the best chance the US will have for forward momentum in a century.

And it's beginning to snow. 🎶

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.

It does grade school math. It's not AGI. There, saved you a click.

That's a lot of words to say, "I have no way to back up my claims." "Go research for yourself" is the last bastion of those whose arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny. You have a lot to say, and so far in this thread the only single piece of evidence you've provided is a Youtube video. The AR's history is that it's a weapon of war.

I get the impression you have a lot of personal experience with guns, and you've probably been exposed to training in order to increase your comfort level, but "go research for yourself, and your research will obviously make you agree with me" doesn't change the reality that you haven't actually given any evidence for the stats you spouted. Save the condescension for your family and neighbors.

If you want your position to be taken seriously, back it up. Otherwise, everyone will continue to care nothing whatever about what you say.

That's all.

Gonna need some sources on those home invasion stats. I have no horse in this race--it's not my state--but anybody who says it takes more than ten shots to stop an attacker is going to have to show me something to bulk up their credibility. I'm not going to just take your word on that. Even assuming the stat were technically true, if you can't stop a home intruder in ten shots, the magazine isn't the problem.

Also the car dealership analogy doesn't hold up, as, in fact, you must show proof that you have passed a legally required test before you will be allowed to test drive a car. It's not an outrageous requirement.

Finally, in what universe is a 30 round AR specifically designed for personal defense?