That’s just completely not true though.
Mostly kind chonky weirdo. Gentle nerd freak of the pacific north west. All nation states are vermin.
That’s just completely not true though.
The only way this gig is ethically justifiable is if the support act is a guillotine.
Obviously there’s a proxy war between russia and the west in ukraine, but I don’t think the US wants a long attritional war.
They could have done more to not end up in one, but I think escalation management really is driving a lot of decisions in washington.
take as many free shots as he wanted at the heavily restrained and completely innocent man, a perk the military provided to each new recruit. “Now, I’m not entirely sure what this gentleman’s whole deal is. Looks like he could be from the Middle East.
Brutal.
Across time, space and cultures, to be ruled is to be ruled by villains.
That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won’t stay well adjusted for long.
Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-power-erodes-empathy-and-steps-we-can-take-rebuild-it
https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy
https://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html
In parliamentry systems you can dissolve parliament, requiring an election. It’s usually a way to bypass deadlock. Imagine if, when republicans are fucking around with the debt ceiling and pissing off the country, you could threaten to call a snap election and let them answer to voters then and there.
So if this passes it would basically force a national referendum on netanyahu’s leadership.
If gantz is pushing this, probably he thinks he can win. That could mean netanyahu’s many financial and political crimes being looked into again. Maybe.
It could mean more of a focus on getting hostages back, but it might not lead to much change in gaza:
Gantz’ centrism is not equivalent to Western centrism: Natenyahu’s Likud party and other Israeli nationalists have “gone so right-wing that the center in Israel has changed,” a Middle East Institute think tank fellow told Al Jazeera. Previously serving as Commander-in-Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces, Gantz has overseen two military offensives in Gaza and labeled several Palestinian NGOs terrorist organizations, indicating it is “unlikely” he would improve the conditions for Palestinians living in Gaza
Thank you this kind of comment is why I come here.
Yeah but presumably the parent in the M1 has a spouse operating a surveillance drone to provide real time fire child correction?
I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I’m not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a “10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement”.
Thierry’s district … is not a swing district. … Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.
In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.
Nuns in her order were forbidden from forming friendships with each other, and were transfered and punished if they showed warmth or spent time with each other.
This was for the obvious reason - having friends is the first step on the slippery slope to being gay.
Isolation and alienation are hallmarks of a controlling cult.
Turns out when your main business is crime and you commit dozens of obvious crimes in public and you leave plenty of evidence of your crimes and you piss off the people you asked to cover up your crimes, you may eventually have a hard time proving you didn’t commit crimes.
He’s not clever though.
He’s brazenly stupid. He never thinks things through and is incredibly easy to read and manipulate. He has almost no self control.
He’s dangerous, but not because of anything that could be confused for cleverness.
Yeah, I’m guessing it was that, which won an IgNobel prize like a decade ago.
If you’ve ever worked in a call center, this kind of thing happens from time to time. After a couple times you learn to ignore it and push through.
throwing muck
You seem to feel like you’re being attacked by a description of how some people suffer. It doesn’t imply that others don’t.
You see your hardships, can’t look past the color of your skin, and project.
I don’t see how my ‘hardships’ as a middle class white australian-american who moved to the US come into it. I’m describing how I observe the US to work.
Yes, rich people are more likely to crowdfund their rich friends.
White people are just more likely to be successful in their crowdfunding, even when poor.
I’m not arguing that there are no poor white people, that’s silly. My wife’s dad’s grew up shoeless and white in rural illinois. The existence of poor white people doesn’t disprove the fact non white people are a greater target for deliberate impoverishment.
I’m not deaf to class-based analysis. But this is the US. You just can’t talk about class without also talking about how racialized poverty is in most of the country. Crowdfunding is one of the many facits of our society that very clearly reflects that.
Why do you make this a white vs not white issue?
Because that’s what the intention is.
Republicans (post civil rights, Dixiecrats before that) specifically target non-white communities with laws designed to hurt them. They can’t be as explicit about it as they once were, so they have to find proxy targets. Instead of just jailing blacks, we’ll over-enforce drug laws in certain communities. Instead of saying we’re trying to starve black families, we’ll use ‘welfare mothers’ as a proxy. The goal is still the same as it was for all of US history - to win votes from whites by promising to take from non-whites. School vouchers. Stop and frisk. Zero tolerance approaches. Gang enforcement units.
But using proxies instead of specifically targeting leads to some collateral emiseration. Luckily, white communities have vastly more intergenerational and communal wealth, so those crafting the laws know that white communities will be more resilient to the kind of damage they intend to inflict.
not a problem with whites, it’s a problem with the rich.
Crowdfunding success is heavily racialized. It strongly favours people with more wealth in their extended community or identity group. Poverty is incredibly racialized in the US, especially at the communal rather than individual level.
I certainly agree that rich people enjoy watching all the poors suffer, but here in the US there’s still a large demographic beyond just the rich that feel safer when black and brown people are disproportionately targeted for misery.
35000+ tragic mistakes and counting.
100% death tax on all assets over $1m excluding a single house. That my final offer.
There’s no justification for a birth lottery that awards democracy-warping levels of wealth to whoever had the evilest parents.