I visited friends near Bath last year and they decided to take me canal boating. They signed one form to rent the boat and then a guy came on board and taught us how to drive it. I didn’t sign anything. They didn’t check my license or sort out any insurance or anything. I drove it for over 3 hrs lol. I was thinking how much paperwork such a thing would take of this was in the US or Canada.
You like many Americans are trying to solve cultural rot by putting in more rules. “If only we had a rule that ___” this wouldn’t have happened. That’s not going to solve this. Being a congress-person is a skill. It requires actual skill, and it takes time to get to know how to be most effective. You can put in this rule if you want, and it might solve the problem you’re targeting, but it will create many more. You can’t solve problems caused by cultural rot (literally tens of millions of voters being okay with this) by putting in more administrative rules. Ultimately , democracies grant the people the power to destroy democracy. That is what the US is choosing.
He says other nations will have to guard and police the Strait of Hormuz as necessary, after his attacks on the country prompted Iran to target vessels in the crucial world shipping lane.
Yeah that’s why nobody wanted to touch this mess with a 10 ft pole.
Presumably the US would allow any other tankers to pass. They don’t want to block other countries. The remarkable thing is that they’re allowing Iranian tankers to pass, and the reason is that blocking them is basically an act of was against China.
They won’t all die, that’s not on the table here lol
I am not sure how abstinence only being the only acceptable option is any better than it being the best option.
The distinction is important because perpetuating their only acceptable option despite it being demonstrably ineffective indicates that child welfare is not the primacy concern in play.
Again being Pro-life does not necessarily mean that they will vote for dismantling social services.
And yet, despite it not being necessarily true it is absolutely true in every practical sense in reality.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on assuming that they are lying.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking political talking points as 100 percent sincere instead of looking at the tangible actions being taken in this space.
Is that not what you are doing? You are blaming them for voting how they do.
You don’t even know what to do with this definition after quoting it. If course I “blame” them for voting how they do. Is assigning someone responsibility for their actions “demonizing” them? Lol. You’re lost in the sauce bruh.
Ultimately I think we have reached that 3rd situation. I have decided that nothing I say is going to change your mind on this and am choosing to walk away.
Other countries are able to have this discussion in far more healthy and productive ways. Instead of being content with your one insight that prolife and pro-choice are talking past each other, I suggest you ask yourself why that is, and why this positioning of the discussion is basically unique to the US. There’s a whole wide world out there.
But, before I do that, I think you have lost what my original argument was about. I am asserting that the abortion debate will never end due to each side arguing about disparate things.
Since you’re apparently lost, I’ll make I’ll summarize - the two sides talking past each other is how this issue was engineered. This is a manufactured debate designed for political purposes, and not for the welfare of kids. There’s a reason this nonsense took hold in the US and nowhere else in the western world.
But this ignores one of their central beliefs; that abstinence only is the best education to reduce abortions.
They absolutely don’t believe that lol. They believe it is the only acceptable option (even it demonstrably doesn’t work).
Next you talk about dismantling social safety nets. From looking at a few Pro-life groups many of them do not really talk about changing social services for kids at all. The ones that do talk about increasing education, providing counseling, and promoting adoption as an option. I think what the misunderstanding might be is that many people who are Pro-life are also republican who also believe in a reduction of government social services in favor of private services. This assignment of belief is not transferable. What I mean by this is that being Pro-life does not necessarily equate to wanting to dismantle social safety nets.
I simply don’t understand why you insist on taking what everyone says at face value while ignoring their actual actions - how they vote.
Last thing that you mentioned that I want to comment on is about single-issue voters. Of course I would encourage people to be aware about all the issues that affect them. But I do not agree with the demonization of single-issue voters.
I’m not demonizing them lol. I’m calling them stupid. If you’re a single issue voter, you are completely captive. The guy who embodies your one key issue can do anything else they want because they know they have you. Single issue voters always end up being suckers in there end.
I think I agree, but I really don’t think it matters. What, are Trump’s ideas coherent or something? What I trust is Bernie’s overall intent. He’s kind of unique in this way because of his decades of consistent political sctivism. Had Bernie been elected in 2016 somehow and we got 8 years of Bernie, the US would still be a capitalist society. It just might be slightly better one.
I think a great example of naive ideas that have dominated political discussion on the left is student loan forgiveness. Like I’m not opposed - if PPP loan forgiveness is acceptable then student loan forgiveness is infinitely more acceptable. No brainer. But the complete lack of discussion about structural reform to the college tuition situation that causes people to need such huge student loans in the first place makes me think that the whole issue was to some extent controlled opposition.
You could have gotten 100 percent student loan forgiveness - the whole thing passed and done and student loans would immediately start to pile up again the next day. Probably even higher tuition too.
You don’t actually expect me to believe that you think all Pro-life people believe that children don’t deserve a good home. Sure there might be some people out there like that. But it’s much more likely that the majority of people do actually care.
Instead of appealing to your own incredulity, perhaps you could just look at the other actions of the people involved. If the people claiming to be Pro Life to prevent child murder, they would take actions to prevent that outcome through comprehensive sex education and contraceptive availability. Most of them don’t. They would also not vote to annihilate social safety nets for children once they are born. Most of them do. Taking those into account suggests that child welfare is not the only or even the dominant goal of the movement.
If your entire argument is that there exists some pro life people who care about these things then sure, you “win” that’s not relevant to the overall situation. The dominant views and actions of the pro life movement in the US stem from a concerted effort to create a political wedge and to create captive single-issue voters. It worked.
The US is not unique here in its diversity of views. All across the world people (even pro-choice people) don’t “like” abortion. There is no preference for it. It is for most people a (very) necessary evil. But most western countries have managed to deal with the the abortion issue in a healthier and effective way that is more aligned with the stated goals of the pro life movement than what the actual pro life movement has managed in the US.
Acting like this is some free, open ethical debate devoid of political manipulation between people trying to save children and people trying to maintain women’s bodily autonomy is hopelessly naive.
Keep in mind there’s a huge fog of was element to this, but there are reports that the US Navy is allowing China-bound tankers to pass simply because stopping them would basically be an act of war against China.
Methane is a gas at room temp. It’s only liquid under pressure. What even is this article?
Methane is however an extremely powerful greenhouse gas (20x as potent as CO2) so the best thing to do is to evac everyone and burn it off .
And also wtf are local police supposed to do about it lol. Shit might randomly blow up. Anywhere. Any time. Maybe. Lol
I literally refuse to learn the difference between them
Top brass might still be mostly opposed, but every time one of the same ones resigns they’re replaced by a lunatic.
It doesn’t matter who they have dinner with when they answer to their handlers at AIPAC. Israel wants this war so they will make a few noises to pretend to be opposition but do everything tangible to support it.
The lack of investment in more production capacity for RAM is based on a roughly 3-year horizon for this insane extra AI demand.
Creating workable consumer-grade alternatives with delay line memory of all things would take longer than that, and the market would collapse the moment AI demand for RAM dried up. This is one of those things that is theoretically possible but due to both technology and market conditions will absolutely not be a thing.
Regime change isn’t the goal.
According to his latest tweet “unconditional surrender” is his goal. I wonder what his goal will be next week.
Turkey is going to love this lol
Bombing alone has never worked as a means of forcing regime change. So Trump will either have to succeed at this for the first time in history, back down (seems unlikely at this point) or put boots on the ground (for which he has not manufactured consent).I guess he could also just die on the shitter and make it the next guys problem. There are many avenues for the US to lose here.
No
The article was perfectly readable to me but sure cope harder.
That doesn’t matter if he’s been failing upwards ever since.