Red Hood Has A Point

Everyone here was alive when the invasion started. Russia invaded Ukraine. THEN Ukraine considered entering NATO. They were happy to stay out of it as long as Russia stayed away. They didn’t. Some saw it coming, as Russia has violated just about every treaty they’ve entered.

There’s a few points I maybe want to bring up on this, though.

Through Trump’s installation, many learned what USAID was for the first time. For all it does in the world, it was never tooting its own horn. Sure, its existence is a tradeoff we made to allow for the fact of having one of the strongest military presence. But I still don’t think its existence and actions up until now should’ve been taken for granted.

Plus: Other nations in Europe cannot currently claim to be beyond manipulation via far-right rhetoric and misinformation. Germany is currently dealing with those issues in its own elections, and the very identity of that country is rooted in acknowledging the evils of 1940. Vladimir Putin targeted the United States because it was their biggest singular obstacle to expansion, acknowledging that there’s no single presidency to easily “corrupt” the European Union.

I agree that much blame lies on the USA’s population for so gullibly accepting such terrible campaign lies. I just don’t think that kind of evil ignorance is uniquely American, and the rest of the world needs to stay vigilant, rather than assuming all threat will come externally.

It’s erroneous to claim the judge orders blocking the executive orders have done anything.

As judge of Lemmy, I order you to stop posting. /s

^ There, that statement alone had just as much effect as the judicial orders. Fact is, DOGE still has extensive access to most of the systems that they breached, and judges have largely been ignored, or have given rulings complicit with Trump’s actions.

If a kid happens to have two dads, then what the hell are you going to hide from them until they’re friggin’ 13 years old? And WHY?

I am fine with a stance like “I don’t know”…as long as you’re not pushing any kind of agenda as a result.

A long time ago, I was uninformed about trans people. I was curious and asked questions…but I didn’t push them into any kind of restrictions.

I’d argue I’m still relatively uninformed. But I know that there’s been no evidence of any societal benefit from pushing further restrictions on them, and there’s plenty of evidence of harm by referring to the various gender studies. That’s all I need. Even if I wasn’t actively pushing to support trans youths, and even if I still have a part of me that sees them as “weird”, I sure as hell see no point in standing in the way of their preferred forms of progress.

See, this is why I like relying on public transit and my e-bike, even with their annoyances.

Health care gives us enough financial terrors. I don’t need my mode of transport to also sometimes need Wad of Cash Implants to live.

I’ve wanted to develop a conversation on this subject for a long time, because it’s a fallacy “both sides” have fallen for: The fact that illegal actions are often right, and legal actions are often immoral.

People will often harp on the fact that an act was “technically not legal”; yet throughout history, we have needed illegal acts to frame what’s right in the world. When we discuss these things online, it’s more honest to talk about “What the harm is” - a subject that often leans in favor of left-leaning opinions both for what’s illegal (living in the USA illegally, generally causing negative harm) and improperly using presidential powers to shut down government agencies (not just illegal, but also extremely harmful).

If you disagree and specifically want to harp on legality, then I invite you to see what happens if you start shooting jaywalkers in the street for their flagrant violation of the law. Prosecutorial discretion exists for a very important reason.

Laws are often ignored in history through periods of change; I’d say it’s a matter of people agreeing or disagreeing with them.

In this case, it’s about a very strong push by very wealthy people to trick masses of followers into thinking their billionaire daddy’s are fighting for them.

Ostensibly, that push would be harder if there was not such a uniform path to wealth disparity where one idiot owns so much.

The sudden rush of tankies in the comments indicates to me that this is a strong enough move to make some oligarchs worried.

It’s definitely a distraction tactic, but at the very least looking at Google Maps and Bing Maps makes very clear to people which megacorps are riding the oligarchy; just in case anyone held hope their favorite “techbro revolutionary” might side with them. PS: Mapquest gets it right.

That clause very much seems to be written under expectation of moving personnel or equipment. Prisoner transport (not to mention prisoner management even were they stationary) very much crosses the line between “police and military” that is often warned against in government function.

My thought: Point out to them that there is no “permanent winner” here in terms of ending violence unless they stop Trump.

The people believing in his agenda are often aimless, and very often extremely violent. See the January 6 rioters, who continued to be aggressive after being pardoned, as well as fringe groups going on the attack now that they think Trump will pardon them. Emboldening them any further may mean years and years of continuing to deal with such violent offenders, AND without the support of experienced FBI staff able to track threats on a national level.

Can I confirm whether this outage was affecting downloaded singleplayer games? I didn’t think that would be the case.

When Bernie Sanders brought forward another fervent request for free healthcare for all Americans, and the only retort the R he was addressing could come up with was a completely fabricated lie about Bernie taking money from pharmaceutical companies, I stopped believing anyone sensible could oppose it.

“Ew, Obamacare? I’d rather have the Affordable Care Act!!”

The short answer is: Yes.

The long answer is: YEEEEESSSS.

Politicians come in varying types, and most want to hold what power they have. It’s all they have - they’re literally at risk of being fired every few years. Many of them know what the right thing is to do, but worry that more domestic issues are their voter’s real concern. So, if they confirm a whack job in Congress while taking a back room deal to boost employment numbers in their state, they’ll do it - perhaps reluctantly.

But that CHANGES if their office is flooded with calls, or even just signed emails. It is a BIG oh shit moment: “Wait, people actually care about what’s happening in Washington as opposed to here??” The biggest problem reps have had, as repeatedly echoed in interviews, is they don’t know which issues are most significant to their voters. The result may be a matter of trading favors to be given table scraps, etc.

It is OUR problem too - we thought it was a common sense, braindead position not to vote for a diaper grandpa that spends 90% of its time drooling over Fox News, but the active voting population disagreed! So don’t think it is a hard mistake to make!

Every time people with experience judge these issues, they have recommended the same thing. Even if you live in a red state that won by 30 points, even if you live in a blue state that won by 20.

I encourage you to watch the movie Darkest Hour. London Parliament did NOT think it would be an obvious decision to oppose Hitler, AT ALL. They insisted Britain would chew them up for pushing them into a “pointless” war against a legitimate machine of progress and industry. It finally took Churchill going nutso and taking a subway ride in public to get a chance to actually see how people felt.

I have found with admittedly sometimes-annoying tools like “Resistbot” it’s a bit easier to write my opinions to representatives. That matters quite a bit more if you’re in a redder state than mine, but it still helps to send words of encouragement/reminders to reps that are working their asses off as a minority.

I have started to want this to become an extension of hate speech laws - if a lawmaker makes remarks or policy advances that target a specific marginalized protected class (eg, race, sexuality) while also engaged in other policy decisions, they must provide EXTREMELY compelling evidence of those policy advances (just about always impossible) or face extended criminal prosecution for attempting to use the threats as a distraction.

AOC talked about exactly this in her video (it’s over an hour long, but when you have time, I’d say it’s worth a watch). There was a specific effort to start this madness after Congress adjourned for the week, and there’s been a scramble to get back for continued pushback.

And, even for democrats we presume to fight for these issues, there is complacency where people only whine on social media without making themselves known directly to their representatives. That’s important both for people in Democrat, and Republican districts, to make it known their constituents are not blind to these problems.

I’m reminded of the scene in Office Space where Peter goes to his therapist to “transfer” his negative energy, and the therapist has a heart attack on the spot.