Pelicanen

Both houses of which are under Republican control. So you’re only going to argue details instead of actually responding to the content?

First: The commander-in-chief doesn’t control the military?

Second: Even if he didn’t, how would that matter for Ukraine? Removing both their support and the sanctions on Russia would still hurt them a lot.

Wasn’t Fox News started specifically to ensure that wouldn’t happen again?

The damage to the environment will never be undone. The US will double-down on emissions and most other countries in the world will stop trying because they won’t think there’s any point anymore.

The country with the biggest military of the world, who they have received a lot of support from, just elected a president that supports the dictatorship committing crimes against humanity in their country. Do you not see how that is problematic?

I think Biden still believes that things can swing back in the midterms or next presidential election. I don’t think he realizes that this might have been the last election that was possible to win.

If he does something drastic, he’d probably hand even more popular support to the Republicans in general and to Trump in particular who would play victims as much as they could.

If he does nothing, it might be the end of democracy, not just in the US but in most of the world. But he will have “accepted defeat gracefully” and considering he won’t live to see the worst of it, I imagine that’s all that matters.

Edit: Just watched his speech. Nope, he thinks this is business as usual.

Yeah, great fun watching the planet we all share start boiling and ruining the future not just for our own species but for millions of others.

I would guess that she’s trying to separate the voters from the representatives, so that when someone calls out a republican politician for being racist, they have a harder time convincing their voters that she was calling them racist as well.

Right now it seems like people see their political party as their identity, there are both democrats and republicans who do it but I’d say it is far, far more common with republicans.

You can, and should, hold your representatives accountable when they do bad shit, regardless of whether you voted for them or not, and if your party starts standing for things that are worse than another party then you should change who you vote for.

It’s a long road to get back from this division in the US, but I hope there’s a future where it’s possible.

I can add that if you ever say something that you yourself think was stupid, it’s often better to just own up to it than to play it off (within limits). Something like “That was a stupid thing for me to say, I’m sorry, you’re just very beautiful and I’m a bit nervous” as an example.

Implying that the only two options are supporting Israel committing genocide or Hamas committing terrorism is like straight out of of the Israeli regime’s playbook.

To be fair, had it been possible to control hurricanes, I have no doubt that Blackrock would try to use it to extract profit but they’re hardly alone in that.

Wait, you have to be happy for that?

Guess I’m into men.

Max Verstappen approves of this comment.

I don’t want to ruin your fun but some of us have feet that aren’t ticklish in the slightest.

Finnish: “Wait, you guys have articles?”

friend’s gf

few hours

I agree that it’s likely made up, and that the guy likely has a lot of misogynistic views, but you at least don’t need to misrepresent the post.

When did they claim that Israel wasn’t to blame? Two things can be true at the same time.

There’s a saying that humans only understand three probabilities: 0%, 50%, and 100%. So if 90% of people who are rich were born into wealth and 90% of all people are not wealthy, what does that mean?

Usually the knee-jerk response is to say that it’s equally easy for rich and poor to end up wealthy, or sarcastically claim that it’s supposedly impossible to become wealthy if you were poor.

Statistically, it’d mean that while 10% of rich people were self-made, they’d only represent 1% of the overall population, meaning it’d be roughly 100 times more likely for someone who wasn’t born wealthy to remain poor.

These are gross oversimplifications with numbers that are not based on fact, but it’s just a simple example to show that something can be possible in a system where certain people are disadvantaged and it doesn’t detract from the fact that systemic issues exist.

And how do you propose to create this organization and get countries to agree on its legitimacy?

I am offended by this.

It’s obviously z = boobs.