Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

no argument here, I'm just having a hard time putting it higher on the ol' genocideometer than 'these vermin are a plague risk and as such must be purged from our borders, by men on horseback with whips if necessary,' which I have been assured rather than genocide is just a Pragmatic Compromise To Get Things Done.

The problem is Russia has a long and storied history in is post-USSR engagements, especially under Putin, of conducting ethnic cleansing including brutality and murder. Serbia, Georgia, Chechnya, to name a few. This operation largely is not different in that regard and they've already done some outright sketchy poo poo like force refugees to only seek refuge in Russia, kidnapping people and disappearing others.

This is not a new song and dance in Ukraine.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

no argument here, I'm just having a hard time putting it higher on the ol' genocideometer than 'these vermin are a plague risk and as such must be purged from our borders, by men on horseback with whips if necessary,' which I have been assured rather than genocide is just a Pragmatic Compromise To Get Things Done.

See, I have a hard time believing the people who tell me that sanctions causing famine in Afghanistan are good and necessary but also they want to stop genocide around the world. I believe Russia is committing one. I believe America wants to attack Russia and protect Ukraine. I just don't believe that America wants to stop Russia in Ukraine because they want to stop all genocide. If you think the US is an ally because you think you both want to stop genocide you should investigate that and see if they're really an ally in that fight or if they're lying about motives to get the sympathy of good people.

Discendo Vox
Mar 21, 2013

We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

CommieGIR posted:

Not the thread to discuss Azov or Ukraine, thanks

For the love of god stop entertaining and facilitating the derail you said was supposed to stop.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
May 31, 2006
it raises a question that I genuinely don't know the answer to: is it, in fact, an attack on Ukranian identity to say Bandera was not a hero, but a monster?

there's a pat way to say yes, because it is a fact, he was one of the most prominent fighters for ukranian independence, and a pat way to say no, because his proud alliance with the Nazis is also a fact. is there a way to say he is not a figure to venerate that does not constitute erasing Ukranian culture?

thorny rear end question with a lot of unpleasant possible answers.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Discendo Vox posted:

For the love of god stop entertaining and facilitating the derail you said was supposed to stop.

Fair point. I stand corrected, lets try to get back on US CE.

CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 24, 2022

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

it raises a question that I genuinely don't know the answer to: is it, in fact, an attack on Ukranian identity to say Bandera was not a hero, but a monster?

there's a pat way to say yes, because it is a fact, he was one of the most prominent fighters for ukranian independence, and a pat way to say no, because his proud alliance with the Nazis is also a fact. is there a way to say he is not a figure to venerate that does not constitute erasing Ukranian culture?

thorny rear end question with a lot of unpleasant possible answers.

No, but saying that Ukrainian identity is fake and you are taking back your land from "Ukraine" and killing those who believe in the false consciousness definitely is.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
May 31, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

No, but saying that Ukrainian identity is fake and you are taking back your land from "Ukraine" and killing those who believe in the false consciousness definitely is.

sorry for the continuation, I'll gladly let it go after this, but this is one of those things that ABSOLUTELY needs clarification for fear of misinterpretation

That's a no to the first question I asked, and not the second, right

Dick Trauma
Nov 30, 2007

God damn it, you've got to be kind.
:burger::hf::rip::hf::patriot:

https://twitter.com/carolrosenberg/status/1507081975470956548?s=20&t=3y6nktXyKk3LEa0wNmymwA

punk rebel ecks
Dec 11, 2010

A shitty post? This calls for a dance of deduction.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Because when you are measuring outlays and payments and include transfers for education and health, then you are factoring in taxes and monetary transfers.

Very simplified example:

Two people make 50k.

Person A pays 10k in taxes and pays 3k for medical care.

That is a net negative of 13k from your gross income and Person A has 37k in disposable income.

Person B pays 20k in taxes and receives 5k in in-kind contributions for healthcare from the government.

That is a net negative of 15k from your gross income and Person B has 35k in disposable income.

You're also confusing self-reported survey data with actual data from bank accounts and expenditures.

The Canadian data is calculated by bank account info.

Going by bank account data for America, it is at best equal to that in Canada in terms of the amount of Americans that can afford emergency payments.

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster

punk rebel ecks posted:

The Canadian data is calculated by bank account info.

Going by bank account data for America, it is at best equal to that in Canada in terms of the amount of Americans that can afford emergency payments.

Digging into the PPP analysis, it looks like the biggest differences between the U.S. and E.U. are:

- The median U.K. (for a pretty close comparison to the U.S.) household only earns about 72% of the median U.S. household's gross income and the median E.U. household earns about half the median U.S. (some of the E.U. countries are pretty poor and drag down the ratio).

- The median U.S. household pays much less in taxes (the average E.U. personal income tax rate for the median citizen is about double the personal income tax rate in the U.S. and the E.U. has an average VAT/National Sales tax rate of 21%)

- Much more people in the U.S. live in rural or suburban areas with lower cost of living than the E.U. It is not uncommon for 16% to 20% of a nation's population to live in a single urban metro area with high cost of living in the E.U.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Mar 24, 2022

Oxyclean
Sep 23, 2007


https://twitter.com/vote4robgill/status/1506666976344784900?s=20&t=3NoAEoEDzzMTkc8LZQAGTg

First of all: Guillotine

Second: Seems really short-sighted. You can squeeze employees more, but with people having less disposable income, they're going to eat your second rate junk less.

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

Gumball Gumption posted:

Or the ones our allies currently commit or the ones we are currently committing unless choosing to restrict access to food to intentionally starve and kill a group of people is no longer considered a genocide.

Are you saying that sanctions on Russia are set up to intentionally starve and kill a group of people?

DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Mar 24, 2022

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Are you saying that sanctions on Russia are set up to intentionally starve and kill a group of people?

That's what broad sanctions do? If you tank a country's economy it's not oligarchs who go hungry

Pretty sure he meant Afghanistan though

e: he did

some plague rats fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 24, 2022

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Are you saying that sanctions on Russia are set up to intentionally starve and kill a group of people?

Afghanistan. Beats me if it's intentional or not but it's not a good thing if we're stumbling rear end backwards into a genocide.

Edit: mind you this is also after a long war that killed civilians and displaced people and was all in the bigger point that the US does not care about genocide and those who commit it and if they're telling you their motive is "We need to stop this genocide" they're lying to you. The US government wants to stop Russia, you personally want to stop Russia. If you want to stop them because they're committing genocide than the US government and you have the same goal but different motives.

Double edit: since this is D&D and I did say intentional and we're very particular about language here: I do not know if we're intentionally starving Afghanistan to commit a cold hearted racially based genocide. I do know that our sanctions are leading to starvation after years of killing civilians and destroying the country. If it's not a genocide than it's only because we were too disorganized to officially write a memo about how we needed to destroy Afghanistan and the Afghani people. The outcome looks the same.

Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Mar 24, 2022

A Meatslab
Apr 15, 2010

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:

sorry for the continuation, I'll gladly let it go after this, but this is one of those things that ABSOLUTELY needs clarification for fear of misinterpretation

That's a no to the first question I asked, and not the second, right

To add onto Leon's statement, speaking as a Ukrainian-born Jewish American (and speaking mostly for myself, not for Ukrainains as a whole): I don't think it's an outright attack on Ukrainian identity to declare Bandera a monster. I, for example, agree with that statement (anecdotal sample of one, but still!) Among Ukrainians, saying so will get you raised voices from the more blatantly nationalist folks, but also a healthy amount of full-throated agreement. At the very least people, especially those who don't give too much thought about politics/history, will have mixed feelings acknowledging the horrors he abetted in the name of Ukrainian independence. Too soft on Bandera, in my opinion, but there you go.

I risk speaking out of turn here (and I absolutely can stand to be better-read, so anyone feel free to correct me), but my feeling is that you'll likely find something similar when condemning controversial national figures in other groups e.g. Slobodan Milošević for Serbia, Genghis Khan for Mongolia, Hirohito for Japan, or even, say, Andrew Jackson here in America. It's an intra-cultural dialogue that, by all means can have input from third parties, especially from groups who were affected by these figures, I think.

In any culture with controversial (putting it lightly!!!) figures, you will have folks one one side condemning them for dishonoring their people with horrific acts in their name, and folks on the other side being full-on apologists caught up in a zero-sum "us-or-them" mentality. Plus, as always, you'll have folks who will (wrongfully or otherwise) have mixed/unexamined/uninformed feelings on the matter.

Ukrainian culture encompasses more than just its sovereign nation-state and its figures. Things like common language, common practices, common food, common history—it's an ever-evolving body—filled with virtues and vices, hypocrisies and idiosyncrasies, hopes and fears like any large cultural group. To use an example, I and my family, condemn Putin and the actions of his supporters, but refuse to condemn Russians and Russian culture as a whole. Those instances you see here in America of Russian-American business getting targeted for harassment, for example, are a disgusting outburst.

What's personally terrifying about the war in Ukraine is Putin's public rhetoric of wiping away Ukrainian identity outright as a geopolitical fluke (to say nothing of divergent languages, world outlooks, cultural practices, etc.) Bandera is a monster who carried out crimes in the name of a sovereign Ukraine, yes, but the infamous legacy of one man and his supporters shouldn't mean the eradication of an entire culture. Even if every Ukrainian in the world, regardless of political leaning, woke up tomorrow, jumped on social media, and typed a 500-word essay condemning Bandera, I have a distinct feeling it would not deter the current war one inch.

How can I and my family, as Ukrainians, make up for the horrors of the past and push for a brighter future for myself and others like me if I'm not around to do so? How can Ukraine push on and make inroads with other peoples in spite of its history, if it is not allowed to so? Why must I, or any other Ukrainian, renounce our background outright, if the figures being used to justify that renouncement are not intrinsic to our identities?

DeadlyMuffin
Jul 3, 2007

Gumball Gumption posted:

Afghanistan. Beats me if it's intentional or not but it's not a good thing if we're stumbling rear end backwards into a genocide.

You literally argued it's intentional.

some plague rats posted:

That's what broad sanctions do? If you tank a country's economy it's not oligarchs who go hungry

It strikes me as pretty wild to assume there's a mustache twirling conspiracy to starve people or commit genocide with sanctions when there's a far simpler explanation: it's a method to put pressure on governments doing something that the country imposing the sanctions doesn't like.

The civilian population being hurt is not the purpose, and I don't think is even desired except as it puts pressure on the government.

Painting it the way you have is like an apartheid apologist arguing that sanctions on South Africa were imposed to starve people.

Edit: maybe I'm splitting a hair here, but arguing that sanctions are imposed to intentionally kill people or commit genocide seems like an incredibly hyperbolic thing to say

DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 24, 2022

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Willa Rogers posted:

I meant liberals who say that single-payer will never ever happen bc those guys over there don't want people of color to get it, when liberals themselves are the emperors of means-testing and other gate-keeping that ends up hurting people of color. (See KFF charts above about who's impacted the most when it comes to medical costs.)

Historically it's true.

I'm not a liberal, but I am saying that single payer is hard to get passed because the white people over here(ie democrats and the liberals) also don't want people of color to get it.

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Oxyclean posted:

Second: Seems really short-sighted. You can squeeze employees more, but with people having less disposable income, they're going to eat your second rate junk less.

Executives only work short sighted. You're likely going to have moved in within 3 years so this quarter is all that matters.

some plague rats
Jun 5, 2012

by Fluffdaddy

DeadlyMuffin posted:

It strikes me as pretty wild to assume there's a mustache twirling conspiracy to starve people or commit genocide with sanctions people.

This would be a pretty wild assumption that no one apart from you seems to be making?

Sure, the point of sanctions is to put pressure on the government, but starving the people who actually live there is the inevitable effect and sanctions have been shown time and again to be completely ineffective at actually pressuring their leaders

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster

DeadlyMuffin posted:

You literally argued it's intentional.

It strikes me as pretty wild to assume there's a mustache twirling conspiracy to starve people or commit genocide with sanctions when there's a far simpler explanation: it's a method to put pressure on governments doing something that the country imposing the sanctions doesn't like.

The civilian population being hurt is not the purpose, and I don't think is even desired except as it puts pressure on the government.

Painting it the way you have is like an apartheid apologist arguing that sanctions on South Africa were imposed to starve people.

Edit: maybe I'm splitting a hair here, but arguing that sanctions are imposed to intentionally kill people or commit genocide seems like an incredibly hyperbolic thing to say

Sanctions have different purposes and target different things. Saying all sanctions target X is like saying all taxes hurt poor people.

Some sanctions the U.S. put on Iran in the 80's, early 2000's, and 2018 were absolutely specifically part of a regime change policy and designed to cause mass economic hardship.

So far, the U.S. has sanctioned 417 individuals, seized boats, prevented the Russian military bank from making currency trades with American accounts, prevented certain advanced targeting computers for missiles from being exported to Russia, and removed Russia from its "Most Favored Nation" trade agreement list that gave it preferential tariff and tax rates under a free trade deal.

None of those are going to cause mass starvation, mass economic pain, or regime change. They might go further and eventually implement sanctions that intend to do that, but they aren't as of now.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 24, 2022

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

DeadlyMuffin posted:

You literally argued it's intentional.

It strikes me as pretty wild to assume there's a mustache twirling conspiracy to starve people or commit genocide with sanctions when there's a far simpler explanation: it's a method to put pressure on governments doing something that the country imposing the sanctions doesn't like.

The civilian population being hurt is not the purpose, and I don't think is even desired except as it puts pressure on the government.

Painting it the way you have is like an apartheid apologist arguing that sanctions on South Africa were imposed to starve people.

Edit: maybe I'm splitting a hair here, but arguing that sanctions are imposed to intentionally kill people or commit genocide seems like an incredibly hyperbolic thing to say

I mean there was also the war. And Israel is an ally of the US and actively committing genocide. And at no point have you really touched on the argument these were in support of. So yeah, you're doing that technically correct splitting hairs thing. There is no mustache twirling conspiracy there is just a lot of genocide committed by every super power on this planet.

punk rebel ecks
Dec 11, 2010

A shitty post? This calls for a dance of deduction.
After doing more research disposable income is merely income minus current taxes.

This is what the ranking chart linked prior shows.

Discretionary income is what is measured when accounting for all payments and bills such as medical bills, mortgages, childcare, etc.

Wikipedia with Source posted:

Disposable income is total personal income minus current income taxes.In national accounts definitions, personal income minus personal current taxes equals disposable personal income.

Wikipedia with Source posted:

Discretionary income is disposable income (after-tax income), minus all payments that are necessary to meet current bills. It is total personal income after subtracting taxes and minimal survival expenses (such as food, medicine, rent or mortgage, utilities, insurance, transportation, property maintenance, child support, etc.) to maintain a certain standard of living.It is the amount of an individual’s income available for spending after the essentials have been taken care of:

Discretionary income = gross income – taxes – all compelled payments (bills)
Despite the definitions above, disposable income is often incorrectly used to denote discretionary income. For example, people commonly refer to disposable income as the amount of “play money” left to spend or save.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

^^^ lol, ofc.

Jaxyon posted:

Historically it's true.

I'm not a liberal, but I am saying that single payer is hard to get passed because the white people over here(ie democrats and the liberals) also don't want people of color to get it.

lol, no; it's because the "stakeholders" in the industries who would stand to lose have made their views (and correlating dollars) known, and because politicians & corporate media have echoed the industries' propaganda (including how those others will oppose it bc those other others will benefit by it).

Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Mar 24, 2022

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster
This may be Eric Adams' weirdest and dumbest move yet.

A vaccine mandate exemption for celebrities and athletes.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1507115038473166850

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Willa Rogers posted:

^^^ lol, ofc.

lol, no; it's because the "stakeholders" in the industries who would stand to lose have made their views (and correlating dollars) known, and because politicians & corporate media have echoed the industries' propaganda (including how those others will oppose it bc those other others will benefit by it).

It's both of those things. Never underestimate the racism of white people as part of US politics.

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

This may be Eric Adams' weirdest and dumbest move yet.

A vaccine mandate exemption for celebrities and athletes.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1507115038473166850

So at this point anti-vaxxers have pretty much won because the economy needs to be open again. It's so Kyrie Irving can play home games.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

This may be Eric Adams' weirdest and dumbest move yet.

A vaccine mandate exemption for celebrities and athletes.

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1507115038473166850

The Reuters story makes it seem as if police officers are the only ones left under a vaccine mandate in the city; is that correct?

Srice
Sep 11, 2011

some plague rats posted:

This would be a pretty wild assumption that no one apart from you seems to be making?

Sure, the point of sanctions is to put pressure on the government, but starving the people who actually live there is the inevitable effect and sanctions have been shown time and again to be completely ineffective at actually pressuring their leaders

In light of Madeleine Albright dying I think it's good to remember that in the past she fully acknowledged that sanctions on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands and said it was worth it.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

^^^ "We starved some folks."

Jaxyon posted:

It's both of those things. Never underestimate the racism of white people as part of US politics.

I'll try to not do that (nor have I done that). But as someone who has tracked healthcare in this country & its political trajectory over the last four decades I can emphatically state that one of these things is the greater (and greatest) cause of single-payer derailment.

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster

Willa Rogers posted:

The Reuters story makes it seem as if police officers are the only ones left under a vaccine mandate in the city; is that correct?

He ended the mandate for most public places, but it is still in effect for most private employers that have employees who interact in-person with the public. This exemption is for athletes and celebrities under the employment mandate.

quote:

Workers in New York City who perform in-person work or interact with the public in the course of business must show proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Businesses may not allow any unvaccinated workers to work at their workplace. A workplace is considered any location — including a vehicle — where you work in the presence of at least one other person.

Beginning December 27, 2021, workers must provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to a covered entity before entering the workplace, and a covered entity must exclude from the workplace any worker who has not provided such proof, except as provided in paragraph 5. 2. Covered entities shall verify workers’ proof of vaccination. Covered entities shall: a. maintain a copy of each worker’s proof of vaccination and, if applicable, a record of reasonable accommodation(s)

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccine-workplace-requirement.page

Jaxyon
Mar 7, 2016
I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Willa Rogers posted:

^^^ "We starved some folks."

I'll try to not do that (nor have I done that). But as someone who has tracked healthcare in this country & its political trajectory over the last four decades I can emphatically state that one of these things is the greater (and greatest) cause of single-payer derailment.

I never said you did, nor did I say that it was the greater of the two causes. Your earlier post made it sound like "ventriloquism" was completely unfounded, and I'm saying it's not.

It sounds as if we mostly agree.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

I thought I made it clear that when I was talking about liberals channeling conservatives that single-payer will never ever happen bc of those people I meant that liberals were hiding behind it as a (well-worn) cliche to not examine their own biases about who deserves free healthcare (currently, around $19k/max for medicaid & 65 years+ for medicare).

If not, consider it clarified & let's move on.

Cranappleberry
Jan 27, 2009

some plague rats posted:

This would be a pretty wild assumption that no one apart from you seems to be making?

Sure, the point of sanctions is to put pressure on the government, but starving the people who actually live there is the inevitable effect and sanctions have been shown time and again to be completely ineffective at actually pressuring their leaders

They could have gone directly after the banking to hurt the oligarchs and Putin as directly as possible.

Hunting down and freezing the funds. Maybe even seizing them. Ramping it up as a response to the invasion of Crimea.

My guess is this wasn't done because it could hurt the banks and businesses the oligarchs were invested in.

I am not saying this would not hurt the Russian people but it seems like the most direct option.

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster

Cranappleberry posted:

They could have gone directly after the banking to hurt the oligarchs and Putin as directly as possible.

Hunting down and freezing the funds. Maybe even seizing them. Ramping it up as a response to the invasion of Crimea.

My guess is this wasn't done because it could hurt the banks and businesses the oligarchs were invested in.

I am not saying this would not hurt the Russian people but it seems like the most direct option.

They did.

VTB bank and the Russian military accounts were the second thing they sanctioned.

Timeless Appeal
May 28, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

This may be Eric Adams' weirdest and dumbest move yet.
I disagree with it, but it's not that weird. Both the Mets and Yankees have big players who seem like they're clearly not vaxxed (Judge who's just a piece of poo poo and DeGrom who is probably a CHUD despite usually seeming like a decent guy). Both not playing home games would respectively tank the Mets and Yankees' seasons, and the Yankees are a tourist trap.

But yeah, it's very, very, very stupid. Similar to how you see airlines turning the screws on Biden, it really is the most stark example of the power of capital to decide policy.

Gumball Gumption
Jan 7, 2012

Srice posted:

In light of Madeleine Albright dying I think it's good to remember that in the past she fully acknowledged that sanctions on Iraq killed hundreds of thousands and said it was worth it.

I honestly think to the average American the difference really is that she said it was a hard choice but worth it. If she had said "gently caress them kids" we would know it was a genocide but we just can't see into her heart so we need to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Cranappleberry
Jan 27, 2009

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

They did.

VTB bank and the Russian military accounts were the second thing they sanctioned.

I mean all of it for all of them. In Western banks and threaten to not do business with banks in tax havens/where secret banking is done.

Rochallor
Apr 23, 2010

ふっっっっっっっっっっっっck

Timeless Appeal posted:

But yeah, it's very, very, very stupid. Similar to how you see airlines turning the screws on Biden, it really is the most stark example of the power of capital to decide policy.

Adams is so intensely devoted to business while at the same time being just a complete fuckin weirdo, there is no way this guy doesn't end up President and there's a good chance he's the one we abolish the 22nd Amendment for. President Adams windsurfing through the ruins of Miami to raise money for his VP's kidney operation.

Leon Trotsky 2012
Aug 27, 2009

YOU CAN TRUST ME!*


*Israeli Government-affiliated poster
Madeleine Albright's greatest achievement was indirectly creating K-Pop (Kosovo Pop).

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1507135328921993219

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Srice
Sep 11, 2011

Gumball Gumption posted:

I honestly think to the average American the difference really is that she said it was a hard choice but worth it. If she had said "gently caress them kids" we would know it was a genocide but we just can't see into her heart so we need to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah absolutely. A lot of people (and very importantly, a lot of the media) really buy into the narrative of tough people making tough decisions.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply