|
Yinlock posted:Eagerly awaiting yet another internal memo that has decided that the fault lies with the party going too far left and that it's time to get more racist to pick up the vital and very existing swing voters. It might not be as explicit "Those people aiming guns at black people were only protecting their homes! I'd do the same!" but more about funding the police. Police that will never vote for them or like them no matter how much money and protection they throw that way. Just ask Lori Lightfoot.
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:This would be a pretty wild assumption that no one apart from you seems to be making? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They did. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:I'm definitely worried about DeSantis. Going up against Disney for Getting Too Woke is total catnip for boomers, and he's good at throwing a bone to the alt-right just enough without totally debasing himself publicly. He's not quite shameless enough to go full Trump, but I'm not sure people want or need Full Trump anymore. He already got the ball rolling and I think DeSantis just might be able to run with it, saying just enough to imply he's Trump 2.0 without actually saying everything out loud. tangential but this reminded me of something- remember when companies and such threatened to pull out of NC en masse when there was anti-lgbtq+ legislation? That isn't happening in Florida or any other state that is passing such laws or implementing policy. Same with anti-choice/abortion laws. Disney still funds candidates that support and even sponsor the legislation in Florida.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Cynical take, but, they don't have to. The "corporate boycott" re: Russia is way more popular. Though it's fun to imagine the immediate and meteoric impact something like cutting off Apple Pay in Florida or Texas would make. It's more evidence that their "wokeness" is performative. They'll do whatever they think will get them more money. If that's being publicly silent as people are harmed, then that's what they'll do. If that's supporting politicians that are disgusting but give them tax breaks then that's what they'll do. Money talks in either direction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Ups_rail posted:Yes but disney funds all the candidates, so that way no mater whose in charge will "owe" them. Maybe, idk, at least threaten to pull the funding if the politicians are doing stuff that is objectively harmful to marginalized groups of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:The US healthcare system is second to none. but we can do better. when you see a medical provider they sensibly negotiate with the insurance company and you pay the difference. a firmly capitalist solution. Unfortunately, since it's unregulated the new companies have been taking advantage of customers. So I am introducing the Patient Payment Protection and Affordable Consumption Act. It aims to reign in unfair practices and to lower costs* for consumers across the board by using tax dollars to pay those companies to widen their risk pools and also create plans to be put on an exchange. Also you must purchase health insurance insurance now or face a tax penalty. *slightly lower the exponential rate at which costs are increasing. Now, some have said that drug companies are taking advantage of these new health insurance insurance companies attempting to fill the gap by raising the prices on drugs even more. What people need to understand is that the expense is so they can turn that money into research! It's a system that benefits everyone! Some have also said the fact that my portfolio contains a large amount of stock from certain drug companies means I can't be trusted to reign in costs! Nonsense! Drug companies employ many people and their profits will be used to pay those people and for their benefits (like health insurance and health insurance insurance). It's all part of what I like to call the Great Chain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2022 06:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Also, there is some kind of metaphor or ironic message in the fact that the U.S. Government is trying to get migrants looking for better economic conditions to take tens of thousands of free smartphones made by people who work at factories with suicide nets because they are much cheaper to buy than a GPS device, but I can't quite find a pithy way to phrase it. I mean yea but different parts of the world so it's not like they're the ones who made the phones that they are getting for free, to track their every movement, in the land of opportunity
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 15:32
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:But what if we gave more money to the police? What if we gave all the COVID money to them? Let's just give the entire city and state budget directly to police. Have them run all enforcement and government.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
Not as technical as what Discendo Vox pointed out (thank you to them for that)- I have massive issues with the FDA but many of it's problems do come from being horrifically underfunded and thus unable to regulate or enforce their mandate. They can be and are politically and legally hamstrung. Similar problems with the EPA. It's certainly not their only problems. For a broad example, moving things through the courts is slow and if you run into a judge who is politically against what they are trying to stop (or, worse, has buddies that get political donations from them or, yet worse, kickbacks) the issue has then been stalled, potentially stopped in it's tracks wasting resources and time. Or a politician or groups of politicians working against them because they are funded by those companies (like the supplement or MLM industries with a lot of politicians, specifically republicans). Or political appointees or the administration proper want it stopped or alters policy. The companies on the other side might have tons of resources and clout to maneuver, lobby and make things difficult. What is being done isn't technically illegal and congress or the administartion isn't gonna move on it. There are loopholes like with telecommunications and supplement law. It's sometimes incredibly difficult to prove direct harm or causation in court. A civil class action suit (not the FDA, I know) brought by people affected by the medications, supplements, pollution or whatever can bring evidence from scientists and doctors showing strong correlation between a substance produced or included by the companies and the harm done to them (those bringing suit) but not necessarily direct cause. And the scientists and doctors for the other side are there to poke endless holes and even play to the judge or jury (if even gets that far). Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 18, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Archonex posted:At this point I have to choose between getting a reverse osmosis water purification system and hoping it can handle the load such messed up water has or just switching over to drinking soda and alcohol like i'm in the middle ages to avoid the water as much as I can to avoid this crap. Switch to bottled water if it's not financially onerous for you. There are many natural and industrial/chemical pollutant issues that can require different filters, like with arsenic (organic vs. mineral). Also, gotta myth bust a bit. Some historians have argued alcohol was used as a replacement for polluted water but meh. Alcohol was arguably not a common replacement for water with bacterial or parasite pollutants in medieval times. Even weak alcoholic beverages are not nearly as effectively hydrating (though they can be calorically dense and have other nutrients, which was recognized as useful). People drank water from wells or the freely flowing, potentially polluted water or they boiled water if they thought it was harmful. They made teas or infusions for added flavoring and micronutrients. Also alcohol can be heavily diluted and still have antiseptic properties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:There's a reason why Walt Disney is part of the inspiration for Andrew Ryan, Mr House, and other morally dubious at best sci-fi megalomaniacs. (Hell, there's a Batman The Animated Series episode that's basically the whole drat plot of Bioshock years before Bioshock, plus the cryogenically frozen urban legend) Yeah Disney was quite fascist and an all-around weird, horrible guy. Batman TAS and Spiderman TAS ruled.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
Ups_rail posted:Also in a online world knowedgle/information is basically free. It's not. Disregarding internet access being a requirement, access to a lot of useful and necessary information is gated behind services that require payment. A lot is also gated behind access to certain physical libraries or archives, which may not require direct payment to access but requires putting in legwork (plus also maybe paying for copies to be made/sent and the person making/sending them). Furthermore, if you don't understand the information you're getting, what use is it to you? Discerning what information is useful, factual and etc in that context requires knowledge and training. It's a lot easier to learn a specific topic if knowledge is properly collated, presented and tested. Not-to-mention much of the hands-on stuff can be extremely difficult or unsafe to do on your own even with proper background reading and video showing technique, if not outright impossible for an individual.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I mean, I can't tell you if you don't want to hear certain things that dont' agree with what you have in your head. Let's be fair, they specified that their problem with it was that much of it went to companies instead of "average joes." Those companies then did stock buybacks and fired employees. Some companies posted record profits and the money went into the pockets of the wealthy. Caring about who gives them stuff (mostly material but also progress on social issues) and/or the perception of who gives them stuff is what matters for a lot of people in their decision-making process. But material gains (or the perception of them) is going to win out in many cases. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 00:13 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 00:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Unless you are counting giving people money to pay their rent/mortgage or buying vaccines, then $0 of the stimulus bill went directly to corporations. Jaxyon posted:If giving money to companies was inflationary, they'd have an issue with QE or the Trump tax cuts. Addressing the technicalities over the main thrust of their argument I am not saying don't correct the wrong info or be nice. My argument is not in support of what they are saying or whether it's correct, but about understanding it and then properly communicating to appropriately address the issue they bring up. Obviously people here read into it differently because they see RW talking points, zero in on them instantly and then go work to shut it down. The way I interpreted their argument (assuming their good faith) boiled down to that they need money/regular people like them need money, Trump did that for them, dems did not do enough, inflation was caused by giving money to corporations and social issues take a back seat. That's what I was thinking when I replied to Jaxyon's post. "Is what they said actually being addressed?"
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
The issue is that people DO perceive the police as helping stop or to prevent crime, though this is often not the case. It's also true that police become the ones running the crime rackets in some areas rather than individual or groups of officers taking a piece. The police quite often don't really answer to anyone but themselves and they lobby heavily to keep up the perception that they are necessary and what they do is necessary to hold society together, even when they cause far more harm than good. People don't tie the problems with police to serious systemic issues or they think some reform oversight will do the job, when in reality it's deeply rooted in the culture, the system and the wider justice system as a whole. Also, the fear of crime increasing is pumped up by the media, politicians and the police constantly. This drives people to want to feel safe and be okay with throwing ridiculous amounts of money to police, even as the apparatus largely abuses them or does nothing to really help them (like the security apparatus after 9/11)
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Turns out passing legislation isn't impossible after all and all those mandatory debate periods and committee hearings and stuff are fake and don't really hold anything up at all. One thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated is even the most minute accountability of those in power.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
There was massive public outcry and reaction to a police officer kneeling on someone's neck until that person died. A police officer outright murdered a dude and there were protests. It shook the system to it's foundations and led to lasting change.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 21:11
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I'd like to know the answer to this question too because right after that cop got convicted and thrown in prison we had the democratic leadership publicly saying "Well that issue is settled now and I hope we can put this whole thing behind us and look toward the future" instead of locking up all the other cops who have murdered innocent people in cold blood it was sarcasm in response to the idea that people would rise up and demand change and also back these demands with real force (not necessarily violence, which I am not advocating). Also, it's not just politicians that thought this way. Chauvin getting convicted was confirmation to many that the system works. There are absolutely ways to go about changing things but the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people are too afraid of losing what little they have to do anything more than performative tourism. And to be completely fair to them, if they did do more, their lives could absolutely be ruined by it.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Turns out companies that have a monopoly on infrastructure is not good. I remember when a town became it's own ISP and paid for their own infrastructure because they decided fast internet should not only be a utility, but a government-provided service. The ISPs didn't like that and lobbied to have stopped. https://www.yahoo.com/now/n-c-residents-still-fight-195327884.html
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The new MAGA vote was not an untapped pool of strongly anti-choice non-voters. If you care a lot about abortion, you have been voting reliably. This was also true about Brexit but I don't know if Trump voters were as explicitly targeted (though that may have changed in 2020). BRJurgis posted:Yeah this is a wild post. The people of Jan 6th wanted Trump to stay president, whereas many people here advocating for action beyond electoralism are concerned about justice & equality, human rights, the turbo-hosed climate. Hell I wish we had more people willing to go get beaten, arrested, and shot, alongside of course the popular support to make it effective. I don't understand why people keep saying it has to be violent. Protesting judges with the intent to alter their judicial decisions is a federal crime (lol) but bird-dogging politicians is good and is a small consequence in the grand scheme of things for them yet even that has become intolerable to them. Local organizing and coordination to do stuff like figure out daycare or how everyone is going to get fed or their bills paid during a strike is important, too. Organizing for that stuff does not need to be coordinated nationally. It also doesn't require political help, and lol that there would be any. It doesn't even require unions, though they'd help. If this was done and there was a national-level strike for one of several professions (like teachers or nurses but also others), just one, it would bring the country to it's knees without actually having to go all in on a general strike, which is way harder to accomplish. Even a regional-level strike would be a serious threat to the powers that be in a lot of places. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 14:06 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
Oracle posted:George Bush, Sr. was known as 'Rubbers George' when he served in the U.S. House for his advocating for family planning, namely condom use. He was a NorthEast rock-ribbed Rockefeller Republican. a lot of stuff happened during those decades that changed the political landscape and led directly or indirectly to polarization we see today- the rise of the religious right, corporate and foreign lobbying began to scale up to a point never before imagined, ditto with astroturfing political "movements" and the death of the Fairness Doctrine to name a few.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This is the completely wrong approach. Every year people age into being politically active, and when the old guard is actively hostile to them and new ideas on how to do things it only fractures the potential size of the movement. Telling an 18-year-old to learn the ways of the past and how they have failed is useful, but only to a point. A large issue is that in many places there is no institutional support from democrats or otherwise. Without support in hostile places, groups quickly dry up and for good reason. People who can leave do leave such areas. Often as new groups form and reform, they reinvent the wheel because there is no knowledge-base, cross-region or cross-movement support, either (there are exceptions to this) The other issue is that in a lot of hostile places, there is a direct threat of physical and other harm to anyone who wants to participate. This threat comes from a powerful, militarized police, from other government security forces, from hired corporate security, from counter-protesting groups and just from the state in general (hey now they have another way to threaten to take away your kids or if you are a kid, to hunt you down). It's always been this way to a degree, but a technological panopticon has allowed for would-be participants to be found easily and targeted anywhere. The idea of even a perfect, peaceful protest or strike that could lead to economic harm or violence has always made people iffy, especially if they are terrified of losing what little they do have. Now, they will try to find you anywhere. That's scary to a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:That is not research. That's just a dude telling a story. stop peddling woo. I'm adding context and information. I'm not arguing with anyone in particular. To relate your thing about young people wanting to join up, I guess, is that often people do not know poo poo about organizing, but are enthusiastic and want to get involved. If there is no one to teach them or they are unwilling to learn, it leads to re-inventing the wheel. This wastes time and other resources when there are sometimes "best" practices. Other times there are multiple ways to do things but not enough bodies to take every course of action. That can lead to conflict. This is to say nothing of maturity issues or personality conflicts or burn out. Or security issues inexperience creates. In the cases where there are more experienced people who want to offer cross-regional or cross-movement support that come in, locals and young people specifically are afraid to do more because their safety and future is in direct danger. That makes it hard to keep those movements alive in places where they are needed most. More support would mean more security which would mean more people remain.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I do worry that we discourage people from doing the right thing by making judgments on them or berating them for their past choices, but the points on operational necessity are well taken. it does seem like having to build "cred" in order to participate is a burden to building a populist movement where the barrier to entry should be minimal. there is something to be said about this- which is that many people who join are likely to drop out, for a variety of reasons. It may mean they weren't serious or they don't like what the group is doing or don't feel like they are being used appropriately or they feel like the group is just spinning wheels or they didn't really have the time/energy to do more or or or. It is important that they build their credibility with a particular group even if it's just showing up, putting in time and letting people get to know them. Too often there will there be a huge influx because something was a big hit in the news, only for it to dwindle to almost no one new. on this forum there is very little organizing being done and I do not expect there to be. So it's not like I'm here to criticize SA posters for not doing enough, which sometimes people interpret me as saying. Rather, it's just that there are probably options available to do something, even if it's just local charitable work.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I challenged someone before to provide evidence that the left isn't the most docile dissenting bloc in US politics that falls in line more than any other to crickets, so now I challenge you. Prove it. I maintain that the left's idiotic loyalty is exactly the reason why the only thing they're served at the kiddie table is plates of poo poo. Also who says that leftists are not doing things to help even if they aren't voting or aren't voting for democrats? Making a difference directly in people's lives through local activism or just local charity... works. Voting for, donating to and volunteering for a massive political machine OR a weak local democratic office/campaign with no institutional support doesn't do more to help, and the proof of that is what's been happening since after the democrats got into office after 2020. It just makes people feel like they're a part of that machine for good or for ill, or that they'll never win, respectively. It doesn't give them any power over it. To get power over it, they have to be part of a strong local and then state democratic party apparatus and work their way up, often through connections and power brokerage. How many people are donating to abortion providers and groups? Rather than, say, the democratic party? How many are volunteering to transport women to get healthcare? How many will continue or will bother to start when it becomes a felony? Even if it's not a felony in the state they are in? How many are even aware of the difference between clinics and Crisis Pregnancy Centers? Do the know the right places to go in their area? Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 11:44 on May 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 11:21
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Does it? I'm not seeing much results. It works on helping people, sure, but is there any political return? the point is not political return but to help people. Individuals make far more a difference for themselves and in other people's lives by doing this compared to lending their time, effort, money to a system that could care less about their wishes.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 14:02
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:As someone that has been working for a nonprofit for the last year, it works a lot better when the federal government is also part of the process. getting tired of being taken out of context: I was responding to someone who said internet leftists were easily discouraged from doing anything when the reality is voting and volunteering for campaigns are not the only things and also they do not help that individual make a difference on policy or in people's lives. More specifically, about the abortion issue but bodily autonomy a bit more generally, as well. When it comes to making a real difference in your own life and the lives of other individuals, the best thing for most people to do is volunteer for something local, and, no, it's not just charities but they might be the only thing available because leftist or lgbtq+ orgs may not be operating in that area for a variety of reasons. More generally, I have posted about the following I think 3 times now? One of the reasons local political organizations die is because they lack institutional support from any national or regional apparatus or political party. Compare this to the right-wing which is funded, astroturfed and has volunteers ready to go everywhere. The democratic party is out of touch with grass roots efforts and out of touch with most voters in general. They have let movements wither on the vine and die because, compared to soliciting donations about issues that they never seek to solve, it's not a money-maker or power-getter (in their minds) and if you don't vote for them or donate then the other guys might win and they're worse. It also allows people who are not part of their party apparatus to potentially gain power and authority. And to say they don't work without some sort of endowment... that often turns charity into or is a type of white-washing or turn it into a business with people making ridiculous salaries and having high-class dinners in the name of "charity." Not always, but it does. There is plenty of community support that definitely does need help but does not rely on that level of support or even government support or else is constantly, constantly competing for what little help they can get. Furthermore, many local charities and political orgs lack government support, often because they lack political support for the aforementioned reason but also because there aren't enough dollars to go around, which is really surprising for a number of reasons (like how much money is spent not feeding and clothing people) but also, to return to the topic my post was actually about, because governments fund... Crisis Pregnancy Centers. As a places where people can go to get help (which they have to jump through many hoops to get, if any at all is available, such as diapers). The CDC website lists them as resources! If the government were doing it's job then most local charity stuff wouldn't be needed (though it likely always will be). If the government actually protected civil rights on every level, then this wouldn't be such a huge issue. But it doesn't. It actually does stuff that actively works to harm people. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 14, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Good Israel is one of those issues that many politicians either are in support of (sending money, weapons, protecting their apartheid state and crimes against humanity) or tiptoe around because of the money and being labelled, but also because they think voters care. In reality, most voters do not care about Israel and if they do, it's not anywhere near one of their top priorities. Israel may also have an outsized influence in online spaces like comment sections and twitter, but that isn't representative of how voters feel.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Is this the same government whose agents were black bagging protestors a few years ago? Who have vast computerized networks collecting data on just about every person? Whose highest courts have whittled down the rights of those harmed by the police and indeed are poised to remove a right altogether? Whose constituent governments are passing laws to remove the rights of an entire gender and also criminalize healthcare? And whose constituent governments are giving themselves power to override elections?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Oh, wait, it's the government that says money is speech and corporations are people, allowing for infinite funding to flow through the political landscape and also limiting liability to the point where it's impossible to actually hit the people who made the decisions, nevermind almost impossible to get a corporation to pay for malfeasance. It's the one that favors healthy corporations and the words of corporate lobbyists over the needs of it's own people. The one that says it's not bribery unless there is quid pro quo tantamount to saying "I accept this bribe in exchange for..." It's definitely authoritarian, it's just controlled by a different group of people than traditionally expected.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This seems like a very superficial understanding of American democracy. Money doesn't outweigh votes, money buys votes, and often at a very cheap rate. What money usually outweighs is public opinion, because widespread public frustration isn't nearly as effective at getting people to the voting booth as advertising is. Votes are always the object of the game. Well, no. Money buys politicians. After they have been elected so it supersedes votes. If a company or conglomerate or sector says to a politician, before or after they are elected, "hey we'll offer you a million-a-year do-nothing job plus stock options after you retire from congress" plus you already get excellent healthcare, that is a huge incentive to vote for their position while you're in congress. Let's say you've made enough "friends" and they offer that to your relatives, too. Your failsons and faildaughters. Let's say these companies or groups are part of the machine that makes party politics in your area or state or nationally go. There is literally no escaping them if you hope to succeed in the party (this is what happened to AOC). Sure you have to get votes to be elected but in a 2, 4, or 6 year span you can give them immense handouts in exchange for being taken care of and also mindfuck yourself into not believing it really hurts anyone or that it's for the benefit of all your constituents. Or let's say they contributed to your campaign via PAC or Super PAC far in excess of what individual voters can do to "buy" votes. Even if you lose that's huge graft potential for everyone involved. It also means that you have a clear, massive advantage. Cranappleberry fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I think there are two ways money influences politicians: who cares if they lose if they get what they want, the party gets what it wants and things keep rolling as normal (see my edits)? Also, you're blaming the voters subject to a massive psy-ops, with little individual impact that can only do so much to educate themselves on or avoid. They are voting as individuals. They are not, generally, part of the machine. Often they are taken for granted as such. This is particularly true in state-wide elections. Even though a ton of democratic, third party, disenfranchised, nonvoters and etc exist in red states, they remain unheard except in local enclaves, often without party support. In presidential elections, it means the focus is on bombarding a few "swing" states (actually a few key voters in those states) with propaganda and attention even though little is actually going to be done to help them. There the money, especially from corporations looking to get tax breaks or subsidies or are employing local people is felt all-the-more.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2022 18:47
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:t's tempting to believe there's no where else to go but up so any uptick will be seen as progress. there might be an uptick in the stock market because it is divorced from reality. But things can get way worse. We can sink way lower.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2022 16:05
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:I honestly think at this point there is nothing to be said but assume americans actually approve and support such shootings. Americans don't. Almost all americans support greater gun control (including most gun owners) and can even get specific about what. It's politicians and monied interests that don't want it. Failed Imagineer posted:Buybacks, and general attrition due to lack of availability. To respond to this, and all the people talking about it on this page- there are individuals and groups wayyyy too into gun culture to ever turn over their guns and indeed some of them find ways to manufacture weaponry- there are kits and guides on the internet, disseminated for good and bad reasons. They find ways to modify weaponry to skirt laws or else make it into something more deadly just to prove they can. Moreover, there are groups that will use this to justify more anti-government sentiment and more acts of violence. Whether you consider that the last gasp of a dying movement or a declaration of war depends on your perspective, I guess. The most comprehensive gun control in the country, which exists in NY, has utterly failed. Part of that is the way the law was written but a big part of that reason is the lack of enforcement. You have to get cops to actually enforce the bans, which they don't want to do even if a crime is committed and they find illegal guns. It does happen but not nearly often enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Not to be dismissive of anti-gun arguments but 1. Leftists movements in the US have successfully used the display of weaponry AS WELL AS OTHER TACTICS, to fend off cops* and 2. While individual or even multiple groups "rebelling" against the US can be easily crushed, the USG is loathe to act do so (unless they are left-wing and thus demonized in the media). 3. A more widespread rebellion, especially a long-term one, would strain local and federal authorities' resources even with military support (which likely would not happen or would break down faster than you think). That's not even with local authorities or portions of the rank-and-file of the military refusing to act or even joining in. Think of the national guard deployed on the border in Texas. Think of anti-abortion terrorist groups continuing to be allowed exist, function and act. Think of how feckless the civilian governments and authorities are reacting to such violence, stochastic or otherwise. Think of how such violence is often mislabelled as lone-wolf or as leftist/anarchist. *until the feds get involved and leaders start being outright assassinated with the help of local authorities a la Fred Hampton. This is not even getting into how much easier it is to make and disperse wrqponry these days and even the most stringent laws can be circumvented amd remain largely unenforced by authorities, local and otherwise. Think of how bad the ATF is at it's job.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 19:36
|
|
|
Getting a bit ranty but I forgot to mention that governments, local authorities, the media and usually white suburban middle to upper class individuals being far more concerned with gangs that do not impact their lives, vaguely left protestors and "antifa." Most antifa are actually just regular local people who want to stop far-right groups from attacking people in and destroying their neighborhoods. They realize the cops often don't help and need to protect their identities because they WILL be targetted. But drat they are a scary bugaboo used to equivocate and scare people. A good gun law would be federally preventing the gun show loophole and actually enforcing the straw purchase rules. That would help with "gang violence" and certain actors from obtaining guns but lol
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:It's difficult to have this rooted in history because the current US police state can apply deadly force with far greater ease and precision than any example history can provide. I say again, the Feds, working with local law enforcement assassinated Fred Hampton. On american soil. They bragged about it. MLK jr's real killers were never brought to justice. And when cumulative evidence showing it wasn't the guy originally who confessed was brought in a civil trial the media called it a cash grab by the King family.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 03:37
|
|
|
Leftist and marginalized group gun ownership often comes with the entirely realistic understanding that, largely, gun laws will not change. That even strict laws can be circumvented more easily than ever and are unlikely to be enforced to a significant degree (against white people). Let's see if the government actually does something and backs it up with enforcement. Then let's see who actually gets targeted. Those saying "it would prevent deaths/guns from falling into the wrong hands" ignore the fact that there is safe use and storage of guns and, because leftists and marginalized groups are often persecuted for having weapons, they often follow the law to a T (and sometimes cops kill them for it). Also, these are not the people doing straw purchases. The worst that can be said is that they are creating demand, but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism and also, look at who they need protection from, what they need protection from, where it's happening and why they feel they need protection, now or in the future. The full context.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:read up on the Black Hundreds some time. the name sounds like something out of Warhammer 40k, and their deeds live up to the name. Laventiy Beria was a monster without compare in the modern imagination, and he was a step up from the people who came before him Beria was so notorious that when Stalin's daughter, Svetlana, was alone in the dacha when Beria came over that Stalin told her to "get out of the house!" over the phone.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2022 01:10
|
|