USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Uglycat posted:

I'm watching Colbert with a traveling nurse and an octogenarian and we suddenly arrived upon the realization - all three of us - that we see Taylor Swift in our feed at least twice as much as we see Donald Trump.

So I logged on to announce that here.

I'm sorry. Happy new thread!

Yeah it�s a huge truly insane mistake for the right to go nuts on Swift and the NFL.

It might end up being their �Have you no sense decency, Sir?� moment. GOP politics is now incels tweeting about a pop stars mons pubis being gay.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2024 03:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 09:37

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

DV,

It�s not FDA but what I saw at USDA FGIS was a progression from full time folks to contracted part time managed by full time. Then the full time folks retired and took consulting jobs advising how-to pass the inspections done by the remaining part time staff.

WSDA did better and kept the traditional staffing model.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2024 03:51

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

B B posted:

Pretty ominous.

You seen the new Quinnipiac poll

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 08:30

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Google Jeb Bush posted:

dumber capital is also desperate to find any explanation that isn't "if people have a bit more time and financial support they can get better, more fulfilling jobs", so while I can't imagine they'd be excited about the mass murder hypothesis, it's at least a side effect of preventing the real threat

Dumber capital broke trust.

If one worked on the low end, say retail, there was a clear come to work and risk your life for, nothing. Implied threats to gently caress employees that quit over to get the unemployment denied. Forcing folks on enhanced unemployment they laid off back by reporting them for denying their old job.

The message was my business is more important than your life.

This is in a larger context of gently caress you, you are on your own that parents and really anybody with difficulties or disabilities or that was V on the margins that needed social support felt during the pandemic.

�Because loneliness was never the core problem. It was, rather, the sense among so many different people that they�d been left to navigate the crisis on their own. How do you balance all the competing demands of health, money, sanity? Where do you get tests, masks, medicine? How do you go to work � or even work from home � when your kids can�t go to school?

The answer was always the same: Figure it out. Stimulus checks and small-business loans helped. But while other countries built trust and solidarity, America � both during and after 2020 � left millions to fend for themselves.�

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/opinion/covid-2020-recovery-society.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

The real threat is that folks were failed by society. The expanded unemployment made it clear they didn�t have to be. It made the prepandemic failures of the status quo no longer forgivable.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2024 07:56

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Google Jeb Bush posted:

oh yeah im not saying the social implications weren't seismic, I'm just saying covid deaths aren't the driving force behind labor shortages and never particularly were

It�s broken down by age. And below 65 it�s like 300000 ish for the official count. It be interesting to know what percentage of the 65 to 75 demo were still working.

But yeah I also think it was the other social changes. Even being aggressive and starting to count unofficial excess deaths, and being squishy with the 65-74 being potentially workers it be hard to get above 500,000.

Seeing that working age people died is probably a bigger effect than the working age death itself.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2024 08:14

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

The Donald the Dove talk reappears only for Trump to:

�Former President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would encourage Russia to do �whatever the hell they want� to any NATO member country that doesn�t meet spending guidelines on defense in a stunning admission he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if reelected.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

# ¿ Feb 11, 2024 07:57

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Majorian posted:

It's just a question of, "Is he more evil than Biden on this very fraught, life-or-death-for-millions-of-people issue, and if so, by how much, in material terms?"

I think the essence of this question comes down to another set of related questions. Is fascism worse than conservatism (GOP before trump) and is fascism worse than bourgeoisie liberal democracy eroded from social democracy.

There are a range of responses in general here that fall into a couple of categories:

1. No it�s all fascism and has always been. It�s it�s the same picture.

2. The GOP was always fascist, the Dems were not and while terrible are preferable.

3. Only Trumpism is fascist. The Dems are preferable but still terrible.

The conflict is between 1 and 2/3. What can be done about it is determinable from those different categories. 1. Leads to revolutionary conclusions, 2/3 don�t have to. The thing is what can be done about it should also be informed by good class analysis. Even a quick look at American society makes it obvious we only have right revolutionary potential here. So 1) ends up materially benefiting a right revolutionary movement.

The way out of this is for folks in 2/3 to recognize that power has to be met with power, that those actions must be informed by good current and realistic class analysis.

This case can be made to democrats because they have already internalized the ideas and concepts that this conclusion can be reached from. This is concepts from the foundations of the civil rights movement. This can be said in both religious terms and in secular critical terms.

# ¿ Feb 12, 2024 00:50

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Baronash posted:

It shouldn't be a worse bet financially to be married than be single/unmarried. That I can agree with. The rest is really frustrating because it seems to be a bit of a shell game where he touts the benefits of marriage on children while actually referring to (at various points) two-parent households, lower vs. higher incomes, education, and general life/economic stability. These things generally seem to be present in stable marriages, but that doesn't mean that the institution itself was the cause of it. Honestly, how does someone throw this in their article and not realize they've given the game away:

Turns out that ~~getting educated, working a job, and then hopping on the DINK life for a while before having kids~~marriage is the silver bullet y'all!

Yeah he (and conservatives) have got it backwards. Higher incomes, education, and general life/economic stability cause more marriages, marriages do not cause higher incomes.

The root of all this is virtue economics which is garbage and has the same problem.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2024 18:35

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

It's a rich neighborhood in Long Island with a lot of orthodox Jews.

And a good number of Iranians and other middle eastern Muslims. All the way out on the end is the Kings Point neighborhood. That�s where the Great Gatsby takes place. The old Chrysler mansion is located on the merchant marine academy campus.

It�s not merely rich. It�s old money New York / wealthy Jewish / wealthy Middle Eastern rich. It�s one of the richest places on the planet.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2024 22:53

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

FlamingLiberal posted:

Oh is that where those Iranians who long for the return of the Shah hang out

Yes, but it�s their kids and grandkids now.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 00:12

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

A lot more of the wfh movement was within regions. Interstate was a smaller portion than in region, it�s just more visible to folks.

The in region wfh moves aren�t going to move back, if back is hybrid and most bto seems to be hybrid.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 02:55

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

zoux posted:

He's going to wring every cent out of the RNC coffers once Lara is made co-chair.

It�s amazing to me that they�re all (the GOP) just going to watch too.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2024 21:57

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

celadon posted:

If Biden was voluntarily stepping down for health issues the entire political climate would shift and the polling would reflect that.

This would not change how people feel about Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris. I doubt either would win an open primary.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2024 23:52

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Dull Fork posted:

What makes you think that about Newsom? I am not as familiar with the guy, is it just the california stink that you think would drag him down nationally? Or does he have a nasty side to compliment his used car salesman looks?

He�s unctuous. He was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle for five years. His behavior during covid.

There�s no hint of substance, inspiration, or transformational leadership in the man.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 00:16

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Sure but "transformational energy" got us 8 years of Obama who was perhaps the least transformational President of my lifetime.

It wins elections though.

I don�t see Newsom winning a primary or a general.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 00:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Biden and Clinton: famously promising to transform society

Yes Clinton did promise that. One of the things he ran on was universal healthcare. They put Hillary in charge. It got stomped pretty hard. That�s where the demonization of Hillary started and the reaction brought in the whole contract with America Gingrich stuff.

I mean most of us were around ten so, it not like one should remember.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 04:06

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Killer robot posted:

It didn't really start then. Even before she was brought in to deal with it the right was horrified that she was an equal partner in their marriage, was given a share of the credit in his political success beyond the traditional the "behind every good man" wife cliche, and a professional who didn't immediately change her last name and become a homemaker. But it sure kicked it up for exactly the same reason. That's the root cause of the endless hammering of "arrogance" for someone showing an absolute typical amount of ambition for senators, white house insiders, and major presidential candidates. Any younger Gen-Xer or older millennial grew up baked in that whether from conservative relatives, jokes on TV, or friends at school parroting both of those; but when you're young it's easy to not think about it.

Admittedly, a lot of the Hillary panic was, as I said before, over transformative vibes. Nancy Reagan had at least a much actual power in the White House as Hillary Clinton, but she was happy to present as the smiling wife rather than as the equal partner and that was the important thing.

Yeah this is more accurate than my memory.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 05:26

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Apologies: in my last post I meant Hillary not Bill.

Against both Obama and Sanders she ran as a Reasonable Centrist trying to temper the radicalism of The Left. That she lost in 08 then won in 16 kind of undermines the idea that being perceived as transformational is a predictor of success in elections.

Bill was perceived as transformational in 92. By 08 Hillary was perceived as the establishment dem and Obama was perceived as transformational.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 07:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

FLIPADELPHIA posted:

Sanders is probably the most transformational candidate (in terms of campaign) we've had in modern US politics and he's lost badly twice in a row.

Socialism was a bad bad word to most of the electorate. He did extremely well with that considered.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 08:00

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

So let�s say the invitro takes and there are extra embryos. Are Alabama fertility clinics expected to just store them forever?

# ¿ Feb 19, 2024 21:54

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Bird in a Blender posted:

Wouldn�t a miscarriage fall under this? Can someone get sued for having a miscarriage?

A woman in OH was prosecuted (then a grand jury dismissed the charges) for a non viable pregnancy that was a miscarriage. This is about the worst thing you�ll ever read so I�m spoilering it.Hospital declared the fetus nonviable, then they kept her two days in the hospital without inducing. She went home, miscarried and then back to the hospital for after care. Hospital reported the miscarriage to the police, police went to the house to smash up her toilet to get the fetus and charged her with a felony.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brittany-watts-the-ohio-woman-charged-with-a-felony-after-a-miscarriage-talks-shock-of-her-arrest/

Came up in the thread when it made the news.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2024 22:54

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I posted this in another thread but it�s relevant here too.

The Times ran an OpEd on part time work that�s very much worth a read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/opinion/part-time-workers-usa.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

NYTs posted:

Back in 2018, with an eye to writing a novel about low-wage work in America, I got a job at a big-box store near the Catskills in New York, where I live. I was on the team that unloaded the truck of new merchandise each day at 4 a.m.

We were supposed to empty the truck in under an hour. Given how little we made � I was paid $12.25 an hour, which I was told was the standard starting pay � I was surprised how much my co-workers cared about making the unload time. They took a kind of bitter pride in their efficiency, and it rubbed off on me. I dreaded making a mistake that would slow us down as we worked together to get 1,500 to 2,500 boxes off the truck and sorted onto pallets each morning. When the last box rolled out of the truck, we would spread out in groups of two or three for the rest of our four-hour shift and shelve the items from the boxes we just unloaded.

Most of my co-workers had been at the store for years, but almost all of them were, like me, part time. This meant that the store had no obligation to give us a stable number of hours or to adhere to a weekly minimum. Some weeks we�d be scheduled for as little as a single four-hour shift; other weeks we�d be asked to do overnights and work as many as 39 hours (never 40, presumably because the company didn�t want to come anywhere close to having to pay overtime).

The unpredictability of the hours made life difficult for my co-workers � as much as if not more than the low pay did. On receiving a paycheck for a good week�s work, when they�d worked 39 hours, should they use the money to pay down debt? Or should they hold on to it in case the following week they were scheduled for only four hours and didn�t have enough for food?

Many of my co-workers didn�t have cars; with such unstable pay, they couldn�t secure auto loans. Nor could they count on holding on to the health insurance that part-time workers could receive if they met a minimum threshold of hours per week. While I was at the store, one co-worker lost his health insurance because he didn�t meet the threshold � but not because the store didn�t have the work. Even as his requests for more hours were denied, the store continued to hire additional part-time and seasonal workers.

Most frustrating of all, my co-workers struggled to supplement their income elsewhere, because the unstable hours made it hard to work a second job. If we wanted more hours, we were advised to increase our availability. Problem is, it�s difficult to work a second job when you�re trying to keep yourself as free as possible for your first job.

No wonder my co-workers cared so much about the unload time: For those 60 minutes, they could set aside such worries and focus on a single goal, one that may have been arbitrary but was largely within our shared control and made life feel, briefly, like a game that was winnable.

Many people choose to work part time for better work-life balance or to attend school or to care for children or other family members. But many don�t. In recent years, part-time work has become the default at many large chain employers, an involuntary status imposed on large numbers of their lowest-level employees. As of December, almost four and a half million American workers reported working part time but said they would prefer full-time jobs.

When I started working at the store, I assumed that the reason part-time work was less desirable than full-time work was that by definition, it meant less money and fewer or no benefits. What I didn�t understand was that part-time work today also has a particular predatory logic, shifting economic risk from employers to employees. And because part-time work has become ubiquitous in certain predominantly low-wage sectors of the economy, many workers are unable to find full-time alternatives. They end up trapped in jobs that don�t pay enough to live on and aren�t predictable enough to plan a life around.

There are several reasons employers have come to prefer part-time workers. For one thing, they�re cheaper: By employing two or more employees to work shorter hours, an employer can avoid paying for the benefits it would owe if it assigned all the hours to a single employee.

But another, newer advantage for employers is flexibility. Technology now enables businesses to track customer flow to the minute and schedule just enough employees to handle the anticipated workload. Because part-time workers aren�t guaranteed a minimum number of hours, employers can cut their hours if they don�t anticipate having enough business to keep them busy. If business picks up unexpectedly, employers have a large reserve of part-time workers desperate for more hours who can be called in on short notice.

Part-time work can also be a means of control. Because employers have total discretion over hours, they can use reduced schedules to punish employees who complain or seem likely to unionize � even though workers can�t legally be fired for union-related activity � while more pliant workers are rewarded with better schedules.

In 2005 a revealing memo written by M. Susan Chambers, then Walmart�s executive vice president for benefits, who was working with the consulting firm McKinsey, was obtained by The New York Times. In it she articulated plans to hire more part-time workers as a way of cutting costs. At the time, only around 20 percent of Walmart�s employees were part time. The following year, The Times reported that Walmart executives had told Wall Street analysts that they had a specific target: to double the company�s share of part-time workers, to 40 percent. Walmart denied that it had set such a goal, but in the years since, it has exceeded that mark.

It�s not just Walmart. Target, TJX Companies, Kohl�s and Starbucks all describe their median employee, based primarily on salary and role, as a part-time worker. Many jobs that were once decent � they didn�t make workers rich, but they were adequate � have quietly morphed into something unsustainable.

One of the most surprising aspects of this movement toward part-time work is how few white-collar people, including economists and policy analysts, have seemed to notice or appreciate it. So entrenched is the assumption that full-time work is on offer for most people who want it that even some Bureau of Labor Statistics data calculate annual earnings in various sectors by taking the hourly wage reported by participating employers and multiplying it by 2,080, the number of hours you�d work if you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. Never mind that in the real world few workers in certain sectors are given the option of working full time.

The problem is that most Walmart employees don�t make $36,400, the annualized equivalent of $17.50 an hour at 40 hours a week. Last year, the median Walmart worker made 25 percent less than that, $27,326 � equivalent to an average of 30 hours a week. And that�s the median; many Walmart workers worked less than that.

Likewise, at Target, where pay starts at $15 an hour, the median employee makes not $31,200, the annualized full-time equivalent, but $25,993. The median employee of TJX (owner of such stores as TJ Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods) makes $13,884 a year; the median Kohl�s employee makes $12,819.

Those numbers, though low, are nevertheless higher than median pay at Starbucks, a company known for its generous benefits. To be eligible for those benefits, however, an employee must work at least 20 hours a week. At $15 an hour � the rate Starbucks said it was raising barista pay to in 2022 � 20 hours a week would amount to $15,600 a year. But in 2022 the median Starbucks worker made $12,254 a year, which is lower than the federal poverty level for a single person.

And this is after the post-Covid labor shortage, when pay for low-wage workers rose faster than it did for people in higher income brackets.

The shift to part-time workers means that focusing exclusively on hourly pay can be misleading. Walmart, for example, paid frontline hourly employees an average of $17.50 as of last month and recently announced plans to raise that to more than $18 an hour. Given that just a few years ago, progressives were animated by the Fight for $15 movement, these numbers can seem encouraging. The Bloomberg columnist Conor Sen wrote on social media last year that �Walmart�s probably a better employer at this point than most child care providers and a lot of the jobs in higher ed.�

Since my stint at the big-box store, where I ended up working for six months, I�ve come to think that every time we talk about hourly wages without talking about hours, we�re giving employers a pass for the subtler and more insidious way they�re mistreating their employees.

From the perspective of employers, flexible scheduling remains extremely efficient. But that efficiency means reneging on the bargain on which modern capitalism long rested. Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act during the New Deal era, employers have had to pay most of their workers for 40 hours of work even when business was slow. That was just the cost of doing business, a risk capitalists bore in exchange for the upside potential of profit. Now, however, employers foist that risk onto their lowest-paid workers: Part-time employees, not shareholders, have to pay the price when sale volumes fluctuate.

To the extent that the shift to part-time work has been noticed by the larger world, it has often undermined rather than increased sympathy for workers. For decades, middle- and upper-class Americans have been encouraged to believe that American workers are hopelessly unskilled or lazy. (Remember when Elon Musk praised Chinese workers and said American workers try to �avoid going to work at all�?) The rise in part-time work seems on its face to support this belief, as white-collar workers, unfamiliar with the realities of the low-wage work environment, assume that workers are part time by choice.

It�s a bit rich. Policies undertaken to increase corporate profits at the expense of workers� well-being are then held up as evidence of the workers� poor character. There is poor character at play here. It�s just not that of workers.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2024 07:31

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

I think �material conditions� can be a confusing term in a conversation like this.

Y�all should define it.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2024 05:51

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

In the French and Russian Revolutions, material conditions were actually a side issue: the primary focus of both revolutions was around dismantling social and political barriers, typically a backlash against the extremely rigid class structures of feudalism.

Those are material conditions, too. Here�s a way think about it. Have you ever boarded an old battleship or destroyer? Like WWII era. They�ve got these metal placards posted around �Never forget material conditions�. Here they�re referencing the damage control state of the vessel. Very simplified it is: are the water tight doors open or are they shut? That�s the material conditions on a ship

Social and political barriers are open or shut doors. Those are real conditions that exist independently from and outside of one�s consciousness. They�re no less material conditions than the organization of a railroad, or a horizontal global supply chain.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2024 07:45

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Discendo Vox posted:

You have constructed a definition which is impossibly, uselessly, unfalsifiably broad. This is, of course, not a new problem with this line of rhetoric.

Navy seems do well enough with it. Thus far I�m the only one that�s proposed a definition.

The conditions of reality as it actually exists outside our brains.

Edit : I guess what I�m saying is that when that outside reality can kill you, and it will on ships, one checks and rechecks what actual conditions really are.

Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Feb 26, 2024

# ¿ Feb 26, 2024 08:16

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Discendo Vox posted:

Lead-tainted applesauce pouches sailed through gaps in US food safety system

Full article with way more detail at source, for free. The underlying cause is insufficient FDA funding and (to a degree), authority to establish limits, which has over time caused some degree of capture. Despite all this the US is still doing more on these issues than virtually any other government.

These fruit pur�es are an extremely common import commodity from South America. All the certificates I�ve ever seen are country of origin. I don�t think I�ve ever seen an FDA or USDA document for inspection at port of entry.

The other thing I�ve seen is that import meat inspection by USDA are often visual only.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2024 07:51

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Daily show recently ran a piece on RFK too, saying a bunch of the same things.

# ¿ Mar 2, 2024 22:01

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

dadrips posted:

The democracy that allows some of the most indefensible gerrymandering on the planet, allows the electoral college to exist, and can be overridden with a supreme court that the democrats refuse to pack? Yeah, it sounds real worthy of respect..

DV this is what I�m taking about. This is analogous to what happens with folks who get to college and discover biblical textual criticism. It�s probably preventable in the same way that is preventable (a basic understanding of the nature of faith). It�s a naive idealism encountering first critiques prompting an unnecessary abandonment rather than deeper understanding.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 3, 2024 18:06

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

B B posted:

Republicans held a majority in the Senate for the entirety of Trump's presidency.

# ¿ Mar 3, 2024 18:47

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

zoux posted:

Yes the Prospect's framing here should be instructive for people who rely on them as a media source.

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1765785363111428389

Whooo boy if the IDF takes a shot at US troops...

This is a BFD. It�s a huge gently caress you to the Israelis too. About loving time.

Do you have a non tweet source yet?

selec posted:

Bad precedent here set with the USS Liberty.

This is a much bigger thing than a research ship. �Temporary Port� means JLOTS, joint logistics over the shore. They drill this as disaster response. If the big earthquake happens in Seattle with a big Tsunami. �Temporary port� would be how they�d respond.

It�s like dropping a instant RO RO terminal.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 18:48

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

lobster shirt posted:

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview the announcement, said the operation will not require that American troops be on the ground to build the pier that is intended to allow more shipments of food, medicine and other essential items.

That�s one extremely �technically true� is the best kind of true rear end assertion from them there.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 18:53

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

zoux posted:

No! the fool Biden is revealing our hover troop capabilities!

If they stay on the pier they�re on the ship not on the ground.

Here�s the way to think about it. I board a containership alongside the pier at the terminal. The ship is flagged Chinese (CN). Once I�m up the gangway and onboard, I�m technically in China and Chinese laws because they are the vessels flag state are the laws. Generally Americans only find out about this when they commit crimes on cruise ships and realize that they did so technically in another country.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 18:57

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

rscott posted:

It's supposedly coordinated with the IDF but I still think there's a non zero chance of American casualties and it's still incredibly bizarre that this is the tact that Biden is taking instead of cutting off economic aid and arms shipments to Israel

If one wants to feed a very large number of people asap and the Israelis aren�t cooperating this is the way one would need to do it.

This means they think a very large number of people were going to starve to death soon and that the Israelis weren�t going to let anybody stop it.

�Coordinate� here is likely we are telling you what we are going to do and where, stay the gently caress out of our way. This isn�t the we talked and agreed and are working together choice.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 19:04

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Here�s what this means:

The Israelis (are) were really going to starve everybody in Gaza to death, almost 600,000 people.

This stops that, this creates the physical logistics system capable of feeding that many people, but I very much don�t see this being likely to continue if Biden loses the election. The US election now has existential consequences for Gaza. It�s now very clear that one candidate is worse in the issue than the other.

If they are willing to do this, they (the Biden administration) are likely (but clearly 100% not publicly) threatening the Israelis with other consequences.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 19:34

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

mobby_6kl posted:

Wait didn't they say they were going to do this for Ukraine?

No they aren�t and were never ever going to do this in Black Sea.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 19:36

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

mawarannahr posted:

It seems a little counterproductive to sell them weapons and try to set up a port or airdrop because they're killing too many people with the weapons they were sold.

The arms sales and arms supply chains go in both directions, if one direction stops both directions will likely stop.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 19:50

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

DynamicSloth posted:

Why can't can't the U.S. just ship in food through Egypt, also a loyal American proxy receiving an enormous sum of aid every year?

Why don�t you think through the physical process, the actual logistics of doing that and answer your own question?

Cause there�s a very obvious answer.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 20:10

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

DynamicSloth posted:

Accepting that the only way to get food to a million starving children is via sea or air is simply accepting the genocide as a fait accompli itself.

I think you should support this assertion.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 20:15

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Best Friends posted:

Do you have any examples of this sort of delivery happening when both a) many the people getting aid delivered to them (very reasonably) hate us, and also b) the entity in military control of the area is generally opposed to aid being delivered to the people? To me, (a) means a very substantial security presence is required, which means American troops in Gaza, OR due to (b) the security is provided by Israeli forces, which means meaningful quantities of this aid will not reach the starving people of Gaza.

Or, none of this is going to happen in the first place. Just like how the recent supposed ceasefire agreement did not actually happen, and how Israeli hostilities ending by the new year did not actually happen.

This is basically just a big floating pier over a shoreline.

Ship ties up lowers a ramp trucks drive on at a loading port. Drivers stay on the vessel. I�m guessing the port here but there�s a NYK RO-RO terminal in Port Said that would work, that�s where I�d pick up. Ship drops the ramp at the floating pier in Gaza trucks with the drivers drive off.

It would relatively brief event, drop the ramp trucks drive off pickup the ramp, vessel leaves. If it�s deep enough for the multi purpose vessel it�s deep enough for a navy escort to be right there.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 20:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 09:37

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Dopilsya posted:

Pretty standard incoherence when actions have to reflect different legs of a political coalition which diverge wildly on the policy they want from him.

Doing some quick digging it looks like small radar systems good at hitting small fast moving things, high end nightvision optics, and reactive armor are things the Israelis export to the US for several of the important vehicle systems. That�s probably the reason.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2024 21:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: Macklemore Is The New Michael Moore

«‹›3 »