this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1689 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4691 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

What an utter piece of shit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Treason is very narrowly defined in US law. The US is not at war with Russia, and the US is not Ukraine, so no, it's not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again. The US government is not the Ukrainian government.

The most painful thing the government could do would be to sanction Musk and his companies for taking actions counter to US foreign policy prerogatives, but then Musk would just pull the plug on Starlink altogether. So nothing will be done.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Seeing as musk could unilaterally act in a fashion contrary to US foreign policy, in the interest of national security the government should take control of the company then.

Obviously that would be an extreme step but... how bad would that get?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's basically a variant of eminent domain, but I suspect it would be a hard case to argue. Ukraine chose to use Starlink, and the US governments power to invoke eminent domain is based on the common good provided to the US public via the seized property. It's arguable whether the US public would see much if any value from the US government running Starlink unless they're going to start providing free service to US citizens. There's also the problem that there are plenty of other options that don't require seizing of property.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US could just nationalise it. SpaceX is basically running on government money anyway, just fold it into NASA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

NASA is basically being forced by Congress to funnel SLS program money into select contractors against NASA's own assessments. I don't think you want any of their hands near SpaceX if you want it to stay operational.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also no. Americans do not legally owe any loyalty to the Ukrainian government.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nope, he wasn't trying to overthrow the government of country he is a citizen of. He could be considered a non state actor though.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Enemy combatant? I’m running out of words here?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

The Ukrainians can certainly call him that.

Notable examples of Non State Actors are: Blackwater(American security company) Wagner (Russian).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Weird "enemy" who's actively supporting 99% of one's war efforts.

By that rule of thumb, would the US be an "enemy" for being reluctant to supply latest gen weaponry to Ukraine?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you compelled by neurodiversity to be pedantic? Or do you just enjoy it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is the difference between "supporting in almost everything" vs. "attacking", a pedantic one?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hold on. I’m not criticizing. I’m just curious. I’ve done it myself. I’m just curious about what leads us to be this way. Is it the need for details and facts, or does it concern communication in social media spaces?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hm? If you mean why do we participate in discussions, personally my main goal is to learn (unless I get triggered by some stupidity... but I'm trying not to). Looking for details is an effective way to find differences between points of view, which means reviewing one's own, and comparing them to someone else's. Sometimes I can learn about myself, sometimes about someone else, sometimes about an actual fact. Either is fine by me. [disassembly reveals useful pathways...]

There are other uses for social media, other ways of communication. I'm not a fan of witch hunting though, or mob mentality, so that leaves either education, emotional support, or just goofing off.

This post in particular, I think only works for discussions or witch hunting, and I refuse to take part in the latter, so... 🤷

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks, this platform benefits from people like you