[–] 3 points 1 week ago

To be honest his best chance of winning the presidency in the future would be to have Trump disown him, but that would require people to forget everything he went along with. Sadly people probably will.

I just hope if they win the mid terms democrats come out of the gate swinging and with a plan to get a much done as possible then benefits the people as much as possible. Do things that voters can feel having immediate relief and talk loudly and proudly about it. Show the republicans who voted for you that they didn't make a mistake, and though they sought to punish MAGA, they actually were Democrats all along and just didn't realise it.

Is a nice fiction. Unfortunately there are too many people who see somebody else succeeding as them failing.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Justified? Wow America is more broken than I thought.

    School shooters should start signing up to the police first, then they will just get put on administrative leave for a few weeks instead of having to kill themselves or get shot.

    How do you make the calculation that lethal force in response to an alleged theft is a symmetrical response? How then, can a judge agree with that? I guess if you dehumanise the victim you can justify anything.

    If you must have guns everywhere, then shout the tires. Shoot to disable not to kill.

    As a father, whenever I see something like this it makes me so sad. If I try to imagine losing my daughter at 1 year old I almost can't cope with the emotion. To think about the fear, pain, confusion that poor child felt... And all because a cop decided people deserve to die for a $20 alleged theft. Good job super cop. Here is your medal.

    The ability to empathise seems to be lost.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Why do the evil people always point at someone else and say the evil is over there? Actually that's not my question, my question is why do people fall for it when they do this?

  • source
  • [–] 41 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    It's very odd that a man so obsessed with manliness and testosterone is against one of the main male visual traits.

    I'm starting to think he might have some gender identity issues of his own and is trying to self treat with testosterone yet still can't grow a beard. Unless beard has its other meaning for him...

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    Yeah because the dumocrats would be worse. Measles would be killing more children, food would be even more expensive, oil would be even more expensive, presidents would sleep through even more meetings and events, the white house would be even more destroyed, Iran would have even more power, the world would be even more aware that the US military has limits, presidents would play even more golf. There would be even more cartoon villains in politics. /s

    By the way did you know dumb has a 'b' in it? Most people don't know that.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    I don't know it is protection enough, but my golden rule is that if something is too good to be true it is usually a scam.

    Easy way to make money? Probably a scam. Unbelievably attractive and rich person is into you? Probably a scam.

    Etc. etc.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You know what, now that your mention it, wasn't the explanation that the signal was reflected back to the surface due to the ionising radiation of something, so the beam was kinda split or doubled. So my premise was wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 62 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    A distinction between a teleporter and a transporter...

    To teleport implies the original matter is instantly moved from one place to another so there would be no destruction and reconstituted copy. A wormhole would seem to be the only realistic way that could be achieved.

    A transporter, well that means copy then kill. No one knows if the kill part is painful because noone survives it. I find it funny Riker's copy is actually the "original" and his lack of death is considered a transporter accident. Yet he is the one treated like the copy...

    And all that said, barclay's experience in the transporter beam is more suggestive of a wormhole style device.

    I don't know why I bothered to write all this out...

  • source
  •  

    Every decade has its musical style that generally makes it easy to place what decade a song was written in if you haven't heard it before.

    40s big band

    50s rock and roll

    60s essentially has its genre named after the decade or at least I can't think of anything I'd call a genre.

    70s punk and beginnings of heavy metal, disco

    80s electro synth, rap

    90s grunge, dance, R&B, trance

    Etc etc. Obviously these don't entirely define the music of the decade but are highly recognisable genres that can more often than not pinned down to a decade.

    So my question is, since the 2000s I don't see as much differentiation but that might be because I'm too old (44) and not as exposed to be music as I was in my teens, so help me pretend I'm "hip" and "with it" by giving me some clues. I'm curious to know what you think defines the music of the 2020s, what defines the 2010s and what defines the 2000s. I.e. When someone says they are going to listen to noughties music what do they put on? Etc. Or have we reached a point where music has been explored to the point new genres are much rarer to establish?

     

    The Geneva convention was established to minimise atrocities in conflicts. Israeli settlements in Gaza are illegal and violate the Geneva convention. Legality of Israeli settlements Article 51 of the Geneva convention prohibits indiscriminate attacks on civilian population yet Israel attacked hospitals with children inside. Whether you agree or not that Hamas were present, children cannot be viewed as combatants.so when no care was taken to protect them, does this not constitute a violation? According to save the children, 1 in 50 children in Gaza had been killed or injured. This is a very high proportion and does not show care being taken to prevent such casualties and therefore constitutes a violation.

    So my question is simply, do supporters of Israel no longer support our believe in the Geneva convention, did you never, or how do you reconcile Israeli breaches of the Geneva convention? For balance I should add "do you not believe such violations are occurring and if so how did you come to this position?"

    Answers other than only "they have the right to go after Hamas " please. The issue is how they are going after Hamas, not whether they should or not.

    EDIT: Title changed to remove ambiguity about supporting Israel vs supporting their actions

    view more: next ›