So just so we’re clear here, you acknowledge that it is “corporate fuckheads” who run the DNC, but insist they aren’t to blame for losing 14m votes.
In fact, it’s actually my fault, your neighbor’s fault, and anyone of voting age who isn’t employed by the DNC.
Again, the Democratic party lost this election, not me, or any other voter.
So while you identified a potential future problem, it feels like you’ve misdiagnosed who’s to blame for that possibility.
It’s quite pathetic how so many of these stories have top comments that all blame voters for the decades of compound failures by the Democratic party.
You have it backwards my friend, voters cannot fail the party. It’s the party’s job to win voters, but instead, they shed 14 million voters over the last election.
Remind me, how many users are on Lemmy?
Can you think of any other types of people who might be financially able to volunteer their time here…?
Maybe those who have a vested interest in any number of outcomes that may result from their work there…?
Let’s be real, he cleared the bar with this one.
Don’t forget, the bar was set at Jeff Sessions, and it was even lowered to the doofus who ran the patent protection scam company.
Look, he’s not going appoint anyone that isn’t awful. The most you can hope for, the best outcome, is favourable funny > evil mix.
I’m comfortable saying that Matt Gaetz, on the grading curve necessary for Trump appointments, clears that bar. He’s has at worst a 51% funny to 49% evil ratio.
Impressive.
Only one of those words is actually English, and you still managed to use it incorrectly.
Unless it was an extremely misplaced and subtle nod to Alanis Morissette.
Stop trying to police language.
Jokes need only to be judged on if they’re funny, or not.
So what you’re saying is that Russia has no agency, and their invasion of Ukraine is NOT it imperial in nature.
In fact, they’re only seizing Ukrainian territory to add to their own, because of the United States. And that somehow negates any aspect of Russian imperialism.
Well that makes sense, because I know one thing about Russia, and that it’s definitely not a stitched together country of conquered and subjugated people’s.
Or, hear me out, maybe it’s possible for both the United States and Russia, to wage imperial wars of aggression. Just because the United States is an imperial power, that doesn’t preclude any other great powers from acting on their own delusions of empire.
Classic Ukrainian imperialism…
Also, classic enlisted soldier get rich quick scheme: dying just to get the death benefits.
Wait a minute…what now?
These will not be used to shoot down Israeli missiles…
I’m quite aware of THAAD’s capabilities, including its tracking radars, at least as far as publicly disclosed information goes.
That’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about this reducing, or removing, one of Iran’s primary means of deterrence against Israeli attacks.
If Israel doesn’t have to worry about the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, it frees them up for an even more aggressive course of action.
Unless you’re suggesting that this means Israel can, and should, continue to directly attack Iran…?
This defense enables and emboldens Israeli aggression.
It removes, or significantly reduces, the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles.
That means, it removes, or reduces, any deterrent effect they have, on moderating Israel.
This is not good, but less because of the risk of American KIA, and more because of how it changes the Israeli calculus.
Yes, that first but confirms the news article.
And then it talks about a deployment 5 years ago for a training exercise.
These aren’t brick and mortar buildings, they’re mobile platforms, and mobile air defense batteries redeploy all the time.
Again, I am not closed to the idea that there was US military operated THAAD system in Israel during that attack, I just can’t find any reports confirming that, or even eluding to it.
Never mind, I misread that last bit. I will take a look at it later when I have a few moments, thank you.
I’m not saying it can’t be. I’m saying I don’t believe Iran has the capabilities or stockpiles available to do so, given the other American assets in theatre, or a desire to risk killing American troops.
I suspect they’re deploying THAAD because of the failures of David’s Sling during the last missile attack.
Air defense systems protect specific targets, not countries. Given the THAAD’s long track record under US operators, I would wager that the bases and targets that Iranian missiles hit, either lacked sufficient coverage, had poorly trained Israeli personnel, and/or were covered by David’s Sling.
Of course, I could be wrong, but we won’t know for many many years given how secretive Israel is on these matters.
Edit: I’m not seeing any reports of active THAAD deployments in Israel prior to this announcement, just previous deployments to Israel, including for training. But no mention if they rotated out prior to the Iranian missile strike, or that they were present for it.
I’m not saying they weren’t there, but do you have a source confirms they were present during this most recent attack?
They’re air defense operators, just like gets deployed around Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure.
If you want to feel bad about anything, it’s that this will significantly reduce the likelihood that Iran can threaten Israel with ballistic missiles.
THAAD is really good at what it does, and something tells me that the Iranians aren’t going to want to waste their entire stock pile on fruitless saturation attempts. To say nothing of their concerns of killing American troops.
As in, this provides Israel even greater latitude on their quest to start a hot war with Iran, without dramatically increasing any threat to their military bases and government buildings. Well, at least not from ballistic missiles.
One way they conduct themselves is by using the politicians they’ve purchased to advocate for forming public-private partnerships, in areas where they shouldn’t exist, which they can then legally siphon off the resources from.
I disagree on the private sector aspect of this, but I agree on the democracy part. Although, I don’t really view America as true democracy at this moment in history, but that’s besides the point here.
Fusion technology is at a point in its life cycle where it needs to be a public sector project. There is no path to profitability in the near-term, that would justify private sector involvement, except as a means to extract profit from the very expensive research process of even making this technology feasible.
Not that I’m against the private sector within the nuclear power industry. I’m very excited to see what they can do with SMR technology. I’m just extremely skeptical of most private-public partnerships, especially in cases like this.
Fusion reactors are incredibly complicated… This is a research reactor, with the goal of figuring out how to create sustainable fusion for real world uses by 2050.
This is not a performative action for a determinative outcome, this is aspirational and has no guarantee of achieving its goals, which is good. This type of research and science needs to be funded, even when it may fail.
Maybe this will spurn competition between powers to accelerate their own fusion reactor research, and create a virtuous cycle that accelerates this technology becoming a major source of green energy in the near, or medium-term, future.
Got to say, I hit the nail on the head here.
Made all my analysis and educated guesses about your pathologies based solely on your spree of rage trolling comments back in the technology community.
I hadn’t even bothered to look at your profile for other comments until just now…and I didn’t even have to flick the screen down any to confirm my earlier diagnoses.
Seriously, get help.
lol wut