But if you wanted to do something about it: these weapons come from this country and they have to get there in trucks traveling on roads to ports that load them on ships.

We are discussing voting, though. That’s a bit tangential, because you can vote or not vote and still commit acts of… resistance…

And it’s not like there’s not a value to making genocide come with electoral consequences…

If you otherwise would have voted Dem against the Republicans, who are as bad or worse when it comes to the specific issue you’re punishing the Dems for, you are hurting one group committing genocide by helping one who commits and wants to commit even more genocide.

All under the mistaken belief that by refusing to vote for the group you would otherwise vote for, you will get them to move Left. But if the Dems lose to the VERY right wing party, if the voting shows that Americans favor more right-leaning policies, they would move to gain the votes of the people who actually voted.

The reality is, refusing to vote is still a choice. As long as you are an adult who can legally vote in the US election, you are partly responsible for the results of the election. You don’t get to wash your hands of it. Choosing to abstain because you don’t want to partipate out of moral self-righteousness is saying your soapbox is more important than the lives affected by your choices, from the Palestinians to the Ukrainians, immigrants to LGBTQ. Nobody is more important than your ability to say “I didn’t vote for a party that commit genocide.”

So what are the other choices?

Wasn’t the US Constitution’s 4th amendment the basis for Roe vs Wade? It would be fitting for the Florida 4th amendment to enshrine abortion access in their state.

Just a reminder to those “Biden and Harris are participating in genocide, it’s not like Trump could be any worse” crowd.

It can always get worse.

deleted by creator

I wish it were required that both parties agree to the lawsuit being dropped for it not to continue. I’d love to see this frivolous bullshit forced into a courtroom against the plaintiffs will by the defendants.

I disagree. If we sent 100 personnel with an air defense group to Ukraine, shit would get pretty real pretty fast. Sending people is a whole different commitment to sending weapons.

I had an old instructor who liked to say “when it comes to breakfast, what’s the difference between the chicken and the pig? The chicken made a contribution, the pig made a commitment.”

Sending our own troops stops being a contribution and starts being a commitment.

Oh, wow, I had always thought that shooting a horse with a broken leg was an act of brutal expedience, not mercy.

Them absolutely rioting over a small increase in retirement age made me feel shame as an American. I love how willing the French are to remind their government of what happens when it gets out of line. Like, “don’t make us break out the guillotines.”

The French are not weak.

The way the skip intro works on Prime for me is:

"It’s been a looooong road… getting from there to here…

…f the heaaaaaaaaaaaaaart!"

So one way or another, I’m getting some faith of the heart.

I’m a bit more confused, because when you me tion it referring to an ideology that focuses on social injustice and advocates for change, and reference MLK’s efforts, it seems like you support the general idea. And I would agree!

I guess I’m just confused on the “personal responsibility” portion. It’s my understanding that most of the “woke” issues are gay and trans rights and police reform (and combating systemic racism in policing). So other than demanding change, protesting, and voting, I’m not sure where the “personal responsibility” would come in.

Can you define the “woke movement” and “woke” in general, in the context of what you’re saying?

I’m asking because I’ve seen “woke” used for a video game that happens to have one gay character in it, which doesn’t seem relevant for what you’re talking about (for example). Or any number of things that are simply people existing. And other times it’s used for referencing social justice issues. It seems fairly amorphous, and entirely dependent on the person mentioning it, so without some context I can’t nail down what you mean unless you define it for you.

The corruption of those courtesy cards. For which he got retaliated against. And that he brought a lawsuit over, which brings the corruption to light.

I’d say that’s fighting corruption from the inside.

Does anybody know what this said?! I’m having the same problem!

Edit: nevermind, I figured it out.

I imagine Sales™ would not manage to clear that bar, and Pulaski would have no idea either way (unless maybe she were thoroughly briefed).

But he was a LCDR in Starfleet, on board the most prestigious ship in the fleet, and clearly had the respect of the crew he worked with. She had to completely ignore all of that to display the prejudice she showed. I think it’s perfectly correct to take issue with it.

“Oh, I’m sorry, is that distracting you?”

I think you’re missing the point. Bringing in difficult to obtain weapons as part of the conversation muddies the conversation about controlling the currently ubiquitous weapons being used.

As an analogy, let’s say someone blows something up and hurts people, using dynamite or homemade explosive using gun powder:

“Anyone who has access to the dynamite and RPGs and C-4 should be held responsible for what’s done with it!”

“Wait, there was an RPG or C4? I’m pretty sure outside the military it’s pretty difficult to get ahold of either of those. They’re already heavily regulated.”

“What difference does it make? They’re explosives used to blow things up and kill people.”

“Right, but, again, those are heavily regulated, while what happened was with dynamite, which is not.”

“OH! So it’s OKAY since the dynamite is not as regulated!”

“No, it’s just a different conversation about RPGs and C4.”

“Only if you have an agenda!”

Vs.

“Anyone who purchases dynamite should be responsible for what happens to it, unless they can show they’ve properly secured it and didn’t give access to it to someone they shouldn’t.”

“Agreed, dynamite and gunpowder explosives are common and not as regulated as they should be.”

What do you mean? That’s just Mrs. Crawley with Mr. Crowley, the strange man who is friends with the bookshop owner. Weird seeing him without his sunglasses though.

My parents were wonderful, so I have no real complaints, but my father had a weird quirk. Tools, equipment, whatever that he had interest and purchased himself were “his.” I mean, obviously, but he would use the possessive when referring to those things.

“You have to prime my lawnmower first before you try to start it.” “Go and get my ladder.” Never the ladder, always my ladder. I never questioned it (because I didn’t care), but when I was a teenager I started noticing it and it was odd. Like he was establishing that the lawn mower or the ladder or whatever didn’t belong to the household, they were his. And nothing seemed to get him worked up more than a neighbor borrowing something and taking more than a day or so to return it.

Back before I lived on an island with two stop lights, I regularly used Google Maps for places I already knew how to get to, purely because I wanted the most efficient route.