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…?
Maybe you don’t remember Jeff Sessions.
Matt Gaetz could bring another dozen or so, 17 year girls across state lines, and still not reach the scale of evil contained within Trump’s former OG AG Keebler.
That’s my point. The best you can hope for is someone who also dipshit maxes, hard.
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.
Operational targets can’t all just simply be moved further and further back from the front lines of a conflict, to say nothing of high value tactical targets.
Supplying several hundred low observable air launched cruise missiles per month would absolutely make a significant difference on the battlefield, that’s not even a question.
But that doesn’t mean I believe that would enough to cause Putin to reverse course, or to deliver a strategic defeat to the Russian army.
Regardless, Germany doesn’t have that manufacturing capacity to begin with, nor do I believe they have the political will to do that, even if it were possible, but again, it is not.
I understand exactly what it is. What I’m saying is that Germany does not have the volume on hand, or the manufacturing capacity to produce such a volume, where it could generate the effect the candidate is implying it can.
Capability and capacity are two very different things.
Yes, I understand the manufacturing capability exists, but it’s capacity is limited i.e. existing facilities could not maintain a strategically significant production volume relative to Ukraine’s needs, much less to deter Putin.
Oh I’m sure the thought of two dozen cruise missiles will straighten Putin out ASAP.
For starters, this would not be a new or unprecedented capability for the Ukrainians.
If Germany had several hundred to part with immediately, and the capacity to regularly replenish those stocks, that would make a significant difference on the battlefield, but I doubt it would make Putin sue for peace.
But of course, Germany does not have those kind of stockpiles or manufacturing capacity to maintain that.
Still, it would be nice to see more European politicians picking up the banner of supplying Ukraine in the face of likely diminished, or eliminated, American transfers.
”Cholera?”
“I’ll take two, please”
FEDNA
It is the entire national Democratic party and their gigantic horde of consultants.
People here don’t seem to understand that Trump winning to them, is a preferable outcome to someone like Bernie Sanders ever holding power.
I’m not saying they want Trump in office, I’m saying that Trump in office means they retain their jobs and influence. Both of which are predicated upon keeping their voters trained on the idea that campaigns are only about marketing, and politics is about anything other than how it can directly improve their material conditions.
Imagine a Democratic politician broke through the existing power structures and enacted something like Medicare for All. That is is the biggest threat to their power: an actual FDR Democrat. Someone who takes money and power from the donor class, and uses it to directly improve the material conditions for the rest of us.
I was with you until the end.
If you’re going to satirize Biden, you have to do more than just pull direct quotes from him.
Yes, let’s blame the voters for losing the election…
Not the Democratic party or their candidate, because clearly only voters can fail them, they can’t fail us.
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?
lol wut