warmongering

The only current war in Europe is an european country not wanting to be invaded and destroyed by Russia

I think this will be easy to hire for; imagine the damage you can do to competition, or the low cost regulatory capture you can achieve, by just getting one clever manipulator near this not too bright narcissist

Python has its drawbacks but it also has a pretty useful standard library so as a language for small scripts, one can do much worse

“giving up against the endless weight of capitalism”

We just call it “having a job” nowadays

It’s like 5 lines of trivial code

Hello World

30 minutes of boilerplate

writing imports

$ cat <<EOF > Hello.java
public class Hello {
  public static void main(String args[]) {
    System.out.println("Hello world!");
  }
}
EOF
$ java Hello.java
Hello world!

ok

We’re quite a few years into “the blockchain will revolutionise the world” now and we still don’t really have anything but bitcoin and scams

I envy your trust in the efficiency of banks

It’s useful when people use “liberal” as a slur as it really saves time on identifying who is a trump supporter or effectively a trump supporter through mental gymnastics

Because

A: electronic voting is an awful idea in so many ways

B: direct democracy is an awful idea in so many ways

C: voting is supposed to be secret which the petition signaures aren’t

Does he need to yet?

It’s not like he can be impeached and most of the cases will pause by default as he’s a sitting president. If any don’t he’ll have a tame Attorney General to kill them for him. State level charges could have a theoretical shot, but what state will take that fight?

The window to hold him accountable was 2020-2024 and the people responsible dropped the ball, sometimes with obvious intention, sometimes from naivité or incompetence

The problem as usual is that the Democrats bring Debate Club weapons to a knife fight

Anyone not voting for Harris, really

Perhaps they’ll fragment after he dies? A lot of dictatorships don’t survive the death of the supreme leader

You have a good point that understanding the voter is a good path to figuring out how to fix this in the future.

We still get to judge them for being awful people, because fooled or not, they effectively are

Dig deep enough in any awful begaviour and you can find causes and explanations, but that doesn’t make every behaviour ok

I’d probably vote for the option causing a bit less suffering in Gaza, as hard as I could. I would not refuse to vote because the lesser evil was still bad.

It’s not hard really

R is pushing more support for Israel so D is the lesser evil. There’s a reason Netanyahu wanted Trump. If you think it couldn’t get worse than D level support, stay tuned

Kanye West?

well at least you’re consistent…

Btw, your chosen course of actions indirectly supported the option of spending even more tax dollars on killing people in gaza, so you might want to consider breaking your consistent streak of picking the wrong choice and try woting in a way that aligns with your stated goals

i don’t think Russia had a right to invade.

So perhaps you should stop defending the invasion and start arguing for support for ukraine?

the fact that Ukraine had an election since 2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government does not change that there was an abrupt change in government in 2014. these things are not connected

These things are totally connected. They show that the russian friendly government wasn’t acting according to the will of the people. And if you dig deeper you’ll probably find that the russian-friendliness was a bit of a sudden decision that the people hadn’t voted for, thus the protests.

What are you supposed to do if the government you elected turns out to act against the interest of the people and looks to be compromised by a foreign power?

if you cannot state “Yes this is true” or “No this is false because xyz” then you are not actually saying anything and I’m going to assume you are not discussing in good faith

Well you are free to do so, but I won’t agree with your manipulative framing of things. “yes she was raped, but had she been drinking? did she wear makeup? did she wear a short skirt? I’m not justifying it, it’s a simple statement of fact”

You’re clearly invested in defending an invasion you after a lot of arguing concede is wrong, so you should take a look at yourself and ask why that is

So it’s the moral argument of killing kids now in the hope of making a point that might or might not affect future politicians?

I’m mostly curious if and why you think Russia had the right to invade.

I don’t agree with your framing of a,b & c.

A & B: Ukraine has had an election since 2014 so apparently there’s public support for a western friendly government.

C: preparing to defend yourself from invasion doesn’t justify invading

So why do you think Russia were right to invade?