Having a working nuclear weapon is not the same thing as having a viable vehicle to deliver the nuclear weapon somewhere useful, unless we're talking like, suitcase nukes or whatever. It's hard for me to estimate what the timeline would be to retrofit their existing ballistic missile platform to be suitable, but it's not a super easy task - timeline in peace times would be years, most likely. War likely accelerates it... unless the key people you need for the program, the supplies, testing resources, etc., are victims of the war.
'Working nuclear weapons' is a really broad scale so it's tough to extrapolate without knowing if it means "they can send a person with a low yield weapon somewhere and blow it up vs. "they can launch a high yield weapon on a ballistic missile anywhere within 2000km"
For a huge chunk of non-profits, the non-profit work is the labor of their members. Their goal is not and has never been to pass revenue through to the community - what would that even look like for a hospital? There's a million different examples here.
Directors of non-profits that have enough money for this to matter are doing this as a full time job - are we going to eliminate every competent director from working here if they can't afford to stop getting compensated for their work?
Your suggestion would cripple non-profits doing all sorts of important and beneficial work.
They did. Hamilton even argued that presidents should be subject to “forfeiture of life and estate” if crimes deemed it so. Federalist 77.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the constitution makes it clear that while impeachment is limited to removal, but that after they are fair game for criminal processes.
Wilson wrote 'far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them"
Anti-federalists went even farther - they believed that the Federalists' reliance on the impeachment process, for example, left far too wide of a gap to be exploited.
It doesn’t kill 13% of people infected, only about 1%. Just look at the number of cases reported compared to the number of deaths. That paper was reporting 13% mortality rate among those admitted to the hospital, not among all those infected.
> Also, I would like to point out that almost all women have had more then 0 sexual partners before wedding
By the 1700s the pregnant before marriage rate was roughly 30%. So about a third of all women in the 1700s had premarital sex that resulted in pregnancy. So the actual rate is of course even higher.
A lot of those marriages are a direct result of the pregnancy, too - one thing that did happen was the couple being pushed into marriage ASAP when the pregnancy was discovered.
If Democrats actually knew how to message on what they accomplished instead of letting the other side control the narrative and refocus everything on to fringe issues that only the fringe of the party cares about, as well as matching every Biden brain fart/stutter/"senior moment" with the equivalents from Trump, I suspect a Biden vs. Trump rematch would have been a Biden victory.
But they suck at that. And when they failed to convince Biden to drop out early, they should have stuck with him and just ran hard on actual accomplishments during the admin. But Harris was a last minute pivot and it showed. I think she would have been perfectly fine as a president, and I voted for her, but not surprised in the slightest that she lost - and I expected her to lose bigger than she did.
The fact that Trump couldn't even get half the popular vote when running against a last minute ticket change that was never selected to be the presidential candidate by the party she was representing is a pretty big indictment of how unpopular he really is.
I think there's been learning that you can't just be "not Trump", but yeah - I don't know that the party in general has any idea how to handle messaging and narratives.
Agree with you on their failure of messaging, Biden was the most progressive President since Carter and I only limit myself to that because I am not as well versed in history at that point.
Yet somehow the progressives found him more unpalatable than the MAGAs if you look at people like Brianna Gray and Jill Stein.
It’s too far out for me to say I will definitively vote for Newsome but so far he’s the only Democrat whose started throwing hands both legislatively and on social media.
I hope the dems figure out how to do more of that and better, instead of returning to shit like the October shutdown and the exchanging leverage for pinky promises from Mr. John “I am an obligate pinky promise liar” Republican.
> Yet somehow the progressives found him more unpalatable than the MAGAs if you look at people like Brianna Gray and Jill Stein.
Gaza and the border were two big issues where Biden and democrats at large were notably not progressive.
And, as you might imagine, funding a genocide is something that's really hard to stomach no matter how good Lina Khan was.
It also really didn't help that Kamala and her brother, where they did promise changes, it was to eliminate Khan and double down on prosecuting "transnational criminal organizations". They notably made a hard pivot from what was initially a somewhat progressive message to one of Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney and celebrating the endorsement of a war criminal, Dick Cheney.
Yea, those progressives called Biden “Genocide Joe” while Trump was ranting about how the Israelis hadn’t gone far enough.
They somehow thought the lesser evil was actually a greater evil somehow. It’s like watching the pre Nazi party takeover of Germany where the Communists decided that the Social Democrats were worse than the fascists. It makes zero logical sense, unless they are accelerationists and think that the people will have some glorious revolution after everything gets bad enough despite all of history proving the contrary.
> They somehow thought the lesser evil was actually a greater evil somehow.
Trump is a monster, he's evil, and he had a less evil position on Gaza than Biden did.
In 2 years, Biden did jack shit to curtail Israel's genocide. The majority of the genocide happened while he was president. He continued to sign and promote bills funding Israel and he openly talked about how he was a Zionist and believed in the Israel project. His foreign policy advisors were horrendous. Israel killed so many American citizens and aid workers under Biden and his admin took Israel's side each time or would simply put out a "it's troubling, we are looking into it" which they never did.
But you know why I say Trump was better on Gaza? Because he did 2 things Biden and Kamala refused to do. He met with people that supported Gazans and he forced peace negotiations. Negotiations, mind you, that are worthless and israel is violating. Negotiations that have allowed Israel to illegally take over a huge swath of gaza. But none the less, peace negotiations.
Biden would put up a red line, watch Israel cross it, and then literally just move the line (the goalposts) or ultimately ignore the issue all together. There would not be even a peace deal today under a Biden presidency. Literally, we were told to just hope that Kamala who was shutting down this conversation, would be better.
And the autopsy on this issue shows that the Campaigns of both Biden and Kamala were well aware that if they didn't shift on this, they'd lose the election. There are reports that campaign when getting issues from phone banks was instructed to hang up on people that raised Gaza as a problem.
It's not the voters problem that Trump won. It's the Biden and Kamala campaign who prioritized supporting a genocide to continue getting AIPAC funding and support over doing the right thing and the thing their voters were screaming at them to do.
People were watching Nazis go on a rampage and their government giving them billions to do that rampage. They did not vote believing there was no difference between the two parties. That was a glorious failure of the biden and kamala campaign. And something we know they knew because of a leak of an autopsy which democrats don't want to reveal because they still want AIPAC support today.
> Trump is advocating for a takeover of Gaza and letting the Israelis go nuts in the West Bank.
And Biden simply allowed Israel to do that. Trump is saying the quiet part out loud, but the plan has been the same. Words without actions are meaningless.
> Also lol at peace negotiations
Yeah, an actual action that happened almost immediately under trump. [2]
> do you think Trump ended 8 wars already as well despite violence still ongoing?
No, I already said that it was a somewhat meaningless peace negotiation, but one that is measurably more than what Biden accomplished in 2 years.
> We’re in phase 2 of his “peace plan” which requires Hamas demilitarizing, which they say they won’t do, and fighting is still happening.
They actually did agree to that. [3] There's not ongoing fighting, it's Israel murdering civilians. But because big news organizations have never cared about Israel's war crimes, it is very under-reported. Trump flagging peace was enough for them.
I don't like trump and I think this is a travesty. However, he has objectively done more. Biden did nothing for peace in Gaza. And it's not like Biden didn't have a lot of levers to pull. He simply refused to pull any of them because he full heartedly supported Israel's actions. I wish he didn't.
Trump at very least cares about the optics of Gaza which is the only reason he's put in the slightest amount of effort. Still genocidal, still supporting Israel, but also at least pushing them to make PR political moves. Which is more than Biden did.
The Biden administration publicly set quotas for Gaza aid that were supposed to condition their continued military support. Then after the administration determined Israel failed 15 out of 19 of *their own" meager conditions, they decided it was fina anyway and that they weren't going to enforce their own stated conditions.
> I don't like trump and I think this is a travesty. However, he has objectively done more. Biden did nothing for peace in Gaza. And it's not like Biden didn't have a lot of levers to pull. He simply refused to pull any of them because he full heartedly supported Israel's actions. I wish he didn't.
Trump is advocating for Israel to go whole hog while Biden tried, and I agree failed, to rein them in but Biden is the one you classify as fully supporting their actions?
Also in your third source
> The source said that Hamas has already handed over arms and tunnel schematics “through a mechanism that has not yet been revealed.”
Totally happened bro just trust me
You’re also ignoring the air drops for aid, inb4 you yell that people died from the crowds of hungry people rushing in for some food.
If you think Trump is better for the Palestinians than Biden despite all evidence and stated goals, then I kinda just think you have a mental issue going on. good luck
There's zero evidence that Biden tried, and a lot of evidence that he didn't (including statements by Israeli government officials). What he did was occasionally pretend (not very convincingly) to try, while telling the Israelis something different behind closed doors.
Your claim was that Biden tried to rein Israel in. What do a few token airdrops of aid by the US and the ridiculous pier have to do with that?
I'm specifically responding to that claim, I don't have much interest in the "which of these two genociders is slightly better" conversation, but when people try to rehabilitate Biden's image they should know the facts.
The one we live in, where they have control over a wide swathe of land mass through imperialism and have actively resisted relinquishing it?
The one we live in, where they are constantly surpassing international law in international waters in the South China Sea?
The one we live in, where they are constantly rattling sabers at South Korea and Japan when it comes to military expansion?
The one we live in, where they brutally cracked down on Hong Kong when they did not abide by the 50 year one country two systems deal, not even making it half of the way through the agreed period?
The one we live in, where there is constant threat to Taiwan?
It may have been a lazy post you're responding to, but anyone that is paying attention to this topic enough to talk about it is going to either say 'Of course China is imperialist, the same as every other global power' or take some sort of tankie approach to justify it.
I'm well informed on all of these but no, if we compare to other global power like US or Russia, or historically British, France, Spain, etc, China is 100% not an imperialist or colonialist, not by a large margin. Those issues are largely exaggerated by media and anyone had a decent exposure to history and international politics wouldn't say they are the same.
Sure China has some disputes with neighboring country in South China Sea, the worst conflict they had is fishing boats running into each other. 0 death toll last time I checked.
Meanwhile US killed at least 126 people with alleged drug strike in the Caribbean Sea since last year, WITHOUT trial.
Anyone believing these're equivalent imperialism activity is hypocrite at best.
What China is doing in the South China Sea? The South China Sea.
Let's just compare to the Monroe Doctrine [1]. What this actually means has gone through several iterations by since I think Teddy Roosevelt's time, it's that the United States views the Americas (being North and South America) to be the sole domain of the United States.
This was a convenient excuse for any number of regime changes in Central and South America since 1945. The US almost started World War Three over Cuba in 1962 after the USSR retaliated to the US putting nuclear MRBMs in Turkey. We've starved Cuba for 60+ years for having the audacity to overthrow our puppet government and nationalize some mob casinos. Recently, we kidnapped the head of state of Venezuela because reasons.
But sure, let's focus on China militarizing its territorial waters.
You're arguing that because of the English language name of it is the South China Sea that China owns it and their actions can't be imperialist?
Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam will all be happy to know that we've solved it - we can just abandon it all to China. Problem solved!
This is a silly argument. There are significant territorial disputes that China is extremely aggressive on, international tribunals have ruled them as violating international law in international waters and in sovereign waters of other nations, etc.
And the US just casually carried out a special military operation in another sovereign country and captured their president without consequences. So much for self-righteous.
Obviously self defense with nobel peace price worthy restraint.
Considering it's PRC claimed territory. Literally 100% of PRC claims are inherited from ROC, i.e. PRC has expanded no claims, and actively settled 12/14 land borders (most on earth) essentially all with 50%+ concessions, i.e. PRC ceded more land in negotiations. That OBJECTIVELY, makes PRC the most benevolent rising power in recorded history. Any gov losing land to so many border settlements is committing treason. Also note PCA ruling is not international law, so what PRC does in SCS is not even legally wrong (as in they legally can't be wrong since UNCLOS cannot rule on sovereignty). Or that PRC was last to militarize SCS islands (except Brunai who is good boi), and PRC conceded ROC/TW's original 11dash to 9dash, which even in SCS disputes makes PRC the only party to have made concessions.
PRC is objectively the LEAST imperialistic rising power, by actual non retarded definitions, i.e. expanding on territories outside it's claims, that PRC didn't even make, but again inherited from ROC when UN recognition changed.
“One country two systems” is definitionally not imperialism, and given that “One China” is still an internationally recognized thing, neither is Taiwan. “Imperialism” is not a synonym for “morally repugnant government policy”.
I can see the argument for Hong Kong. I don't agree, really, but I can understand it. Under the strictest of definitions, perhaps it isn't.
But Taiwan is very obviously a totally separate country no matter what fictions anyone employs. If you are trying to talk about the thin veneer of everyone going "Uh huh, sure, China, yep Taiwan is totally part of you, wink wink, nudge nudge" as somehow making China not imperialist when Taiwan basically lives under the perpetual threat of a Chinese military invasion and having their own democratic form of government overthrown and replaced with the CCP, then... I don't really know what to say.
I suppose we could argue about imperialism being more of an economic thing - in which case this all still holds up - China's investments in Africa are effectively the same playbook the US has run out in developing nations for years. The US learned it from prior imperialist nations but belts and roads is nearly a carbon copy of what the US has done in other places.
But let's look at what the original poster was actually talking about - saying that China is safe because they don't have a military industrial complex because they're not imperialist. The proper word to use, if we want to get down to the semantics of it all, would be expansionist - but it's still not true. China has the 2nd largest military industrial complex in the world, and the gap is shrinking every day between them and the US. And if you were to look at wartime capacity, where China's dual-use shipyards could be swapped to naval production instead of commercial, a huge portion of that gap disappears immediately.
Look. I think the Chinese AI companies are doing a lot of good. I'm glad they exist. I'm glad they're relatively advanced. I don't think the entire nation of China is a bunch of villains. I don't think the US, even before the current era, is a bunch of do-gooders.
But China has some of the most imperialist policies in the world. They are just as imperialist as Russia or America. Military contracts are still massive business.
I also believe the petrodollar will fall, but it isn't going to be because China built exponentially more solar panels.
That's different to the expansionist imperial policies of Spain in the 1500s or Britain in the 1700s. It also affects a very large proportion of the world's population. That Wikipedia page has some good links for further reading about this.
But it's an important point when considering China's place in the world.
We're talking about the modern world, though. China's imperialism over the past half century is not significantly different from any other major world power. The choices we have aren't 1500s Spain or 1700s Britain vs. 2000s China.
And Belt and Road is the Marshall plan writ large, and it was considered to be one of the largest imperialist plans ever by the USA, and B&R covers many many countries outside of that map. You'll notice all of these loans they've offered have very favorable terms for them - it's arguably many times more exploitative than the Marshall plan.
> Educate me please with a comparison of what China has done to be "some of the most imperialist policies"?
Tibet occupation. Taiwan encirclement and ongoing military exercises. Strong-arming African and Asian countries that made the mistake of signing up for belt & road. Tianenmen Square. Illegal Foreign Police Stations. Uyghurs/Xinjiang genocide and concentration camps. Repeated invasion and occupation of Indian territory in North East and North West. The Great Firewall of China - occupation and suppression of its own populations. Ongoing Han settlement of Tibet, Xinjiang and other ethnic regions. Violent destruction of Hong Kong democracy (that was condition of handover). Spratly Islands occupation. Attacks on Filipino shipping and coast guard. Ongoing attacks on Japan's Senkaku Islands.
Tibet
Hong Kong / Macau
Taiwan
Everything constantly in the South China Sea
Belt and Roads is effectively the Marshall Plan but even bigger - Africa being the major example, but also Eastern Europe, parts of the middle east, etc. Over 100 countries. This exact playbook is what sets up the infrastructure and reasons for military intervention at a later date - protecting your investments.
It's also a statement entirely divorced from reality when you look at the fact that those winning candidates are not in fact doing that, and neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico.
Newsom has a vested interest in making it sound like he's the maverick here that knows the special formula, but it's been obvious to damn near everyone that they couldn't run out the same losing playbook.
> neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico
It's a pretty close race with some recent polling indicating that Crockett will win the primary. Impossible to tell though. I clock her as being a more traditional democrat ultimately policy wise.
I'd expect she or Talarico has a good shot at winning in TX. They both have the potential to pivot to a more traditional position in the general election.
My main concern is the current elected leaders of the democrats and how the incoming dems view them. Frankly, if a candidate isn't saying "we need to oust Schumer/Jeffries" then I take that as a pretty decent signal that they align close enough with the moderate position to worry me about the future party.
I worry about the actions of the dems after election. I think they'll win the midterms, maybe even take the senate. I even think there's a good shot that they win 2028 presidental elections. The problem is that I think they'll run a biden style presidency and future campaigns once they get in power. That will setup republicans for an easy win in 2030 and 2032.
I'm a Texan so I'm following this pretty closely. I slightly prefer Crockett to Talarico, but I voted for him in the primary because I think he's got a significantly better shot to win.
Texas is going to need moderate and centrist votes to swing blue - we're not making the state more liberal at a rate that is gonna hand either of them a victory. Both are actually fairly progressive. But Talarico is a lot better at selling those progressive values to everyday people. The hispanic vote is one of the biggest factors in Texas, and while they're obviously not a monolith, culturally a lot of them have much more mixed social values than other voting demographics. Statistically, way more likely to be heavily religious, and that's at odds with a lot of the social values from more progressive candidates. Talarico effortlessly refrains these issues in a way that aligns with stuff he can directly quote scripture on.
I'm an atheist so I don't care what scripture says on the matter, but it's the sort of thing that plays well with a lot of a key voting demographic that Crockett just can't do.
'Working nuclear weapons' is a really broad scale so it's tough to extrapolate without knowing if it means "they can send a person with a low yield weapon somewhere and blow it up vs. "they can launch a high yield weapon on a ballistic missile anywhere within 2000km"
reply