They said the same thing when he was repeatedly lining up troops along Ukraine’s border.
It’s not a problem until it is. They need to be making more progress on peace talks. It’s unacceptable this war has gone on for this long and killed this many people.
IANAL, but my understanding is entrapment is when they convince you to do something you might not otherwise have done. So if the cops create an account of a minor and message an adult asking if they want to fuck, and the answer is like “uh no, absolutely not,” and then the cops follow up by repeatedly sexting, and the adult blocks their account, but the cops relentlessly keep sexting from burner accounts, and plant people in the adult’s work and social environments who keep talking about how normal it is to fuck minors who sext you out of the blue, and then the adult is finally like “oh whatever, fine” - that’s entrapment.
Now, most people still are literally never going to take the minor up on the offer, no matter how relentless they are or how normalized it is in their environment. That’s true about most crimes. The question is how many people wouldn’t have committed that crime unless this very specific police-created situation came up, and that difference is what falls into entrapment.
I’d argue this isn’t even close to entrapment, because all they did was set up an account much like all the others that exist, and waited for others to find them. It’s no different from leaving a bike unlocked, then catching somebody who steals it. There are unlocked bikes everywhere, and people don’t suddenly decide to steal the only bike of their life because they happened to find that unlocked bike.
Of course, they could also be spending this time and money getting to the root of societal issues and fixing the core problems instead of catching a small percentage of active pedophiles and letting the rest of them continue to cause irreparable harm.
But, perhaps the part I like most is the struggle sessions. The entire community will heavily focus on a current topic, then hash it out with good faith discussion.
I’ve never seen this - not just from that instance, but literally anywhere on the internet, even back in the forum or bb days. But I’ve been looking for something like that for years, and I’d be interested. Do you know of any specific examples of this happening?
He’s unquestionably getting pardoned. I disagree that we should feel good about another rich asshole getting off the hook because some other rich asshole wouldn’t like it.
Assuming by “economy” we mean “wall street’s ledgers,” there could easily be a massive correction/recession/depression coming up, and the president wouldn’t make much of a difference there. What they do to recover from it could differ a lot, as seen with Trump/Biden, Bush/Obama, or any number of older examples.
What is your alternative to sanctions?
The short answer:
The same alternative that’s been the best and most effective alternative throughout literally all of history: diplomacy with a focus on improving the lives of the general populace. Working with the UN as well as groups like Amnesty international, Doctors Without Borders, and Reporters Without Borders to accomplish that end goal.
The longer answer:
We knew the Taliban was going to get back into power after the U.S. influenced those events. We knew somebody like Maduro was going to get into power after the U.S. influenced those events. And we knew somebody like Putin was going to get into power after the U.S. influenced those events. These were either a result of total incompetence (likely, in at least Afghanistan’s case) or intentional (as with something like Allende/Pinochet). It’s not easy for anybody to prove which of these was intentional, but it’s worth noting they’re not always trying their best to help the people of the country they’re intervening in or the people of the U.S., they’re trying their best to accumulate wealth and power.
Historically, problems like this have always popped up because of power and wealth imbalance. You can prevent these problems by ensuring people are living happy, healthy lives. Sometimes, as with South Korea, Japan, Israel, or West Germany, it means propping up their economies and making sure they develop quickly. They become allies awfully quickly that way, even if they were sworn enemies just a few years prior (as with Japan or Germany). But even if you can’t occupy them with military force and control their every move, softening relations tends to lead to better outcomes. North Korea was actually being somewhat cooperative with Clinton until W threw a shitfit. Iran’s compliance with safety inspectors has been directly related to how the international community - mainly the U.S. - treats them. Calling these two countries the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and then invading Iraq was a very, very poor way to keep them from developing nuclear weapons.
So no, I don’t believe in just letting them “do whatever they want” because that’s also shown to be a terrible mistake time after time. Letting Hitler do whatever he want obviously was a mistake, but letting Hitler get into power in the first place by imposing a crushingly bad economy on the Germans was what created the opportunity to make that mistake in the first place. The U.S., as the most powerful economic and militaristic country in the world for decades, and as one that has consistently intervened to cause these issues in a very direct way, can fix these issues if they want to. Hell, they could prevent some of them just by not doing shit like this in the first place.
The real answer:
The U.S. has over 13,000 people in the U.S. Foreign Service. It’s their job to figure out the intricacies of diplomacy, not ours. People are dying and they’re failing to solve that problem.
And lastly, I’m pretty sure you’ve decided I’m on the wrong side so you won’t read any of this and you certainly won’t look at it as a nuanced, good faith approach, but it was a good exercise for me anyway.
It’s not about feeling bad for Maduro or the Russians, it’s about wanting the U.S. to be more productive instead of whatever this is. Snatching up Russian yachts hasn’t done shit to stop hundreds of thousands of people being killed or wounded in Ukraine. Taking Maduro’s plane isn’t going to give freedom of press and election oversight to the Venezuelans.
It’s just grandstanding and trying to make people feel like the “right side is winning” when actually, everybody’s going to keep on losing because the power majority isn’t actually fixing anything.
Okay, am I the only one who just sees this article as “U.S. government steals a plane, pats themselves on the back”?
Today, the U.S. Department of Justice took action to enforce U.S. sanctions – seizing an aircraft used by Maduro and his representatives.
He wasn’t on it. There’s no report of them finding anything useful on the plane. Are we supposed to assume he has no other planes? That this will have any significant impact on him whatsoever?
Whatever your moral stance is on Maduro, or stealing, or U.S. intervention, this feels absurd. Even if the dude were literally Hitler, this just doesn’t accomplish anything. The time spent inspecting and stealing this plane could’ve been better spent on so many other things.
As the conservatives would say, my taxes paid for this and I want them back.
Yeah, his alternative energy push was definitely positive, he just didn’t have the political capital or savvy to make anything of it. He admittedly walked into a pretty raw deal with stagflation and an energy crisis, but he handled them so poorly it’s hard to justify cutting him any slack. Telling the public energy is in short supply so they’re going to have to make sacrifices is a losing strategy no matter what you’re advocating for.
The AP article for those that don’t want to listen: https://apnews.com/article/raiders-nfl-vegas-police-allegiant-stadium-5239b9962c23a6512fa2f694add9b9ea
The highlight for me is this:
The Las Vegas Police Protective Association, with the backing of the department, said they are concerned such technology compromises the officers’ privacy.
It’s worth noting they’re only doing this for workers, not for attendees. The police would presumably by fine with it if it were just attendees and not workers, because it wouldn’t include them.
It worked out pretty well for Carter’s policies, even if he only got one term. Carter ran openly as a centrist, and his fiscal conservatism was very popular. The left-ish wing of the Democratic party started an “Anybody But Carter” campaign during the primaries for exactly that reason. Lots of policies he advocated for got passed during his presidency: he deregulated the airlines, the trucking industry, railroads, banking - and that was a great trial run for Reagan’s followups (and Bush, and Clinton, and W).
But Carter was both too conservative and wildly incompetent for the job. With somewhat liberal Dems having the majority in both houses and universal health care being a big issue at the time, and with Ted Kennedy as majority leader trying to push it through, Carter still opposed it on the basis of cost. Of course it died, as did any other progressive or even moderately liberal ideas that cost money.
What I’m saying is fuck Carter. He’s done a great job rehabbing his image but he was a bad president his presidency is rightfully maligned by both the right and the left. But he got a lot of policies through that he liked.
I actually really hate NPR for this article because they waffled so much.
After confusion over his stance on abortion rights, former President Donald Trump is clearing things up.
His stance was not confusing and was abundantly clear, as they state later in the article:
On Thursday, Trump indicated he would vote in favor of abortion rights in his home state of Florida, where it is on the ballot. Saying he thinks the “six week [ban] is too short,” he said he favored “more time.”
When asked explicitly, “so you’ll vote in favor of the amendment?”, Trump seemed to affirm that he would.
“I’m going to be voting that we need more than six weeks,” he told NBC News in an interview, before saying he favored exceptions in abortion law for the life of the mother, rape and incest.
They don’t even give that part straight. Saying he “indicated” makes it sound like there was some wiggle room, or miscommunication, possibly on the part of the reader/listener. There wasn’t. He plainly said in no uncertain terms that he was voting for the amendment. Then his campaign said WAIT NO DON’T SAY THAT because they think it’s a dumb move given his base. So he reversed his position.
He didn’t “clarify” shit. He said one thing and within a DAY he said the exact opposite.
Being in a position where the entire country hears his very reasonable, very easy to understand words over and over again would eventually have an effect. Even the die-hards would eventually be asking themselves if it is in fact reasonable that corporations are assfucking each and every one of us every single day. Some of them would vote in a more progressive representative.
Would he get everything passed? Absolutely not. But he would get some good stuff through.
Most things are pretty easy. One problem is having the time to do literally everything yourself. The other is deciding whether that time spent doing optional tasks is worth the time not spent doing more meaningful activities.
Seems bizarre that people are okay with public opinion being explicitly manipulated by a very small group of people with very little overlapping interest with the public, but not okay with public opinion being explicitly manipulated by a very small group of people with very little overlapping interest with the public from a foreign country.
Prevent substantial wealth differentials in the first place.
This has actually been shown through studies a number of times!
Plenty of correlative studies that show the left associated with positive and the right associated with negative: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2011.0268
But also some causal studies where people are more conservative when they’re scared or more progressive when they feel safe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2315
They really grabbed us by the Purcell.
I don’t think they’ve released the text nor a comprehensive list of what it includes. They’ve only alluded to a few things, like the occupation.
This AP article says as much when it says, “Blinken, who is back in the region this week, said Monday that Israel had agreed to the proposal without saying what it entails.” https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/why-is-israel-demanding-control-over-2-gaza-corridors-in-the-cease-fire-talks/
Al-Jazeera and similar have all said some variation of that as far as I’ve seen.
How Parking Garages Became a Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists
How Public Parks Became a Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists
How the Street Became a Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists
How Literal Playgrounds Became a Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists
Maybe if these things are happening everywhere, it’s not the app that’s the issue. This kind of talk opens us up to bans on Signal and similar apps, and that’s just unacceptable. Address the core issues in society, don’t try (and typically fail) to bandage it by taking away more and more of people’s rights and freedoms.