Niko's denying the claims and threatening litigation on the basis of defamation so I hope huffpost has some receipts.
It's a good thing HuffPost has direct links to videos and tweets, then.
Niko's denying the claims and threatening litigation on the basis of defamation so I hope huffpost has some receipts.
It's a good thing HuffPost has direct links to videos and tweets, then.
Went on Niko House's Twitter.
Within 5 tweets I see him retweeting Jill Stein calling for an investigation into Tim Canova's ballots being destroyed.
edit: lmao this dude is a full on crank
Turns out John Brennan hasn't been stripped of his security clearance
The fuckin' worst. And Chip Roy blocked the disaster relief package because he wanted an extra $4 billion for the border.
Gotta go blast.
The legislative branch abdicated its role when it passed the AUMF after 9/11.While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
Successive Congresses ceded the power to the executive rather than make politically unpopular decisions themselves.While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
We're relying on China to keep the choke chain on their vassal state.So, am I crazy or is the best play with NK not just... giving up on decnuclearization and trusting in MAD to keep them in line? They want nukes because they're convinced that the US or somebody is gonna try to depose the Kims, so they want to make sure that doing so extracts too great a price to contemplate, but any pretense at (deliberate) offensive missile use has to be a bluff, because they know that there's no way they survive that exchange. So... let them keep the bomb. Keep up the economic sanctions, refuse any diplomatic relations, but make it clear that nobody has an intention of deposing the regime. Let them fade farther and farther into total irrelevancy. What's the downside?
So, am I crazy or is the best play with NK not just... giving up on decnuclearization and trusting in MAD to keep them in line?
...
What's the downside?
I will never take the term "allies" as a serious term when it comes to white people "fighting" for the rights of minorities. Most of the time it is just white people thinking they are helping, but aren't doing anything or just don't want to be called a racist or a bigot.
Basically neutrals if you ask me, definitely not alliesIt's people thinking they're allies because they don't actively want to deny us rights. They're better than bigots, but not by much.
So, am I crazy or is the best play with NK not just... giving up on decnuclearization and trusting in MAD to keep them in line? They want nukes because they're convinced that the US or somebody is gonna try to depose the Kims, so they want to make sure that doing so extracts too great a price to contemplate, but any pretense at (deliberate) offensive missile use has to be a bluff, because they know that there's no way they survive that exchange. So... let them keep the bomb. Keep up the economic sanctions, refuse any diplomatic relations, but make it clear that nobody has an intention of deposing the regime. Let them fade farther and farther into total irrelevancy. What's the downside?
I just don't think that's the correct read on the dynamic.We're relying on China to keep the choke chain on their vassal state.
We're acting less rational than NK here - NK's primary motivation is preserving the status of the Kim dynasty inside NK. Make it clear that we're not going to go on offense, won't fire the first shot, will wipe them off the face of the earth if they do. Not much else to say after that. All the saber rattling is just that. They're not gonna do anything, because it would run counter to their objective. Just let them stew.You need rational actors on both sides for MAD to work.
And arguably you don't have rational actors on either side.
Saying "this country is too economically devastated for additional non-military pressure to work, so we're just going to leave them in their corner forever" isn't really giving everybody else a pass, since everybody else to some extent relies on the international community and isn't willing to go to the lengths NK is. It doesn't stop us from pursuing further nonproliferation efforts elsewhere.Think of it like the problem with having too many guns in this country. The whole "responsible gun owners" schtick is not wrong per se, but because there are so many guns out there then things happen as an inevitability, through depression/other mental illness, through accidents, through sudden crimes of passion, through irresponsible storage.
It's in everyone's interest to make sure there are as few nuclear weapons out there as possible. Right now the only countries "authorized" by the international order to have them are the P5 on the UN Security Council, the others (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea) are just tolerated because forcibly de-nuclearizing a country has, to date, not been judged to be worth starting a war over.
Anti-proliferation efforts is one of the few pieces of foreign policy that is not imperialistic at its core. This stuff's about our survival as a species, as any number of Cold War near-misses can tell you, or the demented orange-stained turd who is 20 minutes away from ending life as we know it at all times.
You give North Korea a pass and it encourages Iran to go ahead and build one, or someone like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Brazil maybe, anyone with the ambition and resources to potentially pull it off.
Tell them that if somebody punches them in the face, you'll totally have their back, in that you won't do anything whatsoever to help or protect them, but you PROMISE you won't also punch them in the faceYeah, but the problem is, they think they're allies, and get huffy when you tell them that, no, not actively wanting to deny us rights doesn't make you an ally.
NK exists because China wants it to exist.
You need rational actors on both sides for MAD to work.
And arguably you don't have rational actors on either side.
Yes and no?
Tell them that if somebody punches them in the face, you'll totally have their back, in that you won't do anything whatsoever to help or protect them, but you PROMISE you won't also punch them in the face
As far as I'm concerned nobody gets to define themselves as an ally.I will never take the term "allies" as a serious term when it comes to white people "fighting" for the rights of minorities. Most of the time it is just white people thinking they are helping, but aren't doing anything or just don't want to be called a racist or a bigot.
I will never take the term "allies" as a serious term when it comes to white people "fighting" for the rights of minorities. Most of the time it is just white people thinking they are helping, but aren't doing anything or just don't want to be called a racist or a bigot.
Since Truman dropped the A-Bomb.While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
So, do we have a list of allies?in my opinion, people should only consider themselves allies if they are a member of a different marginalized group and therefore also have something on the line, or have demonstrated exemplary efforts towards advocacy causes
it seems like most people who claim to be "allies" would be more accurately described as "neutral" - it's great that they are not being actively antagonistic, but in wars an ally is usually named for their concrete contributions to said war effort
While we're on the matter, who the fuck decided that the executive branch can declare war without the approval of congress? We're suppose to have checks and balances.
Is this where I have to point out that ally isn't even a term you can apply to yourself? It's something the people you want to help apply (or don't) at their discretion.People clamoring to be "allies" are mostly in it for self-validation. Same kind of people who take pleasure in their performative white guilt. "I'm not racist, see how much I hate myself and other white people?!"
It's become a meaningless term that some glom onto as some sort of identity. Just try to be a good person.
Is this where I have to point out that ally isn't even a term you can apply to yourself? It's something the people you want to help apply (or don't) at their discretion.
Yeah, it's very much not a term you should be using on yourself, it's something you use to reference others who have helped/are helping.Is this where I have to point out that ally isn't even a term you can apply to yourself? It's something the people you want to help apply (or don't) at their discretion.
Poor white people.
Freeze speech argument.
Because a lot of people are shitty and like the idea of saying whatever with impunity or being able to ignore challenges to their horrible opinions. Part ignorance, part deliberate misinterpretation.Why does the average American have such a poor understanding of constitutional freedom of speech? Given the importance of the constitution, does it actually get much coverage in the educational curriculum?
And beyond just the text of the constitution itself, do constitutional legal challenges or landmark decisions like Roe v Wade get covered in the classroom?
Biden going down is not an inevitability whatsoever and you are going to be in for a world of shock if you don't open yourself up to acknowledging that Biden weathering storms and still remaining the frontrunner a year from now is a real possibility. The field being splintered is going to make it hard for a candidate to gain traction in ways that are really bad for their chances.It's basically inevitable for at least one debate moment where someone attacks Biden hard for his crappy history and Biden puts up an exceptionally weak and dumb defence. The entire primary will then turn on if that makes people realise maybe Biden doesn't have the chops to defeat trump, or if people think that even if they don't like Biden in that moment, the maga guy next door probably did.
I don't know if that matters if it happens yesterday or in 7 months, but I want it to happen soon as possible just for the sake of my mental health.
It is achievable though? I feel like there is a train of thought that given a background there is some automatic disqualifyers. It shouldnt be a "title" to strive for as its more important what you do and what a person wants to fight for.trying to draw that distinction in practice on a large scale would be absolutely miserable
however, i guess one easy line could be drawn is that people with reasonable access to the polls who don't even vote for progressive candidates - in addition to doing nothing else to help - probably should try a bit harder at being a good ally
Given the importance of the constitution, does it actually get much coverage in the educational curriculum?
During the 1920s and 1930s, as historian Michael Kammen has demonstrated, constitutionalism "assumed a more central role in American culture than it ever had before," thanks in large part to "the efflorescence of intensely partisan organizations that promoted patriotic constitutionalism as an antidote to two dreaded nemeses, governmental centralization and socialism." The National Association for Constitutional Government, the American Legion, the Constitutional League, the National Security League, the Sentinels of the Republic, all came together to "pledge themselves to guard the Constitution and wage war on socialism." A national Constitution Day was instituted. Local school boards were pressed to further glorify the sacred parchment.
It is achievable though? I feel like there is a train of thought that given a background there is some automatic disqualifyers. It shouldnt be a "title" to strive for as its more important what you do and what a person wants to fight for.