

I mean, the people did vote for her…
No they didn’t.
If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.
Evidence or GTFO.


I mean, the people did vote for her…
No they didn’t.


Or she’s just selling out and kissing ass in hopes that the invaders will install her as a puppet and grant her money and power.


There’s 195 countries in the world and we’re engaged in like 7 different wars so that’s 188 wars that Trump has prevented by not randomly deciding to attack them /s
“Holier-than-thou leftist” reporting in.


The story of the emperor with no clothes has a very optimistic view of society because in real life the boy who shouted out that he had no clothes would be beaten with a stick.


So they’re going to go to somebody like MTG instead.


I had a part time job at a UPS warehouse in Tennessee when covid hit. We got a new manager, and so they gathered everyone in the warehouse together into a small break area, everyone was right next to each other and nobody was wearing a mask, and the manager gave us all a speech about how much he cared about our safety. There were TV screens in the break areas that had been set to display information about covid safety guidelines that were being blatantly violated.
The same day, my supervisor informed me of a new policy: they’d had too many people “faking” being sick and calling out, so from now on you have to come into work even if you’re sick, and they’ll decide if you’re sick enough to go home. I with I had gotten it in writing because what she told me was definitely illegal, I actually called OSHA afterwards but it was my word against theirs. This was the only time I’ve quit a job with no notice, I remember it clear as day, I told her, “People are dying” and she replied, “I have a business to run,” and I said, “I don’t care.”
I wanted to set the damn building on fire. I was fortunate to have saved enough to take time off work because I lost all confidence that there was anywhere around me that would be a safe place to work.


“Democrats in the House and Senate [are] focusing on lowering your costs, dealing with affordability. Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are focused on spending treasure and, God forbid, lives on military adventurism overseas,” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer told reporters this week, just before the chamber voted to advance a resolution halting further attacks on Venezuela without congressional permission.
Lmao Chuck Schumer is trying to play this card? Hey, how did you feel about throwing away countless lives and money in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about all the money we’re spending to help Israel commit genocide? Maybe if some of that had been spent on making things more affordable, we wouldn’t be in this situation.
If Chuck Schumer actually believed that for a second, we’d be hearing about his resignation and suicide. It’s just a soulless ghoul saying whatever voters want to hear, just so long as it doesn’t involve bashing ICE.


315 grants were terminated in October, ending support for 223 projects worth approximately $7.5 billion,
Deciding that the government had violated grantees’ rights to equal protection, Mehta only ordered a return to the status quo, reinstating seven grants totaling $27.6 million.
Let’s be clear, that’s $27.6 million out of $7,500 million. 99.6% of the cuts still go through.


"What’s exciting is that the research is clear that these cash transfers are helpful, and the big concerns that they might disincentivize employment or contribute to inflation were not substantiated in our evidence review.”
PN3’s recent evidence review looked extensively at various programs that put money directly in the hands of families, from studies of unconditional cash transfer (UCT) programs in Illinois, Massachusetts and Texas, to existing dividend-based unconditional cash transfers, to child allowance pilot programs throughout the U.S. Two of the largest and most data-rich programs the researchers studied were the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Payments, neither of which was intended to be an anti-poverty program but each of which have measurably reduced poverty among their constituents.
In 2021, in what amounted to the first and so far, only nationwide case study of the impact of cash transfers, the Biden administration temporarily expanded the federal child tax credit (CTC) through the American Rescue Plan Act. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the expansion lifted 2.1 million children out of poverty. For Black and Latino children, official poverty measures shrank more compared to the decline in rates for white children. The temporary cash infusion also had notable benefits on mental health, again with a greater difference observed with Black families. An additional $100 per child per month reduced depression symptoms in all low-income parents, with Black parents seeing nearly twice the reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms as other subgroups.
One study found that the monthly cash difference of $313 per month led to some changes in infant brain activity, with infants whose mothers received $333 monthly showing higher “fast-brain” activity compared to babies of mothers receiving $20 monthly. The brain’s mid- and high-frequency bands are associated with cognitive skills, which indicates that cash transfers may improve development of these skills, though more research is needed to draw a direct link.
According to an analysis at Washington University in St. Louis, child poverty in the U.S. costs up to $1.03 trillion a year in loss of economic productivity, increased health and crime costs, homelessness and maltreatment. Cash transfer policies seem like a bargain in comparison by helping mitigate social challenges and reduce government spending in health and human services.


When it breaks. I don’t remember how long I’ve had this one but it was made in 2019.


This is why I keep telling people that Trump is not an anomaly and is not new. I think a lot of people on here must be too young to remember the Bush era.
The line from the Star Wars prequels of, "So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause" captures how it felt and was clearly about Bush’s policies. If Trump is worse than Bush, it’s only because he’s standing on the shoulders of fascist giants. And tbh I still regard Bush as the more dangerous of the two because he was able to command such overwhelming support, there was zero opposition in government anywhere, at all. He could ride his bike with no handlebars.


The war powers act gives the president the authority to invade any country on earth, he only needs congressional approval for operations lasting longer than 30 days. Congress also gave the president blanket authorization to invade any country he thinks might be harboring terrorists, following 9/11, with this absurd, fascist decision to grant the executive dictatatorial powers passing the Senate 98-0 and the House 420-1 (and with nearly 90% of Americans supporting Bush at this time). Trump’s actions in Venezuela therefore, while a brazen violation of international law, are fully within US law. It’s virtually impossible for a president to actually violate US law through military actions abroad.
Any attempts to rein in these ridiculous laws should be fully supported and are badly needed. Even if Trump ignores them, it can then be used to discredit him and prove that he is acting against the will of the people.


Having more guns.


Might want to ask the indigenous people how effective pieces of paper are at holding back the US military.


In the US you get two options and both are completely uninterested in “firming up the laws” and reining in the power of the executive. Trump can do basically whatever he wants, because after 9/11, Democrats fully supported measures like the Patriot Act that vastly expanded executive power, and when Obama came in after Bush he did nothing to hold him accountable for war crimes and torture, while continuing to use the same tools for largely the same purposes. No president wants to prosecute a former president for illegal activity because that would open the door for being prosecuted for their own illegal activities, which they all perform.
It doesn’t really matter if the average American cares about guns or about something else. We’ve never been given an opportunity to vote on the power of the executive just like we’ve never been given an opportunity to vote on Venezuela or Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen. The powers that be decide these things, all the voters do is choose which face they want doing it, which aesthetics and justifications will be used for decisions that have already been made.
In my experience, and maybe some churches are different, you’re just supposed to pretend to take it seriously, if you actually take it seriously you’ll find yourself very unwelcome.
If I went around saying, “I’m a Christian, so obviously that means I oppose the Iraq War,” or, “Christian teachings clearly call for opposing the war and anyone supporting it is living in sin,” I would get a lot of strange looks. Swap out the war for abortion or gay marriage and it would be perfectly normal. Between those subjects, Jesus was constantly talking about nonviolence and said nothing at all about abortion or homosexuality.
If you base you beliefs around a good faith attempt to understand Jesus’ teachings, you won’t be accepted in those circles. Heck, even if I based my beliefs around the Catholic Church’s teachings, for example, going around insisting that being “pro-life” requires you to oppose the death penalty, I would be out of place in most Catholic circles, considered annoying at best.
I still don’t really understand what I would’ve had to have done to fit in there. Somehow, a lot of people seem to see morality as something that is almost exclusively related to sex, and the idea of applying morality to things like war or executions is a completely foreign concept. I’m not sure how you’re supposed to arrive at that point but it clearly wasn’t from a good faith reading of the gospels.
I think you have to have the same emotional impulses somehow, like, to really fit in you need to have a drive to tear down people with more exciting sex lives than your own, and that was something I had no interest in. So it was either keep calling myself a Christian and try to reclaim that label, which would just confuse everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike, or find a better label. So, now I just tell people I’m a communist.
The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On.
Click for summary/spoilers
Kenzō Okuzaki was conscripted to fight in WWII and the experience radicalized him against the Japanese government. He deliberately attempted to get himself shot by Allied forces but was captured instead. After the war, as the years passed, he became worried that the younger generation was growing up unaware of the horrors of war and the atrocities that their government had committed, and so would be prone to repeating the mistakes of the past. He became desperate to do something about it.
Okuzaki brazenly defied norms about politeness and drove around in a car covered in slogans, shouting out of loudspeaker that the emperor was a war criminal. The film focuses on his attempts to track down elderly veterans and get them to record testimonies in front of a camera, specifically investigating allegations that Japanese soldiers resorted to cannibalism in New Guinea. Of course, people generally aren’t particularly thrilled about a stranger showing up to relitigate old war crimes and interrogate grandpa about The Things We Don’t Talk About. There are times when Okuzaki even gets involved in fistfights with people over it.
After collecting testimony from a bunch of people, he comes to the conclusion that a colonel was responsible for the war crimes, and he decided to kill him over it. However, when he arrived at his house, he only found his son, who he shot and injured instead.
Okuzaki is a complicated and problematic figure but in some ways that makes the film all the more unsettling and challenging. Shooting someone for just for being related to a war criminal is pretty indefensible, but Okuzaki was broken by the war he wanted to avoid repeating (the decade in solitary confinement probably didn’t help either). He wanted to remind people of the horrors of war, but it’s because of what the war did to him that he had become maladjusted and prone to violence (although it’s worth noting that a lot of his protests had been nonviolent, and had gotten him jail time). I think there’s a natural inclination to look at things like this in the abstract, to ask, “how for is it justifiable to go in pursuit of a good cause?” but the film pushes us to consider the psychological, human aspect of this traumatized killer trying desperately to create a world where people like himself would not be created.