Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Science Committee, said in a statement, "This is the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation. The NSB is apolitical. It advises the president on the future of NSF. It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the Foundation. Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won't stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries? A real bozo the clown move."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 178 points 5 days ago (2 children)

These fucking freaks really are absolutely intent on dragging us back to the dark ages.

[–] imrighthere@lemmy.ca 89 points 5 days ago (3 children)

They told you this to your faces the first time you elected him.

[–] popekingjoe@lemmy.world 80 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I had nothing to do with voting them into power. I voted for decent people. Unfortunately myself and millions of others were drowned out by people who bought into the grift or saw them as an in to be able to say slurs and hate women, since that seems to be what they wanna do.

[–] Ioughttamow@fedia.io 25 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah but she had ovaries

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

BLACK ovaries. Eww, can you imagine if there was a black ovary in charge?? /s

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 9 points 4 days ago

The dems really screwed the pooch with that one. If it had been a flipped ticket, trump would have lost by a landslide.

A black man being president is what started the MAGA movement, the US is still far too racist and sexist to have a black female president.

Its bullshit, but it's reality.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 31 points 5 days ago (3 children)

But Kamala was going to support Israel or something...

[–] yuknowhokat@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, and Trump gave no indication he would do anything different with regards to Israel

[–] TerrabyteMarx@quokk.au 11 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Someone should write a Dr Seuss style book about this circular debate on voting so people can move on and argue about more pertinent stuff.

If you don't move on and find it in yourself to be angry at the system as a whole then you're still going to be ranting about this in 20 years. It'll become a part of who you are.

The system catered to white suprrmacy and wealth, exactly as it was designed.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 days ago

You can be angry at more than one thing.

[–] smeenz@lemmy.nz 7 points 5 days ago

Didn't she wear a suit covered in mustard ?

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Yes, and Trump does too?

Whoa! whoa! whoa! Are you saying she should have a differentiating position on supporting genocidal countries to convince voters to vote for them?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Are you saying she should have a differentiating position

I'm saying when it's the same for either candidate, then it cannot be a deciding factor.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

But it’s not the same for both sides when one merely supports the actual aggressors while the other also has a plan to drive the survivors out of their homeland to redevelop it for the Epstein class, to abuse their piwer to personally enrich themselves by the death and misery of millions of people and potentially of an entire culture

[–] cabillaud@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

You strongly reminds me of Savonarola.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I guess they told that to you as well, given you are right here

[–] Ttangko@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

its not individuals, its systemic.

unless we change the game, there will be no "good" result, no matter if red guy, blue guy, green guy or whatever.

(Capitalist) Nations in competition are the fundamental issue for ever-returning crisis based on fundamental (scientifically analyzed) contradictions... .....Capital and Labor (one side wants profit, the other wants fair wages), .... Usage and Exchange value (things are meant to be useful, but are sold primarily as commodities), ...Production and Consumption (too much is produced, but many - and an increasing number - cannot afford the goods). ..Competition and monopolies (everyone fights for market share until a few dominate everything) .technological progress and job losses (machines replace people, even though the economy is growing)....

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world -4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ah and North Korea is in a better place because they have no capitalism. Clearly competition is the issue.

Or perhaps we need to put some boundaries like other countries do and of course not let powerful people amass more and more power. But power also corrupts soooo many people, is there a solution?

[–] Ttangko@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago

May you please make one argument after another, or just one please.

The only argument I can reconstruct out of your brainfart could be "Capitalism is good because North Korea has no capitalism". Just because (their own) people say its not communist doenst mean it is. Or do you really think they have no (ruling) classes, no money?

Does NorthKorea not strive for "interests" (word is misleading us normal people btw, as its not yours/ours but the interest of ruling ones) of nationhood? So extending borders for example (as they are currently actively in war with South Korea under cease-fire)