IcePee

joined 9 months ago
[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 47 points 1 week ago (6 children)

You're right about the US's military, but you know who also had an outstanding military? Almost all (now dead) empires. I think it stretches exceptionalism beyond all credibility to think the US will buck this trend. That the US empire will be thought of in the past tense is pretty much inevitable, I'm most worried about how it goes. Will it be with a bang, or a whimper. I fearful of the former as they can mount a pretty big bang.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 4 points 1 week ago

Or, looking at the popular vote figures would the rest of the United States.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even if you're right, here. Trump will petition the supreme court to have the count stopped. Memories of Bush v Gore.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)
Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.

-- Clement Attlee

 

This is what happens when successive US governments fail to tackle inequality. While millions of people live in poverty, a handful grow unimaginably rich. Wealth begets wealth, and they acquire political power to match. It was inevitable that one of them – now the richest man on Earth – would launch what looks like a bid for world domination...

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 3 points 2 weeks ago

While prima facie, that's true, your reply doesn't mention that anything has been uncovered coupled with the fact that Trump has a history with frivolous and vexatious litigation kinda makes me think this is nothing more than pretext. Though the boy that cried wolf is a parable for a reason. So one shouldn't drop their guard. It's just a shame one man can clog up the court to this extent. There are remedies that courts can take against vexatious litigants, though.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 8 points 2 weeks ago

"I didn't expect them to eat my face"

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 1 points 3 weeks ago

Even in their worst excesses, any legislation cannot change a deeply held moral position. Oh they can try, but the best (worst) they can do is legislate action and communication.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 2 points 3 weeks ago

Not so sure that it can't be tailored to big businesses. Regulations carve out exceptions all the time based on employee count, annual turnover, customer count (hits), etc

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 1 points 3 weeks ago

Not gonna lie, this is kinda a refutation of the whole open source model. I was led to believe that it shouldn't matter who writes the code, as long the code is able to be interrogated/corrected.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 4 points 3 weeks ago

Let me paint a picture that, I think is plausible within the law. Trump directly orders an assassination. With it comes a carrot (a general immunity for the killing). And the stick (a court marshall for disobeying a direct order from your superior, plus your name on a hit list). Then, he just has to go down the line with the same offer until someone bites. Once that happens, he will order them to go down the hit list with the same offer. Hell, he could deputise a militia to do the dirty. Not saying he would, I'm just pointing out the outer bounds of what is perfectly legal. And if the Republicans have a clean sweep nothing can or will stop him. Even without a clean sweep, he could threaten the life of any politician.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yep, a root and branch routing of anyone who won't pledge their allegiance to Trump above all else.

[–] IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If this is any guide, maybe there should also be an upper age limit, too.

view more: next ›