When unions started they fought back. No strike is illegal

I hope workers one day remembers that when unions started they weren’t legal. They became legal through the blood of workers.

I called my primary for my annual checkup, they can’t get me in for 2 months. It’s getting bad out there

If you’re going to take an “exit plan” there are a lotnof revolutionary ways to go about it

The “just following orders” defense. That’s a bold choice

Russian base in Alaska and US base in Russia prelude to us starting expansionist wars to take over the artic circle?

My crazy theory on why they’re so quiet.

Trump agreed to pull support from Ukraine. Probably some trade agreement with Russia.

Crazier theory. Trump agreed to help Russia win.

Their silence makes me very suspicious.

Maybe Ukraine can find a way to seize the opportunity

I never understood what they were testing with that test either. Like yeah if you strap a body to a chair loaded with explosives it blows up.

Also a pig would have worked just as well and would have been cheaper.

It’s not social safety net first, everything else after. It’s both at the same time.

I’ve said this was easily possible 3 times now, but you seem to have decided to read what you want. Regardless of what’s being said.

Might be for the best to follow your own policy if you fail to read and comprehend the nuances of the conversation.

Seems like back pedaling but I’ll bite.

I said it because the ability to create a social safety net and the ability to do research, even for the sake of international prestige, are in fact unrelated and the only reason to relate them is being hostile to both or trying to deflect from the lack of funding by shifting the blame to actually useful or productive things that do get funded.

As I said you can absolutely have both, but allowing poverty and human suffering to exit while focusing on these other things will always cast a shadow on them.

Like I said the starting point should be providing a basic standard of living for your citizens. Then you fund everything else. The US generates enough wealth to do both. The US generates enough wealth to fund hundreds of different programs, but I think a country’s first duty before all else is providing for its citizens. That statement doesn’t negate funding for anything else it just establishes a priority.

This is why I fear Lemmy will fail. I see this every other thread. If someone says something that is even slightly off the topic of the original post people just complain about how it’s unrelated, shutting down the very conversation that makes sites like these interesting.

I jumped into this conversation after the original comment. I thought they had a point. Sure their point was only loosely related, but I thought it was interesting conversation and worth a discussion. But no that would be too much fun.

Right so this was addressed in the “of course we can have both” section of my comment.

So to reiterate, of course we can have both scientific research and provide for our citizens. It’s my view that we should ensure our citizens are provided a basic standard of living and assign the remaining budget from there.

The budget is quite massive and we should have no issue providing for both the people and research/scientific exploration. I would personally assign great value to these types of things. Honestly we can do both at the same time and we can easily do both by reallocating a small percentage of the defense budget but it won’t happen. The budget increase given to Homeland Security is sickening.

Disagree, we as a nation put a small percentage of our resources into space exploration just for the sake of a dick measuring contest with another nation.

We could absolutely end poverty.

Of course I think we could have both, but what’s the point of putting a man on the moon if your citizens can’t even afford access to healthcare

Republican controlled house and senate following midterms. Roe was overturned after mid-terms

To address small gains I could have seen at the very least Roe v. Wade being codified by a Harris White House.

I mean all the founders were.

No ground was gained Trump won. Decades of progress erased in 7 months. The genocide in Israel has accelerated. And our economy is crashing.

If Dems won and kept things as they were 7 months ago everything would be demonstrably better than they are now.

Would there still be issues? Of course there are always issues, but it would have been much better.

In your scenario Vance would be the successor and MAGA would use the war to further their agenda. Kinda straightforward.

I’m unfamiliar with Russia’s succession rules but Putin has been consolidating power and murdering anyone with potential to be his successor for decades. I could see how that would destabilize Russia more than the US.

Plus the Russian war machine ia not doing great in Ukraine. Doubt they could threaten western Europe or the US in any meaningful capacity. Nukes are always an option

I would absolutely not define myself as a liberal. My ideal canidate has never been on the ballot. At this point I content myself with trying to prevent those that want death camps from getting power. When it comes to the available means at the ballot box choices are limited. That’s by design of course, but it’s foolish to not even try.

I’d say contextually my previous comment fits the discussion