Is there any possible way to disagree with you that you won't read as a Russian bot trying to undermine democracy?
It's such a thought-terminating cliche that anyone can use to dismiss any criticism. I could just as easily say that you're a DNC bot. Like, fuck critical thinking, I guess.
I remember when people used to make jokes about how like, if one side says "kill all the Jews" and the other side says, "don't kill anyone," the reasonable centrist position would be to kill half the Jews. It was a way of parodying centrists and lesser-evilism, because any line of logic that leads to that kind of mass murder is obviously wrong.
These days, the joke doesn't work because people are unironically screaming about how you have to support the person who wants to kill half the Palestinians or you're a bad person. You all have become such ridiculous self-parodies that there's nothing I could say to criticize you that's worse than your own stated positions.
We're already divided, and this comic is just making fun of those who put partisanship above all else so I don't see it as especially divisive. Moreover, there's no reason to seek any sort of "common cause" with the right, because they lick the boots of the ruling class and create division by attacking minority groups. Trying to find common ground with reactionary elements of the working class just dilutes the message and alienates their victims.
On the one hand, half of the US economy is tied up directly or indirectly in the supply of goods to maintain the US military, and cutting a significant portion of that will go down badly in myriad ways.
This is nonsense, because cutting the military frees up funds to be spent on things that are actually productive. If you spend a billion dollars on bombs, those bombs blow up and now you have nothing. If you spent it on, say, a grocery store, then that grocery store can generate revenue and not only support itself but provide profits in return. And there are lots of things the government can spend on that are better than that, for example, public transit can boost the economy in a whole area which in turn provides greater tax revenue.
On the other hand, the US has made a lot of enemies of late, as well as souring the relationships with it’s allies by generally being an international cunt in all the ways we can all describe in detail.
Which is all the more reason drastic reductions in the military are necessary. Such an action would demonstrate goodwill to the world.
The US is already spending more than the next 9 countries combined. We could cut the military budget literally in half and still be easily outspending China and Russia combined.
Nobody wants to fuck with the US. Nobody would want to fuck with a country half as powerful of the US. People fight the US because we force them to fight. Virtually every geopolitical "threat" is painstakingly maintained by Washington, because after all, if there weren't enough threats, there'd be more eyes on military spending. And the primary purpose of military spending is essentially money laundering, funnelling public funds into private hands where it can then make its way back to the politicians.
Do you think Iran is going to be more likely to cause trouble if the US stops fucking with them? Venezuela, Yemen, Cuba, Palestine, China? That's nonsense. The overwhelming majority of these supposed "threats" are people who want to live their lives in peace but we keep trying to provoke them. The only case you could try to make is Russia, which represents a tiny fraction of US spending either way.
The only thing we would really need European support for is for wars of aggression, like Iran, where they could provide diplomatic cover. What actual scenario are you imagining here? Chinese troops land in California and the EU says "deal with it?" Pure fantasy.
There is exactly one serious, existential threat to the US and that is the domestic threat posed by the far right. Providing QoL improvements is the best way to both keep them out of power by winning political points, and to avoid radicalization by getting people something to feel invested in. Military spending does virtually nothing to protect us from the only real threat we face.
So let me get this straight. You think that if someone, anyone really, thinks that the president might have violated a law, they should be immediately thrown in jail until it's resolved? Even the cleanest person in the world would be spending their entire term in a jail cell.
It's very debatable whether he actually broke the law in this instance. Attacking Iran without congressional approval is allowed by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The argument against that is that the powers outlined in that resolution are meant to be "emergency powers" but "emergency powers" are very easy to invoke and I'm not aware of any precedent of a president not being permitted to invoke them. And the US hasn't formally declared war since WWII, so they're invoked fairly often.
Getting more clearly restrictive laws in place would be a good thing, and getting Republicans on record as opposing them is only mostly useless (look, it's a low bar) because it does at least make it a little harder for them to pass themselves off as "antiwar."
People are reacting to the headline, but the article is basically the opposite of what most people assume. This is The Atlanic. Their problem is that the Democrats aren't doing enough austerity.
Tbf, the US is heading towards a debt crisis. However, the reason for that is because of the absurdly bloated military budget and pointless adventurism, while the article frames it entirely in terms of "taxes are too low and we spend too much on social programs." How are the Democrats supposed to win without promising the voters anything? This is never addressed. But that's apparently the lesson the author thinks they should learn. Run on austerity, if you somehow manage to win, prioritize the debt - and then when they inevitably lose the next election because everyone's lives got worse, the Republicans will have more money to play with to fund things like ICE and the Iran War.
It's nonsense. Winning means promising QoL improvements and following through on them. Yeah the debt is a problem, but that's exactly why military cuts are necessary. Trying to solve the debt problem just creates a political problem, it's the sort of thing to worry about once you've already secured power.
A highly secure remote location that I'm sure has some kind of bunker, no shortage of guns. A good place to start looking for what caused the zombies and how to cure them.
Having access to all the other secrets they keep is icing on the cake. I don't know how much I can get into without passwords but if I can tap into satellites or send messages to spies, that's also useful.
I wonder how many percentage points genocide counts for in your book, in terms of "not 100% align with." 1%? 10%? Because for me it's like, 99%.