If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they're lying.
Evidence or GTFO.
Donald Ewen Cameron's operation was running from what is today known as the Allen Memorial Institute (AMI), part of the Royal Victoria Hospital, and not to be confused with the non-governmental organization based in Montreal, AMI-Québec Agir contre la maladie mentale.
Love how Donald Ewen Cameron gets exactly one sentence that doesn't even describe anything he did, and is listed under the Canada section with zero mention of being funded by the CIA as part of MKULTRA (which also gets zero mention in the article).
For those who don't know, Donald Ewen Cameron posed as a normal doctor in Canada and took patients who came in with minor symptoms like headaches or anxiety disorders and put them into months-long comas without their consent to run CIA mind control and drug experiments on, including LSD and electroshock treatments at 30-40 times normal levels. The full extent of his abuse will never be known due to the destruction of records (more details on this page), but many people were severely traumatized with long term effects including, "incontinence, amnesia, forgetting how to talk, forgetting their parents, and thinking their interrogators were their parents." "Victims often suffered from retrograde amnesia for the rest of their lives and had to relearn most skills they had. Many were in a childlike state and even had to be potty-trained."
After conducting these horrific, abusive "experiments" (torture) on innocent Canadians seeking medical help, with US government's full knowledge and support, Cameron would go on to become president of several different organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, and even the World Psychiatric Association.
This is literally USA level stuff.
A parody account posting something that's perceived as coming from a non-parody account falls under my definition of "fake." What I meant was, Chiquita didn't post either tweet.
Both tweets are fake.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
This article is like a case study in how to present data to support the conclusion you want. Sure, more people support Ukraine than Russia, and that question would be relevant if the question was "which side to support" rather than "whether to continue being involved."
The reality that the polls show is that it breaks down along partisan lines. 2/3 of Republicans support the suspension of aid to Ukraine, and of the 21% who oppose it, only half say the support should continue "as long as it takes," with the other half saying either less than a year or 1-2 years. So only about 10% of Republicans are on board with supporting Ukraine for "as long as it takes," with the majority opposing aid entirely, and the rest either unsure or wanting it to be time-limited.
This marks a significant departure from the start of the war when there was wide bipartisan support. Based on the actual numbers in the article, the headline is dead wrong - Trump has dampened support for the war, mostly just within his base.
It's not limited to government contractors. They push it into anything they think they can get away with it, and into things they know they can't just for show. For example, in Dickinson, Texas, hurricane victims were required to sign a pledge that they wouldn't boycott Israel in order to receive funds. Companies also face retaliatory legal action if they make moves in that direction, like how AirBNB had to reverse it's decision to shut down operations in the illegal settlements.
The idea of "it's fine because you can do it anyway, just don't say that you are" is still a problem. Boycotts should not have to operate on "don't ask, don't tell." Like, you're "allowed" to participate in a boycott in the same way gay people in the 50's were "allowed" to be gay.
Regardless, as I said, there is legal precedent to ban Tesla boycotts in the same way, such a ban would obviously be unenforceable on the general population, but for example if you're a teacher, they could make you sign a contract saying you won't boycott Tesla and you could be fired if you post otherwise on social media.
Related, BDS is illegal in the US meaning that you are legally obligated to purchase things from Israel. It's unenforceable on an individual level, but it's used to come after people who promote or organize the boycott. If Trump and the Republicans wanted to make it illegal to boycott Tesla, they would have legal precedent because of that absolute lunacy.
There's a reason that the country abandoned that approach, despite virtually everyone being ideologically committed to it: it doesn't work in practice. Time and time again in this country's history, people tried the decentralized, weak federal government but then we faced crises that could only be solved with a stronger and more centralized federal government. Whether it was the Articles of Confederation being unable to pay soldiers from the Revolution, or states seceding and starting a war because the elites felt their interests were going to be threatened someday if they didn't, or the Great Depression - despite being the "face" of big government, FDR was actually quite restrained in the New Deal and tried at times to roll parts of it back (resulting in harm to the economy), and it was only WWII that gave an excuse to do the kind of government spending necessary to recover - or desegregation, where the federal government had to deploy troops to force schools to integrate. Your approach was tried again and again and it failed again and again, and the reason we don't have it anymore is that it's fundamentally dysfunctional.
You can't just decide what the best policy is through pure reason, you have to look at what's been tried and what happened. Like, point me at any point in the country's history where the problem was not enough state's rights and a too powerful federal government as opposed to the opposite.
So you disagree with the idea of "one person, one vote," then? Absolutely ridiculous. People living in densely populated areas have just as much ability to think and arrive at a diversity of opinion as rural people do, if anything, moreso because they're more likely to encounter a range of views. This also doesn't account for minority enclaves, the various Chinatowns and similar, that can exist in cities, or the more diverse populations in general. The electoral college disproportionately favors white people.
Just do the following mental excercise: Texas and Florida are the two fastest growing states at the moment. Let’s say they remain red and manage to get a bigger population than all the blue cities combined (because of all the space they have) and now because of them every election a Republican president wins. Would you be ok with that? If not then you have to be in favor of the electoral college.
That's a terrible argument. If that happened, perhaps I would be in favor of the electoral college for purely pragmatic reasons, very reluctantly. If I'm operating on ruthless, unprincipled pragmatism (the only reason I would ever, even hypothetically, consider supporting the electoral college), then obviously, in the present situation where the electoral college is disadvantageous to me, then I should oppose it.
During the Civil War, Lincoln temporarily suspended certain civil liberties due to the existential threat the south posed - and it was probably necessary and the right call. But just because I might support suspending certain liberties in extreme situations, facing a true, existential threat, it doesn't mean I "have to" be in favor of suspending them on some kind of principle.
Obviously, all else being equal, it's better for everyone to get an equal say. You can conjure up a situation with a horrible population and a benevolent monarch keeping them in line and argue that in that hypothetical monarchy is superior to democracy, but that in no way proves it in the general case or as a principle. In the same way, when you conjure up a situation where the electoral college is keeping an evil population in line, that in no way proves that the electoral college is better than democracy.
The system your beloved founders created wasn't just "the person with the most votes gets the whole state" because there were no votes for president at all! It was entirely up to the political elites in each state to decide who to support between two nominees who were also not voted on because primaries were not a thing and were again picked by party elites in smoke-filled rooms based on corrupt deals with no democratic input. And even in the cases where people could vote, women and slaves were of course excluded from the process entirely.
Unless you're either a billionaire or a high-ranking member of a major political party, your beliefs are directly opposed to your own interests. "Populism" guess what, you are part of that population, your voice and your interests are the ones being suppressed when "populism" is suppressed. You're shooting yourself in the foot.
But really it just seems like "populism" is just a meme in your head. If you want proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all, you're supporting "populism." The alternative to "populism" is the suppression of democracy by a political elite. The "winner-takes-all" system is already considerably more "populist" and democratic than what the founders set up.
By the way, the "bipartisan politics" that "corrupted" the "good system" emerged immediately, before the ink was even dry on the constitution. It was an inevitable result of the system that the founders created and they didn't understand that because they had nonsense ideas that politics could be "nonpartisan," a process of people randomly coming up with different ideas through reason as opposed to competing socioeconomic groups asserting their material interests. But immediately one party emerged representing the southern slaveowners and another representing the northern capitalists, because that's how politics works. You can even see this in the constitution itself, things like the Three-fifths Compromise which was blatantly a political compromise and not reflective of some transcendent truth.
Even if you were to argue that some of the founders had good ideas, it's absolute nonsense to suggest that they all did, especially, you know, the ones who supported slavery as a precondition of signing off on the project and insisted on provisions to grant slavers more power and to bar congress from making any laws about it for a specified period and wanted to suppress "populism" out of fear that it could lead to the slaves being freed. Your reverence for them is both completely irrational and against your own interests.
You're trying to own me by intentionally misgendering some other random person. I hope you feel good about yourself. All you're doing is proving my assumption about you correct and vindicating me. You showed me everything I did here was 100% correct and justified and I would do it again.
I’m also the guy who started all this.
Then edit your comment.
The assumption underpinning the whole concept was this idea that politics could be "nonpartisan." Several founders, including Washington, cautioned that the system would fail if political parties emerged, which happened instantly (in fact, you can see the beginnings even within the constitution itself with vulgar compromises like the three-fifths compromise), because as it turns out, politics isn't just a matter of high-minded ideas but of different classes persuing their conflicting material interests. The reason they couldn't imagine a political party taking over all three branches at once is because they had no understanding of how politics actually works.
Even then, the way the division of powers shook out was left very ambiguous in the constitution. The concept of judicial review that gives the SCOTUS significant power by allowing it to strike down laws was not spelled out in the constitution but established later in Marbury v Madison. The president's role was similarly ambiguous, the only reason it really exists is they knew they'd have to put Washington at the helm somewhere for anyone to buy into it and he immediately clashed with Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans who thought his role should be extremely limited.
More like it was put in place to stop people like Lincoln and FDR. The founders were economic elites, whether slaveowners or rich capitalists, and they were afraid that "the mob" would elect someone who would persue the material interests of the common people, against them, especially in regards to slavery.
Yeah, because the Dems ran a "moderate" like you wanted. You just didn't get your particular shitty opportunist cult leader.
Trump being president in no way proves either of the points of
- Tulsi not being dogshit and just as bad as Trump
- Tulsi actually being able to win
Typical Tulcel deflecting all criticism back to "Dems bad" no matter what the criticism is or where it's coming from.
Tulsi is complete shit who nobody likes outside of her little fanclub/cult. She would not have won and even if she had she's barely any better than Trump, and possibly worse. She's an opportunistic right-wing shill who says whatever's politically advantageous to advance her own career.
If the Democrats had only chosen to nominate Donald Trump, they would've won too.
Organizing along class lines is literally the farthest thing from "culture war bullshit" there is.
They kinda were. People hate "RINOs," ofc Trump is in reality just more of the same, but like the author said he represents a "wrecking ball," and only thing resembling a deviation from the mainstream Washington consensus.
71% of Americans are Russian bots?? 🤯