So how on earth is it possible to elect a well known and blatantly obvious national security risk as president? I guess national security is only important when it comes to persecuting people who question the system.
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
265 points (95.5% liked)
News
23059 readers
3866 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is literally the reason the electoral college is a thing...
In case a con man and convicted fraudster like Trump won, the electoral college is supposed to over rule the voters.
That's why it's not a straight popular vote.
Instead the convicted fraudster is able to use the system to override the popular vote.
Our political system is inherently fucked and better systems have become common in the last 200 years. But no one with power in the current system would change it and risk losing power.
The electoral college was created so the slaver states could get political representation for the slaves without giving them the vote. Everything else is after the fact rationalisation.
Slavery played a big part in lots of our government...
But ignoring every factor and saying "it was slavery" just makes people ignorant of everything else that we need to keep looking out for.
If it was just the votes, they didn't need third party delegates who awarded delegate votes.
Each states popular vote could be used to determine how many "votes" they got by number of elected representatives.
Adding in those non elected people to vote for the "real" election was a safety switch in case the people did something stupid, the delegates didn't have to listen them.
I just didn't want to type all that at first, because it's way to in depth for a random social media comment.
Just because people leave something out, doesn't mean it's because they forgot to mention it.
Right, because why wouldn't it go away if it was all about slavery. It is still doing its job.
That's the thing, it's not doing it's job.
It's sole justification for existing was to prevent someone like trump, instead he tried (and almost succeeded) at highjacking it and claiming other people were the elctorals because they supported him.
There is literally zero reason for it to keep existing
Ahh. I see your point.
Well you see, it's only it's proffered reason for existing. In actuality, it only serves to subvert democracy.
Everyone is corruptible, which is exactly why elevated positions cannot be created just to protect elevated positions. The only thing that can ultimately do regardless of who's running it is disenfranchise the people.
Because some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses.
"Bromance?" What kind of headline is that? Not an appropriate word at all. They're not hanging out knocking back some brews. This is geo politics, and Trump has sold out intelligence sources and methods to the Russians and likely other countries, and has worked to undermine American interests in favor of Russia and Putin. How about sycophant, minion, lackey, henchman, or potentially compromised by?
This is the corproate news media showing how fascism is possible.
Because they're not required to tell it in terms that would help us. And calling treasonous action "a bromance" means 43% of registered voters will still click on the link and make them money from their shamwow ads.
They cannot do this again. Scream at them. Everyone has to scream at the corporate news media when they fuck up like this.
"You getting this camera guy?"
Our "intelligence community" is infested with conservatives. This is why they did absolutely nothing to stop him last time. They are not worried he will win. Most of them will vote for him.
Conservatism is a mental illness and should be a disqualifier for positions of authority over others.
Which is odd considering he got a few American spies killed when he revealed classified info to the Russians as POTUS.
Putin will either own Europe or turn it into a WWI-level wasteland if Trump would have his way.
Fortunately or not, both the UK and France have thermonuclear teeth to bite back if the totally-not-a-Tsar tries. And as far as the UK goes, it's the same thermonuclear warheads, missiles and submarines as the USA, using the same procedures and with the same capabilities.
I would call that the worst possible scenario and I would also call that terrifyingly plausible under a Trump regime assisting Putin.
Look, no one wants to help trump win because he would do exactly that, as you say. The problem is an entirely different country on the other side of the world is stepping way over the line, and Biden is stubbornly honoring political alignments and so we have to denounce him loudly to help trump win so trump can utterly destroy all known cooperative agreements in order to enrich himself personally. And if you disagree, you're a centrist who hates poor people and women. I mean - we can't just not help trump win, obvs.
Okay? I never said otherwise.
Would these be the same "intelligence officials" who did sweet fuckall for four straight years last time? Those "intelligence officials"? Well, I guess we're double screwed then huh because they failed to bring him down for his OBVIOUS AND PROVEN ties to russia and a crooked election, then they grabbed their pensions and ran. Thanks a lot "intelligence officials".
Maybe this announcement is pretty much all they're willing to do. Inform, somewhat.
I’m sure intelligence officials have had plenty reason to fear a second term without this.
Godspeed, Americans…
Despite having a legendarily complete collection of audio and video of every damning conversation anyone's ever had, they did absolutely nothing to hinder or remove trump last time, so I'm not holding out a lot of hope that they're actually here to keep the country from splitting into a horrifying fascist-lite hellscape.
Y'know, because of the utter failures and refusal to act and so on.
Serve billionaires and oil companies, keep the women and minorities down, same as it ever was.
I think of it like this.
The First Nations used to hunt the buffalo. They'd hunt every day, but the buffalo herds remained. Then the Europeans came. They didn't much like to eat buffalo, but pretty soon all the buffalo were dead.
The CIA and FBI have hated Progressives for a long time, but never actually wiped them out.
The buffalo weren't killed because settlers were wasteful.
It was an official policy where they'd kill as many as possible to wipe out the Natives food source in the area.
Remaining buffalo were forced west, and the Natives had to follow. Which put them in conflict with Natives who had always been there.
And the push never stopped.
I agree, so I'll just clarify my analogy.
The buffalo could survive with the Native People in charge. They did much worse with the Europeans. In this case, the FBI/CIA are the Natives, and the MAGoos are the settlers.
I just wanted to mention that because most Americans learned in school that settlers were just trying to peacefully co-exist and buffalo decline was just from more hunting.
The US government has the army with train mounted gatling guns, mowing down herds of buffalo without even going up to the bodies after. Because they knew it would starve natives.
Shit was fucked up, but the least we can do is be honest about how it went down.
Funny story. I went to public school in New York City. I would have said that my teachers were pretty conservative.
When I hear about what other people's textbooks told them, I realize how important it is to have an open mind.
Someone told me yesterday that their books told them that Unions were a good thing in the past, but our economy had outgrown the need.
Well at least they're not manipulating history books like that any more.
Right, Texas and Florida?
I don't know that this is the best way of looking at things. There's a lot of evidence that a great deal of North American megafauna that we have good reason to believe that humans at least contributed to the extinction of after arriving in North America many thousands of years ago. And, considering the buffalo jump, the indigenous of those areas would probably have had no ecological issue with wiping them out if they could have.
Cahokia was a massive North American city near modern St. Louis. It had the largest pre-Columbian population of any city north of the Rio Grande and was probably comparable in population to London and Paris at the same time period. It is believed that the massive deforestation that would have been required to burn enough fuel to support its population was part of the reason it was eventually abandoned. This was actually a huge crisis in Europe in the late middle ages as well and was why the Jamestown Colony's original purview was to send back lumber.
If the indigenous people of North America had discovered gunpowder, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have shot every buffalo in sight, not to mention each other when tensions between groups arose.
Indigenous Americans had a wide array of cultures and beliefs and art. But they were not all gentle farmers and nomads who lived in harmony with the land. They were just normal human beings, with all the amazing and terrible things that go along with that.
Obviously that doesn't make them any lesser as peoples or as cultures and it doesn't justify anything they have suffered since.
If the indigenous people of North America had discovered gunpowder, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have shot every buffalo in sight, not to mention each other when tensions between groups arose.
Indigenous Americans had a wide array of cultures and beliefs and art. But they were not all gentle farmers and nomads who lived in harmony with the land. They were just normal human beings, with all the amazing and terrible things that go along with that.
That goes against my understanding of native culture
Considering I gave specific examples, it sounds like you need a better understanding.
Also, "native culture" is not a thing. There was no unified culture.
I think people are pushing back against that specific passage because it goes a step too far. Both Europeans and the various native tribes of the Americas knew how responsible hunting works. We have bag limits today for that reason, and Europeans of the old country were familiar with the practice.
US government policies on the buffalo were a deliberate genocide, and I don't think you'll disagree with that. The phrase "no reason to believe they wouldn’t have shot every buffalo in sight" implies the tribes would have done the same, and that's just not true.
Would all the tribes have done it? No. That's the issue here. There was no unified agreement amongst the various indigenous peoples of North America. There were thousands of languages, religions and cultures.
So would the Blackfeet, who basically believed that all bison must die for the good of their people? Probably they would have.
Would the Crow, who hunted more sustainably? Probably not.
So I admit I was being far too general when I said 'they.' I should have specified that certain groups would have been fine with wiping out buffalo and others were more sustainable hunters.
Oddly enough, De Soto, who spent a lot of time wandering around what is now the Southeastern U.S., didn't report buffalo there. So it's also unclear how widely-ranged they were in the first place. There's an author named Charles C. Mann who wrote a well-regarded book about pre-Columbian contact called "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" and he posits that the vast buffalo herds later reported in the Great Plains were actually the result of the mass die-off of indigenous peoples through European diseases returning the plains to grassland when they had previously been farmed. So it could be that there were also far less buffalo in the Americas before European contact (although most certainly more than today).
And no, I would not deny the reason why the mass kill-off later happened. It was one of the many genocides the United States perpetrated against the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
If the indigenous people of North America had discovered gunpowder, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have shot every buffalo in sight, not to mention each other when tensions between groups arose.
I agree with your larger point, but not this one - because they did "discover" gunpowder and guns when they were traded them and they didn't shoot every buffalo. Yes, they did sometimes shoot each other. (Humans gonna human.) But respect for the earth is a foundational understanding that colonizing Europeans chose to ignore entirely for hundreds of years, up until this very day.
Again- I really don't think if you intentionally kill every single buffalo in a herd because you think if you don't, the rest will be too scared to be hunted or if you intentionally chop down every tree in the region to get fuel, you don't have any more respect for the Earth than people elsewhere.
So what you're saying is that they would buffalo the buffalo towards Buffalo?
That's the reference I was going for, yeah 😁
No. They would buffalo the buffalo that were too close to Buffalo farther away from Buffalo. Pretty sure I learned that from Mark Ruffalo.
That headline is straight outta 2020. Hell, if not for the "second term" part, it could have been from 2015!
Youcan tell from the photo which one is the top and which one is the bottom