• 0 Posts
  • 313 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年12月9日

help-circle

  • If these degenerates actually wanted to improve military readiness, they would put 100% of their effort into tackling our long-standing obesity crisis, chiefly by harshly regulating the sale and consumption of absolute shit and taking PE much more seriously in schools. Something like 70% of military age people are physically unfit for service, and the biggest reason is being out of shape. Solving that would improve our footing twentyfold over the [wholly imagined] amount that turning away women and the “morally weak” would do.

    But…

    1. Too many people make too much money selling absolute shit for food, and they pay their bribes like all special interests in this country.
    2. They are here to take hatchets to our foundations like the craven traitors they are, not actually fix anything.

  • I’m sure they have less scrupulous reasons as well, but one consequence of WFH has been higher rent and housing prices in smaller towns and suburbs. Highly educated professionals are choosing to leave their high-cost living situations in major cities and moving to lower cost homes in these areas and WFH. They still retain the income of big city jobs, so they can outbid anyone local, and it squeezes the supply.

    I’m definitely not happy about that aspect, but I also can’t say I wouldn’t do the same thing in their position.








  • Perhaps some genuine criticism could be levied at the specifics of their immigration policy, but this is JD Vance, that’s not what he’s here for.

    When he talks about “shared values” and “what you are fighting for” he’s talking about white Christian dominance in Europe and defending it with the sword. The far right has long seen Europe as a failure of progressive decadence and moral weakness and this speech was a blatant expression of that.

    That is why the far right rejects European countries and cozies up to Russia, because the American conservative and the Russian nationalist have quite a lot of “shared values.”







  • The founders didn’t even want to give the country a standing army. What precedent is there, contemporary or modern, where the judicial has its own direct enforcement arm?

    In theory, police fill this role…it’s kind of in the name “law enforcement.” But in practice they are something else, they can be captured and corrupted like anyone else.

    In theory, the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution. The Secretary of the Navy could decide, for instance, to order a military coup, storm the White House with Marines, and arrest Trump, Musk, et al. But this is extremely risky, both in tactical terms and in public image. At the end of the day, The People elected Trump, and they would be dishonoring that essential choice. Unless Trump does something like send B-52s to carpet bomb Los Angeles, the military will be determined to stay apolitical.

    You’re all looking for some play-by-play guidebook or ruleset in breaking the rules. You will not find one, it is an oxymoron. The founders risked arrest and death by hanging by setting this country in motion, they were not following the rules either. I obviously won’t extol their moral character in whole, but they knew that the divine right of kings was wrong and that representative government was the future, and they acted upon these beliefs.