You are naive for assuming that the government aren't the bad guys with guns. Just ask the 30,000 Iranian protesters that were slaughtered if you don't believe me.
pre-EU history shows that, which is why we founded the EU in the first place.
To quote one of our founding fathers, Robert Schuman, the point of tightly interweaving our economies this way is to "make war not only unthinkable, but materially impossible"
There is absolutely evidence he is a foreign agent. He is likely too stupid to realize it, tho. Israel and Russia both have paper trails on him going back decades. People around trump and his businesses have deep ties to russia and that isnt private. His own sons have bragged about being close to russia. Oh, plus the eastern european wife.
This isnt a conspiracy. Epstein was an israeli agent and him and trump were bffs for years. Trumps family is also heavily in debt to Russia and theyve been very open about it.
You seem to be a weird trump supporter who is mildly trolling by saying false stuff like the iran war isnt illegal when it very clearly is. Your comments are either very ignorant or youre trolling. The only folks still defending trump are p silly folks. The evidence is overwhelming at this point.
You can't be an agent without realizing it and you don't get to call me silly when you list having a foreign wife as evidence that someone is a foreign agent.
The president of the US does not have the power to start a war without getting it approved by the UN security council. You're arguing internal implementation details, but the legality is not determined by your courts.
The US constitution specifically calls out treaties signed by the US (such as the UN Charta) as supreme law of the land. Article VI, the "Supremacy Clause".
Thus, US law, too, defers to international law.
Please at least read the legal framework you're so confidently misdescribing.
A law defines the nature of collective action in response to certain violations. Words on paper themselves are impotent. If there is no potential for enforcement, i.e. there is no counterfactual state of collective action, there is no law.
That sure is an attitude that explains why US soft power (and with that, Empire) has been crumbling at an unprecedented rate.
You might not care about the rules, but the rest of the world takes notice. This is how you break a world order carefully designed to further your own interests.
It's been the established president since the Korean War when the US began ignoring the constitutional provision that gave congress the power to declare war. Additional examples are the Vietnam War, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq I & II, the Libyan regime change, and the current Iran conflict, and there are plenty more. The written law still states that the president does not have this power, but the actual unwritten law has been that he can. And that is the only law that matters.
Yes, the US and not just the presidency. If it was just the presidency then he would have been impeached by congress for usurping their constitutional authority.
he was impeached (more than once cause he's a special kind of guy) and will be impeached again in 2029 :)
again, you are saying something is legal that is both clearly illegal and unconstitutional. you can say "it is illegal but we have no way to enforce since our congress and senate do not work for the people but are simple extension of a given political party in power" but you can't say that it is legal
The war is certainly illegal. Our systems are just so atrophied at this point that we treat congressional approval as a formality. This is a choice we make over and over again that we need to stop making.
US constitution says that starting a war must be authorized by Congress, president has no authority to do it on his own.
The problem is: over time the US grew so powerful, that the definition of "war" became blurry. "No, we are not at war, our soldiers are just dropping bombs on Iran for fun and profit".
EDIT: Another problem, of course, is that current member of Congress have no balls to stand up to Trump and reclaim their constitutional powers.
Congress made its mistake a long time ago. Power is very difficult to reclaim once it has been relinquished. And it didn't even take a Caesar crossing the Rubicon in our case.
The laws of human behavior are certainly less fundamental to the iniverse than the laws of physics, but, since we are humans, they are equally as binding on us.
Human behavior, and human society, have changed tremendously through the ages. It's the fastest sort of "evolution", to stretch that term a bit.
Plus there's nothing natural about widespread global war. It's not like you getting angry at your neighbor over some domestic dispute. Global wars are artificially engineered by guys who want to profit from them. It's not "human nature". Those willing to go to war exploit human nature, sure, but this is done intentionally; and just as intentionally, it could be downplayed or mitigated.
And if it's about egoism and greed, we've learned to reign those in in multiple situations. If we can attempt to go to Mars or whatever, I'm sure we can first try to sort things out on Earth.
Get out of your mindset. It's bad for you.
In Cosmos 2, Neil de Grasse Tyson has a reflection about that saying, "what are you going to do? It's human nature!". I encourage you to find the clip on YouTube and watch it.
Edit: well, I wanted to find the transcript or clip, but I cannot now. The Cosmos sequels are infuriatingly hard to find, and in my country there are no legal ways of watching them anymore (fuck you, Netflix and Disney! I pay you yet you remove stuff I like).
Here's Sagan's last paragraphs from his Pale Blue Dot speech instead:
"The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
Are the comments in the thread with us right now? At best, from what I’ve seen, this is a strawman against the people that argue that building housing is not the only thing that should be done regarding housing. I’ve seen no comments that claim we shouldn’t build housing to alleviate the housing crisis.
Most comments that I see are about how from a policy perspective it’s more complicated. There’s no single “build more homes” magic wand that works for every market. And in some markets there are real people with real issues who could be helped by temporary policies that make landlording less profitable on the margins while people figure out how to best “build more homes” for that market.
I think it's not that people question free market dynamics, it's that they question a market is free in the first place.
For example, healthcare in the US is basically exempt from typical free market dynamics like supply and demand because of how the market works. Consumers don't choose, everyone has a moat and parents, and costs are often subsidized.
100%. I see more and more young people appreciating Carlin’s “it’s a big club and you ain’t in it” quote because they have come to terms with the rigged game. I think the GFC was the starkest exemplar of this.
Starbase TX isn't a city in any sense other than a legal designation. It's a massive SpaceX industrial facility that has its own municipality similar to the way Disney World has one for its park.
I would expect the adjacent area to become some sort of a city over time. Suppliers will move nearby. Population, amenities and competition will follow. Unless of course SpaceX keels over before all this can happen.
Housing and immigration are two areas where people just can't accept basic economics. You can see some olympic level mental gymnastics routines all over this comments section.
The specific reason is that William Shockley's mother lived in Palo Alto. Stanford gets the credit but in reality it had nothing to do with the decision.
reply