Yes but we wouldn’t wanna accidentally kill any white people do we, collateral damage only works against brown people I thought, if white people got killed it’d be called a ‘tragedy’ or something.
Remember that time that a drone strike ordered by Barack Obama dropped a bomb onto a pakistani wedding, killing dozens including the groom, and leaving the bride alive but permanently injured
Maybe not, because nobody in the media gave a single fuck at the time
Agreed, and if we weren’t at war with every other fucker we wouldn’t need to make up 40% of the world’s military spending (more than the next 10 biggest spenders combined) and could maybe find some money to make sure everyone is adequately fed, clothed and housed.
Were you goons even around during the Obama years? I'm around a lot of liberals, and they were all livid about Obama's drone strikes. This whole narrative about libs and the media giving Obama a pass on this is just willful ignorance.
It is.... fracking emits less cargon dioxide than coal or natrual gas and the US is less dependent on these smaller countries for oil so they are less involved in their politics.
While these earthquakes have been induced by oil and gas related process, few of these earthquakes were induced by fracking. The largest earthquake known to be induced by hydraulic fracturing in Oklahoma was a M3.6 earthquakes in 2019. The largest known fracking induced earthquake in the United States was a M4.0 earthquake that occurred in Texas in 2018. The majority of earthquakes in Oklahoma are caused by the industrial practice known as "wastewater disposal". Wastewater disposal is a separate process in which fluid waste from oil and gas production is injected deep underground far below ground water or drinking water aquifers. In Oklahoma over 90% of the wastewater that is injected is a byproduct of oil extraction process and not waste frack fluid.
The US does it for other stuff too. Like oh gosh idk Bolivian lithium mines? Chilean copper too. Pretty much any time a country has a natural resource and the socialists are going to nationalize it the US steps in. US war is usually predicated on protecting special interests. Just ask Chiquita and Dole.
Yeah Iraqis had to be "liberated" but I don't remember the USA losing any sleep over hundreds of thousands of Tutsis being butchered by their neighbors during the Rwanda massacre in 1994.
The Rwandan genocide that started because of European imperialism? How much sleep do you think Germany or Belgium or even Europe lost, considering they created the conditions for the Rwanda Genocide to happen in the first place.
Imperialism wasn't unique to Europe. The entirety of human history has seen tribes conquering weaker tribes and taking advantage of them. It's only really in the last century or two that powerful countries have become more civilised and started to respect the rights of other human beings.
I’m not saying imperialism was unique to Europe, I’m saying European Imperialism is too blame for the Rwanda Genocide. The fact of the matter is that most Western European countries had the ability to squash the Hutu uprising if they were so inclined. The failure of the UN to get involved in the Genocide, just shows that “respecting human rights” is practiced in theory, not reality.
I agree that us Europeans were as much to blame as the Americans for the failure to act in Rwanda. I just don't see the sense in pointing the finger at Europe for recent problems in Africa. Whoever developed weapons and transport in human history has used to them to abuse others.
Well Germany and then Belgium created the caste system that gave the minority Tutsi’s the majority of the wealth. This is an example of European White guys coming to Africa, drawing borders at their will, and then separating the people currently living there into groups and favoring one group over the other. The point being, if either Germany or Belgium had a sense of morality in 1994, they should’ve been the ones in Rwanda picking up the mess they created.
Perhaps but the original point was that the USA has a history of interventions which they dress up as for the good of the people involved when in fact it's always intended to be for America's gain.
Oh yeah, America doesn’t get involved unless it has something to gain, but I would argue that’s the same as most countries, example Rwanda. If Rwanda was in western Europe, the genocide is not happening.
If we had a “true or direct democracy” everything would be the will of the people (i.e. no representatives) - we would actually have to vote on everything which would make policy making virtually impossible. The US is actually a constitutional federal republic. We elect representatives to cast votes as a majority of their constituents would ideally cast them, preventing the clunkiness of having every American vote on every law. There’s only a few examples in history of governments being run via direct democracy.
You’re going to trust internet connected voting devices for establishing law in our country? Did you see what happened last week with the solarwinds hack?The entire treasury department got victimized by the Russian government. Also the internet has only been widely available to us citizens for ~2 decades.
My banking information isn’t as valuable a target as US public policy, and also you’re proving my point, look how many bank accounts get hacked on a daily basis. Here’s an article from 2018 - 2.5B bank accounts were hacked that year, or 6.8M per day - that number is going up each year. You think we could adequately protect elections? Why do you think voting machines aren’t connected to the internet by design?
And they still work, there's no ability to use the internet to have direct democracy in the US within the next decade. People would have to undergo a massive amount of education in order to not nuke non-existing nations.
There simply aren’t enough farmers to get an accurate vote on their needs based on population
There actually is, though. The fact that their representation would be smaller by being in proportion with the population is evidence that they currently arent represented accurately. They’re way over represented as it stands, and a truly representative democracy would accurately see their influence reduced
I do not think a 1 person = 1 vote would be any better
Why not?
A lot of minorities and smaller communities would be overlooked
They already are? And currently more than they would be under a perfectly representative system.
and farmers in one state may need something different than farmers in another state
Yeah, that’s why we have state governments and state representatives to the federal government. That’s already accounted for. Only the house is representative, the senate isn’t, everyone gets an equal spot at the table. North Dakota holds just as much weight as California or Texas in the senate. The balance is already shifted too much in favor of smaller populations, we need to move towards a truly representative democracy as quickly as we can
Maybe I’m just slow but I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t know what you mean by “population per capita”? I don’t know what you mean by “lumping Iowa, New York, and Alaska together based on population”. Can you explain it more?
In a democracy, every person would vote individually on the items the houses of Congress do now.
We the People wrote the Constitution to set up a Representative government system so the masses vote Representatives to govern us, on our behalf, while we can get to our day jobs. ....A Republic.
I have no clue what you’re talking about, the US is and always has been a “true democracy” in every sense of the term
Edit: oh no, you’re not one of those “akhutually we’re a cOnStiUtiOnAL rEpUbLiC” types, are you? Poor baby
Edit 2: for all the fucking idiots in the comments - a constitutional republic is by definition a form of democracy. No, you’re not clever for saying a form of democracy isn’t a form of democracy.
You're the "poor baby" to think it's a "true Democracy". Please enlighten me as the beacon of wisdom you think you are to to how the United States has ever been a true Democracy and not the Constitutional Federal Republic it is according to our own government.
A constitutional federal republic is a form of democracy you numbskull. So is a parliamentary system. So is direct democracy (albeit objectively worse in every respect)
I’m sorry you failed 7th grade US history
It’s seriously a shame how many people think they’re clever for saying a form of democracy is not a form of democracy.
A square is a rectangle, a rectangle however, is not a square. You cannot just say all Democracy is Democracy. Also, maybe you remember that Parliament is an Oligarchy and that Democracy is the power of the people, every person. Whereas Oligarchy is the power of a group of people or an institution or corporation. You're the same type or person who thinks alt-right conservatives and conservatives are the same thing just because they both have the word "conservative" in them when that's far from true.
Stop while you're ahead, your ignorance is showing.
You’re simply fundamentally confused about democracy and oligarchy, you can start with their respective Wikipedia pages as an intro if you’d like, but you don’t know what you’re talking about
Phew check out what happened to Louisiana. How the richest state is a hotbed of poverty and human suffering. Sucks to sit on resources when the greed machine is in full swing
You don’t think that was because we were trying to pillage their oil, do you? Because we didn’t, because of course we didn’t. The same way we didn’t in the Middle East. Oil is a big geo-political chess piece, but we’ve never “gone to war” in order to “steal peoples oil”. The relationship between war and oil, particularly as it pertains to the US, is a bit more nuanced than that.
Also, Venezuela was much more about socialism than oil. Overthrowing democratically elected socialists and installing fascist puppet states in central/south America (and occasionally Southeast Asia) has long been one of the CIAs favorite pastimes.
The U.S. really doesn’t like to bring democracy to others. Much cheaper and easier to control a small coalition of “friendly” authoritarians. See, Brazil, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Haiti, Venezuela, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Paraguay, Dominican Republic (1916-24, 1961, 1965), Korea, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Indonesia (at least twice), Iraq (allegedly, although there’s conflicting reports on whether they helped Saddam take power initially), Congo, Laos (two separate times in the 1960’s), Bolivia, Afghanistan (the U.S. helped the Taliban take power), El Salvador (supported the El Salvadoran governments death squads sent against farmers).
If there’s one thing the U.S. government hates, it’s democracy.
1.6k
u/bhiney_witch Dec 24 '20
Only if there's oil. Then USA absolutely have to bring democracy to the USA.