If enough people agree, yes.
If enough people agree, yes.
Star Trek is post scarcity. It is more evolved than your politics.
The most likely scenario is an action that causes the majority of the military to rebel such as what happened in Syria. That’s partially why the military swears an oath to the Constitution and not the standing government.
For that to happen you need an inciting incident that is at least perceived to be against the Constitution by the majority of the military including a significant portion of the top brass.
We almost got there with all the January 6th shenanigans but the inciting incident involved the military sitting down and not listening to the Executive branch’s unethical orders.
But what waste do they have that they wouldn’t want to eliminate for production reasons? They assemble cars from parts they buy. A lot of times these parts come from smaller machine shops. A pallet of parts comes in, it gets out on the car, pallet returns to the supplier for the next load. I’m not sure why people are confused here. It’s not like they want the parts to be individually packaged.
Caveat: I’m not a manufacturing expert but I have met some of these machine shop people.
That’s certainly an unpopular opinion. You have three opinions that can manifest in terms of an ideal society that can cover the needs here.
One is where all the needs are provided by the state aka directed communism which is the exact system that typically immediately fails (USSR and CCP tried it) and leads to famine. Almost everyone is against this outcome and system.
The second is referring back to bartering which is arguably not more civilized by definition.
The third is a post scarcity world which is not currently the case. Even Star Trek had currency for things beyond their needs. Very few people think we are in a post scarcity world currently.
There is a fourth which is typically held by anarchists which requires people to give up power at even a local level and prejudice to magically disappear so also not a popular opinion in terms of people that think it is possible.
There’s also the high level narrative that this must overcome in which people are entitled to the value of their labor. This assures that this is not possible.
There’s a lot of discussion to be had here but congrats on finding an opinion that is truly unpopular.
The propaganda is strong against the Western system. There is an argument to be made that the origins of this conflict are in energy finds in the Black Sea. Ukraine is uniquely positioned to take advantage of access to the European and Asian markets. Competition in these sections would threaten oligarch monopolies. These energy monopolies are granted to the oligarchs by Putin himself and this is the entire basis of power in the Russian Federation.
This is simultaneously the reason for the conflict and why the oligarchs have been lock step the entire way.
It’s this capitalism? Absolutely not.
Is it economic power? Absolutely so.
Americans ultimately do pay a lot of taxes in the end. It does towards all sorts of stuff at multiple levels but the greatest impact on individual lives is at the state level.
“And all she wants to do is dance.” Nobody ever remembers the rest of the lyrics.
There’s a great podcast called Wind of Change on if the government is involved in music and specifically that song. I’ve never seen it and most government programs are highly documented and focused on Hollywood by giving them access to resources. The US Army is not going to let you borrow tanks if you are going to put them in a bad light. That’s just dumb. This is actually one of my dream programs to become involved with on a personal level.
CGP Grey didn’t cover primaries.
Are any of these debates really debates?
Yeah, I think that’s dumb but debates aren’t inherently required for elections.
The sound troubleshooter will fix the issue sometimes if it is a driver or weird input issue.
It’s why we have primaries. People’s inability to understand the importance of primaries simultaneously means they don’t vote in them and hate the results. (On average)
I think people have a really warped view of war on the internet. That’s exactly what any army on earth would do including and especially Hamas. Only the United States and Israel are known to not. Coalition partners literally think we are odd for taking civilian considerations into account as much as we do. You can find tens thousands of examples of this from the current war in Ukraine, ISIS fight, and any other going back to WWII.
I don’t know what to tell you. You are just simply wrong about this. War is just bad overall. That doesn’t make it a war crime. That has a pretty high burden of proof. You can run this through any military lawyer of any military. I know more than my fair share and work closely with them.
I’m good. I’ve been. Have you?
Resorting to name calling instead of addressing my points. I will admit, you are very good at creating a narrative that resonates with people who have no idea how any of this works.
They do not have this missile and we did the exact same thing as them when targeting militants that use those places for their operations. Any respectable military would because it is legal, ethical, and moral.
Funny you don’t mention the fact that the area called refugee camp collapsed because of the tunnels under it.
I never said I worked for them. You make a lot of claims and provide little to no evidence that actually directly supports them. It also doesn’t take a crystal ball to see that all your claims follow the exact narratives of Hamas. You are also the one posting the most about it on this platform indicating that spreading propaganda may be part of your professional work.
I’ll just keep calling you out on it. It doesn’t feel like wasting time to me.
All of that does not make it an illegitimate target under international law. If someone shoots your friend and runs into a building and you strike that building, you cannot claim that you got that target until you see a body. That’s just how assessments in a Western fires process work. It also provides more legitimacy when you do say something.
If you can come up with a more valid way to conduct assessments, by all means provide it. Israel wants to assess their targets as much as you want them to.
That’s actually the point. Nobody agrees that potato=ottoman but if enough people agree on a meaning it starts to become the meaning or at least a partial meaning. Maybe the point is moot with you but I get the feeling you wouldn’t understand the joke.