Obviously its important, but pretending its not political doesnt make any sense. If a community doesnt want to discuss politics (and as far as I’ve seen the OP didnt say which community this was in) then its a reasonable post to remove.
Of course its political, what else would it be? You are talking about peoples rights (a political concept) being breached by an administration (poltical) using an arm of the government (political) as a paramilitary force (political).
Perhaps, I think its more likely that active moderation is the cause of that rather than word lists that let p!ss, pi$s and pιss through when trying to block piss.
The Scunthorpe problem is hard, and any simple blacklist method is bound to give both false positives and false negatives.
Trump has played one side of Kelogg’s plan, cut off aid to Ukraine if they dont move toward peace. Now lets see if he follows though with the other side of it and dramatically ramp up aid to Ukraine if Russia dont move towards peace.
I hope he does but I’m not holding my breath.
He served five terms because he was so good he was massively popular, the conservatives paniced and pushed for term limits afterwards as they were scared of the idea of people running with policies that benifted the majority of people repetedly getting long periods of power like that.
When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.
The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan (which is the name preferred by the United States since it opted to de-recognize the ROC). Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China. Thus, the United States maintains formal relations with the PRC and has unofficial relations with Taiwan. The “one China” policy has subsequently been reaffirmed by every new incoming U.S. administration. The existence of this understanding has enabled the preservation of stability in the Taiwan Strait, allowing both Taiwan and mainland China to pursue their extraordinary political and socioeconomic transitions in relative peace.
As is confirmed in your first link, the USA acknowledges that the Chinese position is that Taiwan is a part of China, and recognise that the PRC is the government of China, they deliberately do not say if they consider Taiwan a part of China or not.
Its a political stech in a newspaper, not a link to a video. You can either go to the guardian’s front page to see the it or type anything even slightly relatred to it into a search engine to see the video.
Please try to read usernames, I didnt say anything about motivations.
And all of them threatened retaliatory tariffs immediately after trump anounced his:
Obviously most of those havent been implemented yet as THe USA hasnt implemented it’s tariffs. But the more general point about imposing retaliatory tariffs is sound, they make the other countries exports less attractive. If the US does that to other countries they are going to want to do it back to the US.
So do you think the EU, Canada, Mexico and China all dont understand how economies work either? As they all immediately said they would respond to tariffs with tariffs on American goods.
No I’m not, I’m just not assuming immigrants have 0 buying power, which your post implicitly was, yes supply increases but demand also increases. Beyond that you get into the realms of having to do empirical research as to which is more (which is difficult).
More people also means more demand for things that require labour to create however. Your position is referred to as the lump of labour fallacy
If you dont understand the difference between trying to start by winning a mayoralty of a town of 10,000 people then some state legislature seat and trying to win the president of the USA without an existing power base I dont know what to tell you. I cant break that down to being any simpler for you as to why starting with the later before you’ve managed the former is pointless.
So do what I literally said before, build up a party, take places that you have a realistic chance of winning, build your parties power base and then take larger constituencies. That’s how a an organisation actually interested in political power would go about it with multiple years out. Not trying to jump to the highest level office in the land where the mathematical reality of the system insists that that one of the top two candidates will win.
Ah yes I’d forgotten about all those elections in a winner takes all system where a candidate was polling at 1% the day before election turned out to win it. Your obnoxious posting style really helped me remember that absolutely true fact.
So why dont you just vote for yourself? Clearly thats the only way to agree with your candidate 100% and it clearly doesnt matter to you what the odds of winning are.
If you want to get an actual left winger into office in the us you have exactly three options, entryism into the democrat party and pushing a left winger in the primaries (ie bernie, maybe AOC in the future), building up a new party starting by taking local offices in progressive places until the dems either have to pivot to the left or are replaced by you, revolution.
Ignoring reality and voting for a third party in the presidential election is nothing more than posturing at best and actively enabling the worst elements in society at worst.
Seems to me pretty much an even spread of how good the names are
If they had stuck to that I wouldnt have an issue with it, but they broaden it out to
I’m tired of calling people out again and again for dumping on PHP.
I’m tired of people dumping on Windows, that most popular operating system, because it’s not what we choose to use
I dont see critising PHP or Windows as a problem, both have serious faults. The argument put forth here conflates two things: That critising a language is bad (fine IMO), critising people for liking a language is bad (not fine). We should welcome the former while insisting the later isnt acceptable.
deleted by creator