Starlink satellites are (quite literally) above the law. Until Brazil develops a space force to go seize them out of orbit, it seems like Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants.
Starlink satellites are (quite literally) above the law. Until Brazil develops a space force to go seize them out of orbit, it seems like Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants.
What a braindead take.
You’ve never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices? That’s… hard to believe. You should Google “Roe v Wade” and then check back. How can two different versions of a supreme court rule completely differently on the same issue if the underlying constitution hasn’t changed?
Read the relevant parts of their constitution, then check the supreme courts decision, and let me know how you think it makes sense.
deleted by creator
He literally told it to give the answer “in km”. That’s on him, not Bing.
Businesses aren’t legally required to accept cash?
We’re having two different conversations. I’m not here to say whether Biden was right or wrong to only hire black women for those roles. I’m not even going to pass judgement on how to redress the balance, as you put it. Those questions are way above my pay grade.
I’m merely here to say that when Republicans say “The people hiring based on DEI are the racists, not us”, the data shows that the majority of Americans agree with them. Therefore, as a purely political strategy, criticizing Biden and democrats for not considering white women for certain roles is a net win because more independents will agree than disagree.
Democrats are free to say “But we have to use a calculated form of counter-racism as a cure for historical wrongs.” They may even be right. It may be the only moral thing to do. Disagreeing may be evil and immoral. But none of that changes the fact that it’s not a winning electoral strategy to say or focus on those things in the 2024 presidential race.
Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.
Putting my PoliSci cap on… Most Americans would say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right. Being racist today isn’t a valid fix for the harms of people being racist yesterday.” And that’s why Republicans win when Democrats focus too much on racial issues - the 7 in 10 perceive it as a new form of racism directed at them.
Do you want to be right at all costs? Or do you want to win this election?
I’m not defending them. It is possible to describe a political reality without endorsing that reality. That’s all I’m doing.
That would also be racism. Any time you use race as a hiring factor in the US, you are breaking the law and promoting racism.
Now you’re twisting my words. I’m not trying to defend Republicans. I’m trying to help you understand the nature and intent behind their words so you realize they aren’t as dumb as you think. Respect thy enemy and all that.
Most Californians think hiring based on race is wrong, and racist. Across the country, the margins on that get even better.
Republicans are just playing into that. You can downvote me all you want, but it doesn’t change the political reality of the situation.
Edit: I just checked - 7 in 10 Americans oppose affirmative action (reverse racism). To quote Biden, “It’s a fact, Jack!” You may support it, but that doesn’t make it a winning campaign strategy.
I’m just talking about the way most Americans define it. You don’t have to agree, but from a political science perspective, you’re playing a losing game if you stick to that definition. The majority of Californians don’t even agree with it, so imagine how much worse it polls in the rest of the country…
Judging someone (or refusing to consider someone for a job) based on the color of their skin is racism. At least to most Americans. Which is why this is politically smart for the red team. The weird variation where you dismiss racism directed towards groups that were historically powerful is a fringe left idea, recently outlawed even in liberal California when affirmative action was banned.
They are actually questioning Biden’s inherently racist decision to only consider black women for certain roles. The Republican position is that race should not be a factor in hiring decisions, and they’re using Biden’s VP and Supreme Court nominations to setup the counterpoint that he is the racist one - racist against whites.
Not exactly. It’s more that they are questioning Biden’s decision to only consider black women for certain roles (VP, Supreme Court Justice). They know affirmative action polls poorly, so they’re attacking him where he’s weak.
Americans, by and large, want people to be selected based solely on ability. They want everyone to have a fair chance - but despise the idea of guaranteed slots being held open for people who look a certain way. Even California outlawed affirmative action.
This isn’t the terrible double-standard you think it is - just a decently calibrated political attack.
The point they are making was that they were a prominent part of public education in those areas during colonial times.
The average black person cares way less about having a black president than the typical white Lemmy user assumes they do. Only the most off-the-rails liberals support allowing race to be a factor in hiring decisions. Hell - even far-left California outlawed affirmative action.
If you’re picking a president based on race, you are implicitly racist and therefore part of the problem.
As a person on the spectrum, I am not offended and endorse his statement. Please find a real issue to be offended about.
Not relevant. Trump voters don’t care about reality, while the rest of us do. If the Democrats want to be the party of sane, responsible voters they’ll need to put up a sane, responsible candidate.
Be better than Republicans.
Those are multiplayer games. Totally different.