Vice President Kamala Harris is pledging to federally legalize marijuana, ensuring that access to cannabis is “the law of the land.” If elected, she will “break down unjust legal barriers that hold Black men and other Americans back by legalizing marijuana nationally, working with Congress to ensure that the safe cultivation, distribution, and possession of […]
But she could just say ‘stop it, you guys!’ and they’d say ‘okay, sorry’. It’s not like ending a holy war that’s been going on for centuries is that hard.
And that would cause innumerable other problems. This issue is not that simple. If it was, it would have been solved decades ago.
Look, I hate this holy war. I’m angry beyond words we’re still watching people die in that region. I’ve been alive a long time, and this stupid fucking war has been killing civilians – fucking innocent children – in waves the entire time I’ve been alive. But it really isn’t as simple as just ‘defund them’.
thats a pretty decisive claim. how do you support your assertion? for my part it seems clear to me that the president does in fact have the power to stop the war by depriving one side the means of continuing it, and I’ve showed the levers of power she could pull. I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s a hell of a lot simpler than people seem to be willing to concede.
edit: also, what’s the cost of doing nothing? or rather continuing to do nothing? we just twiddle our thumbs and go “golly gee wizz aw shucks dang they’re sure blowing stuff up over there” until the genocide is finished? watch, as you seem to be content to do for your whole lifetime, as an atrocity plays out?
That whole region has been a powder keg for a very, very long time. It’s not just a war that keeps flaring up, it’s a holy war with insane fanatics on many sides, and it’s frankly amazing it hasn’t exploded before now.
I’m not trying to be decisive, just saying in my experience of watching this conflict over several decades, it’s far from simple. Every time it flares up like this, some people chime in with the same exact assertions, and looking at it in a vacuum, those ideas make some sense. But the geopolitics of this is very complex, with tendrils everywhere, and if simple solutions would work, we wouldn’t be here now.
I don’t know the answer, but I know from watching this play out many times under many US presidents that without all the behind-the-scenes diplomatic information, no amount of armchair quarterbacking can come close to what’s been tried and failed. Some of those failures have led to wider wars, with many, many more deaths.
alright, a, first off, the situation is exploding right now. the powder keg is boiling over and spreading to other countries like lebanon and iran. if it’s the geopolitics that have you convinced, then please explain the specific geopolitical factors that have you convinced. ill admit my ignorance fair and square. if it’s all the previous presidents who were deeply invested in finding a solution but ultimately failed, tell me about that. a response would ideally include how they attempted to regulate arms exports or hold (as far as i can tell an effectively unchecked) israel in any way accountable for belligerence and aggression and grievance.
you say you’re not decisive, yet you tell me with what i can only read as finality that depriving israel of the means to wage war wouldn’t lead to de-escalation. im not even saying you’re wrong, but im asking how you can be so certain its simplicity would lead to its failure. it seems pretty obvious (to me at least) that if they really need those arms for self defense they will stop doing the aggressive acts that i propose we condition their arms by. fuck a ceasefire, hold their bombs over their head and make them play nice if they need them so badly. if they dont play nice, take their fucking toys away.
can we both agree that the cost of continuing to do nothing would be actively supporting genocide?
But she could just say ‘stop it, you guys!’ and they’d say ‘okay, sorry’. It’s not like ending a holy war that’s been going on for centuries is that hard.
The president has authority to approve, deny, or restrict international arms sales:
She literally could say “stop it, you guys!” and they’d run out of bullets and bombs.
And that would cause innumerable other problems. This issue is not that simple. If it was, it would have been solved decades ago.
Look, I hate this holy war. I’m angry beyond words we’re still watching people die in that region. I’ve been alive a long time, and this stupid fucking war has been killing civilians – fucking innocent children – in waves the entire time I’ve been alive. But it really isn’t as simple as just ‘defund them’.
thats a pretty decisive claim. how do you support your assertion? for my part it seems clear to me that the president does in fact have the power to stop the war by depriving one side the means of continuing it, and I’ve showed the levers of power she could pull. I’m not saying it’s easy, I’m saying it’s a hell of a lot simpler than people seem to be willing to concede.
edit: also, what’s the cost of doing nothing? or rather continuing to do nothing? we just twiddle our thumbs and go “golly gee wizz aw shucks dang they’re sure blowing stuff up over there” until the genocide is finished? watch, as you seem to be content to do for your whole lifetime, as an atrocity plays out?
That whole region has been a powder keg for a very, very long time. It’s not just a war that keeps flaring up, it’s a holy war with insane fanatics on many sides, and it’s frankly amazing it hasn’t exploded before now.
I’m not trying to be decisive, just saying in my experience of watching this conflict over several decades, it’s far from simple. Every time it flares up like this, some people chime in with the same exact assertions, and looking at it in a vacuum, those ideas make some sense. But the geopolitics of this is very complex, with tendrils everywhere, and if simple solutions would work, we wouldn’t be here now.
I don’t know the answer, but I know from watching this play out many times under many US presidents that without all the behind-the-scenes diplomatic information, no amount of armchair quarterbacking can come close to what’s been tried and failed. Some of those failures have led to wider wars, with many, many more deaths.
alright, a, first off, the situation is exploding right now. the powder keg is boiling over and spreading to other countries like lebanon and iran. if it’s the geopolitics that have you convinced, then please explain the specific geopolitical factors that have you convinced. ill admit my ignorance fair and square. if it’s all the previous presidents who were deeply invested in finding a solution but ultimately failed, tell me about that. a response would ideally include how they attempted to regulate arms exports or hold (as far as i can tell an effectively unchecked) israel in any way accountable for belligerence and aggression and grievance.
you say you’re not decisive, yet you tell me with what i can only read as finality that depriving israel of the means to wage war wouldn’t lead to de-escalation. im not even saying you’re wrong, but im asking how you can be so certain its simplicity would lead to its failure. it seems pretty obvious (to me at least) that if they really need those arms for self defense they will stop doing the aggressive acts that i propose we condition their arms by. fuck a ceasefire, hold their bombs over their head and make them play nice if they need them so badly. if they dont play nice, take their fucking toys away.
can we both agree that the cost of continuing to do nothing would be actively supporting genocide?