flipht

In what situation would it be appropriate, legal, and approvable to burn down civilian houses in an occupied area?

I can’t think of one.

Regressives the world over are not creative. They do what they do because they believe others will do it. They’re bullies because they were bullied, and they don’t want to be the victim, so they erroneously believe that means they have to strike first.

They never stop to think, “What if the world weren’t shit? What can I do to make it better?” They accept as a fact that it is shit, and they believe the only way to come out ahead is to step on someone else.

When you get several of these people/groups pointing at each other, it becomes an infinite cycle.

Hello from kbin. It’s nice over here.

It’s usually bags of money and pallets of equipment that go “missing” and find a new home with a warlord.

Butter is a little looser - the dough clumps around the chips but otherwise it’s pretty smooth. Too much sugar is stiffer, and it’s kind of folded over itself in places.

Again, what good would this do if you are in a war torn country that cannot secure its elections?

So they amend their constitution. During a war. To force people into the streets to vote.

How does the government make sure the election is fair? Some people won’t be able to vote due to danger. Some will be attacked. Some areas are occupied, and the occupation lines may change during the election.

If they tried to run an election now, Russia would publish their own results showing that the occupied areas voted for Putin. Trying to run elections is hard enough in normal times, doing so with Russia literally holding a large swath of your country is impossible.

This. Pretty much every company that does business with the US or a US state has clauses in their contract about “boycotting” Israel, poorly defined on purpose.

Exactly. A broken clock is right twice a day. If “idiot” rich people can monetize their mistakes, consistently do so, and manage to do it almost as if by using the same playbook as each other…they’re not idiots, it is on purpose, and they just want enough plausible deniability that they don’t get strung up from a Michelin star restaurant.

I mean, you’re kind of seeing this with Donald Trump’s legal issues. He can’t get anyone with real clout, so he’s actually facing consequences in that arena now.

That assumes all things are equal.

They rely on you repeating this adage to get away with this shit. It’s too consistent. If he were actually stupid, he’d face negative consequences, which is something these folks very rarely have to do.

He does not have to do it himself. He has accountants and lawyers who can take his stupid decisions and turn them into money.

At a certain point the economies of scale of being a billionaire just keep you rich. What I’ve said is pretty standard tax bullshit that they grow up pulling.

No one will convince me he isn’t doing this on purpose to tank the brand.

He and his buddies were mad that they couldn’t compete. So he made the offer in a manic moment, and then was forced to go through with it. Now that he’s got it, he’s going to destroy it, and use the loss to reduce his taxes from all his government contracts.

And he simultaneously gets to platform fascists and silence people calling out the powerful. Wins all around.

For a normal person, this looks like failing. I totally get that. But rich people can derive massive benefits from stuff that would ruin us, and every single thing Musk is doing benefits him in some way.

It’s not about them. It’s the children who find the spent ammo later.

This crap is the reason that there are birth defects spikes anywhere the US military operates.

Citation for the drama around betamax recording, including Mr. Rogers testifying to Congress: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29686/how-mister-rogers-saved-vcr

The thing is that most of the statues in question were not created prior to the civil war, or even directly after. They were funded and installed by people mad about reconstruction and later about desegregation. Many of the statues being discussed today were put in place in the 50s. They have no historical relevance except as a monument to the racists who wanted a large, visible reminder that they had power at one point, as a threat that they’d continue trying to gain it back.

When it all falls apart, he doesn’t need a bailout. He leaves his investors holding the majority of the lost equity, pays off his portion, writes it off and carries it forward, and uses it to reduce his tax bill in upcoming years when he’ll have a bunch of government contracts.

All of this looks stupid if you assume he’s trying to run a profitable business. But he’s not. He’s moving cash flow through as many other of his own ventures that he can, and he’ll cannibalize the rest. The only people who will actually lose money are normal citizens who will have to make up the list tax dollars.

Grotesque? Maybe I missed seeing something else, but “Fuck Spez,” isnt grotesque.

Nor can you really call using the canvas as intended “graffiti.”