Everyone up to 5 steps up from the blue guy is either an element of the Trump/Republican campaign, or was caused directly by Republicans over time.
Do... you not think that Republicans want to destroy public education because stupid people (ignorant voters) are easier to manipulate?
Do you not think that Republicans use and promote misogyny both as a rhetorical tactic and and end goal?
Ahhaha, good joke.
No the future is everything is more expensive and worse quality.
Its a pretty strategically and economically impactful piece of legislation pushed by, and then signed into law, by Biden, in 2022.
It basically sets up a bunch of tax incentives and funds to go toward building out domestic computer hardware research and manufacturing.
Its the kind of thing that would lay the foundation for the US building a lot more of its own computer hardware, instead of importing it.
So when the Trump tariff apocalypse hits... assuming the CHIPS Act does not get repealed, it will be the only saving grace in terms of possibly lowering computer hardware costs.
Trump and Republicans are likely to try and take credit for this, if domestic chip fabs start coming online before 2028, pretending it is something they came up with.
CHIPS Act? Never heard of it.
I just said they would freak out.
Who they end up blaming is between them and their god emperor, I guess.
It will at least be extremely funny to watch all the right wing gamer bro chuds freak the fuck out when an immediate consequence of their actions will be that gaming pc components instantly inflate 50% in price.
Glad I already got my Steam Deck, fuck.
So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?
If elected, I vow to cease all offensive arms and munitions shipments and funding for such to the State of Israel on day one.
What Hamas did on Oct 7th was an outrageous act of terrorism committed against a civilian population, but the response from the Netanyahu administration has caused orders of magnitude more death and destruction against innocent residents of Gaza, and this over zealous military response has enflamed tensions in the region and risks escalation into a much broader conflict.
I will still supply the Israelis with defensive funds for their Iron Dome, we will send them Patriot missile intercept systems, but we will no longer send artillery shells, bombs, ammunition, anything that can be used to further their wildly mismanaged offensive operations.
Further, I will actually commit to setting up and operating a temporary harbor for food and medical supplies to enter Gaza.
... Something like that, blah blah blah, make it clear that all sides in this have some level of culpability for wrong actions and that she will do what she can to minimize the harm the US is culpable for.
Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?
IMEU polls in July and August showed roughly that 30% to 40% of likely Dem and Indp voters in multiple swing states would be more likely to vote for a Dem candidate if they did what they could to halt the Gaza genocide.
Would this turn off likely Republicans voters from her? Basically no more than they already were turned off from her. But she would have gained a whole bunch of Dem voters who specifically could not bring themselves to vote for a candidate complicit with genocide.
Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.
Nope. You can stop enabling offensive action by ceasing to supply offensive systems and munitions, and still maintain your commitment to Israel's defense by giving them defensive supplies.
You don't need to totally disarm the IDF. That would involve going into a ground invasion war against our ally which is obviously insane.
This would not be throwing an ally under the bus. It would be stomping your foot down and reigning in an ally that's gone on a mad rampage with bombs you have given them.
And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.
Nah, I'll use that word, because it is an accurate descriptor. I am not sorry at all if this somehow offends your sensibilities.
Ding ding ding!
Winner winner, idiot dog barfing up your chicken dinner.
Unless they just rewrite those rules/regulations to avoid that.
Which is their whole plan.
If you are talking about deontology and utilitarianism from two to three hundred years ago...
Maybe your characterizations are accurate.
But uh, in more modern ethical theory...
Both camps have realized that pure adherence to the older forms of these ideas leads to absurdities and moral prescriptions which do not broadly match actual empirical responses to hypothetical scenarios.
As a result, most modern ethical theories are some kind of a hybrid of deontologic and utilitarian principles.
Anyway, let me try to illustrate this with a 'hypothetical' ethical question:
You have 300 dollars. This is your food budget for for 30 days. Say you only eat one meal a day, and if you do not eat at least one meal every 3 days, you will starve to death.
An ethical meal, produced by well compensated and treated laborers, costs $40 dollars.
A non ethical meal, produced by unpaid slave laborers in a far away land, who often die of exhaustion and exposure, costs $10 dollars.
Both meals have equal nutritional value and tastiness.
Does the deontologist decide that any level of harm to people they don't know is permissible and eat 30 $10 dollar meals?
Or do they decide no level of harm is permissible to others and buy only 7 $40 dollar meals and then starve?
Or do they purchase some combination of $10 and $40 dollar meals so as to minimize permissible harm to themselves and others according to some kind of calculation?
Is the deontologist in this third scenario not employing some kind of utilitarian calculation?
I will only use this if it uses Clippy's animations.
Thats... what this is, right?
Clippy 3.0?
Republicans: "Well, who else is gonna work the fields after we deport all the Mexicans?"