The world needs Russian oil. Prices will go up if Russia is unable to freely trade.
The extent that Russia is harmed by this will be far less than the extent that the US and others will be harmed by it.
You imagine a fairyland scenario where Russia is forced to sell at a discount to China. WTF?
Without Russian oil, the world's price for oil will skyrocket. Then Russia can go and say "Hey, Winnie the Pooh, want to buy my oil for the normal price?". Or maybe they just go for the current price minus 10%, still making more money than before while everyone else in the world gets screwed.
You have to be a literal retard to not see that.
To harm Russian oil you have to physically impede them from producing or moving oil. Sanctions don't mean shit when a country is self sufficient and already willing to wage war. You might as well tell Putin he can't attend the prom if he doesn't stop being a meanie.
The mentality you have on display is one of a child completely coddled by modern Western life and oblivious to how things actually work in the world. You have no fundamental concept of war or the reasons countries wage it. At best, you've seen half-assed political occupations (Iraq, Afghanistan).
Here's a spoiler for you: The DNC and media WANT this to boil over into a full-fledged war with Russia. They're begging for it.
To quote Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, "This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and âfact checkâ(TM) it,â Like the âworld ending in 12 yearsâ(TM) thing, youâ(TM)d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think itâ(TM)s literal.
No, that's the left.
FACT CHECK: At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high.
An entire article for an idiom. An article decrying the cost (a mere $3000, infinitesimal compared to the usual fare), worrying if it was enough food (it was), and looking down their noses at the whole thing (because it was fast food, which they actually enjoyed).
It's the LEFT that does this shit. And it's the left that accuses everyone else of doing the shit they're doing - from theft to rioting (or "insurrection") to sexism to racism to pedophilia to warmongering and everything else.
Thank you for being a friend.
Traveled down the road and back again.
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party,
Invited everyone you knew,
You would see the biggest gift would be from me.
And the card attached would say,
Thank you for being a friend.
I see it that we have evolved to the point where we can recognize the same flawed argument used to oppose one form of moral harm to when trotted out to oppose a different form of moral harm.
There is no need to try and force an equivalency on different types of moral harm; that's just another form of "whataboutism".
UBI makes a huge dent in the problems of homelessness and hunger - it does a lot more than that too, but just those two problems alone are major moral harms that deserve being addressed, if not solved outright. And while it is a comparison between apples and locomotives, I'll put "hunger" and "homelessness" on the same side of the moral scale as "slavery".
> you also need to talk mechanisms to keep it from snowballing out of control.
What's to snowball? UBI is fixed to population size - it is *universal* basic income, so everybody gets it. The US population is growing by 0.5% annually, so unless there is a dramatic increase in birth rate coupled to a dramatic decrease in death rate, this is a fixed cost.
That comes out to roughly $164 billion, or roughly 25% of the annual defense budget. Not only is that not "out of control", it is relatively cheap for what it buys you.
> The alternative to UBI isn't necessarily working, it could also be living in a homeless shelter.
That is an excellent point.
> You still get UBI while working
I thought this was more generally understood... but fair point that bears repeating.
My confidence in your ability to correctly identify "socialism" is not high.
When did Slashdot become the home of alt-right Nazi types?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
Seems to me a similar argument was put forward vis a vis slavery - as in "we need slavery or the economy would collapse"
What the pearl-clutchers seem to not quite get is that the guy staying home and playing video games is still contributing to the economy. His UBI is buying food, rent , power, and video games. He almost certainly isn't *saving* any money, so 100% of that UBI goes back into the economy.
What he *isn't* doing is being a lazy, inefficient worker. He's not phoning it in on a manufacturing job, or a clerical job. He isn't making mistakes and lowering productivity. There is *value* in having that guy out of the workforce.
Congress' oversight of the Executive branch.
That's not how anything works.
When the executive and legislative disagree, you go to the judicial. Congress refused to go to court. They knew they were in the wrong and would just lose.
No, it wouldn't have taken years for a decision. It was a clear cut case, and this SCOTUS has been churning out results rapidly.
It's true. China controls much of the new silicon valley. Pretty much all the "appy" crap is just a data pipeline to the CCP.
The military brass is basically going out in public and dissing the prez
FORMER brass.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
