Yeap, they'd rather lose to someone like trump than win with someone like AOC or Sanders. Who in reality are pretty much average centerist when compared to most liberal countries.
Democrats adopting third way politics have basically led this country to fascism.
It's not really based on facts, more of a matter of opinion. I agree that the democratic party needs to be shakin up, I just think it needs guidance from a more militant left winged voice to counteract just how far right the GOP has gotten.
I didn't say it was? However, if we currently had stricter gun control who do you think the current administration would be attempting to utilize those laws to prosecute?
If we had a fair legal system and our political leaders weren't literal fascist, I would absolutely advocate for strict gun control. That's just not the political landscape we currently inhabit.
If those laws were present today, you would have the ATF hunting down every brown person with a gun and right winged chuds would be free to keep their massive arsenals, ensuring that christo-fascist maintain an absolute monopoly on violence.
There are areas and kinds of people who can live off the land, in one way or another. They do exist.
They can live off the land when the vast majority of the population isn't trying to do the same. Hungry human populations are worse than locust, we can absolutely destroy entire ecologies in weeks.
the military really is in the same boat as the rest of us.
In the scenario they proposed the military would be controlling the means of food production. This isn't something we have to guess about, there's plenty of examples of intentional famines like what the Brits did to Bengal, and the Irish, or the Soviets in Ukraine, and unintentional like during China's cultural revolution. During those famines the military didn't starve, the common people did.
If those populations who were already subsistence farmers and hunters couldn't "live off the land" then what makes you think anyone on lemy is going to do any better?
And in the face a fascism we should be telling people on the left to disarm themselves?
He's better than the establishment in the DNC, but that like saying oral herpes is better than getting your lips ripped off by a pitbull. It's still not a great scenario either way you look at it.
Yes, some people naturally have better 3d spatial awareness. You can also train your eyes to be better over time. I work in orthotics and prosthetics and have to sculpt positive models of different body parts. We also have to do GAIT analysis where we have to observe the angle of different joints while a patient ambulates.
Some people are just better at it than others starting out, especially if they have prior similar experience. I teach a lot of residents and have noticed that students that have a background in art or construction tend to have a better eye for angles. A lot of it is just practicing by observing different angles compared to something that is known to be square.
I have also trained people who never seem to be able to improve their ability to see angles, which is a big hindrance in their careers. A lot of schools actually have students take a spacial awareness test before students begin studying in the field.
They can't really do that in America, there's too much land and room and food.
50% of the produce we consume is grown in the California central valley. The rest is grown in a few areas of the Great plains and in Florida.
Most of the food you see growing anywhere else isn't for people, it's for livestock.
For someone like me, if the food supplies were all cut off I could just live off of the land by hunting, fishing, and farming.
I think you are overestimating just how much food "the land" can provide. You need around an acre a person for subsistence farming, and that is assuming you live in a region that has a decent climate, that you have irrigation, and have access to modern fertilizer and pesticides.
As far as hunting and fishing goes..... If a large sector of the population had to live off the land, the wildlife likely wouldn't last a single season. The only reason we still have the wild animal populations we currently have is because there are strict regulations monitoring the amount of people who hunt and fish.
Early Americans were able to devastate a larger healthier ecology with a tiny fraction of our current population. Most of our country's natural Forrest and woodland were already destroyed and artificially rehabilitated over a hundred years ago. We have very few old growth Forrest for us to actually live off of.
If it weren't for petrochemical fertilizer the natural nitrogen cycle wouldn't be enough to sustain our current population. Since the invention of the haber process in the 1930s we are all just a bad year away from food insecurity.
I don't think that the movie was proposing that the issue or solution is eugenics based. I would argue that educated people are probably able provide a better education, and that uneducated parents are less likely to be able to provide their children with a quality education.
I don't specifically remember Idiocracy really going into depth about "passing good genes".
“relatively modest” size of his collection, a judge has ruled.
Compared too?
It really reads like a pedo giving out a sick burn to another pedo.....your collection isn't even big enough to earn jail time. What is this amateur hour?
Yes, because of their criminal problems. Not because of their language, clothing style, food preferences, etc. But because of the enormous percentage of criminal involvement.
That is the same claim that "racist" in the US make all the time... Simply assuming that a person engages in criminal activity because of their ethnicity is bigotry.
Are you by chance not a USA citizen? I have some stereotypes about US citizens too.
US citizen is not an ethnic group you moron.
Yes, we hate gipsies. But not because of their race (they don't even have a separate race), but because of some nuances of their culture that involve a lot of criminal.
Lol, if you want to split hairs like that..... race itself is not an actual classification system and isn't real in any meaningful way. What it represents is a bias against certain ethnic groups based off of an ever changing list of generalities.
What the general public interprets as racism is unfounded bigotry against individuals or groups of people for simple belongings to an ethnic group. Having negative preconceived notions against an ethnic minority like the Romani people is racism, and attempting to escape the accusation of racism by engaging in semantics is just pathetic.
tell that bullshit to another racist like you.
Lol, I'm a bi-racial ethnic minority living in the most conservative state in America.....You are a white European that just accused an entire ethnic group of being criminals.....and I'm the racist?
You don't get a pass on your privilege because you live in Europe....an entire continent that enriched itself by engaging in colonialism self validated by racial theory. Go kick rocks bigot.
Yep, what we consider to be level is relative to what you use to establish an axial plane.