Irremarkable

joined 11 months ago
[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 2 points 2 months ago

From what I understand, it primarily stems from that first stipulation, specifically from points 1 and 4 of the Helsinki Accords

(1) Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty (4) Territorial integrity of states

That said, it was very clearly done in a way that didn't actually guarantee that protection, and assuming that the Ukrainians thought otherwise is frankly an insult to their intelligence.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 7 points 2 months ago

Turns out being a racist shithead is in no way determined by your race or ethnicity.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 91 points 3 months ago

We can't either

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 26 points 3 months ago

It's fucking infuriating. It's a constant cycle of electing in dipshits that fuck everything up, spending the next 4 years fixing all their bullshit through ballot measures, and then reelecting them.

Every stereotype about us Missourians being idiots is 100% true.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 3 points 3 months ago

I should have clarified. I mean silly (fun) not silly (ridiculous)

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 249 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Anon discovers eating healthy and exercising.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The most likely path at this point is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a collection of state legislative measures, state constitutional amendments, etc. aimed at using the electoral college against itself. The very short tldr is once >=270 electoral votes worth of states have passed something enacting it, all those states' delegates will vote in line with the national popular vote regardless of how their individual state votes, forcing the popular vote winner to be president.

Whether or not it'll survive judicial challenge if/when it gets to >=270 electoral votes worth of states is entirely unclear. In theory, there's nothing they should be able to do about it, but SCOTUS has shown time and time again it doesn't actually give a fuck about the constitution.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago

Hell, a large portion of us outside of grad and hexbear don't exactly like Harris. Sure is a helluva lot better than a bald faced fascist though.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 8 points 3 months ago

That's simply not true, but by happenstance the particular communists in question are tankies.

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 13 points 3 months ago (5 children)

The monarchies can stay on one condition. They all wear silly hats like the Swedish king

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 65 points 3 months ago (3 children)

"No you're not allowed to call fascists and terrorists what they are, that's divisive!"

[–] Irremarkable@fedia.io 14 points 3 months ago

If I had to guess, it's primarily to make people feel safer, security theater type stuff. I'm usually against that sort of thing, but you want people to feel it's safe to vote, so if you gotta do some silly stuff, so be it. Plus it's not like having narcan on hand is literally ever a bad thing.

view more: ‹ prev next ›