sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] someguy3 12 points 7 hours ago

Don't do it Gabe.

[-] someguy3 8 points 8 hours ago

I really don't get the Dubai is so cool thing.

[-] someguy3 5 points 8 hours ago

Even if Russia gets rid of Putin and gets their act together, I don't know if they'll ever recover from all the capital leaving the country.

[-] someguy3 -2 points 8 hours ago

What's with these links?

[-] someguy3 2 points 9 hours ago

I'm buff enough? A win is a win.

[-] someguy3 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Actually I think you're the one having a different conversation, or at least refuses to see anything except "but 2, or 4, years".

First thing, Biden is doing a fuckton, but it's not enough for you. So I'm pointing out that you demand Jetsons life/tech/change.

This is not limited to the last 4 years. You really want it to be, but it's not. None of this is one and done. If this is about effecting significant changes, real changes, real movement of the Overton window, over multiple aspects of life, that requires a ton of time, work, and effort. 2 years or even 4 years is nothing. Real, significant change requires consistent and overwhelming victories. This means by definition it is over several elections and over several Presidents.

I'm getting some serious "I'm 18 and think the world can change on a dime" vibes. 2 years is a long time for a 18 year old, I get it. But when you start working trying to effect serious change, you'll realize serious change requires a ton of time, effort, and work. Thus requires consistent and overwhelming victories. Thus far longer than 4 years or 8 years or one presidency.

[-] someguy3 11 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

The thing with stagnation (or regression) is that you don't need to actually do much of anything. So the GOP doesn't need all 3 in order to sit on their ass and block things. They can do that with 1.

[-] someguy3 8 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

"so far"? Dude that's not that far.

We've talked (pretty sure it was you) and I finally realized that I had to hammer home to you that Dems need consistent and overwhelming victories. So I'm looking at recent history of say 24 years.

I added to my previous comment, you have to figure out what your own party supports and will vote for. This is why you have a party whip. Dems presidents are not dictators that their own party will just blindly support. Not to mention that the bill usually starts in Congress, not the president. Congress needs to write it.

So you're back to expecting The Jetsons life out of two measly years. Dude. It's not how it works. Actual progressive legislation requires actual time, effort, and work. 2 years is next to nothing. The world can't turn around on a dime.

Took a vacation LOL. He's been doing absolute fuckton. But it's not enough for you, thus you wanting Jetsons. I cracked the code.

[-] someguy3 8 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I love this "they had control for 4 of the last 24 years, and we don't have the Jetson's life!! Why don't they do anything!?"

Dude, 4 fucking years in the last 24 (or 4 months if you want filibuster proof) and you're complaining about lack of Jetson's life. Do you hear yourself? It's unbelievable. I'm glad that I cracked the code to what you expect because now everyone can see it.

Actual progress takes time and effort to work out policies and get votes from your own party (you know, the party whip). The world can't change direction on a dime like you insist. So they need consistent and overwhelming victories.

[-] someguy3 11 points 13 hours ago

Besides that they can't because Manchin says no, that would mean congratulations Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years (/s). Are we still wondering why they have to compromise?

[-] someguy3 12 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It's not a non-sequitur. It's exactly why they compromise in Congress. They never have control so to do basic things like pass a budget they need to compromise. It's literally why they compromise. And why they go to the centre to win elections.

What you're doing is closer a non-sequitur by ? demanding that Biden saying they have to compromise? And by saying ? he's not getting people excited? Like talk about a non-response just so you can say "bring out voters" (like Fox doesn't exist) and "obstinate" and a whole bunch of other insinuations. And so you can try to turn it around and blame Dems. It's so twisted around there's not much responding to it.

And wow you think the filibuster isn't real. Well I think that say it all.

[-] someguy3 35 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Ok I've had this conversation and realized that people can't do the math. So lets do it:

Let's evaluate the last say 24 years and when the Dems had all 3 of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency. Obama had it for 2 out of 8 years. Biden had it for 2 out of 4 years. Let's add it: That means Dems had control for 4 out of 24 years. Read that again, they had control for only 4 the last 24 years.

And that can still be filibustered. So if you want the filibuster proof majority, then Obama had it for 4 months. Not years, MONTHS. Biden never had it. Add it up: Dems had filibuster proof control for 4 months of the last 24 years.

Look at those stats again: Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. For filibuster proof control, Dems had control for 4 MONTHS of the last 24 years.

This is why Dems compromise, because they basically never have control. To get literally anything done they need to compromise. Take your pick, either 4 years of the last 24 fucking years, or the 4 months or the last 24 years. And you wonder why they have to compromise? And why they go to the centre?

If you want progress you have to give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories.

[Want to add Bill Clinton? That goes to 6 years of the last 32 years, and still 4 months for filibuster proof for the last 32 fucking years. Want to add Bush senior? Then it's 6 years of the last 36 fucking years. Want to add Reagan? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. That's right, 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years that Dems had control. And for filibuster proof majority they had 4 months of the last 44 fucking years.]

225
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by someguy3 to c/world

After being demilitarized in 2005, Sweden re-introduced permanent troops to Gotland in 2016, following Russia’s annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Sweden also became NATO’s newest member in March — meaning it is covered by the alliance's Article 5 guarantee that all other members come to each other's defense if they are attacked.

3
submitted 2 weeks ago by someguy3 to c/historywhatif
12
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by someguy3 to c/videos
18
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by someguy3 to c/startrek

Personally I wasn't a fan of them, so was glad they didn't continue on.

43
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by someguy3 to c/showerthoughts

Instincts being we were both hunters and had to hide from predators. Hide and seek feeds both.

*What's with the down votes? Are people evolution deniers?

411
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by someguy3 to c/til

Excellent listen throughout, but you can skip to 17:30 for competition with McDonalds.

1
submitted 3 weeks ago by someguy3 to c/historywhatif
7
submitted 3 weeks ago by someguy3 to c/historywhatif

Some reasons and discussions why it might not happen can be interesting and insightful, but let's entertain the hypothetical.

81
submitted 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) by someguy3 to c/nostupidquestions

_

28
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by someguy3 to c/asklemmy

*No searching!

73
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by someguy3 to c/asklemmy

Again, with no elevator.

I can't imagine no elevator and walking up with groceries.

17
submitted 1 month ago by someguy3 to c/showerthoughts
view more: next ›

someguy3

joined 10 months ago
MODERATOR OF