Wanting to discourage motorists being around where a massive group of people are expected to gather is reasonable. It's why streets will close for parades and parties. You're turning something designed to protect protestors into a conspiracy to scuttle a protest
The ”Leader of the Free World” and Commander in Chief of the largest, most well-equipped military force the world has ever seen, with bases dotted around the globe has spent the last several months threatening annexation of my country.
For extra fun, this doesn’t even determine if I live in Greenland or Canada - let alone adding ”Abducting a foreign head of state to lay claim to natural resources”, which could make me Venezuelan!
North Korea is a fire down the block; America is a grease fire in my kitchen, and I hope you'll forgive me for prioritizing the immediate threat
The frog had to be pretty well lobotomized to keep it from jumping out. One can recreate the ”experiment” with a lobotomized frog and mostly get the result described though
I agree with the recommendation that you yourself replied to: move in front of the vehicle, and gradually slow to a stop, with lights and sirens optional but recommended
I am thrown by the question of "What else should have been done" though, after grandparent made an explicit recommendation
Except those straight, boring roads that require no input are also exactly where and when I most want to use autopilot. This means I have to manually adjust to keep the car happy, instead of letting the well-aligned car just carry on. Autopilot ends up being more work, and more annoying, than just driving myself
I get that it all adds up, but you're railing against 0.1% of a budget that's over a trillion dollars. Not only do household and national budgets work differently, the numbers are also so much larger that they give a sense of vertigo instead of understanding. If we compare for 0.1% of your budget, would you stress over that amount? Because I know I'm not about to panic over spending $100 annually for a safer, healthier, and more stable world
I feel like there’s a logical fallacy in your response. I’m down for cutting significantly more than $1 billion. Halving the defense department budget would be a good start.
In which case we disagree fundamentally on America's place in the world, and how best to lead - and that's okay. We can politely disagree (on this), and neither of us has to be an asshole, because neither view is objectively wrong
I applaud the consistency you put on display regarding the US budget though, and I gotta say you view (on this) probably should count more than mine - I'm a Canadian citizen, not American
For a more focused point, sticking to just one here:
> we’re tired of funding the world’s defense
Reads like "The outrageously high R&D costs of modern weapons systems are being subsidized across many customers. This must end immediately!"
What other business wants fewer customers to spread R&D across, or less revenue from fewer units sold?
Are we instead discussing how much the US spends internally on defence, then exports the largest military in the world to protect the country and her interests? Because not only is that an example of America choosing to spend her own money instead of being coerced by other nations, but the guy that just ran a snatch'n'grab on a foreign leader was enabled by that same policy. Forgive my disbelief that he'll dismantle that system any time soon.
You're still citing arrested, not charged and convicted though. Those are all different, with no guarantee of the officers facing repercussions beyond a brief arrest. While those are still consequences, they have to be consistently applied (which they don't seem to be for police officers in America) or have consequences for consistently poorly behaved officers
Aternately, Google claimed gMail wa in public beta for years. People did not treat it like a public beta that could die with no warning, despite being explicitly told to by a company that, in recent years, has developed a reputation for doing that exact thing.
reply