I mean sure, but the US is also starving it’s own citizens right now as well.

Again? Argentina has never been great.

I’m sorry, does the holy spirit have a gender? Because god is also the holy spirit and Jesus. So while the “Father” part may be a man, and I think it’s probably correctly translated as such. I don’t think there’s any assumption of such for the holy spirit.

Has the US killed any journalists yet? I know that they roughed some up to the point of landing them in the hospital, but I haven’t heard of any deaths.

Those are some ridiculously low numbers… So to be considered in poverty, you have to earn less than 26k jointly for a household of 3. I don’t think you’d have a house for a household at all at that amount. Barely. Making ends meet with just food, actually you’re probably going hungry every other day at that amount.

And the poverty line hasn’t been adjusted since the 60’s iirc. No president wants to be the one that tells everyone we have so much more poverty now!

Ah yes cause the pot calling the kettle black is usually the trustworthy one.

Fwiw I don’t know who to believe in this one. They’re both massive liars.

Ty

Ty

I thought it was a trans antifa Marxist! /s

They will become “The Fractured But Whole”

You touched on the big problem the US has. The energy grid is ancient.

You are not the OP, but let me take a stab at what you’re saying. Conservative has always been a word to describe a train of thought or ideal to not change from how things are.

The objective of that can change wildly throughout the years to the point of it even being contradictory to itself. (for example Greek conservatism probably wanted sexual freedom and current conservatives want “traditional sexual values” from a Christian point of view which is absolutely contradictory. )

I’m saying that conflating a group of people, “conservatives” in this case, isn’t a group of people that have been around for centuries plotting against some idea. They have been different groups trying to hold on to the world that they know and dislike change.

If you mean “conservatives” as it is currently known in the US, then yes that is a group of people who have been plotting on how to force their “ideals” on us but it’s hardly “centuries” as how OP put it. It’s just been from the 1950’s.

This is why I’m saying that OP sounds like a conspiracy nut.

The reason why I want to point this out is because claiming a group is centuries old adds to the belief that they are an entity that has survived massive world view changes; Colonialism, Revolution, Civil Wars, World Wars. All of this makes them seem like an invincible group, but in reality they aren’t that. They’ve only been around since slightly before Reagan and they are not absolute and they can be overthrown and toppled.

We should not equate “conservatism” with groups that advocated for feudalism or monarchy, but we should totally treat them like both of these were treated at the end of their era. We should get rid of backwards, draconic ways of thinking and always move forward.

It isn’t though? Conservatism has changed meanings quite a bit from the 17th century from 1620’s Massachusetts Puritans and later Loyalists to the crown. Note that neither of these have anything to do with imposing moral values and promoting censorship.

In fact, the push for “Religious values” like censorship in the case of this thread has only been around the US since the 1920’s. Which if that’s what you mean by “centuries” it’s a bit of a stretch since that is a single century.

Moreso, if you want to trace those ideologies back to politicians in the US, you’ll find maybe a couple of mentions of this in people like Buckley (in 1955) or Goldwater (in 1960) and of course from Reagan.

That is why I am saying “centuries” is an exaggeration.

They? For centuries? Who is “they” that has been this organized for “centuries”? The fucking illuminati? The masonic order?

Maybe you’re exaggerating a bit?

Name checks out. But also wtf is wrong with you?

“Hunter Biden did it, why can’t we?”

Is that accurate though? Assume a satellite is in a decaying orbit (thus too low to contribute to Kessler syndrome on its own) and another satellite is in a different orbit eccentricity-wise but they both collide. Are we certain that none of the pieces from the collision would acquire enough speed to become boloids that contribute to Kessler syndrome?

Time to go down the rabbit hole that is orbital mechanics for me again. Byeeee lol

Edit: looks like the lowest orbit for starlink’s first shell is at 550km which is very much above VLEO and would definitely be a factor in Kessler Syndrome.

Most starlink satellites are set to deorbit themselves upon failure to avoid this. However the de orbiting could still fail and then it should take about a year or so to deorbit itself?

So it looks like there is a low possibility of it initiating Kessler syndrome. But it’s not negligible.

Sleep apnea would like to say hi. Now you can’t breath in dreams either.

This guy fucks