NATO was specifically designed to protect against the United Soviet Socialist Republic, which was illegally dissolved by the RSFSR. There is no relationship between the USSR and modern Russia.

What exactly did I make up? You don’t have to say that you support the status quo to argue in favor of the status quo. I’m asking basic questions to understand where you’re coming from, because I refuse to assume things about your position. China greatly prefers soft power over military power (not that they don’t act in a jingoist manner), and will not align themselves with Russia in fear of US secondary sanctions hurting their soft power. India is courting all sides of the geopolitical game in the hopes of gaining power overall, not in any specific direction. North Korea has weapons manufacturing capabilities lacking in Russia, but the DPRK is doing it to hurt the West without incurring worse sanctions. BRICS is an economic alliance comparable to the WTO and it definitely has nowhere near the weight of WTO or the will to become a military alliance. The African Union and ECOWAS are aligned with the imperial core. I’m not denying that there are other bad actors out there, I’m saying that none of the bad actors are anywhere close to organized, so fearmongering about “something worse than NATO” is nothing more than that.

I wouldn’t call “hating NATO” irrational. I’d say it’s a difference in priorities. I don’t believe that the suffering imposed on the global south by NATO is outweighed by the mild stability they’re bringing to the global north currently. I hate the pain and suffering that NATO enables in the majority of the world. However out of pragmatism, I see that the lack of NATO in the present would be worse for people overall. The best time to have dismantled NATO would have been at any point from 1992 to 2010. The next best time will come in the near future when NATO is no longer holding the West together against bad actors. However rather than dismantle it, I want to see it transformed into something that helps people in crisis, rather than the purposes of war. To do that, the US (NATO’s largest funder) will need to have a socialist economy to prevent them pulling out ASAP, and a majority of other members will need to be socialist as well due to the democratic structure of the organization. It’s a Herculean task, but I believe that it can be done. Perhaps you should avoid assuming things about my position as well.

I feel like you’re the same type of person that would refuse to help organize a union or even sign a membership card because the organizing committee isn’t doing things ‘your way’. I know your type, because I organized a union without the help of your type. Running around accusing people disagreeing with you as “disingenuous” doesn’t help gain understanding or class solidarity with your fellow workers.

abolishing the mutual defense pact of all those different nations it will simply Empower a different group of people.

ah yes, the “we must defend the status quo at ALL COSTS because the unknown is scary” position. Which alliance exists currently that is a rival to NATO? Which existing political alliances are being suppressed that will immediately crop up into a military alliance in it’s absence? Since it’s purely an accelerationist position, will you point out the other accelerationist positions on Dr. West’s Policy Pillars?

Are you seriously insisting …

I hate NATO. I understand why people want it dismantled. I disagree with that assessment. How much more explicit do I have to be? No, I am not insisting any of that.

NATO will never exist in that manner until a majority of member nations and the US are socialist. Even though I disagree with it, I understand the desire to want it just dismantled instead because getting to that point is tantamount to moving mountains. It’s not just an accelerationist position.

Opposition to NATO is a pretty milquetoast opinion on the socialist left due to its’ part in the continued exploitation and neo-imperialism of the global south. I’m also opposed to NATO, but I don’t think it should be dismantled. Rather it should be turned into an international climate change relief agency.

As an official act, dissolve the current supreme court and reverse every terrible decision they made.

I’ll bring some stuff for margaritas

If she’s sick of people thinking MN is crazy, she should get out of the public eye. People like her, lindell, and Jensen are why people think our state is crazy.

That’s extremely dependent on the use case, but in my opinion, generally no. However CAMM has been released as an official JEDEC interface and does a good job at being a middle ground between repairability and speed.

If you allocate it right, you can add 200GB of swap space and then that 4GB of RAM will feel like 408GB!

There are real world performance benefits to ram being as close as possible to the CPU, so it’s not entirely without merit. But that’s what CAMM modules are for.

It’s extremely obvious with words like “terrorism” and “anarchy”. In the 1910s to describe her actions in court, a radical feminist stated her actions were not anarchy, but terrorism. Imagine defending yourself by invoking terrorism now.

Since you have been deeply involved in immigration activism

Also fair. I’m an activist that helps immigrants find working class power, not an immigration activist.

I didn’t know that was a requirement for getting a visa. When it comes to heads of government, I think about what my CEO would do and work off that. It works most of the time, but clearly not every time. It does recontextualize things for me a bit, but not enough to stop me from being absolutely pissed at the current administration or the ruling. I think we can both reach the agreement that the way immigration is about to change is total bullshit and needs a complete overhaul.

I’m not going to keep the numbered thing up, because a few of those answers are good enough for me.

I don’t think the headline is wrong, I think this headline is indicative of the problem with headlines in general: they fundamentally can’t provide appropriate context. The state department does have the unrestricted power to separate spouses now, in a very narrow context where the non-citizen is not in the US (for now - we know where SCOTUS and Trump want this to go). Yes, it could have been better, they always can be. I’ve only seen maybe a handful of perfect headlines in my entire life, and most have come from the Rolling Stone. I don’t think this slant is any worse than mainstream headlines, and miles better than anything that would come from conservative media. I think the reaction is that as a country, we’re used to these angles coming from the right so it feels wrong for there to be leftist critique in news.

Why would it matter either way if the lawyers report directly to him or to the DOJ? The DOJ is still administered by Biden’s handpicked appointee. This decision is inextricably linked to Biden’s administration. We don’t need to know if this is what he wanted in his heart-of-hearts, we just need to know that his administration is why we now have this majority ruling in the first place. The lawsuit would not have existed if the State Department didn’t try to fuck with people’s lives.

Do you intentionally try to start arguments with your comments? We’re not on reddit anymore, I don’t engage with bait. Consider it a warning, because I do want to have this conversation.

Biden issued an executive order days before this decision. You even referenced it in your own comment. I called it a campaign because I’m a lead mobilizer and steward in my union, so some wires got crossed trying to describe the EO. However, I don’t think the comparison of an EO to a mobilizing campaign is far off. The taskforce trying to reconnect families is good. This article does take a passing swing at that taskforce, mostly to say that it’s far too little and way too late, but the headline and article is specifically about the court case and the majority opinion. That’s really all I have to say about this for the time being unless we get into border policies.

I said that the administration pushed the issue, because they did. They intentionally baited the spouse of a US citizen to leave the country to strip the person of due process, and then denied the visa without a legitimate cause. When the appellate court reversed the trial decision, the Biden administration could have let the issue rest, gave an apology, and issued the visa. Instead they appealed it to the most fascist SCOTUS in the country’s history. Biden, or at least the lawyers representing the state, wanted the government to have this power.

This is how things will work now. If a non-citizen gets married in the US and has to leave the country for any reason, their visa can get denied, the spouse cannot sue in the US on their behalf, and the person trying to immigrate cannot complete the paperwork based on the state department’s current process for immigrating as a spouse. That sounds like unrestricted power to separate families if you ask me. This isn’t cherry-picking statements from lawyers, this is the court’s majority opinion.

Well this is a firehose of bullshit.

1. What part of the article is factually wrong?
2. What specifically gives you the feeling that the article is unreliable?
3. Why does it matter whether or not the lawyers representing the state department work at the state department?
4. Why should tattoos of any kind be an indication of whether a non-citizen spouse can get a visa?
5. How exactly does the headline mischaracterize the ruling or the majority opinion?

This decision deeply undermines precedent and established law. Sure, he might have announced a “keep families together” campaign, but his administration pushed the issue and has granted the state department the ability to deny visas to people legally married to US citizens.

Cold war politics is more important than the surveillance state.

Unfortunately it would be critically underfunded and expected to make a profit. Also they have to have the entire funds of government pensions available for all workers in advance

It would disqualify the 2 major presidential candidates if it was applied nationally, as well as 50 sitting members of Congress (assuming they all wanted to run)