• 2 Posts
  • 1.33K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 10th, 2023

help-circle




  • Any American moving to Canada would need to be trained in an in-demand job. In-demand jobs typically pay well, but jobs in Canada pay less than their equivalent job in America. The reason Canada attracts Indian engineers and not American engineers is because Indian engineers get paid less than Canadian engineers, but American engineers get paid more than Canadian ones. There’s no economic incentive for American engineers to immigrate.

    On top of the pay cut, Canada is also experiencing a housing, food, and healthcare crisis. Moving to Canada isn’t the best option if an American is hoping to escape economic troubles. If their plan is to instead escape political troubles, I unfortunately don’t think Canada is much better. Poilievre is a jerk and a bully but looks set to win as big as Trump did. Many provinces are also already firmly run by climate change denying, healthcare privatizing conservatives.

    Also they’d have to learn celsius.


  • It’s the same outcome either way. You don’t have nukes and another country decides to nuke you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! You do have nukes and another country decides to nukes you? Your country doesn’t exist anymore! What changes?

    People say deterrence, but what is the deterrence? You built something that you’ll never use? What’s the point?? Oh you will use it? Great! You’ve decided there’s some event that is so bad you’d end the world if it happened. I’m not sure what event that is. Maybe you have one in mind? China attacks India? The world should surely be destroyed then! No? Too bad! You don’t get a say! China and India decide if humanity gets to continue! They definitely wouldn’t do that though.

    They built their nukes to never use them. Which is the same as not having nukes, but having nukes is required so that nobody uses them, which is the same as never building them, but they need to be built so they won’t be used!


  • No. Nuclear weapons should not exist.

    Kurzgesagt recently made a video on the nuclear arms race. The end of the race was when the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb invented a bomb that could destroy the entire planet. The bomb wouldn’t even need to be dropped onto your enemy. It could be built inside your own country and detonated any time at all to end humanity. He thought of it as the biggest deterrent to war. Nobody else did. Politicians and military leaders threw out the idea entirely. Why would anyone detonate a nuclear bomb inside their own country??

    The size of that bomb pales in comparison to the size of all nuclear weapons in existence today. We built that bomb. It’s just not one giant bomb, but split into 12,000 parts and spread over the world. Is it any different? If you cannot justify building a nuclear weapon that would destroy your own country to destroy another, how can you justify building any nuclear weapons at all?









  • The action would have been done as vice-president, not president. Vice-presidents are held accountable. This is why Trump got in trouble for defamation of E. Jean Carroll.

    He defamed her as president and called it an official act. The case was put on indefinite hold. Then he said the same things while he wasn’t president. A new case was brought against him and he was found liable. Then, Carroll’s lawyer asked the original case to be resumed arguing that Trump’s statements couldn’t be an official act of the president since he performed the same action while he wasn’t president. The courts agreed and resumed the case and he was found liable again.