Wrench
And for scale
According to a 1941 census, the population of India was 388,997,955. This was an increase of over 50 million from the previous census.
In 1943, India was also experiencing the Bengal famine, which killed an estimated 2.1–3 million people.
70,000 tons, distributed over 389m people, is 0.0003598972 pounds of food were taken away from each Indian person, over a 6-7 month period.
Riiiiight.
Policy lapses such as prioritizing distribution of vital supplies to the military, stopping rice imports and not declaring that it was actually a famine were among the factors that led to the magnitude of the tragedy, he added.
So we’re comparing some possible logistics mistakes, in a distant colony, during a defensive war where the ruling country was being bombed on their own soil. Comparing those “incendental” deaths to those of an aggressive conquering army literally rounding up their own citizens and those of the lands they conquered, to be killed.
Right.
She wrote that famine was caused in part by large-scale exports of food from India. India exported more than 70,000 tons of rice between January and July 1943 as the famine set in, she said.
That quantity seems pretty low. In comparison, I found an old post that indicated 300,000 tons of food aid had been supplied to Gaza over 190 days, so similar time spans, to a much smaller population.
Of course, exporting food while the residents are starving is terrible. But this is one study and one interpretation of results.
This certainly sounds like yet another bad faith strawman talking point by Nazi sympathizers.
I don’t see anything different about his rambling, tbh. I think the only notable difference is him working out nicknames while in front of an audience instead of ahead of time.
His talking points aren’t landing, so he’s fishing around for something that gets the reaction he’s looking for.
I think he would have done the same if “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” was met with confusion.
He was always this incoherent, but he had “better” slogans to fall back on.
I’d say it’s probably more due to him alienating most of his former team, and then surrounding himself with more incompetent yes men, than cognitive decline. His baseline of cognitive capacity wasn’t high in the first place.
I consider it animal abuse, but I can understand that there’s an argument that it’s not. I think the distinction of requiring scientific evidence supporting their claim is a reasonable requisite to allow the discussion.
It seems like things worked out here. My knee-jerk reaction would be to classify vegan diets in carnivor pets to be animal abuse and probably would have reported. But discussion happened to allow for discourse, and they rolled back the decision to at least allow for transparency.
And to be clear, I still think it is hands down animal abuse and hope that others come to the same conclusion. Animals don’t have the ability to make an informed choice. Subjecting them to a dangerous diet to satisfy your own niche moral compass is evil.
It’s not about you, it’s about the animal. Get over yourself.
But again, I think it’s OK to have the discussion, and I hope the community buries their side into oblivion.
That’s still a lot of people with criminal records whose lives are much more difficult for it, for something she’s now antagonizing her opponent for flip flopping on as well.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m voting Harris and donating to get campaign. But I find this particular attack vector to be massively hypocritical.
It’s ironic to me that you people can acknowledge that Jill Stein is just virtue signaling from the side lines because it costs her nothing. She’s not actually spending political capital on something that has any chance of happening. She’s just paying it lip service.
You understand this. That’s good.
But then in the same breath, you applaud AOC for saber rattling to pack the supreme court and other ideas that are impossible without a super majority. Which only served to make Biden look weak and disenfranchise progressive voters.
I wonder how many people she pursued possession charges on as a DA.
Edit:
But at different junctures of her time in office, she has been an enforcer of cannabis laws and an opponent of legalized use for adults in California.
Though she defended marijuana’s use for medicinal purposes as district attorney, her prosecutors in San Francisco convicted more than 1,900 people on cannabis-related offenses.
Trump argued that the legal actions against him set a bad precedent
Well, we finally agree on something.
The fact that he’s a free man and the republican nominee 4 years after attempting to steal an election and then subsequently attempted a coup is a really fucking bad precedent and shows that the legal system is impotent to stop large scale corruption.