The military isn't going to step in and save us unless they feel strongly that the public will support them wholeheartedly, and they aren't going to feel that way if there isn't massive and unprecedented civil unrest. That means the onus is on us.
Schmoo
Gender is a performance and Nick Offerman is a very good performer.
Don't show this to Trump, he'll insist that it's real.
My dad's ringtone is a motorcycle engine revving at max volume, and he never silences it. He also just lets it ring when he doesn't want to answer.
And what a great job they're doing! There's definitely no double standards here, oh no. *cough Israel *cough.
NATO only acts to prevent the expansion of the United States' rival imperial powers, like Russia and China. It's nothing more than a military alliance of western powers to maintain US hegemony. It's all well and good that it resists and deters Russia imperialism in Europe, but it has zero interest in stopping US imperialism in the middle east as carried out by the US' favorite proxy state and stationary aircraft carrier, Israel. NATO isn't attempting to maintain peace in Europe out of a genuine desire to protect human life, but simply to preserve the status quo and balance of power.
And if you're wondering how Trump wanting to leave NATO fits into all this, it's precisely because NATO preserves the balance of power. He thinks he can benefit from destabilizing the political climate of the world because he's a scumbag who takes advantage of chaos to advance his interests, and he doesn't care if other authoritarian leaders are able to do the same. The US could lose global standing, but that's a risk he's willing to take if it helps him consolidate power internally.
The mistake Hammond made in Jurassic Park wasn't cloning dinosaurs, it was mismanaging the park due to greed.
Bro this is some next level conspiracy paranoia.
So clearly you didn't fully read my comment, so why should I expend the effort typing out a response? It would be a waste if you're just going to read part of it and then ask questions I've already given the answer to.
You've answered your own question, ending imperialism and colonialism so that unequal exchange doesn't create massive wealth disparities between nations and war no longer displaces people en masse, thereby "uplifting" formerly exploited peoples, would remove most of the incentives for mass migration. In a world at peace with itself borders are not necessary. Ask yourself, why is there no need to criminalize immigration between states/provinces within a country such as the US? Because the US, for the time being, is a nation at peace with itself. It doesn't have to be a perfect utopia - the US most certainly is not - to eliminate the need for border security / immigration control. Even a tenuous peace and a dubious justice is enough to eliminate the need for border enforcement.
Edit: This is a good write-up about how the criminalization of migrants does not even serve as an adequate deterrent to migration anyway. It is not only unjust, it's futile.
I agree that there are legitimate reasons to manage immigration, but criminalizing the act is a complete no-go for me. There are other ways to manage immigration by creating incentives and disincentives that would make the criminalization of migrants unnecessary. I also believe that freedom of movement is a fundamental human right and that borders are nothing more than an authoritarian system of control. "Security" is only made necessary by the problems that nation-states create themselves by existing.
"Jews and Muslims can't coexist and it's all the Muslims' fault, that's why we have to force Muslims off their land and establish a Jewish ethnostate. We have a right to it anyway because god gave it to us or whatever. How dare they fight back!"
This is your argument, and we are the ones being disingenuous?
I assume they're referring to how the presence of frogs is an indicator as to the cleanliness of the water. If the river is highly polluted no frogs will be present.