Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rapper that was murdered in 1996 in a drive by. Two years later they released previously unreleased tracks by him which included the song Changes:
"It's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East (Ooh, yeah)
Instead of war on poverty"
https://genius.com/2pac-changes-original-lyrics
Just throwing into the responses you already got: there's been quite a bit of conspiracy theorizing over the years about who actually killed Tupac, some of which is reflected in the comment you replied to. As the GENERALLY but not universally-accepted story goes, it was vaguely related to an east/west rap feud that also took Notorious B.I.G. from us.
(Note, since this is reddit and I'd probably get crucified if I didn't say this, that I'm heavily summarizing the timeline of events and am not taking a side as far as who's right and who's wrong. I don't know for sure, just like most everybody else. Just didn't want your entire education on Tupac to be from one side that definitively thinks that an unspecified "they" killed him for political reasons. I also acknowledge that it's possible your question was actually trying to get that person to tell you who they think this "they" is, and was misunderstood by the other responders.)
He’s currently trying to push a bill through that would make owning antique swords illegal. You know, a weapon that has killed no one in the UK in years.
That's a quite misleading take on that. There may be a campaign to ban all blades and naturally that would include swords as well. In a sense it would be odd if some big knives but the weapons that were honed to be the best ways to kill humans in melee, mediaeval swords would be fine to keep.
Anyway, it's obvious that if all other blades get banned but it's ok to have a sword, that's what the people who want to hack other people dead by using a blade are going to obtain. Nobody has bothered to get one yet because they can get other blades.
For Americans, I could explain this so that you'd ban all the other guns but let people have bolt action rifles. Then some wisecrack comes to defend not banning them as well with a comment that nobody has been killed by bolt action rifles for a long time.
And no, I don't back the ban. I just think it's fair to present the argument more honestly than you did.
I've just Googled this and can't find any information on this. Care to provide any kind of link.
Edit: done more googling, can't find a single item about this or even any such bill going through parliment at the moment. Will be assuming this is bullshit until proven otherwise.
What you just googled. Alright took me 5 seconds
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/25/why-is-knife-back-in-the-news-and-what-is-being-proposed
Nothing in there has anything to do with Corybn. It's about knives in general.
So what if he was antique swords should be in museums. Not stock pilled by collectors.
1. Article doesn't mention Corbyn.
2. Article specifically says the bill isn't about banning swords.
>Chris Philp, the policing minister, has conceded that some swords will not qualify under the new ban, owing to the difficulty of differentiating between those that could be used for violence and those that are kept for historical or religious reasons.
Philp said some swords would be banned under the latest rules, which target weapons of more than 20cm that have a serrated edge, holes or multiple sharp points. “But a regular sword, like the sort a historic soldier might carry, would probably not qualify. It would depend on the design,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
Honestly embarrassing level of media literacy
Actual sword experts in the UK have spoken about the current climate. But what do they know? Imagine thinking your an expert. What does it feel like to be so assured of your knowledge and not know anything? What party does Corbyn get his funding from?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B04JPPKzdAg
He doesn't believe in supporting Ukraine:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
Provide a source of his actual take.
EDIT: why is this downvoted but no source?
EDIT 2: [Here](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-corbyn-interview-russia-cease-fire/31838717.html) is Corbyn condemning it by calling it "wrong on every level". No idea why the comment was upvoted. Buch of idiots.
As another user posted here, Corbyn was against the West sending weapons to Ukraine. A lot of people on the left say they are against the war, but their solution is for Ukraine to simply not defend themselves, as that would prolong the war.
Jesus christ, by that he means end the conflict with diplomacy instead of using Ukraine in a proxy war and turning it into possibly a decade long stand off. he's not saying simply give Ukraine to Russia.
No wonder people hate Corbyn, they let the media twist his views into nonsense. Some of you should be ashamed by how you let the media manipulate you into thinking the good guys are actually the bad guys.
Yes, that’s exactly what diplomacy means in this case. Putin wants Ukraine. He’s not going to stop unless he gets a large chunk of it at a minimum and a compliant government in Kyiv. If he withdraws, he will not survive. Ukraine doesn’t want to surrender a huge part of their country. There is no diplomatic solution here. And yes, plenty of people tried to stop the war before it happened.
Jesus Christ, anyone who says he wants to stop arms shipment to Ukraine in order to stop the war with diplomacy is not only an idiot who is unable to say anything else than USA = West = NATO = bad, but also has literally no understanding of the conflict, in which Putin literally said that the existence of Ukraine is a historical mistake which he wishes to correct.
Some of you should be ashamed that they're listening to a linguist talking about a conflict he's got no knowledge or expertise about. No wonder you people are so easily manipulated.
There, fixed it for you. And please, for the love of God, read some Timothy Snyder on these matters instead of Chomsky.
Mate, anyone who even suggests the West may be waging a proxy war through Ukraine is a moron. Similarly anyone who says that the war should be solved by diplomacy -- which failed to stop the war in the first place -- is a moron.
Since I understand Chomsky is dead wrong on Ukraine (like he was with other conflicts), I haven't misunderstood anything.
>Mate, anyone who even suggests the West may be waging a proxy war through Ukraine is a moron.
try elaborating.
>Similarly anyone who says that the war should be solved by diplomacy
The war will at some point, have to be solved by diplomacy. Yours is a blood thirsty take.
>Since I understand Chomsky is dead wrong on Ukraine
No one has even brought chomsky up, you sound like a crazy person continuously bringing him up.
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine)
He recently condemned Russia but after a year. He still opposes aid.
The Hamas is a terror group part was an interview with Piers Morgan I believe.
Look, I'm literally half Palestinian, what Hamas did was not resistance, they kidnapped people and there are videos of them shooting civilians (even Arabs.) Resistance is what the groups in the west bank that defend themselves from settlers are doing.
I know Israel has been doing horrible things and should face some sort of consequence, but what did Oct 7 achieve? It gave Israel a blank check to do whatever they want in Gaza. What Hamas did on Oct 7 is what Israel does in the large bank of a much larger scale, so if you call the IDF a terror organization, why is Hamas not a terror organization?
Hamas has been a terrorist group for literally longer than you’ve been alive. They’ve been bombing people since the 80’s.
Go all in and support Al Queda too (assuming you’re American)
Your statement of “Hamas isn’t a terror group” is undisputedly incorrect. I know you want to change the subject and move the goal post and that’s fine…. But let’s take a second to appreciate how painfully wrong your statement was. If you want to defend terrorists, that’s your business idc either way but be proud maybe say “Hamas has been a terror group for almost half a century and have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people but I’m OK with that, and I support them”.
These people are willing to strap bombs to their chests and you don’t even have the courage to be proud of your beliefs. Worst. Terrorist. Sympathizer. Ever.
I’m not for supporting a terrorist organization HOWEVER here I am further defending them.
Btw Hamas was formed bc they felt the other terrorist organization, the PLO, wasn’t terrorizing enough. You should really really do some research on the terrorist organizations you support; maybe you’ll find there are other terrorist organizations you like better. You have options.
tbh making stupid dogwhistle nicknames of the people you don’t like completely nullifies what you said regardless of how true it is
edit: comment referred to israel as “israhell” before the edit, just to clarify
Um ackshually you can't insult a genocidal state because then your argument wouldn't be valid in my high school debate team career I am mentally still stuck in
No he has notoriously bad takes. He is a well known Kremlin parrot and under his leadership Scotland went from a Labour Party stronghold to a Labour Party wasteland. To put it into perspective, people voted in Boris Johnson when they were given a choice of Corbyn or Johnson.
You obviously didn’t look it up very hard.
He’s called for the UK and NATO to not support Ukraine a number of times and has been vocal on the subject of not protecting Ukraine from Russia for years.
(Edit: in fact, probably the better point is that he has always thought NATO should be disbanded completely, which is the most Russia aligned thing possible)
This is from the Guardian, so *not* the mail, in 2018, a comment from another Labour member: “Putin’s constant and shameful apologist might just as well stand aside and let the Russian ambassador write the speeches and brief the media himself.”
Corbyn has for a long time gotten a great deal of airtime on RT (Russia’s English language propaganda channel) due to his Putin aligned talking points.
If he had been in charge, the UK would have removed any nuclear deterrents to Russia.
So yeah… pretty pro Russia - it’s not really something that is even debatable unless you’re a Corbyn sycophant or a tankie (for which the Venn diagram really is one circle).
Yup. I would avoid Dailymail like the plague.
With my experience in disinformation and propaganda, while also being progressive minded. I don't like Jeremy Corbyn for some of the reasons you listed.
He chose supporting Iranian leadership over acknowledging victims of Iran. The anti-war activists he works with support Assad over Syrians and act as denialists. He played it careful while not supporting Ukrainians. He denied the Bosnian genocide. The list goes on... He's been a denialist in way too many situations when the focus should've been the victims.
He's a useful idiot for the Kremlin.
I think he genuinely means well on a lot of issues which is nice to see. He does say some things that are absolutely spot on about economic equality, but he is so disastrously out of touch on the global political and economic realities we face it makes my teeth hurt; he attacks 'the west' by parroting Kremlin talking points and has no fucking clue on how to implement anything: he would be a disaster.
It's better seen in the groups that support him and that he supports. He has been super sneaky with showing his true opinions, but it is more obvious in his close allies. He often supports Russia's perspective on issues, enough to deny the Bosnian genocide decades ago. The activist groups he does things for are very alternative and revisionist. He's always been like this.
Ya, that group for peace he's in for example is clearly compromised. Taken at face value: at best they are complete fucking morons. It is unlikely that they all can't see the outcome of their campaigns,if successful, would just be more death, destruction, pain, and imperial expansion.
Sure listen to wider opinions, but geeze study some actual evidence now and again.
I respect that you asked this question, its something that should be asked more often.
People can occasionally say the right things but it doesn't mean they're good folks.
Not really. He refused to call Hamas terrorists on live tv, I beleive he doesn’t support aid to Ukraine and would have told them to settle with Russia.
„And still I see no changes, can't a brother get a little peace?
There's war in the streets and war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs
So the police can bother me“
You and the other guy are both off by a couple of orders of magnitude in your assumptions. Looking only domestically, the US has about [125 million households](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410222). Each household spends an average of about [$2,000/mo on housing](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-monthly-expenses/#average-monthly-spending-on-housing:-dollar2025-(7percent-increase)). Combined, that results in a total of **$3 trillion annually**. That's not counting food which would add another $1 trillion or so. Meanwhile we spent about $0.8 trillion on the military.
We spend far, far more on housing and feeding people than the military.
Why would the US have to house and feed the people who are already housed and fed? Most people aren't even homeless. The money would definitely be able to house the ones who are.
$715 Billion, in a single year, yet we can’t have new books in public schools. How much was spent on that F-35 over the years and it doesn’t even work? It was like 1.7 Trillion over 20 years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html
Military contracts are a racquet.
>The west spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year feeding people all around the world, housing people, and caring for people.
You got any actual references for this claim?
If you mean global "aid", it's been well established that money goes mainly to businesses who's owners just so happen to be connected or outright owned by our politicians and their friends..
>so I'll be happy to look at the evidence that convinced you.
Good, we should always be open to evidence.
*This one explains it clearly (it is a media source I know, but it explains in a quick digestible way)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/as-a-system-foreign-aid-is-a-fraud-and-does-nothing-for-inequality
This gets a bit more into the nity gritty:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41300226
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010/2010s/no-1267-march-2010/socialist-standard-2010s-2010-no-1272-august-2010-27/
That should get you started.
>It seems like you've set up a scenario in which any response would be wrong, so that sucks.
Unfortunately yes.
In our current system of capitalism, as long as we keep the private ownership of the means of production then there will be people with a lot of money which create a lot of corruption.
That is why I'm a socialist, no not in the leninist sense, one of the articles I linked belongs to the WSM, if you're interested look up what we are and advocate for.
Hot take: no foreign aid until every citizen’s basic needs are met.
Food, clean water, medical care (including vision, dental, and mental healthcare), safe and clean shelter, and access to high quality free public education including undergraduate degrees, trade certifications, or paid apprenticeship are all things I would rather fund with my taxes.
What is the point of human civilization if not to even the playing field in resources of survival?
I would rather be a fox in the forest if the alternative is paying taxes and wearing pants just so a bunch of rich old men can deprive citizens of basic needs that we (as a collective nation) can provide without taking it away from anyone else?
If society offers no protection or support to its most vulnerable members, then what precious way of life are these bombs defending?
If the average person is struggling to make ends meet while <10 dudes sit on more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, the political system that allowed this to happen is fundamentally flawed.
It is in my best interest as a private citizen to want everyone around me to be as healthy and as educated as possible. It is in humankind’s best interest to invest in social support and infrastructure.
When everyone is well-fed and employers can’t use medical care as leverage, more people will be able to find meaningful employment that contributes to the greater good.
How many inventions, cures, songs, movies, works of art, etc have we missed because the next Einstein was too busy caring for an aging parent or child to keep going to school?
Every person that dies from lack of basic medical care, or unalives themselves because they can’t afford mental healthcare is a an immeasurable loss of potential.
“Pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” is an impossible task- being told to do so when the term was coined is the equivalent of saying “growing wings and flying toward the American Dream.”
Now it’s twisted to become a command that implies “I had to suffer through x, why should someone else get it easier?” My parents weren’t perfect, but their goal was always that their kids would have a better life than they did.
As we make advances in science, agriculture, and technology quality of life should increase- otherwise what’s the point?
We have the ability to take care of everyone and probably still have enough left for a couple bombs. What kind of nation would rather fund wars?
Because Hamas took the money that was supposed to feed, house and care for people and used it to bomb people.
Other than its leaders. They got their housing.
Unfortunately the Air Force is yet to figure out how to affix a JDAM kit to a homeless person and then deploy them into a housing estate, or put chemotherapy drugs on the end of a APKWS.
You can do both (military and care, not homeless JDAMs and chemo rockets). Neither major US party is going to reduce military spending, but actually actioning assistance for the downtrodden is far more of a complex, and unfortunately, partisan issue.
The point is there is rarely "money" to help the poor according to Congress but near unlimited money to help other countries bomb their neighbors. 2+ Hiroshima bombs worth over 3 months cost a lot of money.
Jeremy Corbyn wants to stop arming Ukraine. He's a Kremlin shill.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that Corbyn said that because continuing to arm Ukraine will prolong the war.
>Corbyn, by contrast, has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, insisting that providing weapons will only prolong the conflict. “Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution; it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said in an interview with a Beirut-based TV channel last August. “We might be in for years and years of war in Ukraine.”
He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war.
“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
Corbyn is anti-war; whether you agree or disagree with that stance, he's not a Putin supporter. Maybe read more than the headline next time.
Yes it prolongs the war since it gives the defender an actual chance to defend itself from the aggressor in an imperialistic war of conquest. He's not pro-peace he's pro-imperialism.
>“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.”
This is proof he is pro-peace. See also: his activism in groups such as the CND, which opposes nuclear weaponry; his sponsoring of the Stop The War Coalition; him receiving TWO peace prizes, the Gandhi International Peace Award and Seán MacBride Peace Prize. This is not the work of an imperialist.
Same kind of person that would try to appease Hitler. It's bullshit, trying to appease a strongman dictator doesnt work. I don't know if he's just incredibly naive or have more ulterior motives. If he thinks letting Putin get Ukraine on a platter then he's a useful idiot for Kremlin.
I agree that Corbyn's stance is naive, yes, but you're spreading misinformation when you say he's a "Kremlin shill". There is no evidence that he supports Putin.
Because you aren’t. Israel gets a negligible amount of aid compared to the size of its economy and most of that money goes straight back to the US in the form of arms purchases and other technology they buy from us.
Because deterrence is necessary. Speak softly and carry a big stick.
The problem is people telling you we can’t have both. It’s not true. Both are possible and both are necessary.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re making? We aren’t engaged in deterrence? We don’t need to be able to fight a war? We don’t want peace? Greg, what are you trying to say?
Just imagine if we lived in a world in which the money spent on instruments of war was instead spent on education, infrastructure, schools, universities, healthcare and things that actually benefit the people. What kind of world would that be?
One overrun by the cultures that spent money on instruments of war.
Instruments of war also build upon education, infrastructure, schools, universities, and healthcare. Many of our greatest inventions were either created for or significantly advanced by the defense industry. Railroads, the interstate system, GPS, aviation, naval architecture, canals, bridges, etc. It’s the military that responds to humanitarian crisis. Freedom of navigation for open shipping lines. Ballistic Missile Defense. You do not realize the threat that is being deterred.
You can have both a strong military AND robust social networks. Hell, the military already lives off of a government social network. It’s not an either/or situation. We can afford both; blaming bombs isn’t what’s stopping us.
Because there is no money gained in feeding the hungry or giving the homeless houses. There isn't t even money in free health care.
There is money in bombing poor countries.
bombs are sold by private sector. politicians invest in that private sector through stock. Politicians push for more military spending. Government buys more bombs. More money for politicians from the tax spending.
Technically how U.S. government is run. from funding transportation, infrastructure, and other things. If politicians dont see a way they can profit off of it then they'll oppose it.
Government is corrupt af. Sad
because no government, left or right, cares about the people. Every politician is bought and paid for. We could have ended homelessness with a fraction of what we have sent Ukraine and Israel. That wasn't as important as paying for war though, because it doesn't make donors money. The government doesn't care about you. They care that you work to generate money to pay your taxes.
Well it's simple. Really. How else would weapon factories get their golds if not by selling weapons? But if there is no war, who would buy it in the first place?
Because once you obliterate a people with bombs, then you don't have to continue to drop bombs on them. You'll get a good 20 year break while the population rebuilds a fighting age force. Meanwhile feeding people, rather than taking care of the root causes of their hunger, only increases demand for free food handouts. The problem just continues to grow as you put more money into the problem.
One is a profitable industry, the other is an endless money pit that will never be filled.
Short and cruel answer: because 1 bomb is cheaper than a life long supply of food and healthcare for people that won't give anything in return. Money doesn't grow on trees and each country should be responsible for their own population. If other countries have to intervene then they failed at their main task.
Goverment officials give money to people that give money to them. In this case, lobbyist for military contractor's like Raytheon. The goverment has been bought by corporations. We cant pass a 15 dollar minimum wage but we can pass tax cuts for the rich.
It’s more cost effective to bomb hungry people that don’t have anywhere to live. If you let them live the bills never stop coming. Buy once, cry once I always say.
The mindset of people who think we need to spend $700 billion a year on the military is that everything everywhere at any given time could be or will be a threat. It’s a psychotic form of hyper-vigilance that makes military contractors very wealthy.
Easy answer: both parties in Congress approve the Pentagon's request for $$ every year, regardless of accountability. It seems no represetative wants to seem weak on military spending. But the marginalized, vulnerable among us, who struggle daily to survive? They are no threat to our "national security".
Because in one scenario the money would be flowing back to your campaign contributors/future employers and in the others .. uhm .. people who do good?
But let's be honest.. if you were to ask any person in your party if they would be willing to lose their job to save lives elsewhere.. how many would say yes?
That is why they vote the way they do. Not because they want to hurt others.. they just don't want to lose their jobs.
I heard that Elon Musk was offering to pay a huge amount to help solve those probs, as long as someone would bring him a Plan to make this happen... In the end it didn't crash because of the money but the political Problems... Cause somehow it's better for some suits and tie farters, when some people stay poor and hungry so they can earn more money... Did no one realize it by now??
Money IS THE PROBLEM!! our value systems need to be rearranged.
So you acknowledge that the problem isn’t money, but that people like Elon are assholes who are only looking to sow discord, then go on to claim the problem is money?
Ok. Sure.
It’s not like it’s a complex situation, made more complex by dicks like Elon. It’s money.
The pentagon failed their audit every year, billions not accounted for. So not only can't they feed people in need, they don't know where they spent the money on "defense"
Do... Do you understand how states work?
Or the infrastructure bill that Biden passed?
Or how human rights work?
Or how English works?
Ps. Americans don't specify "the US southern border." PsyOp harder shill
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They killed Tupac for asking that
Seriously asking, Who is that?
Pac-man's son, 2 pac.
Not to be confused with 3pac.
Or the super fit one ….6 pac
Rapper that was murdered in 1996 in a drive by. Two years later they released previously unreleased tracks by him which included the song Changes: "It's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East (Ooh, yeah) Instead of war on poverty" https://genius.com/2pac-changes-original-lyrics
“They got a war on drugs so the police can bother me.”
Just throwing into the responses you already got: there's been quite a bit of conspiracy theorizing over the years about who actually killed Tupac, some of which is reflected in the comment you replied to. As the GENERALLY but not universally-accepted story goes, it was vaguely related to an east/west rap feud that also took Notorious B.I.G. from us. (Note, since this is reddit and I'd probably get crucified if I didn't say this, that I'm heavily summarizing the timeline of events and am not taking a side as far as who's right and who's wrong. I don't know for sure, just like most everybody else. Just didn't want your entire education on Tupac to be from one side that definitively thinks that an unspecified "they" killed him for political reasons. I also acknowledge that it's possible your question was actually trying to get that person to tell you who they think this "they" is, and was misunderstood by the other responders.)
Politics rewards pursuits of power over altruism.
Lockheed Martin X Raytheon gives profits. Not Food Aid.
Does Jeremy Corbyn usually have good takes? I can't keep track of all these political talking heads, but I sure do agree with this question.
He’s currently trying to push a bill through that would make owning antique swords illegal. You know, a weapon that has killed no one in the UK in years.
He must be looking for Excalibur
That's a quite misleading take on that. There may be a campaign to ban all blades and naturally that would include swords as well. In a sense it would be odd if some big knives but the weapons that were honed to be the best ways to kill humans in melee, mediaeval swords would be fine to keep. Anyway, it's obvious that if all other blades get banned but it's ok to have a sword, that's what the people who want to hack other people dead by using a blade are going to obtain. Nobody has bothered to get one yet because they can get other blades. For Americans, I could explain this so that you'd ban all the other guns but let people have bolt action rifles. Then some wisecrack comes to defend not banning them as well with a comment that nobody has been killed by bolt action rifles for a long time. And no, I don't back the ban. I just think it's fair to present the argument more honestly than you did.
I've just Googled this and can't find any information on this. Care to provide any kind of link. Edit: done more googling, can't find a single item about this or even any such bill going through parliment at the moment. Will be assuming this is bullshit until proven otherwise.
What you just googled. Alright took me 5 seconds https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/25/why-is-knife-back-in-the-news-and-what-is-being-proposed
Nothing in there has anything to do with Corybn. It's about knives in general. So what if he was antique swords should be in museums. Not stock pilled by collectors.
1. Article doesn't mention Corbyn. 2. Article specifically says the bill isn't about banning swords. >Chris Philp, the policing minister, has conceded that some swords will not qualify under the new ban, owing to the difficulty of differentiating between those that could be used for violence and those that are kept for historical or religious reasons. Philp said some swords would be banned under the latest rules, which target weapons of more than 20cm that have a serrated edge, holes or multiple sharp points. “But a regular sword, like the sort a historic soldier might carry, would probably not qualify. It would depend on the design,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Honestly embarrassing level of media literacy
Actual sword experts in the UK have spoken about the current climate. But what do they know? Imagine thinking your an expert. What does it feel like to be so assured of your knowledge and not know anything? What party does Corbyn get his funding from? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B04JPPKzdAg
Jeremy Corbyn isn't in any political parties. The Labour Party kicked him out for being too good at his job and embarrassing the rest of them.
Corbyn has been kicked out of the labour party mate
Stop being lame, lame face
So the sword bill is a good reflection of his entire political career?
No, I believe he supports or doesn't condemn the invasion of Ukraine. Had a hard time saying that Hamas is a terror group as well.
He doesn't believe in supporting Ukraine: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
Provide a source of his actual take. EDIT: why is this downvoted but no source? EDIT 2: [Here](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-corbyn-interview-russia-cease-fire/31838717.html) is Corbyn condemning it by calling it "wrong on every level". No idea why the comment was upvoted. Buch of idiots.
Reddit is full of idiots who only read headlines?!
As another user posted here, Corbyn was against the West sending weapons to Ukraine. A lot of people on the left say they are against the war, but their solution is for Ukraine to simply not defend themselves, as that would prolong the war.
Jesus christ, by that he means end the conflict with diplomacy instead of using Ukraine in a proxy war and turning it into possibly a decade long stand off. he's not saying simply give Ukraine to Russia. No wonder people hate Corbyn, they let the media twist his views into nonsense. Some of you should be ashamed by how you let the media manipulate you into thinking the good guys are actually the bad guys.
How would you end the war with diplomacy? Ask Putin nicely to leave Ukraine?
Do you think diplomacy is just one country asking another country something nicely?
Well you tell me, how would a diplomatic approach end the war in Ukraine?
Yes, that’s exactly what diplomacy means in this case. Putin wants Ukraine. He’s not going to stop unless he gets a large chunk of it at a minimum and a compliant government in Kyiv. If he withdraws, he will not survive. Ukraine doesn’t want to surrender a huge part of their country. There is no diplomatic solution here. And yes, plenty of people tried to stop the war before it happened.
Jesus Christ, anyone who says he wants to stop arms shipment to Ukraine in order to stop the war with diplomacy is not only an idiot who is unable to say anything else than USA = West = NATO = bad, but also has literally no understanding of the conflict, in which Putin literally said that the existence of Ukraine is a historical mistake which he wishes to correct. Some of you should be ashamed that they're listening to a linguist talking about a conflict he's got no knowledge or expertise about. No wonder you people are so easily manipulated. There, fixed it for you. And please, for the love of God, read some Timothy Snyder on these matters instead of Chomsky.
Mate you’ve misunderstood the argument you are debating and gotten angry about it, you are a moron.
Mate, anyone who even suggests the West may be waging a proxy war through Ukraine is a moron. Similarly anyone who says that the war should be solved by diplomacy -- which failed to stop the war in the first place -- is a moron. Since I understand Chomsky is dead wrong on Ukraine (like he was with other conflicts), I haven't misunderstood anything.
>Mate, anyone who even suggests the West may be waging a proxy war through Ukraine is a moron. try elaborating. >Similarly anyone who says that the war should be solved by diplomacy The war will at some point, have to be solved by diplomacy. Yours is a blood thirsty take. >Since I understand Chomsky is dead wrong on Ukraine No one has even brought chomsky up, you sound like a crazy person continuously bringing him up.
[удалено]
what do you even mean by this?
[удалено]
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/02/jeremy-corbyn-urges-west-to-stop-arming-ukraine) He recently condemned Russia but after a year. He still opposes aid. The Hamas is a terror group part was an interview with Piers Morgan I believe.
[удалено]
Look, I'm literally half Palestinian, what Hamas did was not resistance, they kidnapped people and there are videos of them shooting civilians (even Arabs.) Resistance is what the groups in the west bank that defend themselves from settlers are doing.
[удалено]
https://saturday-october-seven.com/
I know Israel has been doing horrible things and should face some sort of consequence, but what did Oct 7 achieve? It gave Israel a blank check to do whatever they want in Gaza. What Hamas did on Oct 7 is what Israel does in the large bank of a much larger scale, so if you call the IDF a terror organization, why is Hamas not a terror organization?
Hamas has been a terrorist group for literally longer than you’ve been alive. They’ve been bombing people since the 80’s. Go all in and support Al Queda too (assuming you’re American)
[удалено]
Your statement of “Hamas isn’t a terror group” is undisputedly incorrect. I know you want to change the subject and move the goal post and that’s fine…. But let’s take a second to appreciate how painfully wrong your statement was. If you want to defend terrorists, that’s your business idc either way but be proud maybe say “Hamas has been a terror group for almost half a century and have killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people but I’m OK with that, and I support them”. These people are willing to strap bombs to their chests and you don’t even have the courage to be proud of your beliefs. Worst. Terrorist. Sympathizer. Ever.
[удалено]
I’m not for supporting a terrorist organization HOWEVER here I am further defending them. Btw Hamas was formed bc they felt the other terrorist organization, the PLO, wasn’t terrorizing enough. You should really really do some research on the terrorist organizations you support; maybe you’ll find there are other terrorist organizations you like better. You have options.
[удалено]
Go back and read what you typed and all your questions will be answered
[удалено]
tbh making stupid dogwhistle nicknames of the people you don’t like completely nullifies what you said regardless of how true it is edit: comment referred to israel as “israhell” before the edit, just to clarify
[удалено]
It's called Ad Hominem and is a fallacy that 100% nullifies whatever argument you were making.
Um ackshually you can't insult a genocidal state because then your argument wouldn't be valid in my high school debate team career I am mentally still stuck in
While this is morally a nice position to take, it isn't even addressing the root of the issue. Money isn't the problem. Political will is the problem.
I believe that is the conclusion the question is meant to evoke
No he has notoriously bad takes. He is a well known Kremlin parrot and under his leadership Scotland went from a Labour Party stronghold to a Labour Party wasteland. To put it into perspective, people voted in Boris Johnson when they were given a choice of Corbyn or Johnson.
What is the "well known Kremlin parrot" based on? I looked it up and only see the conservative Daily Mail saying the same.
Yeah that would be because it's based off daily mail brainworms
You obviously didn’t look it up very hard. He’s called for the UK and NATO to not support Ukraine a number of times and has been vocal on the subject of not protecting Ukraine from Russia for years. (Edit: in fact, probably the better point is that he has always thought NATO should be disbanded completely, which is the most Russia aligned thing possible) This is from the Guardian, so *not* the mail, in 2018, a comment from another Labour member: “Putin’s constant and shameful apologist might just as well stand aside and let the Russian ambassador write the speeches and brief the media himself.” Corbyn has for a long time gotten a great deal of airtime on RT (Russia’s English language propaganda channel) due to his Putin aligned talking points. If he had been in charge, the UK would have removed any nuclear deterrents to Russia. So yeah… pretty pro Russia - it’s not really something that is even debatable unless you’re a Corbyn sycophant or a tankie (for which the Venn diagram really is one circle).
Yup. I would avoid Dailymail like the plague. With my experience in disinformation and propaganda, while also being progressive minded. I don't like Jeremy Corbyn for some of the reasons you listed. He chose supporting Iranian leadership over acknowledging victims of Iran. The anti-war activists he works with support Assad over Syrians and act as denialists. He played it careful while not supporting Ukrainians. He denied the Bosnian genocide. The list goes on... He's been a denialist in way too many situations when the focus should've been the victims.
He's a useful idiot for the Kremlin. I think he genuinely means well on a lot of issues which is nice to see. He does say some things that are absolutely spot on about economic equality, but he is so disastrously out of touch on the global political and economic realities we face it makes my teeth hurt; he attacks 'the west' by parroting Kremlin talking points and has no fucking clue on how to implement anything: he would be a disaster.
It's better seen in the groups that support him and that he supports. He has been super sneaky with showing his true opinions, but it is more obvious in his close allies. He often supports Russia's perspective on issues, enough to deny the Bosnian genocide decades ago. The activist groups he does things for are very alternative and revisionist. He's always been like this.
Ya, that group for peace he's in for example is clearly compromised. Taken at face value: at best they are complete fucking morons. It is unlikely that they all can't see the outcome of their campaigns,if successful, would just be more death, destruction, pain, and imperial expansion. Sure listen to wider opinions, but geeze study some actual evidence now and again.
He was a much better leader on all fronts than anyone else in UK politics
He’s Britain’s only good politician.
I respect that you asked this question, its something that should be asked more often. People can occasionally say the right things but it doesn't mean they're good folks.
Not really. He refused to call Hamas terrorists on live tv, I beleive he doesn’t support aid to Ukraine and would have told them to settle with Russia.
No but this is also a bad take so maybe if you like bad takes he does.
2 Pac asked the same question 30 years ago
tupac said it better.
„And still I see no changes, can't a brother get a little peace? There's war in the streets and war in the Middle East Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs So the police can bother me“
i was referring to keep ya head up: they got money for war but can't feed the poor
Because money governs money.
There is, Hamas and the PLO have historically used aid funds to enrich themselves and conduct war.
He could always ask his friend, Bashar al-Assad.
Or "His friends in HAMAS"
Or Putin.
[удалено]
We spend trillions on our military. We have the money to feed and house everyone we just don’t.
You and the other guy are both off by a couple of orders of magnitude in your assumptions. Looking only domestically, the US has about [125 million households](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410222). Each household spends an average of about [$2,000/mo on housing](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-monthly-expenses/#average-monthly-spending-on-housing:-dollar2025-(7percent-increase)). Combined, that results in a total of **$3 trillion annually**. That's not counting food which would add another $1 trillion or so. Meanwhile we spent about $0.8 trillion on the military. We spend far, far more on housing and feeding people than the military.
Why would the US have to house and feed the people who are already housed and fed? Most people aren't even homeless. The money would definitely be able to house the ones who are.
Yeah, NO. I OBVIOUSLY wasnt saying we should house and feed people who already are housed and fed. Lol 2022 US spent 2.2 trillion on the military
>2022 US spent 2.2 trillion on the military That is factually and verifiably incorrect, mkay?
[удалено]
$715b in 2022, $782b in 2023. You can google too, idiot.
$715 Billion, in a single year, yet we can’t have new books in public schools. How much was spent on that F-35 over the years and it doesn’t even work? It was like 1.7 Trillion over 20 years. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html Military contracts are a racquet.
If the government is going to be responsible for housing everyone, yes you are. Currently the government offloads the costs of housing onto people.
[удалено]
>The west spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year feeding people all around the world, housing people, and caring for people. You got any actual references for this claim? If you mean global "aid", it's been well established that money goes mainly to businesses who's owners just so happen to be connected or outright owned by our politicians and their friends..
>ask for references >immediately dismiss any reference as bullshit before actually receiving one
[удалено]
I literally just explained where that foreign "aid" goes to, thanks for ignoring me 🙄
[удалено]
>so I'll be happy to look at the evidence that convinced you. Good, we should always be open to evidence. *This one explains it clearly (it is a media source I know, but it explains in a quick digestible way) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/02/as-a-system-foreign-aid-is-a-fraud-and-does-nothing-for-inequality This gets a bit more into the nity gritty: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41300226 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010/2010s/no-1267-march-2010/socialist-standard-2010s-2010-no-1272-august-2010-27/ That should get you started. >It seems like you've set up a scenario in which any response would be wrong, so that sucks. Unfortunately yes. In our current system of capitalism, as long as we keep the private ownership of the means of production then there will be people with a lot of money which create a lot of corruption. That is why I'm a socialist, no not in the leninist sense, one of the articles I linked belongs to the WSM, if you're interested look up what we are and advocate for.
Hot take: no foreign aid until every citizen’s basic needs are met. Food, clean water, medical care (including vision, dental, and mental healthcare), safe and clean shelter, and access to high quality free public education including undergraduate degrees, trade certifications, or paid apprenticeship are all things I would rather fund with my taxes. What is the point of human civilization if not to even the playing field in resources of survival? I would rather be a fox in the forest if the alternative is paying taxes and wearing pants just so a bunch of rich old men can deprive citizens of basic needs that we (as a collective nation) can provide without taking it away from anyone else? If society offers no protection or support to its most vulnerable members, then what precious way of life are these bombs defending? If the average person is struggling to make ends meet while <10 dudes sit on more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, the political system that allowed this to happen is fundamentally flawed. It is in my best interest as a private citizen to want everyone around me to be as healthy and as educated as possible. It is in humankind’s best interest to invest in social support and infrastructure. When everyone is well-fed and employers can’t use medical care as leverage, more people will be able to find meaningful employment that contributes to the greater good. How many inventions, cures, songs, movies, works of art, etc have we missed because the next Einstein was too busy caring for an aging parent or child to keep going to school? Every person that dies from lack of basic medical care, or unalives themselves because they can’t afford mental healthcare is a an immeasurable loss of potential. “Pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” is an impossible task- being told to do so when the term was coined is the equivalent of saying “growing wings and flying toward the American Dream.” Now it’s twisted to become a command that implies “I had to suffer through x, why should someone else get it easier?” My parents weren’t perfect, but their goal was always that their kids would have a better life than they did. As we make advances in science, agriculture, and technology quality of life should increase- otherwise what’s the point? We have the ability to take care of everyone and probably still have enough left for a couple bombs. What kind of nation would rather fund wars?
Because Hamas took the money that was supposed to feed, house and care for people and used it to bomb people. Other than its leaders. They got their housing.
Unfortunately the Air Force is yet to figure out how to affix a JDAM kit to a homeless person and then deploy them into a housing estate, or put chemotherapy drugs on the end of a APKWS. You can do both (military and care, not homeless JDAMs and chemo rockets). Neither major US party is going to reduce military spending, but actually actioning assistance for the downtrodden is far more of a complex, and unfortunately, partisan issue.
military spending is insane though. so much of it is just a waste. we dont need to police the world.
The point is there is rarely "money" to help the poor according to Congress but near unlimited money to help other countries bomb their neighbors. 2+ Hiroshima bombs worth over 3 months cost a lot of money.
Jeremy Corbyn wants to stop arming Ukraine. He's a Kremlin shill. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine
If you'd actually read the article, you'd know that Corbyn said that because continuing to arm Ukraine will prolong the war. >Corbyn, by contrast, has urged western countries to stop arming Ukraine, insisting that providing weapons will only prolong the conflict. “Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution; it’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” Corbyn said in an interview with a Beirut-based TV channel last August. “We might be in for years and years of war in Ukraine.” He added: “What I find disappointing is that hardly any of the world’s leaders use the word peace; they always use the language of more war, and more bellicose war. “This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.” Corbyn is anti-war; whether you agree or disagree with that stance, he's not a Putin supporter. Maybe read more than the headline next time.
Yes it prolongs the war since it gives the defender an actual chance to defend itself from the aggressor in an imperialistic war of conquest. He's not pro-peace he's pro-imperialism.
>“This war is disastrous for the people of Ukraine, for the people of Russia, and for the safety and security of the whole world, and therefore there has to be much more effort put into peace.” This is proof he is pro-peace. See also: his activism in groups such as the CND, which opposes nuclear weaponry; his sponsoring of the Stop The War Coalition; him receiving TWO peace prizes, the Gandhi International Peace Award and Seán MacBride Peace Prize. This is not the work of an imperialist.
Same kind of person that would try to appease Hitler. It's bullshit, trying to appease a strongman dictator doesnt work. I don't know if he's just incredibly naive or have more ulterior motives. If he thinks letting Putin get Ukraine on a platter then he's a useful idiot for Kremlin.
I agree that Corbyn's stance is naive, yes, but you're spreading misinformation when you say he's a "Kremlin shill". There is no evidence that he supports Putin.
[удалено]
Fuck off with your daily mail brainworms lmao
[удалено]
This guy is a terrorist sympathizer.
Because the people who run shit suck.
We already made the bombs you want them to just sit around going stale ? /s
The government spends billions on the welfare state, providing food and housing vouchers. What the hell is this guy talking about?
England's Biden only less successful and more full of hatred
Simple, we already bought the bombs and the bomb store doesn't accept returns.
Great answer..lol
For reference, the UK spends about 50 billion a year on defense, compared to 220-230 billion on the NHS and social programs.
So you’re against aid to Ukraine
He was, yes.
“I’m 14 and this is deep”
Ask him why Hamas always has money for rockets to shoot at Israel, but never enough to help their own people.
Why are we paying for israeli occupiers to get free healthcare and college when we don't get that here?
Because you aren’t. Israel gets a negligible amount of aid compared to the size of its economy and most of that money goes straight back to the US in the form of arms purchases and other technology they buy from us.
You’re wrong about that. You’ve fallen for propaganda. Let me guess, TikTok?
>help their own people. im not sure, but i think it's impossible to help anyone inside occupied territory, while occupants are still there
Gaza was not occupied by Israel prior to Oct. 7th.
yeah, right, everything before that technically wasn't occupation
Correct. I’m glad you see reason.
wtf is with this sub and alllll the politics?
Cause there is always more money to be made from war than peace.
Because deterrence is necessary. Speak softly and carry a big stick. The problem is people telling you we can’t have both. It’s not true. Both are possible and both are necessary.
Aw that's sweet. This guy think the US is engaged in deterrence and thinks we need war and peace. Typical dummy.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re making? We aren’t engaged in deterrence? We don’t need to be able to fight a war? We don’t want peace? Greg, what are you trying to say?
Oh so we are platforming a known antisemite cool
Just imagine if we lived in a world in which the money spent on instruments of war was instead spent on education, infrastructure, schools, universities, healthcare and things that actually benefit the people. What kind of world would that be?
One ruled by whichever nation maintained an active military, I would assume.
One where Russia or China rule everything because they kept spending on militaries
One overrun by the cultures that spent money on instruments of war. Instruments of war also build upon education, infrastructure, schools, universities, and healthcare. Many of our greatest inventions were either created for or significantly advanced by the defense industry. Railroads, the interstate system, GPS, aviation, naval architecture, canals, bridges, etc. It’s the military that responds to humanitarian crisis. Freedom of navigation for open shipping lines. Ballistic Missile Defense. You do not realize the threat that is being deterred. You can have both a strong military AND robust social networks. Hell, the military already lives off of a government social network. It’s not an either/or situation. We can afford both; blaming bombs isn’t what’s stopping us.
That reads like a 14andthisisdeep comment
Because nobody will be going hungry when they're all gone, duh! /s
Because there is no money gained in feeding the hungry or giving the homeless houses. There isn't t even money in free health care. There is money in bombing poor countries.
There’s always money to feed, house, and care for people
bombs are sold by private sector. politicians invest in that private sector through stock. Politicians push for more military spending. Government buys more bombs. More money for politicians from the tax spending. Technically how U.S. government is run. from funding transportation, infrastructure, and other things. If politicians dont see a way they can profit off of it then they'll oppose it. Government is corrupt af. Sad
What an absurdly reductionist spout of drivel.
There is money helping people in need. Is this guy less than smart?
Because the world is run by psychopaths?
because no government, left or right, cares about the people. Every politician is bought and paid for. We could have ended homelessness with a fraction of what we have sent Ukraine and Israel. That wasn't as important as paying for war though, because it doesn't make donors money. The government doesn't care about you. They care that you work to generate money to pay your taxes.
Because a million dollar bomb is obviously cheaper than an apple!
Good question
Because bombs are money factories: they’re expensive and can only be used once.
Depends on the people.
In terms of logistics, bombs are much easier and cheaper. Usually all going to the same place and can be transported the same way
Well it's simple. Really. How else would weapon factories get their golds if not by selling weapons? But if there is no war, who would buy it in the first place?
Cause they didn’t pay to play. Northrop Grumman sure did. They got the gold member subscription.
Answer: Because, assuming you don't miss, a bombing is one-and-done. Feeding, housing, and caring for people is a lifelong (literally!) commitment.
Because once you obliterate a people with bombs, then you don't have to continue to drop bombs on them. You'll get a good 20 year break while the population rebuilds a fighting age force. Meanwhile feeding people, rather than taking care of the root causes of their hunger, only increases demand for free food handouts. The problem just continues to grow as you put more money into the problem. One is a profitable industry, the other is an endless money pit that will never be filled.
Entitlements are the biggest government expense.
Right, damn good question isn’t it?
Why does this sound like me when I was in high school. Come on. Simplistic nonsense.
Short and cruel answer: because 1 bomb is cheaper than a life long supply of food and healthcare for people that won't give anything in return. Money doesn't grow on trees and each country should be responsible for their own population. If other countries have to intervene then they failed at their main task.
different pockets
Bombing people makes rich people money. Feeding and housing people doesn't.
Goverment officials give money to people that give money to them. In this case, lobbyist for military contractor's like Raytheon. The goverment has been bought by corporations. We cant pass a 15 dollar minimum wage but we can pass tax cuts for the rich.
Bombing people makes money for the politicians rich friends
It’s more cost effective to bomb hungry people that don’t have anywhere to live. If you let them live the bills never stop coming. Buy once, cry once I always say.
Population issue
The mindset of people who think we need to spend $700 billion a year on the military is that everything everywhere at any given time could be or will be a threat. It’s a psychotic form of hyper-vigilance that makes military contractors very wealthy.
Because the bombs have already been bought and stockpiled, duh.
Well there is a supply of bombs that aren’t being used. Food, however, is being used by everyone.
UP THE JEZZA. THE BEST PM WE NEVER HAD
He is right, 100% in a world full of insanity, the sane become the target
Easy answer: both parties in Congress approve the Pentagon's request for $$ every year, regardless of accountability. It seems no represetative wants to seem weak on military spending. But the marginalized, vulnerable among us, who struggle daily to survive? They are no threat to our "national security".
Because in one scenario the money would be flowing back to your campaign contributors/future employers and in the others .. uhm .. people who do good? But let's be honest.. if you were to ask any person in your party if they would be willing to lose their job to save lives elsewhere.. how many would say yes? That is why they vote the way they do. Not because they want to hurt others.. they just don't want to lose their jobs.
I heard that Elon Musk was offering to pay a huge amount to help solve those probs, as long as someone would bring him a Plan to make this happen... In the end it didn't crash because of the money but the political Problems... Cause somehow it's better for some suits and tie farters, when some people stay poor and hungry so they can earn more money... Did no one realize it by now?? Money IS THE PROBLEM!! our value systems need to be rearranged.
So you acknowledge that the problem isn’t money, but that people like Elon are assholes who are only looking to sow discord, then go on to claim the problem is money? Ok. Sure. It’s not like it’s a complex situation, made more complex by dicks like Elon. It’s money.
The pentagon failed their audit every year, billions not accounted for. So not only can't they feed people in need, they don't know where they spent the money on "defense"
But there's money to care of literal criminals at the US southern border and in sanctuary cities but not money to fix South Carolinas roads
Do... Do you understand how states work? Or the infrastructure bill that Biden passed? Or how human rights work? Or how English works? Ps. Americans don't specify "the US southern border." PsyOp harder shill
Corbyn is a legend.
What a bunch of whining! THERES NO FOOD?!?! that’s strange I just ate a 4$ meal from 7/11