racemaniac

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Acknowledging that something isn't illegal/impeachable is completely different from normalizing.

Reality is what it is, whether we agree with it or not. Should it be different? For sure. Is it different? No, and acknowledging that is NOT normalizing it, it's just saying that the truth is the truth. What is wrong with that?

This is a great initiative, and Ross did an incredible effort, and i hope this second wind gets the petitions the signatures they need.

Infinite respect for Ross, he can truly say he did everything he could do.

Indeed, Russia still calls it a "special operation" if i'm not mistaken. The rest of the world obviously deems it a war.

If we don't agree with this, we should push for the law to be changed, but so far it seems he's within his rights to call such a strike, and democrats not willing to waste their time on this is then reasonable.

That's all this is about. Not justifying his actions, not saying it isn't war, not saying it shouldn't be different. Just stating the facts, what they mean, and thus why the actions of these democrats sadly does seem to make sense...

Why don't you google it?

Declaration of war seems to have a specific meaning, and doing a bombing doesn't seem to be part of it.

and all the rest of your post just doesn't make any sense. It's not because you didn't officially declare war, that the other party can't retaliate, can't declare war on you can't.... It's just... an attack can cause a war, but isn't a declaration of war, those are two separate things.

It can indeed be taken as a declaration of war by the other party, but if it isn't officially one according to the American law, then that's it... This appears to be within the powers of the president, and that's all this post is about...

Does it completely suck that he can do this? obviously. But this impeachment seems silly, so why make a fool of yourself and go through with it when it just has 0 chance of succeeding?

are you now on purpose misrepresenting this???

He said impeachment doesn't make sense because he didn't do what they're accusing him of, and what he actually did is something pretty much every president has done in the past century, and is apparently allowed.

Doesn't mean him doing it is morally right, or that he should do it or... Just that this impeachment is just a silly show that will achieve nothing except making everyone taking it seriously look like an idiot...

So someone saying "why does my 500$ vacuum have a lidar but not the car" isn't suggesting that?

I guess in some technical way you're right, but it for sure is the implication...

Indeed, any number multiplied by 0 is zero, but infinity is not a number.

So then it starts to depend on what the 0 actually means, and what the infinity actually means, and depending on the context 0 x infinity can be all kinds of things.

Nope, look it up, it's undefined.

You can define things that boil down to 0 x infinity that equal anything you like. It's undefined and is dependent on context. Infinity isn't this one number, it's a concept that encompasses a lot of things, and the way you achieve an infinity matter.

yeah, but 0 times infinite is undefined, so who knows what'll happen ;)

I have honestly no clue what you're trying to say???

If you read the wiki page i linked, it's about changing his books after his death, so not things about when he was still alive? Is also not about a ban? Did you even read the wiki? It literally starts with "Puffin Books, the children's imprint of the British publisher Penguin Books, expurgated various works by British author Roald Dahl in 2023, sparking controversy. "

And you're talking about hate against races, but the wiki talks about removing the word queer (which used to just be a synonym for strange), removing all kinds of gendered language (not sons & daughters, but children, etc....). So rewriting the books to fit your narrative.

My argumentation is simple: the right wing can't change books, but the leftwing can? Both sides seem to be trying to rewrite history, that's all. Whether what's in the books is acceptable or not, who cares. If the book is no longer appropriate, don't read it but complaining about the other side rewriting books seems hypocritical. That's all. You can just not recommend books to readers and suggest more modern alternatives that are more appropriate, or read the old works taking in mind the era they were written in.