Milk_Sheikh

The screwdriver trick is mid imo - you run a major risk of just shearing the filter body wall and now your problem is a leaky oil filter that’s much harder to grasp with other hand tools. Go buy a strap wrench that you can use to install and remove.

Or for the very stubborn filters, these kind of tools are very much a one trick pony that only takes the filter off, but it’s a good trick - it has worked every single time for me.

As a lurker who ends up rubbing shoulders with right wing culture spaces, can confirm. The right has heresy tests for their politicians, the left tests for their voters. However the left expects competency in government (because they actually believe in it) and will sacrifice ideals or policies, while the right can afford the luxury of rejecting good governance because they’re expressly transactional when it comes to politics.

Rightwing voters are willing to cut off their nose in spite and become single issue voters - and it works for them. Pro-life or you’re dead to them. Pro-gun or you’re dead to them. Non-Christian? Dead. They get the political rhetoric and efforts they demand, which has left them severely ripe for opportunist political grifters who say whatever gets them access power. Like the MAGAs who build nothing, but hand out bones to voting blocs. Abortion overturned. No new gun laws. Ten Commandments in school and state houses. “Hurting the right people”. Migrants deported. Culture wars.

Or in the more extreme examples, they’ll just outright co-opt the structures of power and governance to fit the voters whims. It’s why we have the political maximalist lobbying NRA of today, instead of the humbler sportsman’s advocacy group of yesteryear. Or Trump.

Everything I don’t like is a psyop

It’s not wrong to say that the right/outside actors made the issue more pervasive, but let’s not exonerate the “adults in the room” who decided it was better policy to unflinchingly support war criminals and a slow motion genocide, instead of defusing the wedge issue and forcing Bibi’s hand. Israel is nothing without US political support and weapons. Recognize “who’s the fucking superpower” and act like it when your client state gets out of line in a way that’ll cost you domestically. China does it with North Korea all the time when they got testy. Russia routinely interferes with domestic politics of CSTO members.

Nor should we pretend that all criticism was astroturfing. Some of us wanted to drop Biden before “we beat Medicare” made him obviously unelectable. And called it that Harris was going to lose swing states like Michigan for maintaining Biden’s posture on Israel. If team blue is all I can realistically vote for, I’m going to call out shitty policy that loses elections and kills voter enthusiasm. It’s up to you to listen and understand that we need to do better

Give them something to vote for.

This. We saw the energy and joy when Biden dropped out, and it was reflected by Harris almost matching Obama’s small donor numbers. Hope. Change. They were simple campaign slogans, but people coming out of the Bush era wanted to believe, and had a candidate to believe in.

It’s a damning indictment that my most genuine electoral engagement, in my entire adult life, was voting “Uncommitted” in the 2024 Democratic primary. That was my most enthusiastic, “I 100% support this” vote ever, because almost every other time has been against something/one, or accepting lesser. From ballot initiatives, Senate races, down to the local comptroller chair.

Contrast that to my vote for Kamala in the general afterwards. It’s so unbelievably hollow to say “our democracy is strong” when the choice is always ‘well they’re better than them’.

Right up front, I voted for the ‘lesser evil’ in a swing state, so stow those comments about me enabling fascism.

The sad truth is that turning on Israel would have done more damage to the democrats electorally than it would’ve helped

I mean, you can keep saying that. But it’s not even true among Jewish voters, let alone the larger electorate.

I’m really starting to suspect these kind of comments are morality laundering after spending months backing an immoral stance held by a feckless executive who refused to see past his moral blind spot.

• The populace didn’t want the death and destruction.
• Career bureaucrats at the state department didn’t want it.
• Online commentators refused to seriously entertain criticism of Joe as anything but bad faith - so the message became “we’re okay with it” never “I don’t want this or Trump, do better Joe”

Basically any military surplus store really. Online stores all tend to have very aligned pricing so but you cannot inspect the (used) item for issues, sizing, stains or damage, etc so I’d recommend finding your local military surplus store - just recognize that you’re thrifting not shopping. Not everything is available, nor worth having necessarily, and it’s commonly been worked hard and not cared for before it found its way to the shelf.

If you want to roll the dice and get some serious deals, there’s usually a liquidator or auction website for your local PD and/or government to offload their outdated but workable gear and tech. But they usually have very particular rules around shipping and pickup, you arrange all that on your own.

Europeans can also get guns mailed to their front door, are we just comparing gun laws?

I mean, there’s a lot of context surrounding licensing and pre-approval to get that mail order heater in Europe. Local laws vary, yadda yadda

And if you collect old guns and have a C&R license, you too can get guns delivered to your door in America.

Agree, but I’m not going to crucify her while she’s still wearing a D and under the party whip. She’s still playing the insider game, but after Pelosis latest backstabbing that may yet change.

Fuck “chatter”. We’ll get boatloads of chatter daily in the next four years. I’m out this time.

Politics is rhetoric encoded in law. So yeah, chatter matters because they’re testing the waters to see what voters find agreeable and/or permissible. Trump is an embodiment of that shift, what previously was impermissible speech from a candidate has become normalized by a growing element.

Yeah. Voters and spoilers. Demanding action, instant change. Spoilers. And voters. What a fantastic wedge. Worked a treat. And now, Palestine is well and truly fucked. Nice work, voters and spoilers.

Who enabled it to be a wedge issue? Who permitted the slaughter to continue, meekly finger wagging while quietly green lighting more bomb shipments from our war stocks? Who bypassed internal checks that are meant prevent US arms going to war criminals?

I suppose we keep on with the camps and so on and hope the trump admin is more receptive? Heh. Oh well.

Idk bro I had a hard time explaining away why we need to fund, supply, and protect war crimes at a minimum, or genocide as the boot increasingly fits. I swallowed it and voted for Dem “harm reduction” in my swing state but ironically it looks like Trump may actually be the one to force a ceasefire. Not because he cares, but because he recognizes it’s a loser issue that will quagmire him like it did Joe. I’m under no illusion he’ll improve life there or revert apartheid, but so far he’s willing to make Bibi fold - unlike Joe

We tried to explain this a hundred ways but it was not a discussion.

And look how that browbeating worked out in the end. “Our economy is strong” while inequality deepens. “Israel has a right to defend itself” while refusing any restraint or inquiry on their conduct. “I am the only one who can beat Trump” after having a cold reboot on national TV. You. Need. To. Listen. To. Feedback. Stop blithely defending this shit, and demand better.

No. Being active locally is free. They do listen. If you want to cut all ties with Israel and you are upset that haranguing the Poughkeepsie chair of the DNC isn’t getting it done, I’d suggest you reset your expectations of how national politics works. Coincidentally, that applies to third parties too.

I don’t expect a political buffet of à la carte options in every political scenario, but I’d hope for more than a binary scale from ‘reactionary nativist racism’ to ‘milquetoast liberal’. Especially if the one side is going to loom over the left wing landscape and demand fealty to big-tent centrism, while the other side vacillates between holding back the clock or rabid attack dog.

You mean they win elections? Why, if it only takes money?

Again with the circular reasoning, seriously?Structural barriers under FPTP empower the duopoly. Third parties cannot win, except in extremely small districts or as a reaction to duopoly scandal, and so voting 3rd party IS a wasted vote. Winner take all goes brrrrr.

Do they [form coalitions]? Well good for them, that’s nice. Except the ones that don’t amirite?

France, coalition governments in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2012, 2022 and present. The historic cause? Voter discontent and partisan scandal causing minority voices to make gains, left and right. Modern cause: failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.

Germany

Germany has had stable coalition governments for so long it’s practically a dynasty, so idk why you think this is a winning argument. AfD is an economic protest vote from the east tempered with populist racism. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment.

Australia

Tbh I’m fairly ignorant of Oz politics, but I’ll note that Australia has STV and instant runoff, which in 2022 gave ‘the teals’ 7 seats, from former rightwing seats via grassroots takeover and policy positions on issues like climate change.

all having a little bit of a time with the relative conservative elements aren’t they? howabout that Brexit, huh? Goddamn.

Twenty years of neo-liberalism and failed immigration policy of actual integration, instead abusing il/legal migration to fill ‘undesirable’ and ‘low skill’ jobs in an effort to compensate for an aging and increasingly skilled/educated population, and increase GDP. Again, failure of neoliberalism heightened by anti-incumbent sentiment and supercharged by foreign influence campaigns.

That is what entrenched parties in a FPTP system give you. Sound familiar?

You can DO - right now, today, as a Democrat, or you can NOT DO today or at any other time in the next at-least-twenty years, as a third party.

See, they key difference is that I recognize that the Democratic establishment and leadership is actually pretty comfy with our nascent fascism. I am agitating for internal evolution because the old guard has failed, and we need a new strategy to meet the challenges of our new and changing realities. The “Third Way” and Neoliberalism skated by on the long peace and prosperity after the Cold War ended. Globalism is increasingly under threat, and we need to adapt. The right has already tacked toward populism, when are you going to wake up to the reality that you cannot browbeat your way to electoral victory under universal suffrage?

Can’t believe I’m again spending time to give citations and actual arguments when you retort with snark and vibes, peak pigeon rhetoric.

You have to prove you’re right, as you made the ridiculous unsupportable claim. I’ve already proven it, you refuse to admit it. Let’s move on.

1. I make a point about electoral reform and that the duopoly is not a requirement
2. You refute that point
3. I point out how weak your links are, and offer more substantive details that your argument is circular

4. I say that a cursory search showed them, and if I were to fuck with enshittified google enough l'd find many more examples.

Still waiting boss. Or are you going to hang your hat on the big bad tech overlords and your low effort initial retort?

If we applied anti-trust scrutiny to the parties, there would be forced breakups and structural barriers to them entrenching their grip.

Uh, sure. Or we could apply RuPaul’s Drag Race scrutiny to the parties and put tape on their doors to make sure they’re not sneaking out. They’re not businesses with products and markets. There’s a fundamental reason we don’t treat them like businesses (although the analogies are admittedly obvious).

So uhhh, which is it? My anti-trust argument is tortured and worthy of derision without dissection, or you agree that the business analogy works?

It’s because your scrappy, revolutionary Pokémon Go party deserves to meet, advocate, advertise, and run for office without being audited by the Shithole State Assessor and OSHA.

What is the FEC and the various thresholds for matching funding, campaigning restrictions, funding disclosure, etc etc before we even get to state level laws? What are ballot access laws and hostile legislation that protects the two-party system:

“The Republican Party seemed to have a "lock" on the presidency after the Civil War; it won eleven presidential elections 1860-1908, whereas it lost only two. It was precisely the "factionalism" of 1912 (ex-Republican Theodore Roosevelt bolting that party and forming the Progressive Party) which gave the Democrats a chance to win the White House”

So yeah. Not a great defense of an entrenched two-party system if you actually want change.

The resulting duopoly - a foregone conclusion - means boo Democrats bad? What’s your point.

• A structural barrier exists.
• Group R benefits from it and messages against reform, holding the line internally for decades under big-tent conservatism, but can’t stop the leakage - sometimes co-opting it, but now resulting in multiple internal palace and mob coups when the group and their support structures don’t reflect the voters they claim.
• Group D also benefits from it, but kinda sorta doesn’t like it. But Group D definitely doesn’t want to dealmake internally (because that’s work and means compromise), and so doesn’t really do shit about the structural barriers.
• Group D leadership is mute, but permits criticism of the structural barriers whilst not expending meaningful or sustained effort to change said structural barriers.

EC is mandated duopoly. Let’s get rid of it and whatever your point might be can be rendered mercifully moot.

So again. Am I dumb and wrong, or do you actually agree?

I’m not jazzed about the coalitions only because I think it’s another porkbarrel trap and I don’t have a good sense of how it would work, but, yes.

Politics under our brand of capitalism is transactional, from donors, voters, senators, and intra-party life.

• “Vote for me and I’ll bring jobs”
• “Donate to me to and I’ll fight green legislation”
• “Support my bill and then I’ll vote for your pet project in committee, and get it a first reading in the House”

Why wouldn’t you want more diverse representation? I’m not advocating for Tammany Hall style spoils system, but you cannot deny how the political wings and minority voter blocs get forgotten or taken for granted - see the generational divide between black voters. Those who lived during the civil rights era and saw a concerted fight for their dignity, overwhelmingly vote Dem. The younger ones who grew up in the lore, but watching Dem disunity during Ferguson/BLM/Floyd/etc whilst Dem pollsters clutched to the suburban voter - instead of fighting for better - are abandoning the party.

I’m OOTL since Nov. so not sure what this [bipartisan consensus on foreign policy] is in reference to, but if existing officeholders can hold trump to anything I’m not necessarily against it.

Obama is a great example of this. A DC outsider, campaigning on change, economic recovery, and criticism of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But then empowers Hillary as SecDef whilst cranking up drone strikes and cross-border/foreign raids.

Yes, you can’t unwind the hundreds of US military bases and installations in a four year term - there’s security treaties, realpolitik to deal with, and state/non-state actors to be concerned with as the global police, but there’s always a place for empowering and relying on locals to fulfill their own security concerns. But then, we’re the global superpower with UN veto and economic muscle, so we play by a different rule book. Apparently.

And it was a huge win we wouldn’t have otherwise had. Clinton spent all his first term capital on H4A and the rest of his initiatives were bought-and-paid for with more cops and less welfare or some other political extortion. Obama got it done. It’s better. It’s not possible from any other party, period. Some good. You’re welcome. Thanks for hating the people who did the good.

What’s the fucking point of having supermajority power if you’re not going to wield it to make long lasting change that would benefit the country, not just reelection funds? And I’m not even talking M4A, even just having a genuine government healthcare option to compete with private insurance would have done so much, in non-competitive markets where people are mono-sourced either by employers or providers, providing a “baseline but decent” care option for the poor and vulnerable so you aren’t bankrupted for daring to get cancer or need long term care, or stronger restrictions on vertical integration of providers and insurers, or…

You’re cool with “better” and want me to be thankful? We just saw a vigilante murder the UHC CEO, and the bipartisan response is “meh” to”fuckem” due to decades of common discontent - but you’re happy with the status quo?

Yeah the [abortion] protection was honored by all branches so let’s definitely lose the 80’s & 90’s to conservatives by repeatedly running on that.

1. No it wasn’t honored in the legislature, we’ve had ‘trigger laws’ on the books in deeply Republican states for decades. They’re at the “find out” stage after giving the religious right that performative act.

2. No it wasn’t honored in the courts, Casey nibbled away the ‘strict scrutiny’ protection which opened the door to a patchwork of state level fuckery, and Webster which let a fence grow around state provision and funding, making Planned Parenthood a key provider in some states. Even Anthony Scalia openly talked about how he felt Roe was wrongly decided, and it needed primary legislation to avoid judicial re-interpretation and instability.

3. The religious fruitcakes who scream the loudest do not represent the country. Like I said: baseline protection. The GOP is lowkey fighting a political insurgency trying to intra-message this one after Dobbs because some level of protected access enjoys supermajority support, and the polling for a 100% ban has never peaked above 22% since Roe. Your revisionist history is filtered through chickenshit leadership who failed to stand tall and do something.

Do these articles NOT show you Dems “agitating” to change those structures? Including the VP nom? I say that a cursory search showed them, and if I were to fuck with enshittified google enough I’d find many more examples.

Establishment Democrats forcefully pushing no, not really. Dick Durbin meets that bar as the Senate whip but I can’t find a text of their proposal to see who/how many cosponsors they have - or if it even exists beyond a press release. Waltz is a DC outsider plucked from the Midwest to play the role of VP - be everything the president is not. And like your own linked article quoted, the campaign cut his feet out beneath him immediately and repeatedly.

Would you admit you were wrong then? Perhaps mistaken? Doubt.

You have to convince me I’m wrong, not get huffy and claim superiority in an attempt to bully complicity. Your retort is lacking in convincing argument, but is oozing condescension and assumption that I’m bad-faith greeenie/russian bot/.ml tankie spoiler position.

Defend it with what. Are they preventing third parties from forming? The 53 that are said to exist today must have thwarted them, then. Defending it in seekrit underground caves, hand-in-hand with “christian” nationalists, chanting in latin or lovecraftian? Is there even a NY Post article about it?

“We have a robust free market, look see? There’s dozens of competitors who all fight for the bottom 5% of the total” what a libertarian ass argument. If we applied anti-trust scrutiny to the parties, there would be forced breakups and structural barriers to them entrenching their grip. There used to be more than two parties that got EC votes in the US, evolving going through schisms and mergers as they react to electoral realities. As a natural reaction to FPTP though, those who failed to combine into an 800lb gorilla, get mauled by the one that did.

Did they refuse to let a russian stooge share the debate stage to continue her bad-faith campaign to throw the election to trump? Yeah they did, and so they should - fuck that bullshit.

Speaking of defending, what about your vaunted third party advocates stating plainly and openly their determination to throw the election to trump? Need a cite for that?

Stein is controlled opposition, yes. But you’re swinging at ghosts - I want STV/ranked choice/etc and third party coalitions in Congress, not a token protest vote without a meaningful platform or experience.

You can falsely categorize the Dems as status-quo mongers but (a) that’s false

• DoMA was quashed by a legal challenge, not Democrat led legislation
• ”Bipartisan consensus on foreign policy” despite being generally unpopular, enough that even Trump got to lie and run on “no more wars”
• ACA largely being a gift to entrench private insurers, the primary gain for us is the end of denials for preexisting conditions but failed to offer a robust government option, meekly offering repackaged private insurance under slightly better terms
• Abortion not receiving robust protection from legal challenge in the last 50 years, relying on a (correct but) legally tortured right to privacy instead of a baseline agreeable standard via federal law or amendment
• And now the chatter is about ditching LGBTQ+ to court Hispanic and ‘moderates’ after the 2024 general…

(b) some good is better than all bad, (c} you can affect change by participating with them, and

AOC just got blocked by Pelosi herself from the exact kind of ‘change from within’ you argue for.

Voters (and spoilers) organized and ran a massive protest and advocacy campaign over Palestine and routinely got told to shove it, from the DNC stage, abandoned support on campuses, shunned and removed from rallies, and generally shunned.

Unless you’re a donor or regular attendee at $3k-$500k per head fundraiser, or are one of the vanishing small intersectional group of voters who get microadvertised to death with focus tested messaging, you don’t matter to them. Your vote is already counted in, because what other option is there? Ooooops.

(d) third-parties have got nothing, and in four years everyone gets to trip over themselves to have this exact same russian argument again.

Name one third party that has any shot at being elected to national office in four years. Cite your sources, less than a thousand words, papers under your desk, #2 only.

Circular reasoning. After Citizens United money is what runs elections, and the Democrats insist on looming over the left wing political landscape and beating minority challengers, reinforcing the “losing prospect” narrative for third parties. Europeans manage to build actual coalitions all the time and govern effectively, listening to coalition parties (and thus voters who elected that strand of politician) whilst still managing to run an effective government.

America can legitimately be better, but you have to dare to hope for it, not resign yourself to the lesser evil every cycle, and then shout down everyone else who isn’t. Massively cut election donations and establish universal FEC funding, and ditch winner takes all voting. Otherwise we will continue to see the ratchet click rightward, while the lesser evil just slows the metastasizing fascism - are you okay with that future?

Like other have said, very likely cases for tank rounds instead of arty given they were ditched in Gaza - but without a clear shot of the reverse hard to tell exactly what kind, they are generic containers until labeled for their contents. US made and supplied:

• 1A2 - Drum/pail, steel, with removable lid
• Y45 - Medium hazard contents, max mass 45kg
• S - Solid contents
• 19 - Year of manufacture, 2019

US / DOD / AYD - Activity code, Armament, Research, Development and Engineering Center (pg 17)