I OD’d on fent that I bought as MDMA from the silk road in 2017

When your response to complicated situation that could be solved with non-violence is to send in the military - that’s right wing

It’s been a long standing right wing fantasy of sending the us military to deal with the cartels

Euthanasia is a human right

Maybe the first time so many people got directly asked ‘are you willing to sacrifice to protect those weaker than you?’

They can’t really pretend anymore.

Yeah but she was a sitting senator so she was in the club. She was a black woman so she ticked the right boxes to balance out Bidens white man. And she was a prosecutor who worked well with the police so she countered the defund the police message thay centrist dems were sure would sink them.

She was a very very logical choice for Biden’s VP.

Because people with the @lemmy.ml tag are constantly saying the dumbest tankie shit ever.

When I see someone say Ukraine in 2014 was a CIA backed coup against the democratically elected pro russian government - it comes from that server, every time

After trump won tesla stock shot up like a hundred dollars because everyone thought elon would leverage the win into more money but now people don’t think that’s the case so it’s going back to where it was before the election

Nothing has to change as long as France is willing to end the world for Finland and Russia believes they’ll do it.

In 2014, NATO members pledged to aim for defense spending of at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. This agreement, formalized during the Wales Summit, was a response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and broader global instability. However, this target is not legally binding; it is a political commitment designed to address underfunding and encourage burden-sharing among allies[1][2][4].

Countries are not obligated to meet the target because NATO lacks enforcement mechanisms. The pledge allows flexibility, requiring nations to “aim” for the goal rather than mandating it. Members can prioritize other defense contributions, such as troop deployments or equipment investments, which are not directly tied to GDP percentages[1][5][7]. Additionally, critics argue the 2% metric oversimplifies defense contributions and does not account for qualitative factors like military capability or willingness to engage in operations[5][8].

Citations: [1] [PDF] THE POLITICS OF 2 PERCENT https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/CP_252_Techau_NATO_Final.pdf [2] Defence expenditures and NATO’s 2% guideline https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm [3] The two NATO targets: Which countries are hitting the mark? https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-two-nato-targets-which-countries-are-hitting-the-mark/ [4] Topic: Funding NATO - NATO https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/topics_67655.htm [5] What Spending Two Per Cent of GDP on National Defence Means … https://www.cgai.ca/what_spending_two_per_cent_of_gdp_on_national_defence_means_for_canada [6] Update of Canada’s Military Expenditure and the NATO 2 … https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/additional-analyses--analyses-complementaires/BLOG-2425-005-S--update-canada-military-expenditure-nato-2-spending-target--mise-jour-depenses-militaires-canada-objectif-depenses-2-otan [7] The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2015/09/the-politics-of-2-percent-nato-and-the-security-vacuum-in-europe?center=europe&lang=en [8] We don’t really know which NATO allies are pulling their weight … https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/natos-next-burden-sharing-agreement/ [9] How much do Nato members spend on defence? - BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44717074

The reason the US wants that 2% spending today is because they know we’re going to hand that money to US weapons manufacturers and trainers.