The honest answer is no one knows. The line is subject to change. My opinion is foreign troops threatening Russia.

Hypothetical (I hope for now and forever) If, say, France actually put soldiers in Ukraine Russia would do all sorts of shenanigans short of nuking anyone. If French and Ukrainian troops entered Russia, then we’d see tactical nukes used on Ukrainian soil for certain.

I’m going to tackle this as best as I can. I am not a subject matter expert, but have done enough political science work and worked with both Power Transition Theory and Great Power Theory to at least kick off a discussion. None of what follows is my personal opinion on the war or ideas concerning morality or just wars. This is also very simplified.

-At the moment, the Ukraine War is contained. It is not spreading and, thus, the world powers are not interested in intervening. Even in this case, the amoral state (read Richelieu) has no reason to get involved.

-The war’s continuation, at the moment, does not threaten state survival to anyone outside of Russia and Ukraine. Maybe Belarus? But I view that as a non-issue since they are essentially Russia’s puppet state.

-Internal challenges in nation’s that could intervene will prevent them from doing so. Why? Escalating to “boots on the ground” has one of two effects. One, a surge of nationalism that allows the state to absorb immediate shocks and unifies the population. Two, a complete disruption of legitimacy and systems that could cause the state to collapse. There’s not enough risk to justify the possibility of two happening.

-The western European states have not seen a major ground war in Europe since WW2. Entire generations have no idea what a modern nation-state vs. nation-state war is actually like. Afghanistan or Iraq, where international forces did operate, was very different. Getting into a shooting war directly with another power is a huge risk and huge unknown.

I suggest you go to your local library and check out, or request via inter library loan - William Connolly - Capitalism and Christianity American Style. It builds on Max Webers work on the early Puritan influence into economics (The Protestant Work Ethic). Connolly incorporates much of his contemporary philosophy to try and explain the bootstrap mentality, cruelty politics, and the modern religious nationalist movement. Plus the book cover is metal.

I went to bed that night and checked my phone looking at the electoral map. I sad to my partner, “Hillary is going to loose…” The numbers and visuals all just right there, election night, telling a very different story of what polls (remember the NYT Prediction tracker? Clinton 96% chance or something crazy?) Indicated. Woke up and was like “The son of a bitch actually did it.”. I couldn’t even think or feel, it was so insane and such a deviation from the norm that I had no ground to stand on. It was en entirely brave new world.

Howdy. I am well aware of Klein, as her investigative journalism is what kept me motivated to keep asking questions about environmental justice and doing research. She, frankly, knows her shit and is one of the most well spoken and passionate people I’ve ever had the chance of reading and hearing.

And she’s absolutely right. Without a shadow of a doubt, “hoping” the DNC doesnt suffer from the self inflicted “no-bernie no-vote” mistake is not enough. It’s too close and too much is at risk for the people who do vote Democrat.

The legal fine points, important of course, fail to consider the legitimacy problem here. If you don’t agree with your political opponents, you want to murder them. Conspiracy, violation of legal code, maybe not as some comments have pointed out.

Extremely dangerous in a system where you are supposed to peacefully transfer power? Thats the problem with his words, that people like him think that is ok AND have been shown to have the capacity and vision to walk towards action. Without so much as a meaningful consequence at that.

That train of though is dangerous in a democracy, for anyone. Even a flawed democracy like the US.

Not going to lie, that title took me a hot minute. It’s brilliant on so many levels.

That aside, I’m not surprised at the outcome but also terrified at how insane it is. I want to give into conjecture and vent, but it won’t help anyone. It’s all just so surreal.

I don’t work for Airbus, but they could crush Boeing by taking a profit hit and offering at-cost, financed replacements over the long term for anyone with a MAX. I imagine going that route could be cheaper than grounding all your aircraft or loosing one with all aboard.

I second the PBS documentary suggestion. The documentary is fantastic.

I highly recommend you watch Netflix’s Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. The hostile takeover by McDonnell-Douglas trashed that company. I try to avoid flying in anything post-takeover that carries a Boeing name.

My administrative law professor, eons ago, worked as a supreme court clerk. Very smart person, very kind, and very neutral on anything political so no one could call him a hack when he shared his professional opinion. He halted class one day when the Max situation came up. He spent 3 hours devoted to his experiences with the FAA Regulatory apparatus, Airbus, and Boeing. He remarked about the redesign of the aircraft, engine placement, stalls, and how generational aircraft are inspected and approved. He went on to explain how Boeing had been, for years (since the hostile take over) been trying to push the boundaries of what was, and was not, an acceptable submission to the FAA for a speedy review as an updated generational aircraft, and was getting away with it. The documentary pretty much lays this out but profit margin, competition with Airbus, and hubris = QA/QC shortcuts as well as cost-savings shortcuts in design.

After all the reports came out, which that documentary I linked does an excellent job of detailing, I look back on that class and thank my lucky stars for the time I spent learning from that man. The 737 Max should have been an entirely new aircraft, with more rigorous scrutiny by regulators. But since it was just an “upgrade” it get away with major structural, software, and hydraulics changes without so much as a glance.

I try not to fly on anything from the post-takeover Boeing, and try to get on an Airbus whenever possible. An extra couple of bucks or a few extra layovers is worth it compared to being an example of why Boeing sucks.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. If at the state level, do you mean the State Level Senator or Rep? As it reads, your congressman (i.e., your Federal Rep in DC) wouldn’t have much legislative authority in Texas, even if they represent Texas.

Texas at a state level won’t do anything, it’s gerrymandered into Banana Republic territory. So you can fix gerrymandering (not likely) or bring the federal justice hammer down on the assholes empowering this crap (also not likely).

This is an issue akin to, but not a mirror of, the Jim Crow South, and I mean that administratively. Texas and other states have created three classes of citizen, divided by their ability to give birth (m or f by Texas interpretation) and, unlike Jim Crow, divided again by if they are pregnant or not. This, like Jim Crow, is effecting lives of course, but also commerce, travel, and other systems in ways I can’t fathom. Let alone the mental health and health tolls on anyone carrying a baby, as you’re immediately guilty until you give a healthy birth or proven innocent if anything happened to go wrong.

Jim Crow suffered blows from federal power via the federal government pursuing commerce clause arguments. Wait. What? Really? Yes, see Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung.

That’s what it’ll take to stop this insanity. But, I fear, the current political climate is not there yet. So much needs to get fixed to get us back to the point where a supreme Court won’t cite a pre-USA constitution legal argument as grounds to intervene in a woman’s personal health. Crazy people out of politics, gerrymandering addressed, hate and anti democratic speech reinterpreted under the 1st amendment, etc.

It’s a long battle but Jim Crow’s ultimate destruction, and even Roe v Wades success while it lasted, proves we can do it but we need to learn from the shortcomings and solidify basic human rights in our national identity moving forward.