The Republic and the Jedi Council don't exist in Luke's time. Luke is also the strongest Jedi, after Yoda dies. "Married" and "Future Father" are just lifestyle choices, one of which hadn't even happened yet.
Plus, Luke's getting sloppy makeouts with one of the leaders of the Rebellion, that has to count for something.
Huh. This may be the first time "Trump just says what everyone's thinking" has actually been true.
You can only do that so much before people stop trusting your currency. Up until recently, the Saudis sold oil exclusively for USD, now they've started selling it for other currencies including yuan.
China sells consumer goods to the US for USD. China gives that USD to the Saudis for oil. The Saudis give that USD back to the US in exchange for bombing civilians in Yemen. That's how things have worked for the past like 50 years.
If the USD (and the US) stops being seen as reliable, then eventually the whole thing falls apart, and we're seeing the first signs of that already. The Saudis will start telling us our bombs are too expensive and China will say the scraps of paper we give them aren't worth it. If we're not dropping bombs on behalf of oppressive monarchies in exchange for oil, and importing cheap goods from underpaid overseas workers, then what do we even have left, as a country?
It's probably for the best for the world in the long term that that system falls apart (provided Americans don't go apeshit and start WWIII, which is a big assumption), and in the very short term of course using the infinite money hack solves a lot of problems, but in the medium term, it's gonna be rocky.
Fortunately, there aren't any other major crises we've been kicking down the road for short term benefits that are going to reach a head in the near future, so we can focus excluively on that.
I don't give a single shit if Iran gets nukes. If Iran had nukes, then the psychos in Washington would have to think twice the next time they decide they want to jerk off to bombing schoolchildren.
Expected shitlibbery from The Atlantic.
The Iranians cagily linked Netanyahu’s war against Hezbollah in Lebanon to Trump’s war in the Gulf
Cagily? How tf is is "cagey" to link those two together?
I'll go even further: every military action taken by the US or Israel in the MENA region, from the Gulf War to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to the overthrow of the Syrian and Libyan governments to Israel's invasion of Palestine, Lebanon, etc, all of it is linked as part of a consistent plan to subjugate the entire region by force.
The Israelis, for their part, have been left out in the cold.
When Netanyahu planned major strikes in Beirut at the beginning of June, Trump called him, swore at him, and said, “You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me.”
Good? Are you trying to turn me into an accelerationist?
No one should trust the Iranians...
No one should trust the Iranians? How about no one should trust the Americans, who launched this attack in the middle of negotiations?
The effort to claim that this war has defeated Iran’s nuclear ambitions is merely an effort to distract from the administration’s failure to achieve regime change, which was always its main goal.
No doubt the hawks at The Atlantic were jerking themselves off over the prospect of regime change from the moment the war started, but I don't think there was ever a clear "main goal."
Had Trump toppled the regime in Tehran, he would have had the thanks of most of the world—and congratulations from even his most dedicated critics.
Jesus fucking Christ! I wrote the previous line before I even got to this! They were, in fact, jerking off to the idea of regime change, and the only problem they have with Trump bombing schoolchildren is that he backed off! What a bunch of warmongering psychos!
Not really. Any open space is just going to be dominated by the majority viewpoint simply through numbers and if you don't have walled gardens it becomes impossible to discuss contrary perspectives. Most of the "critiques" that liberals bring to the table are just repeating the same talking points over and over, accusing us of being Russian bots or secret Trump supporters or whatever, and repeating the same pointless arguments over and over again.
Even if two people try to have an intelligent conversation in good faith, the fact that people are waiting to jump down someone's throat or take things out of context and go like, "Aha! This proves you're secretly an accelerationist!" colors the conversation and keeps everyone on guard. It's the same concept of if you let conservatives/reactionaries into a space, their perspective adds nothing to the conversation and makes it harder to discuss anything intelligently.
This is the whole concept of the fediverse, tbh. To allow for "walled gardens" that can still have opportunities to interact with each other. My ideas are far more challenged in spaces where I share certain basic assumptions than they would be by anything liberals or reactionaries have to say.
I used to be confused whenever I saw the word "selfish" in this context, because to demand the system stop hurting others would be completely unselfish, but one day I finally understood.
You're so incapable of conceptualizing foreigners as human beings that you can only frame it in terms of how we feel when we see them harmed, as if they were our toys and we're too preoccupied with them being broken.
It's such a disgusting and repulsive perspective that it's legitimately hard to understand what you even mean. It's indistinguishable from fascism and should be treated as such.
Tell that to Libya.
I wish it was possible to get lesser evilists to think rationally and critically examine their ideology, but they've so internalized their ideology as "rational" that they can't even recognize it as an ideology at all. They are exactly the sort of irrational, blind dogmatists they accuse everyone else of being.
"By your logic, you could justify a foreign armed insurgency against the US government" 
Cut off.