Posts by Rachel Barrett8

briskviper362 said:Berkshire Hathaway just posted a job opening for the Sanitation Department:

The catch is they’re only offering fixed-term contracts for a year. Honestly, do they really think even ten people will apply given the current pay and working conditions?

The reality on the ground is that anyone with half a brain is jumping ship from Berkshire Hathaway. An employee at IT Corp left for a private firm two weeks ago, two lawyers handed in their resignations to go private, and a colleague I worked with for twelve years just quit on his own accord... and none of these folks were even on that infamous list. And let's be real, hasn't that "list" been revised at least four times already? You want to know the kicker? Most of the bureaucrats who caused this whole mess are staying right where they are, keeping their cozy jobs or moving to similar ones. The very people who were loudly championing the former mayor—who held all those management positions—were at the top of the list in the first few versions, weren't they? Well, they aren't anymore.

But you know what happened instead? Both husband and wife ended up unemployed—he was in operations, she was in admin, both in their late fifties.

And get this: every single person who was fired has filed a lawsuit—every single one. The result? People are actually getting letters in the mail telling them to come back to work because their termination is being rescinded. Can you believe that? They put you on a list, shame you, tell you you're redundant, hand you a pink slip after you've had a couple of drinks, and then suddenly they send you a formal letter saying they actually want you back.

It’s a total circus.

Oh, and to top it off, New York City Road hasn't produced a single pound of asphalt because they're out of bitumen, and at this rate, even funeral services might be canceled soon since appointments are already being scrapped.

This is completely ridiculous.
But don't worry, you'll all see it for yourselves soon enough.

Mustard hasn't caught on yet; he still thinks you can just pick up a shovel and find a worker whenever you feel like it.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Totally agree—it's all about expectations. We know what to expect from Russia and China, but we hold Western democracies to a much higher standard, which is only natural.
If the West makes mistakes or slips up, staying silent about it doesn't make us stronger—if anything, it just weakens us in the long run.

Exactly.
Freedom of speech and respecting private property are the very pillars of the West.

That’s why we can openly debate the West's failures here, unlike users on forums in Russia or China, who have to think twice before they type a single word.
And that's precisely why decent Ukrainians would want their country to be part of the EU.

analogbear5 said:As for what you claimed the EU asked of Ukraine—stopping trade with Russia—that's just straight up false.

It isn't a lie; it's just how things work.
When you join the EU, you have to move away from other trade deals and align your standards, tariffs, tax systems, and everything else. It's part of the deal.

Ukrainian industry simply wasn't ready for that kind of shift, and it would have collapsed instantly.
The EU isn't to blame for that failure—the responsibility lies with the Ukrainians themselves. That said, the EU really needs to get better at assessing the specific challenges within different countries (and I'm not just talking about Ukraine).

Melissa Rivera5 said:And we actually do talk about it. Like, here in the US, you can say the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq were huge mistakes without any issues. People write entire books about why they failed. But in Russia, if you even call that "special operation" a war, you're looking at maybe 15 years in prison. You wouldn't even get to finish writing your book before everything just goes dark.

That freedom of speech we have in the West is exactly what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

My point wasn't really about outsiders criticizing political elites. I was talking about the internal friction—the pushback from within the establishment itself when they make these calls.

If I remember correctly, Germany was one of the few who questioned the approach to AFGA (they suggested a different way forward), but by then, it was already too late. The Taliban had already seized control, which is just what happens whenever a totalitarian regime finds fertile ground among the hungry and the poor.

Melissa Rivera5 said:It wasn't even Russia, but you're leaving that part out 🙂

Actually, they see Ukraine as part of Russia, not just some backyard.

Russia is pretty much incapable of building a functional state. Instead, they just turn whatever they touch into a wreck, mirroring the mess they have at home. We don't even need to debate that—it's already been proven.
I agree... For Russia, Ukraine is just another piece of the "Russian World."

But there is a massive difference between a democracy and Putin's regime. In a democratic country, people should be able to speak up about mistakes and failures without fear. I certainly don't expect that kind of openness from China or Russia.

hollowdriver13 said:The real issue is how Russia screams about international law and people trampling on it whenever they feel like pointing fingers at the West, yet they turn around and commit some of the worst violations of those exact laws since World War II.

I mean, are we really going to pretend the USA hasn't crossed borders too? Is Iraq a new federal state now? What about Afghanistan?

And besides, has anyone actually sanctioned Russia for meddling in the Central African Republic, Syria, or Libya?
She knows perfectly well what major powers are "allowed" to get away with—military conquest of foreign soil has been a massive nono since World War II.

The biggest mistake was letting things slide with Georgia in 2008 and Crimea 2014. If the reaction back then hadn't been so lukewarm, we wouldn't be dealing with this mess today. Instead, they probably thought they could just pull this off again with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

The USA went into Afghanistan and Iraq without any real necessity.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban returned to power, and Iraq turned into a breeding ground for the ISIS member.

And when there’s no self-criticism, there isn't even an answer to the question: what exactly went wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya? Why couldn't the Western powers establish even remotely functional states? You can't have answers if you don't allow for criticism.

Russia attacked Ukraine for the exact same reason—they view Ukraine as their own private backyard.
And in the end, the ordinary people get screwed over in every single one of these cases, without exception.

Donna Wells2 said:Oh, absolutely... old man Joza was basically best buddies with them.
He was tight with Gaddafi, Saddam, Ceaușescu, that monster Idi Amin, and the list goes on and on.
Quite the respectable roster of friendships, wouldn't you say? ☕

Look, there’s nothing wrong with being friends with someone, but there's really no point in acting like Saddam didn't go absolutely insane on the Kurds using chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons don't just grow on trees, right? Someone had to build those facilities for Saddam.

swiftjackal11 said:So, in your eyes, Ukraine is just a scapegoat and Russia is the aggressor. They're killing civilians just to grab land.

Wars are started to serve sick, selfish interests.
Russia is the aggressor here, carrying out a criminal policy against Ukraine right now.

But honestly, isn't Russia just acting like any other global power? Is that really so strange?
Maybe it’s just because the news media doesn't present it that way?

gentlestag15 said:I don't know, all I know is that about 90% of what was in Saddam's military arsenal was Soviet gear.
The other 10% came from France.
So basically, the Soviets/Russians were the biggest supporters of Saddam.
Plus, I can still recall the whole Iran-gate scandal, where the US was caught funneling weapons to Iran.

Oh, so the Americans just conveniently forgot who actually built Saddam's bunkers and chemical plants?
It’s always funny how everyone loves to point fingers at someone else.
🤦

Nancy Gomez26 said:The only people mourning Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi are the ones on this forum, whenever it serves their agenda to invoke those lofty ideals of freedom, humanity, justice, equality, and prosperity that were supposedly dismantled. Instead, they find solace in the fact that there is still a regime standing in Syria, backed heavily by Moscow and Tehran.

Look, there’s a massive difference between taking down a dictator and leaving an entire nation to rot into a failed state.

swiftjackal11 said:There were victims in Iraq, and you know all about the Hussein brothers. That Iraqi dictator didn't just support terrorism; his whole regime was built on it. Just last month marked the fourteenth anniversary of the massacre where thousands of men, women, and children—mostly Kurds—were killed in the town of Halabja. They were wiped out by mustard gas and other deadly chemical weapons dropped on them by Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein's orders. Around ten thousand civilians were wounded in that horrific attack alone. And that wasn't even an isolated incident. Halabja was just one of about 250 villages targeted by the Iraqi regime between April 1987 and August 1988.

What does Saddam, the Kurds, and all that other stuff have to do with the occupation of Iraq and those 150,000 civilian casualties during that same period? Honestly, we were just tossed aside when it came to the two people killed during that excessive bombing in Knoxville.
Look, let’s be clear about this. Victims of a dictator are victims of that dictator. Period. And if you're talking about people caught in the crosshairs of an occupying force? They are victims of those occupiers, plain and simple. Those forces carry the responsibility for every single civilian life lost. It's as straightforward as that.

Trying to justify that many deaths? It just doesn't make any sense.

analogbear5 said:Look, if you're gonna lie to people's faces, at least try to make it believable. All of Europe was trading with Russia back then, and they still are. Nobody in Ukraine asked for any of that.

Is lying really worth it?
Did anyone from Ukraine actually ask for anything specific?
Is it possible that nobody actually signed off on guaranteeing Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity?
Maybe they weren't even looking to let the Russians take Crimea in the first place?
Ukraine is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.

All of Europe is still doing business with Russia. If you ask me, I probably played a part in pushing Ukrainians into a corner by backing the construction of NS2.

boldmarlin32 said:Russia expanded its influence in Libya.

And I’m talking about the entire African continent here.
Out of all 54 African states, not a single one has imposed sanctions on Russia.

When you deal with leaders who are self-important and view everyone else as "lesser beings," this is exactly the kind of outcome you get.

Nancy Gomez26 said:And in his desperate attempts to micromanage foreign affairs, Putin seems to have adopted the exact coaching methods of Miti Sadomazođubrilović.

What makes you say that?
Is it because you're watching the news and seeing Russians bombing civilian targets with massive casualties?
We all know those kinds of actions are blatant war crimes, but unfortunately, nobody ever really answers for them.

But are you basing your entire worldview on media coverage? Is that how you felt about the roughly 150,000 civilian deaths during the Iraq War?
Soft power?
Smart bombs?
Seriously?

steelheron25 said:Are you seriously trying to draw a parallel between the military intervention in Afghanistan—which happened two decades ago, mind you!—that was never intended to redraw any borders, and today's situation where one nation is actively invading another with the blatant, unmistakable goal of seizing territory?
I have to hand it to you, 🙏Nancy Gomez26.

No, I'm not comparing military interventions. I'm comparing Russian policy to Western politics.

And what did we actually get out of twenty years of war in Afghanistan?
What happened in Syria, and where did all that "moderate opposition" we were arming end up?
And what about Libya?

Russia doesn't like the regime in Ukraine, just like the West doesn't like certain regimes in Africa or Asia.

swiftjackal11 said:If that's the case, why didn't the EU attack Ukraine instead of Russia? It's like if Ukraine had just told Russia, Europe, and America that they wouldn't step in militarily.

Russia decided they have the right to dictate the politics of other nations—which is exactly what the EU and the USA do all the time. Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised when these kinds of scenarios play out.

You really shouldn't.

analogbear70 said:Comparing Americans to Ukrainians is a flawed comparison. Back then—about 30 years ago—Ukraine had it relatively easy, much like other former USSR states. We, on the other hand, were left entirely to our own devices, abandoned by the very people who are shouting the loudest today. And no, it isn't because Ukraine is somehow morally superior in its ideals; it's simply because they presented a much larger threat to the opposition. We were fighting for "independence," whereas Ukraine secured its "independence" somewhat easily, only to spend the last 30 years spinning in circles between corrupt leaders backed by either the West or the East. Sure, there were missteps along the way, and well, here we are. Everything shifted after Maidan; it was fuel for the fire of Russian imperialism, which was just waiting for the chance to grab Crimea while simultaneously fueling unrest in the East. The Gordian knot tightened, and from that moment on, any solution involving Ukrainian Crimea was effectively dead. To be clear, I am not defending the aggressor (Russia is the aggressor, and only a fool would argue otherwise). I am merely pointing out that we should have played the hand we were dealt more strategically—it was possible.

It wasn't just the Majdan that set everything in motion.
The wheels were already turning long before the Majdan, driven by unrealistic and dangerous demands from the EU toward Ukraine—demands that actually triggered the Majdan in the first place.
Viktor Yanukovych couldn't just accept those EU requirements, much like any sane politician wouldn't (specifically regarding cutting trade ties with Russia), so he turned them down, and that's when the Majdan kicked off.

It wasn't just Russia stirring the pot; the EU practically pushed Ukraine straight into the flames.

brightpuma said:And what else is he supposed to do with it? What's the actual alternative to that landfill RIGHT NOW?

Nothing’s been done for years. It’s not like you can just pull a sorting facility or an incinerator out of your pocket and flip a switch.
And we’re back to the same old problem—even if they started today, getting permits would take forever.

Look, nobody is disputing that Eric Adams inherited a mess.

But these problems have been staring us in the face for years. If you know anything about New York City, you realize he’s signed up for a job like Sisyphus, not a cozy gig at a coffee shop in Chicago.

In my opinion, the preparation was totally lacking.

brightpuma said:Look... I was hoping, and I still hope, that things could be better.

Take the municipal recycling shredders, for example. He claimed the City had the capacity to handle this internally without outsourcing it. So, he went out and bought the machinery to make it happen.
But the machines are just sitting there. They haven't even started because they're stuck waiting on permits—we're talking over a year now.
So what am I supposed to say? That he was wrong? That he should have gone a different way?

And then people turn around and bash him for it. They miss the real issue: a broken system where you're stalled for a year because of a single piece of paperwork that probably should've been cleared in a month.
We could argue, "Oh, he should have prepared for that." But honestly, how do you prepare for that? Is every decision he makes going to be delayed by a year or two? It’s not that we won't see results; it's that the results will be held hostage by endless red tape.

What can anyone actually accomplish in a four-year term when the parameters are set like this?

Maybe Eric Adams could be better, but only if he were running a city like Austin or Zurich.
It’s easy to act on those big visions when you're dealing with a wealthy society and highly organized urban centers.

Take the whole waste management thing—the shredders or the bags.
You go out, buy all these shredders, start separating the waste, and then what? You just dump the whole mess onto a landfill that you previously claimed needed to be shut down.

It’s pure chaos.

brightpuma said:ermm.. one of the reasons he was elected was to get rid of—or at least change—the way things are run. 😁

And if "fixing corruption" means he has to come up with wild, creative ways to bail out his buddies or make people wait over a year for waste management permits, then yeah, nothing's going to change. The system is literally designed to prevent change.

At that point, it's like I said before: just lock the doors and turn out the lights. We're done for.
On one hand, the system is rigged to keep things exactly as they are, making any real progress nearly impossible. On the other, people expect instant results, so when things don't move fast enough, they get frustrated and just give up.

But Eric Adams is actively pushing for those exact kinds of policies. He’s acting like a politician who wants to manage every single tiny detail of his constituents' lives—health, childcare, holidays, festivals, minority rights, preschools, parks, park benches, air quality, recycling, the 15-minute city concept, cheap cable cars, and so much more.

In reality, Eric Adams just repackaged Bernie Sanders' old playbook, just with a "cleaner," greener coat of paint.
What kind of outcome can we honestly expect from that?

Robin Jones2 said:A web of corruption and cronyism has completely seized control of America.

There isn't a damn chance the Republican Party didn't have their hands all over this court ruling.

Eric Adams comes from a world of hard labor and can't wrap his head around this lazy, entitlement-driven mindset where people just hang out on the street corners while taxpayers foot the bill.
I bet he’s just as shocked as any honest blue-collar worker would be: how do you get paid for doing absolutely nothing?

darkdrifter17 said:It’s becoming painfully obvious that we’re in a freefall, and voter support is bleeding out on a daily basis. What I find truly suspicious, though, is why the mainstream media refuses to take any real aim at Eric Adams and his administration here in New York City. In just eighteen months, the Adams camp managed to paint some lines for a bike lane that’s barely 250 meters long🤣. They’ve completely bungled waste management, and the whole situation with childcare and parental support is a mess that both supporters and critics are just watching unfold from the sidelines. And honestly, at this rate, I wonder when we can expect wild boars to start roaming through the middle of Manhattan.

Wild hogs have been roaming downtown for a long time now.

Wherever you find food, you're going to find pigs.