Yes, but the originally free/libre licensed source code is still out there.
makes improvements and put’s those under a proprietary license
You could also make improvements and release them under a GPL license.
Sadly, you should feel alienated. When you choose to use proprietary software, you further the injustice that it creates over society. Windows is so shamefully harmful, even outside of just being proprietary that choosing it in 2024 is choosing the side of unjust power, and you should be rightfully alienated for making that decision.
Maybe political repression and the mass killing of protestors and the internment of ethnic minorities has very little to do with a countries mode of production. Maybe you guys can advocate for an alternative mode of production without defending genocide and using the military to crack down on protests? And maybe liberals can do the same when Western Capitalist Countries do it?
please... :(
If nuclear waste DID pollute water, it would still help combat climate change, specifically the warming of the earth. It doesn't pollute water, and nuclear waste can be stored deep underground or reused. But we are out of time to find a "perfect solution" nuclear power is the ONLY option to provide renewable and carbon neutral base load power that other forms of "green electricity" will NEVER be able to compete with.
It's coal or nukes. You better figure out which one you want fast.
Leaving health insurance expansion to the states was because of the Supreme Court, not the Democrats. Specifically medicaid expansion with the ACA I assume you are talking about?
The Dems are more like 4 political parties pretending to be just one. The dems would be split up in any other country.
have ignored doing anything to put abortion rights into law. But also Democrats have enshrined abortion rights into law at the state level. We are a rather large country.
Sorry I deleted my post, I don't mean to leave it like that where it looks like your talking to yourself. I don't think dems are uniquely of the left, I just think there are rising left wing factions in the Democratic party and I don't think the situation is as hopeless as people think it is as a binary choice between center-right and the right wing. And I really don't think Europe is really much better off in this regard.
We have it worse because we are a hegemon. Most countries don't have to take a stance on imperalism because they lack the resources to actually engage in it and outsource it to us.
Overall, my point is to show that the Democrats are not a monolith and have internal factions, and on a number of issues, we are more left than other issues on the planet. If the main thing you care about is foreign affairs, you are always going to be disappointed, hell, I am. The Deep State is in charge of that and it's basically outside of the political system.
It seems to me that Europe is largely dominated by a largely center right consensus.
No I don't. I was never talking about whether US involvement in WW2 was justified or not?
It's uh, from the link I was replying to. By start, it really means choose to engage in. I don't think the US started WW2 but a democrat is who got us involved in it.
Well I would be happy to hear your alternative. I'm ideology shopping right now actually. But personally, I think the interests of capital should be represented in any system and that doesn't make it not democratic for me.
Please explain your alternative to liberal democracy that "pushes the hole-drillers overboard". I'm happy to hear how it's different from fascism. This is the price we pay for living for living in a liberal democracy that allows dissent.
All modern political parties in liberal democracies are fine with state violence on college protestors. It's kind of the nature of having a state that exercises police power. There is no one arguing against that.
It's more like Trump and Bush bomb people but they keep it a secret. Obama moved the drone program out of the CIAs purview and that is part of the reason that we now know how large the extent of its operation is.
I think you should engage in better political analysis than saying that Republicans start more wars because Democrats are the ones who started WW2 and The Mexican-American war. I just don't really see the value in that. You should instead argue that modern wars, while usually started by Republicans, tended to have large political consensus on both the Democratic and Republican sides.
Modern Republicans started the War In Iraq, War in Afghanistan and consistently push for war with Iran. Most major US Interventions that people dislike happened under Republican presidents, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War 1 & 2, Afghanistan, etc.. but most of these happened with Democratic support.
What I'm trying to say is, your gonna get bombed regardless, but with Republicans those bombs are more likely to be nukes. You should probably just turn off the TV and hope for the best rather than rooting for any side.
