***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[kdawg]

This picture too - one of these things is not like the other.

Edit: apparently, it's just a frame that appears to show him as the only one not with his hand up. Much as I love to rag on him, this ain't the occasion. I'll just have to point out his stupid orange face.

 

[IATT]

 

[kdawg]

 

[rexanglorum]

Honestly, IF Canada merged into the US, it would be a no win situation.

Either they abolish Canadian social democracy and expose themselves as neoliberal imperialists. Or they grandfather in the State of Canada’s social democracy and for all its issues, it would be far better for working people in Canada compared to their fellow Americans who live in the “original 50.”

Similar situation in Greenland with Danish social democracy.

 

[rexanglorum]

I’m allowed to repost this as a former member of that community. (In fact, I don’t know of anyone who is in grad school who is genuinely normal because normal people don’t want to spend all of their 20’s going to school )

 

[kdawg]

Honestly, IF Canada merged into the US, it would be a no win situation.

Either they abolish Canadian social democracy and expose themselves as neoliberal imperialists. Or they grandfather in the State of Canada’s social democracy and for all its issues, it would be far better for working people in Canada compared to their fellow Americans who live in the “original 50.”

Similar situation in Greenland with Danish social democracy.

That’s the crazy part to me of those who oppose national health care and other social policies - it’s not just good for those who can afford but it would be waaaay cheaper for them too - without the ever-present threat of poverty because you got cancer as a bonus.

 

[rexanglorum]

MSNBC’s sponsors clearly don’t like her.

 

[rexanglorum]

That’s the crazy part to me of those who oppose national health care and other social policies - it’s not just good for those who can afford but it would be waaaay cheaper for them too - without the ever-present threat of poverty because you got cancer as a bonus.

So much of the divide in US politics is between blue areas where the industrialists want high human capital and are okay with some degree of good human services like education and at least a threadbare social safety net.

Meanwhile, in Trump country, local elites want none of that. They make their margins by keeping wages as low as humanely possible. You keep wages down by reducing human capital formation, placing people on the edge of ruin, and getting them to do low skilled labor at a wage that barely keeps them alive.

IMO, we should start referring to middle and rural America as “the American latifundia” zones of toil and extract and local elites are terrified of a decent, civilized economic regime taking hold there.

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[rexanglorum]

Christine (@christinet1127) is LIVE - TikTok LIVE

Cat Hammock | Watch Christine (@christinet1127)'s LIVE on TikTok and interact with others in real time.

www.tiktok.com

Bussin it down while listening to SCOTUS oral arguments.

It’s kind of surreal to hear a big SCOTUS case about posting.

 

[mplsdunk]

Outside of Alberta I see no reason America would want Canada.

BUT I did see something online the other day. If we invaded and took over Canada and Mexico the country could be called C.U.M.

So that might make it worth while

 

[rexanglorum]

Outside of Alberta I see no reason America would want Canada.

BUT I did see something online the other day. If we invaded and took over Canada and Mexico the country could be called C.U.M.

So that might make it worth while

North Americans would forever be known as coomers or coomericans.

 

[rolaholic]

Outside of Alberta I see no reason America would want Canada.

BUT I did see something online the other day. If we invaded and took over Canada and Mexico the country could be called C.U.M.

So that might make it worth while

The sudden Greenland and Canada MAGA obsession makes me wonder about what exactly he's been told about the climate situation in the Arctic...

International relations theorists and realpolitik proponents have speculated for years that that region could become the wild wild west for global powers in the future with the coming strategic importance/value it will hold with the more waterways and trade routes opening up as a direct result of climate change.

There's already a huge number of conflicting territorial claims to parts of that region and it's waters by at least 8 different countries

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it was his Trumpian reaction to being shown the long term data/trends

 

[gry60]

The sudden Greenland and Canada MAGA obsession makes me wonder about what exactly he's been told about the climate situation in the Arctic...

International relations theorists and realpolitik proponents have speculated for years that that region could become the wild wild west for global powers in the future with the coming strategic importance/value it will hold with the more waterways and trade routes opening up as a direct result of climate change.

There's already a huge number of conflicting territorial claims to parts of that region and it's waters by at least 8 different countries

Wouldn't be surprised at all if it was his Trumpian reaction to being shown the long term data/trends

That whole region is surrounded by US friendly nations. There is nothing over there we can't get via economic treaties.
Threatening to take them over only serves the purpose of making the UK and Scandinavian countries more distrustful of the US. If the level of distrust is high enough, that would threaten the very existence of NATO and everything that comes with it.

Who benefits the most from a rogue US? You can use the Cyrillic script to answer.

 

[rolaholic]

That whole region is surrounded by US friendly nations. There is nothing over there we can't get via economic treaties.
Threatening to take them over only serves the purpose of making the UK and Scandinavian countries more distrustful of the US. If the level of distrust is high enough, that would threaten the very existence of NATO and everything that comes with it.

Who benefits the most from a rogue US? You can use the Cyrillic script to answer.

A normal US president would absolutely be able to gain strategic advantages for the very reasons you mentioned without trying to set ablaze bilateral relations, start tit for tat trade wars or scaring your other longtime allies

The way the next one is going about it will definitely not be in the interests of anyone outside of the countries biggest adversaries but maybe that's the point

Reality is probably a mixture of it and old school jingoism and expansionism exacerbated by his claimed 'mandate' and the powerful preemptively bending the knee this time around.

 

[frink85]

 

[rexanglorum]

The bridge was built in the 1600’s with Gujarati quicklime.

Portuguese merchants carried it. That was the extent of European involvement.

This guy is trying to imply that Africans couldn’t build this in isolation and it’s proof of African inferiority. And while it’s true that the bridge relied on imported technology and materials, so does all of European civilization which imported writing and agriculture from Africa and West Asia.

East Africans took advantage of the Indian Ocean to tap into global (or at least intercontinental) networks, as did Europeans with the Mediterranean. The glory and wealth of medieval and early modern Venice, was tightly linked to trade with people in Africa and Asia.

The real kicker about this bridge? It was destroyed by Mussolini’s regime. Which was based on Europe.

 

[rexanglorum]

He talks about congestion pricing and then left NIMBY.

Great stuff from Bouie, as usual.

 

[Nike Jordan]

Booster Seat is the definition of a ho.

 

[rexanglorum]

We’re in a cultural moment where it’s best to sell our ideals in terms of how it helps an individual.

Parable of the Sower is a book that should remind everyone of the idea that one should “listen to Black women, it may one day save your life or at least save your house.”

Her novels have more or less predicted the effects of climate change, specifically in Southern California, through the late 2030’s. And thus far, everything is going the same direction as her (barely) fictional world predicted (she wrote Parable in the 1990’s).

 

[osh kosh bosh]

He talks about congestion pricing and then left NIMBY.

Great stuff from Bouie, as usual.

These unserious leftist NIMBY arguments about housing are incredibly common. you can't trust people who make them.
They are usually just talking their book.

 

[rexanglorum]

These unserious leftist NIMBY arguments about housing are incredibly common. you can't trust people who make them.
They are usually just talking their book.

Oh man, if you think you don’t like left NIMBYs, I may out do you. In many cases, it’s a bunch of graphic designers who are forming a buyers club to get a discount on rent (which I think is cool af) but they have no broader ambitions for housing justice. These petulant kids have accused me of being like Milton Friedman more than once.

But like RustyShackleford argued. The causal impact from that group is low. Incumbent homeowners are the main power behind NIMBY urban policy.

I suspect that many incumbent homeowners, wishing to not be seen as reactionaries, appropriate the language of the fairly small group of left NIMBYs.

 

[rexanglorum]

(I feel bad for all the normal people and animals displaced, yahdy yahdy yahdah) this all feels so Ancient Greek. Rich people, whose NIMBYism, love of AI, complacency over water usage, and indifference to climate change, received its just rewards. Hubris received its nemesis (in this case, well known and well documented phenomenon with remedies having been proposed since the 1970’s).

A smart society would build Barcelona style apartment blocks with cutting edge anti fire material. It would block rural to urban fire crossings and address the housing crisis. So naturally, that won’t happen because a few rich people will veto it.

 

[trappedintime]

Honestly, IF Canada merged into the US, it would be a no win situation.

Either they abolish Canadian social democracy and expose themselves as neoliberal imperialists. Or they grandfather in the State of Canada’s social democracy and for all its issues, it would be far better for working people in Canada compared to their fellow Americans who live in the “original 50.”

Similar situation in Greenland with Danish social democracy.

That posts gets it half right. But misses that most democratic politicians are on the same page as the R’s. That’s why Bernard was thrown to the wolves by many of em. Hell, don’t we have many democratic members of congress to thank for blue states’ tax dollars subsidizing these backward poor states full of whiny racists and morons?

Of course we could afford universal healthcare on minimal GDP. We went through this with the auto bailouts, the bank bailouts, on and on. We can spend more on disaster relief than on preventative health measures. The priorities of this country have been f’d for a long time and I don’t recall Barack Obama and his dem majority’s getting it done in 2009. I don’t recall Bill Clinton funneling that NAFTA money into forward looking legislation supporting Americans’ future. And those are the two best presidents we’ve had in the past half century!

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Oh man, if you think you don’t like left NIMBYs, I may out do you. In many cases, it’s a bunch of graphic designers who are forming a buyers club to get a discount on rent (which I think is cool af) but they have no broader ambitions for housing justice. These petulant kids have accused me of being like Milton Friedman more than once.

But like RustyShackleford argued. The causal impact from that group is low. Incumbent homeowners are the main power behind NIMBY urban policy.

I suspect that many incumbent homeowners, wishing to not be seen as reactionaries, appropriate the language of the fairly small group of left NIMBYs.

these talking points are highly influential. they give everyone an excuse not to do something substantive.
it's a serious problem, these ideas need to be discredited. because people believe in it.

for example, the idea that immigrants make the country poorer. is wildly believed by many people. because it sounds believable.
even tho hardcore immigration restrictionist are a relatively small percentage of the population.