Billiionare who hates humanity so much he's decided that the only solution is to rid himself of most of it, even if it means he has to live on a much less hospitable planet.
Am deeply concerned that those darn minorities are going to shut down our power grid and hurt my PMC lifestyle. Who will go after their billionaire funders?
During the Obama administration, there were a few points where the GOP majorities got worse deals for themselves because the Freedom Caucus refused to accept any budget at all, forcing the GOP to rely on democratic votes to get something passed. Right now "work requirements" are the thing being negotiated on but even with those will MTG & friends be willing to vote to raise the debt ceiling?
Remembering back one of the big things they failed to do was to get some social security cuts passed, Obama was keen to do this as part of a Grand Bargain that included some tax raises, but because of the "no-tax pledge" this didn't happen.
Perhaps it's hindsight but it looks like any tax raises would have been quickly reversed while the social security cuts would be set in stone, looks like a bad decision in retrospect for them but that's where they are.
So if Ukraine had fallen quickly (as was widely believed to be the likely outcome of a Russian invasion) would Germany still be getting gas from nordstream?
discoursedrome: if there's a way to stop the cia from breaking your shit it definitely isn't "bilateral agreements according to the norms of international law"
Pipeline was shut down prior to it's destruction and part of the question here is "would they have destroyed the pipeline in this scenario?" They didn't after Crimea, what makes now different from then?
The implicit idea here is that Ukraine falls quickly and then a bunch of people treat it as a fait accompli and then the pipeline never shuts down.
And I'm not sure what "Ukraine has fallen and the entirety of Europe goes full hostile instead of cribbing notes and doing a bunch of crash infrastructure work to source alternatives while continuing to pay Russia for oil" looks like.
I mean the implication this story is meant to draw out is that the rest of europe doesn't go full hostile. From my memory it took a full week for them to do anything in response (it became clear it wasn't a fait acoompli) and even now we're getting stories about how despite some early stories the Germans aren't really interesting in upping their military capacity.
If this happens then support of Ukrainian resistance seems like it could be a US-only project, for the Germans and even poles maybe Ukrainian resistance just causes a headache for them.
During the Obama administration, there were a few points where the GOP majorities got worse deals for themselves because the Freedom Caucus refused to accept any budget at all, forcing the GOP to rely on democratic votes to get something passed. Right now "work requirements" are the thing being negotiated on but even with those will MTG & friends be willing to vote to raise the debt ceiling?
So if Ukraine had fallen quickly (as was widely believed to be the likely outcome of a Russian invasion) would Germany still be getting gas from nordstream?
discoursedrome: if there's a way to stop the cia from breaking your shit it definitely isn't "bilateral agreements according to the norms of international law"
Pipeline was shut down prior to it's destruction and part of the question here is "would they have destroyed the pipeline in this scenario?" They didn't after Crimea, what makes now different from then?
So if Ukraine had fallen quickly (as was widely believed to be the likely outcome of a Russian invasion) would Germany still be getting gas from nordstream?
We might be seeing the same thing now. Politicians tell us it is possible to "stop the boats" but don't tell us it's possible to have economic democracy. Is it a surprise, therefore, that voters want one but not the other? It wouldn't be to Aesop, Chesterton, Galbraith or Elster.
[...]
Kris-Stella Trump has shown how this is true of inequality: the higher is inequality, she shows, the more likely people are to regard greater equality as legitimate. A plan to cut the post-tax incomes of the richest 1% by, say, one-third would seem very radical today - even though it would leave them better off relative to the rest of us than they were in the mid-80s. Such resignation to inequality means there is less demand for redistribution, even without any work by the media.
[...]
Thatcher, like her contemporaries in all parties, thought the job of politicians was not so much to sheepishly follow public opinion as to shape it. In her 1975 speech opposing the EU referendum, she approvingly cited a letter to the Evening Standard pointing out that if it had been left to the will of the people. "we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force."
But why have politicians lost that conception of politics and replaced it with the "customer is king" approach?
The mere fact that they seem unaware of these contrasting positions is itself confirmation of Bachrach and Baratz's point, that some questions are excluded from politics.
Look anon and assorted weirdos who might be pretending not to be anon, I've got my own weird phobic stories, I got the family that was ambushed in Oregon and nearly killed for fear they might be a busload of antifa super soldiers, I got the boogalo weirdo who got into a shootout with the cops in California after trying to drive-by a courthouse, I got tales of attempted and successful vehicular murder, I got cops who I saw airhole a homeless person sleeping on at a bus stop. "Oh look these soros DAs might be letting off shoplifters who could then murder people," look man this does nothing for me.
Darn reform DAs letting crimmos off the hook
Saw a piece that was judging political parties based on how they moved in response to voters, with the idea that agile quick-moving political parties were good for society. I've generally thought it's the opposite though, in an ideal world political parties would be fixed points around which voters could organize, and the move to agile political parties is part of the collapse in "mass society" which has had bad results for democracy. Ideally responsiveness should come with new political parties forming rather than constant adjustment of the existing parties.
Can't really condemn political parties for being agile, especially in FTPT or especially the further entrenched American two-party system but to me it's a failure of the system that leads to everything looping around itself as everyone moves in response to the movement of everyone else, leading to total incoherence.
I quite agree anon America doesn't lock up enough people, we need a Soros DA who will finally get us those damn FEMA camps we've been promised since the 80s to lock up those psychos.
Anonymous asked:
how's the power grid, industrial production, and public safety doing in South Africa
heard they're looking great on metrics like * checks notes * mixed-race squads of vigilante riflemen repelling rioters targeting infrastructure due to conflict within the ruling party
tremendous success of racial unity and minority solidarity
really handled a difficult transition well, great evidence that Soros is a smart and empathetic man and not, as the rumors say, just some shitbag with a personal grievance and too much money
Damn sounds crazy guess the US should have kept slavery.
Hmm hold on a minute lemme google something....
"He brings his money down to South Africa, and he funds the university with scholarships for Black youth in apartheid South Africa. When he opens that school, he changes South Africa, and look what he did down there," Vaughn said.
Vaughn went on to say that Soros' actions led to division and violence in South Africa.
"He divided South Africa with this open society, removed the culture, removed the law, removed the foundation of the society, turned the races against one another, and then you take the nation and you create now an open society."
And we call this act "The populists!"
Took my joke about how the fight against transhumanism means we need to ban male vitality pills and just said it.
One thing I will sometimes quip is that when people say "nobody is going to force you to eat the bugs/live in the pod/trans your gender, it's just an option" this is unconvincing reasoning to anyone to has had an "option" that they felt that had no choice but to make to get a job/house/something else critical, which is almost all people.
Alex Jones knows enough to frame things in that way but these natcons got no fucking clue.
See the pics of the massive herd of cops standing around gormlessly in the NY subway and the first thing that enters my head is "If you can lean, you can clean," get those cops some mops.
Adam Curtis through his documentaries has his schtick on what cause the great Neoliberal turn, he can call it a few things but one thing you can call what was overturned was "corporatism" the stodgy conformist businesses that negotiated deals with stodgy conformist labor. This was much criticizes as exploitative and soul-crushing by the new left until it was destroyed by Reagan and Thatcher.
And I'm sorry but a return to that conformity is absolutely not going to fly with a bunch of #hustlegrind dropshipping bitcoin-speculating male enhancement groypers, despite how much they cry that they want the old ways back and Adrian Vermuelle & friends might desire that everyone be good conformist obedient catholics.
Funny thing now about traditionalism is that now it's only valued as a way to separate yourself from everyone else, traditionalism has become the ultimate form of individualism. Like brain enhancement pills, it's just another way to give yourself an edge.
And we call this act "The populists!"
Took my joke about how the fight against transhumanism means we need to ban male vitality pills and just said it.
And we call this act "The populists!"