Politics

kbd512 · 2024-01-26 01:09:56

clark,

Have you even considered that politicians L-I-E about their political beliefs or the policies they actually support?

If not, then you're more remarkably naive than any other grown man I know.

If Kari Lake was just another run-of-the-mill political hack as you claim, then why would she not take DeWitt up on his offer for piles of cash she's never had?

The Bidens have never turned their noses up at millions of dollars from Ukraine, Russia, China, or anyone else. I guess your position on this matter is that anyone who refuses to sell out America to someone with a bit of money is a "dipsh*t".

Do you recall President Biden stating that "nothing would fundamentally change" after he was elected?

I sure do.

Three shooting wars with no end in sight, a major economic recession caused by his administration's energy secretary thumbing her nose at energy policy, and ten million illegal immigrants later... I would say some things fundamentally changed in America when compared to both President Trump and President Obama.

It's quite telling that you're more worried about embarrassment than the actual substance of what's going on, which seems to be a complete breakdown in communication, if not an outright fundamental policy disagreement. We're not talking about Mayorkas or Jean-Pierre merely "speaking their minds". Jean-Pierre is supposed to be the spokeswoman for the President. When last I checked, that was President Biden, not DHS Secretary Mayorkas. Nobody here is claiming that Mayorkas or Jean-Pierre can't have their own opinions on policy, but the people questioning them are asking about official policy, rather than personal opinion. We're talking about policy positions that don't appear to be in agreement with each other at all.

If there's a problem with so many illegal immigrants that there's no ability to house and feed them in a city the size of New York, then it's awful strange that Mayorkas ordered federal troops cut down all the border barriers in Texas.

You know what's stranger than that?

Those federal troops who were supposed to carry out the DHS Secretary's orders have refused the order to remove the barriers.

I can't seem to recall another point in time in history where the President, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, and the federal troops attached to Homeland Security, all decided to follow different policy directives at the same time over the same issue.

As for President Trump "breaking the law", I guess you think if Democrats put on a really over-the-top theatrical production, or have a psychotic break with reality similar to the one you had during COVID, then they must automatically be telling the truth if it's directed at someone you don't like.

President Trump was a Democrat for his entire adult life, prior to 2015. When he was elected President, as a Republican, he immediately became "worse than Hitler", despite never mass-murdering any group of people, refusing to start more pointless wars, and generally reducing excessive government regulation just enough to get the economy back on track. We had one golden year where wage growth managed to out-paced inflation growth. If "worse than Hitler" can bring that possibility back for ordinary everyday Americans, then it's worth listening to four more years of Democrat psychobabble brain vomit, whether it comes from you or anyone else.

clark · 2024-01-26 01:35:24

Have i considered that politicians lie? sweet jesus, have you? You are claiming the "democratic party" is all levels of evil. Both parties are terrible. You are a fool for thinking one is better than other. You are the one saying "this one bad, so other must be better". I've never said either is better than other. It's all a sham.

Kari lake, 10 months ago, was propositioned to bail. 10 months ago. Now it is a thing. Kari didn't say she was propositioned 10 months ago. Wake up.

If Biden took money to sell out america, then I'm on board to say that should be addressed. Trump took money from foreign governments and has made it more than apparent he puts his needs above the nation, so why the hell anyone getds in line to support that is beyond me.

Look, vote for trump, if that is your thing. and if he wins, when the federal troops are deployed into your city, i hope it is in line with what you think america stands for. when we start shooting each other, i hope it was worth whatever ideal you think it was worth.

kbd512 · 2024-01-26 04:06:22

clark,

At least you can see that it's all a sham. That's exactly what Jeff DeWitt said on the tape, if you bothered to listen to it. We have two fake political parties doing everything they can to ensure that people continue squabbling amongst themselves or fixating on petty personal differences while they rob us all blind. That's the game we're playing. Prior to President Trump getting elected, there was no other game in town.

One political party can be shamed into resigning after they get caught doing what they know they shouldn't be doing. The other can't, because they have no shame. Between those two, I'll take the party that can either be shamed into resigning after getting caught doing something to violate public trust or shamed into doing anything that modestly benefits the average man or woman on the street. The party promising bread and games for votes or handing out money to their donors probably doesn't have my best interests at heart.

Why did Kari Lake release that tape now instead of 10 months ago?

Someone should ask her that exact question under oath because I want to know the answer, even if it changes my opinion of her. Rather than jumping to a conclusion with zero information, which is what you've chosen to do, I'd prefer to at least hear that answer first. Maybe she grew tired of receiving death threats and thought releasing the tape would get the people threatening to kill her to find something else to do with their time. Maybe she's another evil opportunist exactly as you asserted she was. Absent any information, I'd like to get an answer before passing judgement.

All the people President Trump was supposed to be buddy-buddy with were none too eager to start wars with their neighbors while he was in office. Given your assertion, President Putin should've had his way with Ukraine while President Trump was in office, because he would've been able to blackmail him. If someone had something real to hold over President Trump, then you'd never know it from the way he spoke about other nations and their leaders in public. It's almost as if Russian collusion was totally fabricated Hillary Clinton Presidential Election Campaign nonsense with no tangential bearing on reality.

For some strange reason, all the new wars started after President Biden was elected. Do you recall how WWIII was supposed to start immediately after President Trump was elected the first time? We heard that from all the mainstream media outlets. No such thing ever happened. Funny that. I thought he was supposed to be the root of all evil and all bad things that happened on planet Earth, from now until the end of time. If we work at it, maybe we can convict him of the Kennedy assassination.

Why would we start shooting at each other if President Trump was elected again?

That sounds like more wildly irrational fear-based nonsense. There were 4 years where President Trump could've deployed federal troops, started WWIII, totally ruined the global economy, turned America into a vassal state of Russia, and whatever other bat guano crazy nonsense the media fed to you about him, yet no such apocalyptic events ever happened.

As of right now, America stands for endless war for profit, funding both belligerents shooting at each other in the case of the latest Middle East wars, no borders and therefore no clearly defined "America" to begin with, forking over hundreds of billions of dollars to special interest group campaign donors, spending more time intimidating parents who show up to school board meetings than drug cartels and human traffickers, and lying our rear ends off about what's actually going on.

I see President Trump being attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, when it's painfully obvious that he'll no more be the next "Hitler" than I'll ever be the next "Queen of England". Forgive me if I don't cower in fear that he's about to do something insane after he had 4 years of supposed "absolute power" to do that. The only completely insane thing I see around me is everyone else's reaction to him. If Snooki was elected President, I wouldn't be worried that the world was coming to an end.

Calliban · 2024-01-29 17:35:06

I have yet to meet anyone with far-left views and sympathies that doesn't have significant mental health problems. They tend to be people unable to accept the world as it is, with deep personal insecurities that lead to delusions. In order to make sense of the frightening world around them, they end up internalising social utopian visions, which they then try to force upon the world. They are control freaks, because they assume that more control will allow better results.

They develop extreme emotional attachment to ideologies, because ideology provides the illusion of purpose, certainty and control. They are impatient with people that question their ideology and often cannot be in the same room as people that disagree with them. This is because they have a deep emotional dependance on cherished ideas and are threatened by anyone that questions them. This makes them violent, oppressive and controlling. To be left wing is to be utopian. Utopianism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, as the utopian attempts to force people into their narrow ideal of perfection and stamp out all resistance. Hence we get communism, in which everyone gets to be equally poor, no one is allowed property, all men are equal under slavery and individual lives don't matter.

We should treat these people as the dangerous, mentally ill radicals that they are. Over the past few centuries, they have killed hundreds of millions and ruined the lives of billions more. We need to recognise left wing idealusm as an illness and treat it with medicine.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-01-29 17:43:29)

kbd512 · 2024-01-31 10:18:18

Calliban,

Some of them might be all of those things you stated, and some might be none of them, but in the process of dealing with them, I have no desire to become like them. Most people I've interacted with who have problems accepting reality are more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

I have to at least consider the possibility that what someone tells me they're mortally afraid of is justified at some level. They've clearly rationalized it to themselves, even if their logic was flawed. From past experience, I also know that fear is frequently misdirected or disproportionate to the gravity of an actual threat, or lack thereof. I've seen no compelling evidence to suggest what they've stated is anything but a divergence from plainly observable reality. I've never experienced whatever level of fear and paranoia they're operating on. I can't really argue someone's emotions. They feel what they feel, even if I don't understand it.

I have seen clinically diagnosed psychotic people do psychotic things. Some of them even appeared to behave normally to my untrained eye, until they didn't. From personally witnessing the worst possible results of medication gone awry, leading to the death of this deeply troubled young man and a brutal assault on his equally troubled mother after his father died (which he erroneously blamed on his mother, who I personally worked with to help take care of her husband in his final years, a fellow Navy man), I'm generally against medicating anyone until they demonstrate a willingness to harm themselves or others. Medicating anyone over a difference of political opinion is a bridge too far for me to cross. In my mind, that's behaving like the rest of the crazies, which I want no part of. Maybe they scare some people, but when I look at them all I see is a collection of misfits and matriarchical society's rejects (why children need fathers in their lives).

I do think that we should prevent arsonists or nihilists or anyone who would be adjudicated mentally incompetent to handle their own affairs, in any circumstances not involving politics, from coming anywhere near the levers of power. Danger is relative to what damage has factually been done. We can what-if what might happen to death and accomplish nothing. We've all seen what these people are about now, and they don't have common cause with civilized society. They're using the freedom and civility of the western world to destroy it from within over their anger at their inability to find something useful to do with their lives. It's not society's fault, it's weak-minded people being fed a constant nihilist pablum by truly evil people poisoning their minds.

What I saw in Hillary Clinton was someone who was gleeful that our country murdered the head of state of another nation. I thought such behavior couldn't be explained away by mood swing (prior joking with the interviewer, anger over the question prompting a sarcastic response, etc) or misunderstanding. I know she wasn't the ultimate cause of that, meaning not the final decision maker, but it spoke to how she views what we did. Why we thought that was an appropriate thing to do is beyond my understanding. It's no different than all the people who jubilantly celebrated the mass murder of Americans after 9/11 or the Jews during the Holocaust. That is profoundly anti-social and belligerent behavior that requires much more of an explanation than was ever provided by anyone within President Obama's administration. Between that incident and her responses during the Benghazi hearing, which I watched on CSPAN, I could not vote for someone who displayed such callous disregard for the lives of others. President Biden is many things, not all of them good, but he's definitely nothing like her. Ditto for Presidents Obama and Trump.

I honestly didn't know what to expect when I voted for President Trump. He wasn't my first choice for either the Primary or General elections. I voted for Ted Cruz in the primary, for his reasonability and application of basic morality in decision making in the Senate. I was pleasantly surprised by how President Trump handled our foreign affairs. That has been and continues to be America's most expensive and substantive stumbling block over my entire lifetime. It's a litany of ill-advised decisions, in my mind. For example, he did not respond when Iran shot down one of our drones, because the course of action he was presented with likely would've killed many civilians. When Assad gassed his own people, he reduced the air base they flew out of to a smoking hole in the ground with Tomahawk strikes. There was no talk of red lines in the sand, he simply let them know their behavior was beyond the pale in a way that all dictators actually understand. He killed General Soleimani after it became clear he was going to Iraq to foment the murder of more Iraqis and American service men and women. He ordered our forces to lay waste to the ISIS barbarians and to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rather than play stupid games with them the way we did during President Obama's administration, or President Bush's administration when it came to al-Qaeda. Under President Trump, we were there to take care of business, rather than to make a bunch of flowery speeches and then do nothing effective.

Rather than refusing to even speak to Kim Jong Un as all previous American Presidents have, he walked unarmed and without escort into an adversarial nation which never agreed to a cease fire after the Korean War, to meet with the man threatening his neighbors. After their meeting, the continuous threatening ended. In the Middle East, he sent his son-in-law to get the Arabs and Jews to treat each other like human beings. That was a first. All in all, he was only the second President in my lifetime to implement policy in a way that respected other nations' right to sovereignty, while also speaking truth to power. He read the riot act to our allies to tell them to stop sacrificing security for sake of nicety or economy. The result was a generally peace.

No new pointless wars were started over money or ego / pride. Here at home, apart from imposing badly needed controls on our borders, the rest of his approach was almost entirely hands-off. That worked most of the time, but was disastrous when he allowed Democrat-run state governments to implement abhorrently bad policies during COVID. For whatever reason, the moment you allow them to govern themselves, they lose all restraint and act like the little dictators they accused President Trump and others of being, despite never having done anything as draconian as the Governor of California.

Mayor Wheeler of Portland, Oregon, as near as I can tell, was a home-grown terrorist. His fellow antifa terrorists (real fascist thugs larping as "protesters") threatened to kill him when it became apparent that he couldn't figure out why law and order is so important in a place overrun by the criminal element of society. They chased him into his own home, for goodness sake. That kind of radicalism needs to be stopped. It's overtly opposed to the fundamentals of civilized society.

Regardless of what I thought about President Trump as a person, he made fundamentally sound public policy decisions that were understandable to people who don't have blue hair or nose rings, and think pronouns should be the domain of English teachers, rather than compelled speech. I'll leave the word games to the gamers. In short, his policies were more meat and potatoes Americana, and less of the self-destructive nihilistic fringe ideology of the current Democrat Party. During the 1990s, you would not be able to find a Democrat or Republican Presidential candidate with policy positions even modestly removed from what President Trump actually did. That was the last time Democrats and Republicans did things I found understandable, unremarkable, and only mildly objectionable. The speeches of 1990s politicians would be less bombastic than someone like President Trump, and carry with them the aire of the upper butt-crust of Democrat and Republican unintelligentsia. It was pretty standard fare- we all love America, we're all real Americans, and hooray for our side. Then there was something happening here, and what it was, wasn't exactly clear. Apologies to Buffalo Springfield, for whatever that's worth. President Trump is no rocket scientist, he simply doesn't do morally reprehensible things that involve death and destruction to American civilized society. That's good enough for me. Viewed from that standpoint, he's been a net positive for America and the world. As for his tweets and speeches... Do what I do and don't read or listen to them.

Calliban · 2024-02-06 11:39:56

Greta Thunberg's climate crusade is heading for defeat.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tqcDyHdbYd4

Void · 2024-02-06 12:52:18

A very good one Calliban. I am zipping my lip about it though as nature has not yet taken its course. It does look like the people may be starting to awaken.

Done

kbd512 · 2024-02-07 00:38:06

I want to know why we haven't put as much effort into synthesizing oil from scratch as we have into photovoltaics, wind turbines, and batteries. Advanced human civilization doesn't function without oil. The premise of this silly argument about CO2 is that we're burning too much oil. Okay, so what if we are? Every year there's more demand for oil, even if it's only to create more of these short-lived and absurdly energy-intensive electronic and electrical machines that have thus far only resulted in even more demand for oil, coal, or gas.

Every supposedly "clean" energy source is purely a byproduct of hydrocarbon energy. There is not one electrical machine on this planet that was made without oil and coal and gas. It's a pointless shell game that nobody in the developing world wants to play. There is only one possible outcome, which is burning more oil. Where that oil comes from is a matter of choice. We can extract it from the ground or we can synthesize it using "green energy". We could also choose to be honest with ourselves and accept that there's no such thing as "green energy" in the real physical world. We're making a series of aesthetically pleasing trade-offs that have no bearing on what we're actually doing, which is burning more oil, coal, and gas.

You only need to figure out how to synthesize oil using CO2 taken from the ocean or atmosphere. Simple market forces will take care of the business aspects of doing it. Trying to deprive people of low-cost and reliable on-demand energy has been a failure if we're using CO2 emissions as our measuring stick. If we actually want to solve an excess CO2 production problem, and do that permanently, then figure out how to synthesize fuels or crude oil from scratch. As conventional and shale oil well output declines, there's no limit to the opportunities for market growth. In the process of doing that, we'd build-out the solar thermal and nuclear thermal generating infrastructure to the point that if we ever do figure out how to make reliable batteries with energy density equivalent to gasoline, then we will still have the industrial capacity to manufacture them at scale.

If human civilization had a limitless supply of oil, provided by captured sunlight and recaptured CO2, trust me when I say that we'll figure out what to use it for, and that if supply cannot meet demand, we will build more machines to capture more sunlight and CO2. We have dozens of processes that can scale up to the degree required, when it comes to synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels. Doing this requires simple machines with a dash of modern materials science. There's not much black-box technology involved. We've been doing it for thousands of years using farmed food products. We can grow crops, harvest kelp or algae, use heat and light and metal catalysts, zeolite catalysts, heat and pressure or electrochemical processes, and the list goes on. The amount of money spent on non-working so-called "green energy" alternatives would've easily paid for enough solar thermal power to suck in and process the required amount of water and CO2 several times over.

In the here and now, this is the best we can do. An all-electrical metal-based energy system for the majority of humanity will have to wait for us to lay a hand to sufficient quantities of the right kinds of metals. The required amounts of those "right kinds of metals" simply doesn't exist on Earth. If they did and we knew how to use them, then we would've done that already. It's not for lack of trying. We haven't because we firstly don't have enough metal and secondly don't know how to best use it. That means we need on-demand energy to build and sail ships to other worlds to go look for it. Almost nobody has a long enough view of the arc of technology through human history to accept how long true advancement takes. In certain parts of the world, people are still burning animal dung to cook their next meal. It's safe to assume that the very first humans did this. The lesson to be learned? All technology takes a lot of time and institutionalized knowledge to fully implement, decades or even centuries in certain cases. It's not a failing to admit that all good things take time.

Calliban · 2024-02-07 07:25:33

You are correct, synthetic hydrocarbons could have been done by now if the people talking about the problem were remotely motivated to actually solve it. The technologies that would be needed require some development but are conceptually simple. I think the reason that this hasn't happened comes down to the motivations behind the people that are banging the climate change drum. These people are revolutionary leftists, who want the threat of a world-ending problem so that society will write them a blank cheque to fund whatever pet technology solutions and revolutionary social programmes they want to see. If it hadn't been climate change, these people would have found something else to launch a revolution over. The climate change problem isn't something they want to see easily solved.

Back in the 1970s, we actually had a growing, low cost energy solution that could have taken a real bite out of CO2 emissions, if it had been allowed to continue its growth trajectory. Left leaning people everywhere, did everything they coukd to stop it. The original excuse was, that it would lead to 'unnecessary economic growth' by making electricity too cheap. So they spent the next five decades doing everything they could to complicate nuclear powerplant construction and stretch build times to infinity. What does that tell you about the motivation of these people? The better your solution is, the more reasons they will find to stop it. Because they don't want problems solved. If they are solved, they can no longer use them. Our biggest problem isn't a lack of technology. It is mentally ill people, who have been allowed to get too close to the levers of power. There is no technological solution to the problems created by rotten people.

Last edited by Calliban (2024-02-07 07:29:03)

Void · 2024-02-07 08:14:35

I think one of the biggest surprises I have had recently was realizing that "Royal Thinking" fits in very well with leftist, collectivist thinking.

The idea is that the lower ranks should be treated like peasants, surfs, or even slaves. So, they are not really interested in common people achieving improvements. On the contrary, they want masses that are easier to pin down and control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Quote:

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ NA(H)T-siz-əm; also Naziism /-si.ɪzəm/),[1] the common name in English for National Socialism

Parlor tricks in schools are used to bend who will rule. And an apointocracy, with certificates of authority appointed, partly based on demonstrated skills and also on rigged testing. The idea that a ruling class can define who are the best and brightest. Who should have power and so the goodies.

But the internet interferes with that to some extent.

Republicans in this country are supposed to want individuality and personal improvement, but that attitude can be twisted to say that some people are just inferior and cannot be expected to develop. I suppose there are various cases in reality, but making a culture where people can be encouraged to improve is good, I think.

I have my eyes on seaweed farming to fix the need for hydrocarbons, and to enrich depleted soils, and to make food.

Done

I think Elon Musk has the right attitude about things, but that is why so many of the appointed and anointed do not like him and try to steal his company's money with words that are backed by potential violence. It is a classic case of the unworthy eating the works of the worthy.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-07 08:25:52)

kbd512 · 2024-02-08 03:58:43

Void,

What you seem to be figuring out is how illiberal our supposedly "liberal" and "enlightened" radical left has become. That's not a bug, it's a feature. The right constantly points out their radicalism, and the left calls them "conspiracy theorists". When it's written into the radical left's public policy, policy papers, political theses, media talking points, and their pop culture, it's not a theory, it's a fact. Nobody on the right is creative enough to concoct the bat guano crazy nonsense of the left. We worry about less interesting ideas, such as putting food on the table, paying the bills, and generally keeping society from tearing itself apart. The greatest charade in modern history was the radical left's fraudulent attempt to portray nazism as a characteristic of the radical right. Anarchy is the dominant feature of the radical right. Totalitarianism is the dominant feature of the radical left. You can't be a radical anarchist authoritarian. Assuming you have access to a dictionary as opposed to a woketionary, those two terms are mutually exclusive.

There are no actual conservatives or liberals who think national socialism is any better or any different than socialism. As noted, anarchists are against any form of government control. There are a lot of fake anarchists who are real communists, but again, it's very obvious who is who. Actual Republicans and conservatives want as little government control as possible while still retaining a functional society. Totalitarians want total government control over every aspect of your life and even your death. The national socialists, aka "nazis", and socialists or communists want total control over the lives of others. Totalitarians are not amenable to relinquishing any part of their perception of "control" over others, because they're completely out-of-control. They can't control themselves and assume everyone else must be just like them. They either congregate in their echo chambers so that they never have to be confronted with different opinions, or they actively look for ways to pick fights with or hurt people who disagree with them. To a real anarchist, that's anathema to what they believe. Therefore, people who do such things would never be actual conservatives or liberals. Radical leftists have no issues whatsoever with lying to themselves and others over their fraudulent attempts to portray anyone who doesn't imbibe in their special brand of insanity as a "nazi".

How do we know who the real radicals are?

If you think it's more important that other people belive everything you do, rather than actually educating them to the point where they can form their own opinions without looking back to you for direction or regurgitating what you taught them on command, you're a radical.
If you think it's okay to harass, threaten, bully, or otherwise intimidate people who don't share your beliefs, you're a radical.
If you think everyone should achieve equal outcomes regardless of personal effort, you're a radical.
If you think fixating on race, gender, or any other superficial physical characteristics is good for society, you're a radical.
If you think view all human interactions through the lens of oppressed vs oppressor, you're a radical.
If you think a man can become a woman, or vice versa, by simple declaration, you're a radical.
If you think the planet warming 2 degrees in 100 years is going to end most life on Earth, you're a radical.
If you think children should be allowed to vote, you're a radical.
If you think spending money you don't have on things you don't need is a good idea, you're a radical.
If you think people should be punitively punished for success, you're a radical.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Which political ideology actively encourages its membership to do all of those things?

It isn't true liberalism, nor is it true conservatism. Those behaviors are the domain of radical leftism, whether it involves socialism, national socialism, communism, or any other form of totalitarian authoritarianism. If the average person truly cannot figure that out, then maybe we are destined to struggle through a very unhappy future.

Void · 2024-02-08 10:35:13

Well, what I will say is that I have been pondering a compas of the mind to get a better understanding of things and I will not say that I hold you wrong. I don't care to say too much about details that give evidence of the true polarity of reality, as those who have such a bad history of doing what is not good, should not be given an easy task of changing their deceptions to conceal their true nature from the potential victims of their game.

Now is not a kind time. Stealth has some merit. I believe that reality is self-correcting to some extent, but for long periods of time they can screw things up so they can milk the system, drink its lifeblood, before being sent to the dust bin. I believe that a correction is on its way.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-08 10:41:40)

kbd512 · 2024-02-09 05:11:15

Void,

The problem, as I see it, is that even if I completely disagree with the ideology and tactics of these people, I don't want their anti-liberalism, bigotry, and self-hatred to backfire in such a spectacular way that they get hurt or we lose our most creative people, or worst of all, we lose our society that allows these people to exist to begin with. Our society has demonstrated self-worth, even with all the mistakes it makes.

American society built the very tool we're using to communicate our thoughts to each other. We could be on the other side of the world from each other, or on entirely different worlds, but the tool we built still works. Destroying our society because someone did something evil to another person in our distant past is pure madness. No amount of self-punishment for things that those of us alive today never did, can ever right the wrong. I don't blame myself for the Apache killing the Comanche, or vice versa, so why should I feel guilty for any other events that neither I nor any living member of my family had any part of. It's a dumb proposition based upon dumb ideas with dumb results, being pushed by dumb people with a dumb agenda, and they're counting on everyone else being as dumb as they are for their evil little plans to succeed. We can simply choose to say "no" to them and be done with their idiocy.

American society created computers as we know them today, which enabled all the scientific and technological advancements the entire world gets to enjoy the benefits of. Nobody in our military industrial complex was thinking that they were going to help poor people in Africa become industrialized or to communicate with everyone else in the world when they created cell phone technologies, yet that was the end result, despite the fact that it was originally intended to be used as a weapon against our enemies. A society that can figure out how to beat swords into plowshares, without intentionally doing it, must have something special going on. We recognized that it was more important to expand and share the possibilities of that tech than to allow our military to selfishly keep it all to themselves.

We went to the moon to prove a point about why our system of governance was superior to authoritarianism, not because it mattered greatly that we did it first, or that the Soviets did it, but that the communists understood what a liberal republic with democratic principles can achieve that authoritarianism could not, when everyone was willing to do whatever was required to achieve the objective. Nobody put a gun to Boeing's head to force them to build the Saturn V. They did it willingly and didn't care how painful the engineering exercise would be. Our test pilots were eager to ride aloft in the next test capsule, despite watching three of their fellow astronauts die on the pad without ever going anywhere. People around the world were stunned and speechless over what was accomplished when we all believed there's nothing we couldn't do. We just decided to do it, whether we truly had the expertise or not. There was no Ivory Tower toll booth to pass through. You did the best you could with what you knew, and that was good enough. When that first camera was pointed back at Earth, people across the entire world gained a different and otherwise impossible to portray perspective about what Earth represented, how precious it was, how small we all are in comparison to the universe, and why we must always be on an endless quest for discovery of new worlds and knowledge to gain new perspectives. During that time, a deeply divisive war was happening overseas. Despite all the other events in the world, some good, some terrible, for those brief moments in time, everything else was diminished by the fact that humans were walking around on another planet using knowledge and machines built by men and women with slide rules, coffee, and human ingenuity. People from places as varied as Kansas or China or Russia were all huddled around little black-and-white television sets, watching their fellow humans bunny hopping around on the moon.

Soviet Russia was entirely too fixated on winning a war they never had any hope of winning. We both treated it like a game, but it's as if there were two different rule books and no pertinent instructions about what the goals were. We did what we did to show them how pointless continuing that insanity was, not because we thought the game had merit. The intellectuals here and there both thought it was insane, because it was. When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, did we waste our time trying to take over the place? No. We started dumping billions of dollars into their economy, literally handing over container ships filled with food and technology with no expectation or belief that we'd ever receive anything in return (that's how bad it was when the Soviet Union ended, and our own politicians were in total disbelief such a thing could happen until they saw it with their own eyes), because we recognized that their lives were more important than any stupid military games we were playing with each other. At the top level, it was an object lesson in how fragile society is. A lot of people thought that we took it as a sign that we were somehow better than them. The actual intellectuals were horrified by how swiftly and easily what they thought of as a prosperous civil society, even one we had deep disagreements with, collapsed under the weight of their own poor decisions.

Would Soviet Russia have done the same things we did for them if our fortunes were reversed? Anything is possible, but in all probability they would've installed a dictatorship to their liking and let Americans starve. That is the nature of their government's treatment of its own citizens, so there's no reason to think they would've thought about us any differently.

A belief exists, at least within the western world, that America cannot be allowed to fail. The Soviet Union failed. We gave them food and tech to stave off mass starvation and death. China was teetering on the brink of collapse and mass starvation, so we gave them food and tech and decided to trade with them, thinking that seeing what we have achieved would cause them to reverse course on some of their self-destructive policies. Instead, they doubled-down on what wasn't working. All of our intellectuals, especially those with no first-hand knowledge of what China is like, admired Chinese society and thought communism was finally proven to work, in China. Those who saw what was happening before we gave them our tech knew otherwise. It was as bad as anything that happened within the Soviet Union, and maybe worse in some ways. There's another object lesson in there somewhere, but I doubt we'll take it to heart.

Did we make the right call? Should we have simply allowed those failures to happen?

We certainly could have, but then we'd be no different than them. Our end goal was not to become them. We'd no longer be America. That is not our character or nature as a nation. That is why we cannot fail. There is no other nation which would make its own citizens suffer greatly to reclaim humanity as a whole, even those who consider themselves our mortal enemies. We're not so overly-invested in "what is", that we do not consider "what will become of us". That truly is a sign of greatness, not merely for ourselves, but for all of us. Almost nobody else thinks that way, and it certainly isn't an institutionalized belief tied to national identity. I don't know if that can be replicated elsewhere. In all of human history, there were so precious few examples of governments that thought better of elevating themselves over the people they were intended to serve. That is also why the oath we take is to the law, the Constitution, and to the nation (the people of the United States) for which we stand. Your oath is not the current leader of the nation. Who that leader happens to be is irrelevant to why the nation exists and why the nation was created. America was created to be a fundamentally different place than all other nations, and so it is.

Void · 2024-02-09 07:58:04

My theory of reality approximately says that we are a distillation of the people who left the Verbal and Violent peoples.

It is becoming evident that there was intelligence long before farming. Farming in itself was a good thing, but it allowed concentrations of people which allowed hierarchy. The poison spread through the Mediterranean Sea. The problem with peoples who have books that tell them that God loves them more than the other people is that then specialists who are manipulative with the masses can find ways to extract wealth from people they are jealous of. We just saw this happen with Elon Musk's pay package. A chief is often a male with a more feminine side. This makes him good at manipulating other people.

When the royals are done, few talents remain in the gene pool. The royals see no advantage in having competition of power. Old money resents new money. If you have old money, it is often because you had ancestors that were winners in previous generations. If someone with talent generates new wealth, then their wealth is usually taken away from them by some means that usually involves words that direct violence.

Draw a line from New York to Europe. Then draw a line from Dublin, London, Paris, Rome, Athens, Cairo, and > further. Does poverty increase?

My notion is that people of talent have been moving away from the verbal and violent for centuries and even thousands of years. And this is the story of the Romes. Water travel allowed the damage to move faster though the Mediterranean sea.

Other components of the European or near European were the Hunter Gatherers with yellow to red skin and blue eyes, and the people from the Steppes. On the steppes the damage traveled by horse and wagon. It is more of a horizontal power struggle, one tribe against another.

The Hunter Gatherers were of an unknown behavior but they probably were not as verbal with literature, and probably had a lot of technical skills, that were suitable to the environment they were in. They were apparently not as successful in "Verbal and Violent", as they do not exist very much anymore, only some people have a genetic heritage from them.

I have not mentioned other parts of the world, as they have not impacted the America's as much yet. And they are different cultures but some of the same processes.

The answer boiled down, I believe is that we are one of the large reservoirs of various talents other than 'Verbal and Violent", but Satan's children are here also having a very good time practicing their methods before our very eyes. Usually, they have documents that say that they are what God wants, but the current ones, simply want to be God themselves. That is not likely to work in the long run.

The wilderness beckons us, to protect us from them, but the "Verbal and Violent" don't want their food to leave. They always want to sort out those they are jealous of and take their wealth and kill their children, and they want the masses to be stupid surfs.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-09 08:17:05)

Void · 2024-02-09 08:24:38

The princess process is also a part of this along with Hypergamy.

The Hierarchy desired is a few men at the top breeding with more women than the surfs. This then brings on too many Verbal and Violent.

The skilled males are removed from the gene pool.

The process is accomplished by the shaming of common males, and the promise to the females that they too could be princesses.

There is honey for money, and so that works. We have to give the church some credit for slowing that down and giving males with talents other than "Verbal and Violent" a chance to have some ability to generate and have wealth.

But of course, in our current culture lately the game is to breed chads who are cads. but not dads.

I think I have painted the picture well enough now.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-09 08:27:57)

Void · 2024-02-09 08:38:52

Perhaps I took too much verbal laxative

There is something else. The shaming process for males. I will first mention that you can be redeemed if you have money honey, the honey money!

It is childbirth, motherhood. And the appearance the men do nothing. They certainly like to point to chads that are unsuccessful, the chads they created by permissions.

Humans are not as much like other mammals but to some degree like birds. When men do what they are supposed to them collectively and individually create a nest for those who may carry a burden. Childbirth is a burden, and also being a child is a burden as the child cannot except by time and learning care for itself.

Socialism destroys that process and is a lot like a royal system. In a royal system the king, supported by his princesses of both genders, may even go so far as to both seize property, and they have the power to give consent for mating. In extreme cases.

So, seizing the honey money and deciding who may mate.

Money of course represents a security that the burdened would like to have if possible.

Humans have similarities to Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Chimps are organized around male violence, and Bonobos are organized around female contaxuality. Even in Humans you will see females fond of each other doing physical contact with each other. Males though often go as far as a handshake to show that they are not in a killing mood.

So, violence properly channeled is not wrong. It is violence for use to breath, as it presumes that the universe owes us air. Any movement of pattern in reality is violence. Contaxulality can be communication.

I could go on, but I don't want to pull any tripwires, that will set the enemy(s) on a rampage of tricks.

Done

Last edited by Void (2024-02-09 08:52:30)

Calliban · 2024-02-12 12:09:06

Germany's industrial power days are over. A green victory!
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/germa … en-victory

How will the EU continue, without the Germans footing the bill?

clark · 2024-02-14 01:13:48

So. Many. Things.

Am I American? Is my loyalty and affiliation to "America" derived from my views, or from party affiliation? Fun fact, boy scout here, so like, i burned flags when I was supposed to, under guidelines that most of you wouldn't get- burning a flag, am i monster? I pledged allegiance when I didn't have to and improved the community around me. Can I be a registered Democrat and not, in fact, be part of the tumor that undermines democracy in the free world? Or is the only option to subscribe to a republican party line, dictated by whatever incumbent is top o' the list, and be considered red white and blue blooded?

Can i hold an opinion that women should have control over their bodies, even if I personally disagree with their decision? Can i hold an opinion that people who make billions should pay more in taxes than those who struggle to make ends meet? Can I hold an opinion that people who are fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children to a place of safety should be treated with kindness and respect, instead of as criminals who should be vilified and shunted into cages? Or is that Un-american? What exactly is the value system I should subscribe to and teach my children?

American science is built on a unilateral backbone? A nation of immigrants, a nation that accepted the "other", our current technological level is the result. 1801, French merchant Joseph Jacquard uses the first punch cards. 1821, English mathematician Charles Babbage conceives the steam driven calculating machine; 1848 Ada Lovelace, English mathematician, writes the first computer program. 1853 Swedish inventor Per Georg Scheutz designs the first printing calculator, 1936 Alan Turing a British scientist presents the principle of a universal machine, a Turing machine; 1941, Konrad Zuse completes his 73 machine, the worlds first digital computer.

America has made huge progress in the digital space, but it was all built on a foundation of immigrants. There has been incredible progress and innovation by Americans, but it is a huge disservice to imply that we would be where we are without the foundational input from non-American sources.

RobertDyck · 2024-02-14 09:06:38

America appears stuck in a 2 party system. There's nothing in the Construction that requires that. In fact in the 2020 election, 9 candidates qualified to appear on the ballot on 5 states or more. In a past election I remember 17 candidates. The media wants you to believe it's a 2 party system because the two big parties pay billions of dollars to the media every election. Literally.

Here in Canada we have 5 parties that currently have at least one MP elected to the House. When a single party has 50% or more of the seats, that's called a majority government. Currently we have a minority government, which means no single party has 50% of the seats. To pass any bill, more than one party must vote for it. Theoretically that forces the parties to work together. Unfortunately Canada only has 2 right-of-centre parties, and currently one has no seats. The Conservative Party holds the second most seats, but the other 4 parties are all left-of-centre.

In the 1960s, we had a minority government with the Liberal Party holding more seats than any other, so they formed government. The NDP was the 3rd party. In exchange for supporting bills by the Liberals, they demanded some of their bills must be passed. That's how we got Universal Healthcare, and the NDP never let voters forget it.

RobertDyck · 2024-02-14 09:08:02

Your party doesn't need to be the majority to have influence. Vote your conscience, not what some media pundit tells you. And if the party you voted for in the past becomes something you hate, you can either join a 3rd party or convince your friends to split off from that party and form a new one.

RobertDyck · 2024-02-14 09:11:30

Yesterday US Senate voted 70 to 29 in favour of a foreign aid bill: aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It passed, now on to the House. Let's hope it passes there too. If Speaker Johnson doesn't even allow a vote, then it's time to remove Speaker Johnson.

tahanson43206 · 2024-02-14 09:43:57

For RobertDyck .... re #2471

I rarely take part in this topic, but I can't help myself ....

To your suggestion ... Yeah! Right!

(th)

Calliban · 2024-02-14 13:05:24

Assuming that Peter Zeihan's assessment of the situation is accurate: If Ukraine falls, it is only one of several countries that the Russians will attempt to occupy to provide a buffer zone between them and the western NATO allies. All of the other countries are NATO members. If Ukraine falls, my kids could end up getting drafted into the army as NATO attempts to fight a ground war with Russia. The Russians will probably use tactical nukes against NATO troops. My kids could end up choking on their own vomit as they die from radiation sickness. So regardless of how unsavoury Zelensky and his Jewish pals in the Ukrainian government are, I don't think we have any choice but to support them with military aid.

Assuming Zeihan's conclusions are accurate. This guy recently accused Tucker Carlson of being a Russian shill. So I'm taking nothing he says as gospel. But his analysis of the Ukraine situation makes sense to me.

RobertDyck · 2024-02-14 14:33:43

An article from The Guardian from Feb22, 2022. That's 2 years ago, the day Russia invaded Ukraine. It's about a speech from Putin lamenting not only loss of the Soviet Union, but territory the Russian Empire lost during World War 1!
Putin’s speech harked back to Russia’s empire – the threat doesn’t stop at Ukraine

This was the European borders of Russia in 1914. Notice this means Putin wants all of Ukraine, all of Moldova, a narrow strip of Romania on its northeast from Moldova to the Carpathian mountains, southern half of Poland including Warsaw, all of Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia, and all of Finland. The last 6 countries of that list are full NATO members. And considering Adolf Hitler was not satisfied with just a piece of Poland, he invaded to take all of it, I expect Putin will also demand all of Poland. Invasion of Poland started World War 2. History is repeating.

SpaceNut · 2024-02-14 17:57:02

That list is even greater when looking at the dead wood in both chambers.

Johnson faces waves of buyer’s remorse

17 Reasons Why Republicans Won’t Vote for Donald Trump

Federal Judge Asserts SCOTUS’s Duty to Disqualify Trump

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#2451 2024-01-26 01:09:56

Re: Politics

#2452 2024-01-26 01:35:24

Re: Politics

#2453 2024-01-26 04:06:22

Re: Politics

#2454 2024-01-29 17:35:06

Re: Politics

#2455 2024-01-31 10:18:18

Re: Politics

#2456 2024-02-06 11:39:56

Re: Politics

#2457 2024-02-06 12:52:18

Re: Politics

#2458 2024-02-07 00:38:06

Re: Politics

#2459 2024-02-07 07:25:33

Re: Politics

#2460 2024-02-07 08:14:35

Re: Politics

#2461 2024-02-08 03:58:43

Re: Politics

#2462 2024-02-08 10:35:13

Re: Politics

#2463 2024-02-09 05:11:15

Re: Politics

#2464 2024-02-09 07:58:04

Re: Politics

#2465 2024-02-09 08:24:38

Re: Politics

#2466 2024-02-09 08:38:52

Re: Politics

#2467 2024-02-12 12:09:06

Re: Politics

#2468 2024-02-14 01:13:48

Re: Politics

#2469 2024-02-14 09:06:38

Re: Politics

#2470 2024-02-14 09:08:02

Re: Politics

#2471 2024-02-14 09:11:30

Re: Politics

#2472 2024-02-14 09:43:57

Re: Politics

#2473 2024-02-14 13:05:24

Re: Politics

#2474 2024-02-14 14:33:43

Re: Politics

#2475 2024-02-14 17:57:02

Re: Politics

Board footer