Forums / Discussion / General

People don't hate trains, they hate each other, and the more they hate each other the less likely they're going to invest in shared infrastructure.

I think trains could singlehandely solve global warming but like you said there is the massive problem that you will have to get people to actually like each other enough to want to use shared infrastructure…so I dont think they are the future a lot people think they are (for now…people will inevitable run out of gasoline and need alternatives….butnis a long damn way till then)

For good or for ill you will have to improve cars somehow instead of fully replacing them for the near future, I mean we absolutely need as little cars as possible but the idea of walkable cities, buses everywhere and trains and all of that will face major issues due to misanthropy like you said.

We really need cheaper electric cars or something like that….though even electric cars are harmful to the enviroment cause the whole lithium bullshit. Nothing really seem to work fully.

Shit looks pretty grim…. well its ok…people forget we can always live underground or in the ocean, or in dome cities, or space, or whatever if things get REALLY bad global warming is probably not the end of the world….it will be the end of comfort and our economy will go to shit though but yeah

I REALLY hope we get to invent cheap mostly nonpolluting cars though…it would be a godsend I dont want to be forced to move to mars.

I wouldn't be quite so doomer about walkable cities. People are angry about housing prices and one of the easiest things for state/provincial/federal governments to do is blame municipal government.

On the one hand, it's deflection. On the other hand, municipal policy sucks ass and I'll take what I can get – if federal and provincial/state governments are going to make funding for cities conditional on trimming the fat on bylaws and building things closer to existing transit, fucking great, honestly.

We're also seeing an increase in states/provinces going behind municipal governments and banning single family exclusive zoning. If developers still want to build it anyway it will be because people are willing to pay a premium for it instead of being because it was literally mandated by municipal government.

--

I'm also actually more doomer on cars getting better than any of the alternatives. We've been in an arms race over how big of a tank you need to commute to work in.

The increase in average car size has more than made up for any improvements in emissions and electric cars scale worse than gas cars with weight.

Long distance trains in Japan & parts of Western Europe were pleasant. The subways were cramped and uncomfortable, but that's almost it's own form of transport.

Walkable cities are so standard for me that it's bizarre for me to be visiting in a city where I can't see everything without renting a car, it's nice when there's bus networks even for the countryside. Stroads are dangerous and an abomination,

Electric cars I'm iffy on with the amount of additional infrastructure necessary. Who has their own parking space, let alone an electric charging station? Now, electric buses and such are good and are actually already in circulation.

No solution is one-size-fits all. A robust train network would benefit the United States, by relieving pressure on major highways and interstates and providing a third viable option between roads and planes for traveling cross-country. Can't exactly replace the interstate network without fucking over everyone, but assuming enough people would use it often enough to offset costs of construction and operation, it would be a good auxiliary to existing infrastructure. Primarily if it's pretty fast; why bother with a train if you could get to your destination just as fast, if not faster, in your own car?

Walkable cities

I wonder if No!!'s downvotes were from people worried that train hype would escalate closer to "urbanism", an intermittent yet contentious topic. "Walkable cities" (depending on how the hell you choose to define "walkability") aren't necessarily a bad idea, it's just that it suffers from the same problem faced by the "antiwork" "movement": valid complaints and interesting ideas getting drowned out by a sea of people aimlessly angry at the world, with no good ideas and increasingly petty complaints. Unlike with "antiwork", some of these stupid ideas have wormed their way into actual policy in some places, like the idea of fining people for leaving their small pocket of the concrete jungle (t. Oxford, England).

Stroads are dangerous and an abomination

Urban arteries, or "stroads", aren't actually that dangerous, though they aren't designed with pedestrian traffic as the primary concern. Like a lot of urbanist beliefs, this is built on vibes and backwards reasoning. Marohn is a hack.

Electric cars I'm iffy on with the amount of additional infrastructure necessary.

They may also be actively worse for the environment than a decent car that runs on gasoline. Mining for requisite metals is destructive, and the supplied power is often from fossil fuels anyways.

Hydrogen cars are more likely to be the true future of personal transport, I think. Similar energy density to gasoline, with less environmental impact. Getting anything good with them going will take quite a while, and, much like with electric vehicles, using government mandates to try and force everyone to switch over while the technology is still embryonic isn't exactly effective.

Former chilean president, Sebastian Piñera, died this tuesday in an helicopter crash.

IMO, Piñera can be seen as a controversial figure, specially thanks to the (Twitter-sponsored) social protests back in 2019, but nonetheless he left his mark during his two presidential terms.

I wonder if Twitter is celebrating his death rn…

No solution is one-size-fits all…Primarily if it's pretty fast; why bother with a train if you could get to your destination just as fast, if not faster, in your own car?

Makes sense, these train networks exist and are more justifiable in areas like Western & Central Europe, as well as Japan (and from what I hear, Korea & China) which have large population centers and communes in-between which are relatively closer together. Compare that with the US, which is huge.

As for the purpose, it could be cheaper in terms of gas, and more relaxing (you can sleep on the train, not in your own car if you're driving).

like the idea of fining people for leaving their small pocket of the concrete jungle (t. Oxford, England)

Could you post a source on that? That sounds bizarre, but I've long been disconnected with whatever is going on in the UK. Walkable cities aren't some new idea though, in the places I've lived they're a default. I don't know, maybe it's different in the Americas.

Urban arteries, or "stroads", aren't actually that dangerous, though they aren't designed with pedestrian traffic as the primary concern.

Arterial roads aren't the same as stroads, in fact if your arterial roads are stroads, you're at risk of a city-version of a heart attack. They don't move fast enough for essential transport.

The cars driving on them from my experience go so quickly that it's a deathwish to be a cyclist, and it's stressful to cross as a pedestrian (at least those with bridges over them fix that a little). It's a highway in an urban area, functionally serving neither purposes.

When I drove on them while visiting, they also often got stuff in traffic, so they're dangerous, but they're also inefficient for most forms of transport (including cars). Fast enough to be dangerous, congested often enough to not be reliable. Call that "vibes", but fatal pedestrian hotspots also tend to be stroads.

(What are even the political battle lines on stroads anyway?)

@No!!

My personal theory is that 4chan is fucking with this website again and is actively trying to turn this website into a 4chan-like echochamber or something

I don't think so, otherwise it'd be more than just a piddling >10 votes. Plus, KYM has more to worry about from your regular spambots than the boogieman.

@Spaghetto

I wonder if No!!'s downvotes were from people worried that train hype would escalate closer to "urbanism", an intermittent yet contentious topic

Watch it buster.

It doesn't really matter, but you trying to use the total as some kind of argument was bizarre, so I wanted to check out profiles for "Karma Given" for the people posting right now. Check out the balance if you will:

No!! has a + 872 (-14 negative ever given), what they give is disproportionate to what they receive (sorry man), | || || |_ is at +58(-8, least among all of us), I'm at +867 (but at -629, so I deserve what I get). You? Only one with a negative total at -62 (-1,419).

Doesn't prove anything, but it feels like a disingenuous "oh, why-ever did that happen, maybe it wouldn't have happened if x wasn't done" act. Just spit it out.

Well unsurprisingly the only presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson, has dropped out of the race. As we were expecting the leading candidates are going to be two retards and because of the state I live in the (reddest) only third party to vote for is the Libertarian Party.

So, it's going to be a re-run of the same people.

I really wanted things to be different, not only because of ideological & international security reasons, but because I'm just tired of the same rhetoric.

Hey, at least a game could be made of seeing what's coming back from the past. Rumours of Trump preparing for another trade war means I'm hearing complaints about the "trade deficit" again (and before someone attempts to justify that, the US ended up with a higher trade deficit after it's trade wars than before, results matter).

I found the following data, what do you think?
In Hungary the minimum wage is EUR 464.2, while the average salary is EUR 1151.

A single person in Hungary spends an average of EUR 501 per month, not including rent.

http://www.immigration-residency.eu/work-in/hungary

Huh, where did this "Baltic Legal" mine Evilthing's quote from?

It's almost on topic, the AIs are getting better at their job.

We here in the States decided that having a contemporary nullification crisis was so fun that we might as well have a second, one much truer to form.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has declared that the right to keep and bear arms harshes their mellow, man, and so both the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of their own constitution aren't applicable.

To elaborate, their first major action is to declare which laws the case brought by the defendant-appellee are actually applicable, which is a good, boring, start. Things get interesting in Section B, however. First, they establish that the Supreme Court of Hawaii applies its constitution first, and only invokes the federal constitution if they deem their own state's protections insufficient. Okay, that's probably not the best way of going about it, but the Constitution of Hawaii contains many similar protections, so constant cross-referencing might get redundant too quickly.

But then, we get into the really interesting shit. They declare that they can freely accept or reject Supreme Court decisions, or even act as if the dissenting opinion is accepted, because they "walk another way". To avoid excessive potholing, I'll quickly summarize the cases they cite:
"State v. Kaluna (1974)": while the notes do call the Supreme court "merely another source of authority", they do so with the justification that such deviations are tolerable when they result in a greater protection of rights; in this case, the Hawaii constitution provided more strict protections of privacy than the federal one, and thus they had grounds to rule separately.
"State v. Mundon": This is where their claims of adopting dissident arguments come from, but such an argument doesn't seem to be present? Might be missing something there.

After declaring that they're only beholden to the Supreme Court if they want to be, they go back to boring stuff for a short period, acknowledging that the rights in state constitutions are meant to be supplementary to the rights enshrined in the federal constitution, and not a replacement for them. Things take a weird turn again, where they seem to try and simultaneously argue that the Second Amendment uses "militia" to refer to the body of the public and that the amendment only confers the right of militia to the government… I don't know what they were trying to cook there. Is it supposed to come off as scattered and incohesive?

A few pages of bloviation in circles later, they then try to invoke… the laws of the Kingdom of Hawaii!?! And finally, after a meandering Chewbacca offense, we get to the part that everyone's been clowning on: Section B, subsection 5, sub-subsection e: the "Spirit of Aloha". The jokes are surprisingly accurate; their argument here boils down to "we do not vibe with the Second Amendment, and desire for it to not apply". By no means is it the crux or cornerstone of their argument, but it's the one they end on, and by far the most ridiculous.

TL;DR: The Hawaii Supreme Court effectively, though not explicitly, nullified the Second Amendment within Hawaii based off of faulty logic and claims of harshed vibes. To wit, they decided that the Second Amendment basically doesn't do anything and goes against their "Aloha spirit".

Oh yeah, since nobody has mentioned it: the Special Council on Biden having classified documents in his garage has concluded, and here is the report.

The conclusion is quite interesting. They had found evidence that Biden "willfully retained and disclosed classified materials" after the conclusion of his Vice Presidency, but they do not think the evidence necessarily proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, for two reasons:
1. His only prior acknowledgement of the classified documents was in 2017, shortly after the conclusion of his Vice Presidency. He may have seen dealing with classified documents as sufficiently routine so as to forget the incident completely, like one might forget using a toaster.
2. His memory is currently poor, potentially profoundly so, and was already limited as of 2017. This could frame his continued possession of the documents as the product of a state of continuous ignorance, rather than of willful deceit.

Biden tried to get ahead of the news cycle by holding a press conference to "prove" his memory is fine… which didn't go well at all, and wasn't a good idea in the first place. Suffice to say, things are quite interesting right now.

Kingdom of Hawaii

I don't hate the US, it's the opposite ! This place and a lot of the internet has a lot of American cultural accomplishment. I hate when specific ones decide to attack others, or act like assholes, or how their politics spill overs because you have to care about it, because it's going to affect you, but that's the same for any country and superpower. Which is why I say that might be pretty bad news.

The US as a country seem to be held together by similar values or culture, similar laws, similar interests, a bit of a founding myth, and if nothing else a common enemy. Not ethnicity, not even religion (despite attempts of the theocrats in the US).

A lot of that is being frayed, one way or another (I can list them too). Texas always makes noise and their little move was extremely stupid in precedent, the Kingdom of Hawaii becoming annexed by the US in … not exactly uncontroversial circumstances for the Hawaiians and their position in the periphery means that they may be one of the first to go if things break down.

I wouldn't just take it as a joke, it's signs of a crack, not just another dig for the media cycle. Anyone wise will try to smooth it over.

@Spaghetto

Didn't you once mention how the "will of the people" superseded other authorities, among other things? At least, that's the message I got from that exchange, this feeling of lawlessness (memories can be biased). Championing the sanctity and the unity of the law now doesn't seem credible. When is a "vibe" acceptable or not?

Than again. what is your position on federal vs state system in the US? I never was quite clear on it, so I can't comment further.

So, … that statement from Trump in South Carolina, huh? About encouraging Russia to attack?

(FYI, every nation that is bordering Russia is at the 2%, I have no idea where he got his anecdote from).

What are the conservative or American Right circles saying about this? I wonder if I'd prefer to hear that this is just a smear or not so serious, or if it's deadly serious, to have it confirmed.

It shouldn't even be a matter of the the left-right dichotomy, fractured foreign policies, fractured domestic policies and octogenarian leaders is bad news, especially in times of strife.

The USA should stop printing money for like…a week, see what happens.

Maybe it finally brings down inflation? Could only a week be enough? Maybe…we should try it, a week could be fine.

I hear Putin has endorsed Biden, because he's more experienced and "predictable". I'm not sure what to make of that, exactly…

Didn't you once mention how the "will of the people" superseded other authorities, among other things?

While that does sound like something I would say, I don't think I've actually said it. Moreover, this isn't the "will of the people", this is the will of a court. If it were truly the will of the people, it'd have been handled as something like a referendum or series of referendums.

Putin also supported the Palestinians and decried the "aggression" of the Israelis immediately after October 7th ( while reportedly hosting Hamas members in Moscow). The Russians support both the far-left and the far-right in this, they're deliberately disingenuous.

Me? I just go with the general idea that events which cause confusion in the "West" is good for Russia, since it makes sure all eyes aren't on them.

While that does sound like something I would say, I don't think I've actually said it.

I think I paraphrased that from either January 6th or Environmentalism, or State Rights, foreign policy, or something else, there's a lot of arguments. Just to confirm I'm not putting words in your mouth, but when I say the same thing about something populist being ridiculous and propelled solely by audacity (or anything that can be construed as that), I get called a condescending elitist.

Anyway, this whole thing reminds me of seeing the English discussing the EU vs discussing Scotland.
Technically referendums and such as true grass-roots, but even those can get messy with what happened to Northern Ireland & Scotland with Brexit. Funny thing is, I remember Greyblades wasn't happy because the 'regular' Tories had won complete control from it and were the same always (SNP collapsed like Reform, let alone the "minor" parties).

In the US, "Will of the people" has been,applied without referendums, I'd like to point out. When was the last time there was an organized real referendum there, not just elections treated as a referendum by single-issue candidates? I think only the Swiss have those regularly. If it only works with a referendum, none of what either the Democrats or the Republicans have done are "will of the people" despite claims of it (valid or not).

For Hawaii, it may be the will of a state court vs the supreme court, in terms of precedence, but from the looks of news & social media, it seems to be popular by Hawaiian natives, the "Haole" (or foreigners) are the ones angry, alarmed or just dismissive. Will of the Americans, or will of the Hawaiians? Be careful in opening Pandora's Box with that, it may sound funny to say the "spirit of Aloha" supersedes the "constitution", but the fact is that it's one of Hawaii's institutions, it's Supreme Court mentioning the Kingdom of Hawaii, not just a small protest.

Who knows? It may end up as a referendum. Welcome to nascent separatist movements, those gather momentum.

>I hear Putin has endorsed Biden, because he's more experienced and "predictable". I'm not sure what to make of that, exactly…

I can.
Experienced = he knows what Russia is capable of (or what Putin wants to project Russia is capable of), has had long term experienced since the Soviet era. Especially since Biden was part of Carter's detente efforts.

Predictable = he knows how to play Biden, and how Biden thinks, and he also knows what to say to and expect out of Biden.

And he's right. Biden is horrifically averse to the idea of US having to get involved in any conflict, even more averse to the idea of there being American casualties of any kind. And he also knows that Biden is particularly sensitive to any kind of escalatory rhetoric. One of the reasons that Russia uses "nuclear language" is for Biden.

I'm going to be honest. Biden's foreign policy affairs have been worse than Trump's. In fact, the only successful foreign policy he has is a continuation of what Trump started, i.e becoming more hostile to China, attempting to further the Abraham Accords, demanding more out of NATO members.

Putin would far prefer a stable predictable President who's foreign policy has been predictably bad, than an unpredictable, President who's foreign policy is often chaotic.

Considering how Trump's foreign "policy" has affected others, I'd vehemently disagree. Especially with Ukraine, since the American Right has successfully taken the US out of the game when it comes to that. The US broke first, unbelievable.

To avoid repeating things that have already been said (because even the criticisms aren't new), I'll focus on "unpredictable":

Trump is not "unpredictable", his goal of trade war, love of dictators and Cost plus 50 rehashed is so utterly predictable that it's gone from chaotic and scandal driven, to contemptible. Even I saw it coming, he's even predictable in stabbing others in the back.

You confuse unpredictable with unreliable.

>becoming more hostile to China, attempting to further the Abraham Accords, demanding more out of NATO members.

1) Started a Trade war with the EU & China at the same time, lost both. Costed several trillions, you're right that you can only point to hostility in term of results. Even than he signed an investiture agreement with China and some treaties (that China broke), that the EU backed out of.

China itself did more to scare investors away.

2) With how the situation blew up and diplomatic normalization far in the horizon in ways that were out of both Biden and Trump's purview, we'll see.

3) As someone who's annoyed by how underfunded how a lot of NATO member militaries are, my response is, you're really audacious in going for this rewriting of history:

a. That mother-fucker threatened us, we are not doing this same thing again for when I first arrived in that forum, where you lot pretended that's alright and than you two (than was three) conclude by saying in the end the MAGA electorate don't care what other countries think.

You got that? We're not doing a replay of that.

b.Trump during his time in power whined about PESCO, he's always wanted that money to come to him. Get that, the money is to develop local armies, it's never been a bill to be paid to you.

c. I consider Estonia a better ally than the US. I consider Greece, Poland and even the UK better against Russia. You know why? They've never played with whether they'd agree with collective defense, and they certainly haven't misused that for their wars in the Middle-East.

Military might is not worth anything if your word is shit.

I do not hold the same blind contempt of Trump that you do. So no. I say his foreign policy is unpredictable. The trade war with China was a necessity, a policy which Biden agrees with him on, and expanded. "Love of dictators" you mean willing to actually engage with dictators to get shit done? The American Right was all in favor of Ukraine at the start of the war, and it's support began to waver not because of any love for Russia, or Putin but instead of cynical political expediency. I have nothing but contempt for the right wing pundits for doing this, just as much as I have contempt for the journalist class that has burned all credibility in the last few years for the sake of ratings. As I have argued before, if Ukraine wins the war it would be a disaster for the Republicans in 2024 election. If Ukraine loses then they can pin the loss on Biden's poor decisions. Turning Ukraine-Russia was into another culture war issue, was disastrous, but predictable outcome.

And I'll be honest. My contempt for Biden is growing day by day. What a disastrous foreign policy. What a total dishonest coward of a President. Can't even stand up to Putin, can't even stand up to Iran, or China. What a coward of a President.

Don't start with that "Trump derangement syndrome" talking point, on the flip side I'm genuinely confused by you're so blinded by him that you can't see the actual concrete results. Is putting our your eyes also part of political expediency?

1) His trade war with China failed. It was crudely done, compared to the current strategy of limiting high-end technology, chips and influence. Results matter.

2) Get what shit done? Name examples, because having one of the members of his cabinet (Flynn) get jailed for being bribed and trying to kidnap a political opponent for Erdogan doesn't count (to name one). The US has regularly made deals with the Philippines & Saudi Arabia, the same way you're conflating unpredictable with unreliable, you're muddling negotiating with aiding & abetting,

3) A long paragraph and excuses that tries to push blame everywhere to obfuscate the obvious fact, that the American Right have cut-off support for Ukraine, and it was directly under Trump's & GOP's strategy to block bills.

"We judge ourselves for our intentions, others for their actions".

Do you seriously not see that, this abdication of any responsibility? Even your admission on pundits has an asterisk*. This isn't acceptable anymore, it was one-thing to have this chaos when times were good, but this isn't those times anymore.

It's one thing to be motivated by apathy, but if you apparently do want to said aid and you can't, than how can one claim this Achilles's heel is good foreign policy?

You know what? To cut this short, I care about the one who sends aid to Ukraine, who can be counted on to handle rising autocracies. That's results. You succeed or you fail.

That's not something that can be waved away in the muck of half-truths, different opinions and bias that usually characterizes political debate.

I also care about who sends aid to Ukraine. But the Ukraine war is being fought under Biden's administration, not Trump's, and Biden has been pussy-footing this aid for the last solid year. The absolute fear that Biden has about any kind of escalation is what makes him such a goddam coward. The fact that the administration can complain about the failed counter-offensive while simultaneously dragging their ass sending the necessary equipment to get it done is absurd to me. The Europeans have done more for Ukraine, rightfully, than the US in my opinion, and Biden sure as hell isn't taking it nearly seriously enough as he should. You know what his policy on Ukraine really is?
It's not victory. It's to maintain Ukraine's independence. Full stop. If Ukraine is a third of it's size at the end of the war, but remains independent it would be enough for Biden. Oh but the US is sanctioning Russia – well kind of, sort of, not nearly as much as it should. The entire Russian agricultural sector depends on seeds we produce.

And what autocracies has Biden stood up to? Is Iran not an autocracy? He appeased Iran by trying to broker back the Nuclear Deal which everyone in the ME was saying was a disastrous piece of legislation to begin with. He's unwilling to do anything to Iran except release 6 billion that were frozen from sanctions imposed on Iran's oil exports and banking…sanctions made by TRUMP. And his response to when that drone struck Tower 22 in late January? 7 days too late, a little slap on the wrist, bury the shit out of that story, yeah tell the masses "we couldn't tell the diffference between the two drones" – and everyone believes it despite there being technology that prevents this shit since WW2.
You know what Trump did when one of our bases was hit by Iran or Iranian Proxy? He took out Solemeini.

Biden and Biden's administration are cowards. The Neville Chamberlain of our times.

US going isolationist would be the worst thing for the US.
Our economy is so interwoven to the global economy – and our prosperity is so tied to the flow of globall trade that any isolationism now would be an economic disaster that no politician would be able to weather. This isn't the early 20th century anymore. And we don't have the kind of power of resource monopoly that we had back then. So much of our day-to-day lives depends on products that require materials that cannot be made in the US – even if we tried.

If Russia defeats and absorbs Ukraine, then 20-25% of the world's food supply will be under control of Putin and Russia. At considering that Putin is more than happy to turn off the spigot of much needed resources whenever he wants to have some geopolitical affect, imagine what control he'll gain in the Middle East which is dependent on that flow of grain? And yeah it will affect food prices in the US as well, because our food prices are directly tied to global food supplies. How is that MAGA?

If we let China take over Taiwan, we are going into a technological blackout. Simply put, the microprocessors our financial, communications, entertainment and even military are totally dependent on are made in Taiwan. Even we wanted to do it at home it would take at least 10 years to catch up to Taiwan. China can literally put us back into the 1990s level of technology if they wanted to at that point. How is that MAGA?

The world depends on the US navy to guarantee trade, and if we go isolationist that guarantee is revoked. Global trade would slow down to levels I cannot imagine.

I agree that money needs to be spent on the USA. And 90% of it already is. But going full isolationist would guarantee that there won't be enough money in the US to do anything.

@Chewybunny

Just to make one thing, I think the priority here is Ukraine, alright? I have a lot of antipathy for Trump & I'm mostly apathetic to Biden, but at the end of the day this should be a question of geopolitics instead of party politics.

So with that in mind, we can make just make a direct comparison.

But the Ukraine war is being fought under Biden's administration, not Trump's, and Biden has been pussy-footing this aid for the last solid year. The absolute fear that Biden has about any kind of escalation is what makes him such a goddam coward. The fact that the administration can complain about the failed counter-offensive while simultaneously dragging their ass sending the necessary equipment to get it done is absurd to me….

But aid was still being sent. That's the issue, between too little and nothing, the comparison of which is better is clear, and as long as the American Right continue to play their little game there won't be any aid until November (or at all). November !

One can only hope common sense can prevail and it will pass the US's house of representatives.

It's known I don't like the American Right, but in this case it's a simple pragmatic comparison. To go back about whether Trump is unpredictable or just unreliable, I think I can safely predict that he'd do jack-shit to help the Ukrainians, because of how he not only stabbed the Kurds in the back, but abandoned American military bases so quickly in the aftermath that Russian soldiers could take pictures of abandoned sandwiches. I don't think he'll do better, the consequence of your word being shit.

Trump is a known quantity to me, that's the thing, this isn't 2016 anymore. Hell, I would have preferred any other Republican candidate at this point with maybe the exception of Ramaswamy who made his antipathy quite clear.

The Europeans are also not giving as much as they could or should, but it seems harsh reality are forcing some people to wake up (e.g Neville Chamberlain). However, they passed aid because popular rumours that they directly threatened Orban, and to ruin Hungary's Forint. Tyrannical and proving true a lot of conspiracies of the EU strong-arming nations? Probably.

Doing it to defend their Eastern Members from Russia and their Trojan Horse? I think it's worth it, that creep in Hungary had it coming, and it seems they'll have to do it again to get Sweden into NATO.

That's the dirty side of democracies going to war. If Biden was stronger he would step on the GOP, squeeze them until they stopped their games, possibly judicially pursue the senators who visited Moscow a few years ago (who for some strange reason are now all voting against aid and are repeating Russian talking points). Do what the Brits did in WWII, do what FDR did. Not do what France did, which is let special interest groups tear it apart and sabotage it.

However, this is a dark path to walk down. There's an irony that if Biden was stronger as criticized, things would go badly for the American Right. Or to be less doom and gloom, there's the option to rally the American Right for a common cause, but you know better than me whether in their hearts of hearts, those in the American Right want that.

And what autocracies has Biden stood up to?

To clarify, I did just say aiding and abetting, I didn't contrast it with standing up to them that much, it's just different than outright hostility. If Trump decides to start a trade war against the EU as it's already juggling so many things, things will go bad.

If there's one sentence I would like to convey it's this: I'm not worried at this point on which of the American Left or Right will do more, or even which one will act and which one will do nothing. I'm worried about the American Right outright sabotaging us.

Maybe it's my paranoia, but it's fucked that we've gotten to this point.

Iran

I'll be honest with you that I don't know enough about the situation with Iran to comment well. I know about the Houthis and Iran's various militias, and that it's part of their strategy to set fires everywhere to distract the US & Israel. It's a cat and mouse game.

I don't trust Trump in that area after the Kurds, but that's about it.

@PatrickBateman96

U.S. politicians can fuck each others mouths better than they can take care of the country. They spend money on wars that are just relatives of the Vietnam war. This country needs to go isolationist and spend its money on the U.S.A. We're dumb enough to welcome hitler into the white house in 2016 we may as well do it again in 2024 since that dipshit on the verge of WWIII.

I never understood this sentiment, if you trust you politicians so little, why would you think they'll do better if any outside influences were cut-off? The same thing was said in 2016 in multiple countries, how many times does this rhetoric have to be repeated? How did giving the keys to power to the people who scapegoat others help? Did it make people more clear-minded, now that they're sure they should be blaming their own leaders, because there's no other excuses anymore? If anything, it seems to have worsened inner tensions.

I just get the worst sense of déjà-vu.

Chewybunny explained the importance of the economic order, so I'd say that this kind of resignation kills democracies.They're like fairies in how belief is important

But than again, that this happening shows there's a dysfunction, the US may go isolationist because it must, not because it wants to.

The Russians support both the far-left and the far-right in this, they're deliberately disingenuous.

Me? I just go with the general idea that events which cause confusion in the "West" is good for Russia, since it makes sure all eyes aren't on them.

Experienced = he knows what Russia is capable of (or what Putin wants to project Russia is capable of), has had long term experienced since the Soviet era. Especially since Biden was part of Carter's detente efforts.

Predictable = he knows how to play Biden, and how Biden thinks, and he also knows what to say to and expect out of Biden.

This is around what I was getting at. He's trying to stir chaos, especially within the American establishment, but also likely legitimately believes that Biden is best option for him to deal with. Regardless of his specific reasons, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Biden's capabilities…

I'm going to be honest. Biden's foreign policy affairs have been worse than Trump's.

Tbh I haven't been paying much attention since he bungled the Afghanistan pullout because "muh symbolism" of leaving on the 11th of September. But returning money to Iran that they almost certainly went and immediately spent on Hamas and the Houthis? Terrible idea.

do what FDR did

Side note, FDR is becoming increasingly controversial. Biden trying to emulate a controversial wannabe tyrant who failed to help the economy (and may have also been a puppet for his wife in his later years) would probably have made him even more unpopular.

Now, time for an American perspective on American politics! We're probably going to have a rerun of Trump vs. Biden, but with very different cards on the table.
First, Biden. Above all else, the discussion seems to be centralizing around mental capability, given the Hur report and his increasingly worrying attempts at public speaking. His bumbling foreign and domestic policies don't inspire confidence, and neither are his ministers who try to gaslight everyone about the state of the economy. His popularity is also in the sewers.

Second, Trump. Creativity is for suckers, so the discussion surrounding him is practically a repeat of what it was in 2016 and 2020, which at this point is mostly preaching to the choir. Most people had already formed an opinion about Trump, if not by 2016, then by 2018; the two actual obstacles for Trump are his court cases and the RNC itself, not legacy media.

It's a sadistic choice. Do you vote for the establishment's geriatric meat puppet, or the thousandth coming of the Antichrist?

I'm so black pilled that it is going to be Trump vs Biden again. If there is ever a perfect opportunity for a third party upset, if not a third party potential win now would be the bloody time to do it.

Side note, FDR is becoming increasingly controversial. Biden trying to emulate a controversial wannabe tyrant who failed to help the economy (and may have also been a puppet for his wife in his later years) would probably have made him even more unpopular.

Hopping on the cancelling historical figures train? Well, it's important to discuss leaders with warts and all (of which FDR has many). However, I remember people saying the same for Lincoln (from what is now his own party), so I've always found it more interesting to see with who the historical figure is becoming increasingly controversial with. FDR was definitely unpopular with the Business plot, and with their spiritual successors.

De Gaulle is in the same situation (He and FDR hated each other), where he's controversial, but the more I hear the Far-right and the Far-left go on about him, the more I wonder if the cause is sour grapes.

Biden as said above is unpopular for being a coward, for not being decisive enough. I wanted to mention the irony that if he (or any third party) actually fully emulated previous presidents, most of the "strong" ones would not have tolerated this interruption in foreign policies (especially for war). Eisenhower wouldn't have either. That's the irony of countries with a presidential system, in a healthy democracy things never get so bad that the President has to strong-arm people, how do you balance the line between necessary action (from the very start with Washington) or a Presidential dictatorship.

So, between being unpopular for not doing enough and being unpopular for stepping on some toes to defend democracy, or inadvertently sabotaging Democracy by being controlled by fear…

It's a sadistic choice. Do you vote for the establishment's geriatric meat puppet, or the thousandth coming of the Antichrist?

They're both American establishment (of different types), people of the two-party system always seeing themselves as the underdogs and the other party as the "man" gets old.

Hawaii and the American left's own little groups wouldn't have scandalized you if you didn't have some sense of that.

I'm so black pilled that it is going to be Trump vs Biden again. If there is ever a perfect opportunity for a third party upset, if not a third party potential win now would be the bloody time to do it.

Better to be black-pilled than trying to cope, I think. They're both old man showing mental degradation, I never understood people who pretended one was showing their age and the other wasn't. They're both known quantities, both of their respective rap sheets are known, you can analyze them.

The idea of a "Cincinnatus" is probably central to a lot of democracies, yet the idea of them isn't very democratic at all.

"Unhappy is the land that needs a hero"

Yet, the US had a long list of them starting from Washington, and so do a lot of functioning democracies (as well as a lot of failed ones who fail because of them). You know, I realized something funny, hasn't Trump and his supporters used the same excuse/ rhetoric of a Cincinnatus like figure for his own transgressions?

Although in the end, I don't think either Biden or Trump are a Cincinnatus or should be one. I talked a lot about how Biden if he was "strong" like others wanted him to be he would crackdown, but with how volatile the US's political situation is, it might just cause the country to breakup, and would just be an excuse for a power-grab. With Trump, to borrow a phrase, he's a controversial wannabe tyrant, who tried to use panic to justify power-grabs during peacetime, but utterly failed when actual crises occurred, and there's the same risk of splintering.

The EU had to have the excuse of literal existential threat to be justified in slapping Orban for aid to Ukraine, if they had done that before when Orban was just being annoying or corrupt, it wouldn't have been justified. You shouldn't ever plan or want a Cincinnatus, they're a last hail-mary for a disaster. I think you can still think FDR did a good job countering the Axis, but one probably shouldn't plan to emulate him.

I'm so black pilled that it is going to be Trump vs Biden again. If there is ever a perfect opportunity for a third party upset, if not a third party potential win now would be the bloody time to do it.

I only see it not happening if A) one of them dies before November, or B) one of them gets replaced by their party apparatus. The former being more likely than the latter; they're both very old, but neither party really has any viable alternatives.

Hopping on the cancelling historical figures train?

No, that's a disingenuous way to frame it.

Well, it's important to discuss leaders with warts and all (of which FDR has many). However, I remember people saying the same for Lincoln (from what is now his own party), so I've always found it more interesting to see with who the historical figure is becoming increasingly controversial with.

It's good to keep in mind who is leveling the criticisms and why, but disliking the critics isn't sufficient grounds to dismiss it. Even if it's not coming from a genuine position, there can still be nuance to be gained from consideration, as in the case of Washington and his status as a slave owner.

With Lincoln, the main valid criticism I've seen is his suspension of habeas corpus; while understandable given the circumstances, it's still an act that undermines democracy and due process. He at least had the sense to suspend it before indefinitely detaining political opponents, which is… good..?

With FDR, there's too much to talk about for it to be succinct. He interned American citizens on ethnic grounds, he threatened to pack the Supreme Court because it told him to obey the constitution, he started the "imperial Presidency", he started the trend of eternal debt spending, he tried to make an American version of Italian corporatism… even the long-term consequences of him getting elected four times have become controversial. His track record is probably more spotty than that of Churchill (who I don't know as much about).

Biden as said above is unpopular for being a coward, for not being decisive enough.

Cowardice isn't the issue; it's a mixture of indecision and ineptitude colliding with Democrat election strategy.

They're both American establishment (of different types)

Correct; Biden is of the political establishment, while Trump is of the business establishment. Trump was an outsider candidate in 2016, and still is one to some extent in 2024. If nothing else, it's clear that the political establishment loathes him.

The EU had to have the excuse of literal existential threat to be justified in slapping Orban for aid to Ukraine, if they had done that before when Orban was just being annoying or corrupt, it wouldn't have been justified.

As I said above with Lincoln suspending habeas corpus: even if it's understandable, it's a dangerous act that undermines democracy and the purpose of the union. Pray that your bureaucrats choosing to play with fire doesn't cause the whole house to burn.

No, that's a disingenuous way to frame it

Very well, let's call it evaluating historical figures, which is less politically charged. It's not as if I want this type of conversation to go away.

It's good to keep in mind who is leveling the criticisms and why, but disliking the critics isn't sufficient grounds to dismiss it. Even if it's not coming from a genuine position, there can still be nuance to be gained from consideration, as in the case of Washington and his status as a slave owner.

Disliking critics isn't ever sufficient grounds, of course, but it sure does mean you have to watch out for an agenda online, it's not always historians just doing their job (and I'd like to point out that I heard this from a right wing guy).

Anyway, fair criticism of Washington, but I think it's also worthwhile to point out three things:

1) The American Revolution did manage to win against the British Empire, who weren't much better in the slaving department (they wouldn't ban it until 1834).

2) He was a guerilla fighter who used dirty tactics, which was more successful than prior "conventional" battles with the British army. He also had to deal with multiple different conspiracies, the American revolution isn't as clear-cut as presented in popular culture.

3) One of Washington's biggest claim to fame, was that he was willing to step down from power. How many other revolutions fail, because the revolutionary becomes another dictator?

With Lincoln, the main valid criticism I've seen is his suspension of habeas corpus; while understandable given the circumstances, it's still an act that undermines democracy and due process. He at least had the sense to suspend it before indefinitely detaining political opponents, which is… good..?

That's the nasty side of civil wars, political opponents becomes a way real, but also more loaded term. If they're shooting at you, it's easy to jail them. If they're encouraging others to shoot at you?

Democracies require mutual acknowledgement of certain traditions, it's a small miracle if democracies can survive a civil war without falling into becoming a one party state. I think the US were lucky again here.

With FDR, there's too much to talk about for it to be succinct. He interned American citizens on ethnic grounds, he threatened to pack the Supreme Court because it told him to obey the constitution, he started the "imperial Presidency", he started the trend of eternal debt spending, he tried to make an American version of Italian corporatism… even the long-term consequences of him getting elected four times have become controversial. His track record is probably more spotty than that of Churchill (who I don't know as much about).

Which is saying something, since Churchill has his own very spotty record, there's a reason why he was out of power after the war was over. For sure, what you mentioned from the internement camps to his breaking the norm on presidential limits has hurt American democracy.

However, the sheer amount of push-back he received and sympathizers to the Nazis (including leading industrialists), as well as the scale of mobilizing the US, where they were instrumental in taking down the Axis, and taking it from a depression ravaged mess to the center-stage as a global superpower. One shouldn't take for granted the sheer difficulty of the task, nor how much we all benefited from it. The current gridlock for aid to Ukraine in the US congress now? Small potatoes compared to what FDR is said to have had to deal with.

As I said above with Lincoln suspending habeas corpus: even if it's understandable, it's a dangerous act that undermines democracy and the purpose of the union. Pray that your bureaucrats choosing to play with fire doesn't cause the whole house to burn.

If the house is already burning, sitting staring at it on the sidelines is less dangerous than firefighting, but it's for sure not going to save your home.Take the example of pre-WWII France & UK or the EU's relationship with Russia between 2014 to 2022 to show the dangers of passivity.

Ignoring the fears of the Eastern Europeans for so long was likely doing more damage to the Union, as was letting Orban and his allies be a proud Trojan horse. It's Russia's strategy (and a lot of autocracies really) to decry democracies countries preparing for them and their tricks, while waiting for someone to be fooled enough to let down their guard to go for a gut-punch. We'll see.

Now, bickering while the cottage burns down may be even more dangerous, by the same token I'd say that the US also needs to watch out. There's Senators like Tuberville (who was already blocking US military promotions) now parroting lines from Carlson's interview of Putin ("Putin is open to peace, it's DC warmongers preventing that", so I guess we now both have an answer for the kind of no-context idiot who'd falls for that interview). Add that to everything else, and a government that seems to narrowly avoid shutting down every year (or does) and the consequences of this disarray are already being felt.

The US has always functioned with arguments, it's part of a democracy working, not a sign of weakness, and it's economy is still the best performing ( China's slowdown as foreign investment dries up), so it's not all doom and gloom, but it's not ideal either.

We'll see, people decide for their own country, which was the "better choice" will be judged decades from now.

Lmao look whos back with the genocide apologia.
Countries not committing genocide do not need to be asked to prevent genocide, they also certainly dont continue to bomb refugee camps when asked by the highest court to "do all they can to prevent genocide".

I think its you whos coping.

An internationally funded UN body who's sole purpose is to encourage Palestinians that they will one day be able to move back to their "ancestral homes" in what is today Israel, and is funded by numerous countries in in the UN, and is one of the biggest employers of Palestinians today?

Fuck the UNRWA. The sooner this organization is disbanded, the better.
Cry harder, tanky.

"mUh gEnOcIdE"
I have yet to hear your ilk once give a legitimate definition of genocide. I've been spending tons of hours on social media talking about this since Oct 7th, and not once not ONCE has a single one of you ever actually defined he word.
Because it has no meaning to you. You willfully, gleefully even, ignore it anywhere else tragedy unfolds. Yemen? Fuck no. Suadan? Just a bunch of black people. Ethiopia "The what opia?". These are meaningless to you. Because deep down your entire view of this conflict is so ideologically warped, so symbolic, there is no humanity left.. Because neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis are human beings to you. They are symbols. Nothing more. Totems to project your ideological guilt towards. Fetishes to virtue signal from. It's so goddam evident in the language you use, the buzzwords you throw about. White on Brown. A perfect reflection of the race-politics in the US expressed on an international stage.

Well guess what. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis are symbols. They aren't a fetish you can transplant your personal guilt unto.

I'm still shocked by the things I saw from October 7th, but I think it's also worth asking what exactly is Israel's plan for the long-term here? I hope at least that some funding will be directed to viable alternatives to UNRWA, since in the short-term aid for food and housing is what's keeping the humanitarian crisis from escalating further.

However, UNRWA having from 13 to 150 of it's employees being said to have participated in October 7th is unacceptable. Corruption and harassement is one thing, actually participating in a terrorist attack is another and is unacceptable. Add that with the allegations of indoctrination in their "schools" and one can ask where was the oversight? Where was the transparency?

Anyway, there isn't any good news on the Ukrainian front. Avdiivka fell and death of Navalny just shows how Putin has cemented control over Russia.

With some nations like Denmark committed to give most of their tanks & artillery to Ukraine, the EU is pretty much scrambling to procure as much weapons and aid that they can give to Ukraine, hopefully it'll change the tide. EU member states are also drastically cutting any other foreign expenditures (no one else is really helping in return on Ukraine, after all). I don't think there will be much aid while they're dealing with Russia.

Most of the top donors who retracted funding to the UNRWA were the US & European Member states, with maybe the exception of Saudi Arabia & Turkey. Those who were said to be supporting Palestine were donating far less to UNRWA than those who were said to be supporting Israel,so the former will have to make up this shortfall in funding.

I don't know why you'd be asking that question given that it's been pretty clear for the last 4 months what the long term plan is. Simply put: it's to make sure t hat October 7th isn't reproduced and to return the hostages, dead or alive. The best way to do that is to get rid of Hamas. To get rid of Hamas you have to wage a war, and wars are an ugly terrible thing. To accomplish this goal, Israel has evacuated the North and Central Gaza to the South to clear out those areas of Hamas, now they want to clear them out in the South Which would most likely require evacuating or pushing much of the population back to the north.
Now if you want to granular we can.
Netanyahu's goal is to achieve a total victory, a massive victory, one that would give the Israeli population the political support to keep him in office and avoid corruption prosecution. To maintain his government and power he also has to juggle 4 fronts: The hardcore nationalist base which has some horrendous takes on the conflict, the Unity Government which composes his opposition and is critical of his action, the American/International and Biden administration's (which is facing an election year with certain swing states that have a high Muslim population) pressure, the Israeli public which hates him and prioritizes hostages over the war, the … extreme success of Israeli efforts in Gaza making the war something that is going to end sooner than he hoped (I give it less than a month).

As a state, Israel's goals have been to rescue the hostage and eliminate Hamas. Tertiary is what to do with Gaza after. Well right now there is a pilot program that is giving artificial political and commercial power to prominent Palestinian families to be responsible for aid distribution and facilitating stability for the future. Incidentally the family they chose is effectively a Palestinian mafia with ties to Islamist factions, but hey I guess this is the best they can do?

Ultimately, my pulse on the issue, based on talking with my family in Israel, obsessively reading the news about this conflict, is that Netanyahu's career is over. That there is a broader, low key war also being waged in West Bank, and that any support Israelis had for a two-state solution in the near term is dead.

Gaza's aftermath is going to be what I thought it would be a month ago. The stage is set: Israel will eliminate Hamas' influence in Gaza to a meaningful degree, the PA has no legitimacy to rule it, a new political faction is going to propped up by Israel, but mostly the KSA, and MBS is going to be welcomed as a Hero that came to rebuild and indirectly govern Gaza. The KSA has so much to benefit from this: political clout, making sure it's mortal enemy, Iran, is out of the picture. Gaza will become a tribal oligarchy, heavily influenced and controlled by the KSA.

What the Israeli right – which is largely MIZRAHI not ASHKENAZI – wants is for Gaza to be the recognized legitimate state of Palestine over the West Bank. Despite what the tankies believe, Gaza has no real significance to Israel, and if one was to come to Israel and say we will form a Palestinian state in Gaza, in exchange for peace, they would welcome it. West Bank has major significance to Israelis, for religious reasons, but also nationalist, as many Jews used to live there under the British Mandate but were forced to flee in the 1948 war. I think it's evident that Netanyahu's long -term strategy was to eventually recognize Gaza as a legitimate Palestinian state and to annex the West Bank.

I don't know why you'd be asking that question given that it's been pretty clear for the last 4 months what the long term plan is.

Isn't the fact that I'm asking a sign that it's not so clear-cut (at least to me)? I've been following more or less, but having someone with an actual stake in the matter helps, because some of this is new to me.

Simply put: it's to make sure t hat October 7th isn't reproduced and to return the hostages, dead or alive

The latter goal is clear-cut goal and there's a condition when it ends. The former is … vague, the later paragraphs give some syllogism for how it could be done, that's what I was asking about.

At the risk of bringing up Bush & the War on Terror again; "Bring democracy and make us safe" is vague hope. "Give these families power, and identify factions and influence groups" is a plan.

Anyway, thanks for going over both the goal of Israel & the goal of Nethanyahyu (that's something that is too often conflated).

In foreign policy it's all a question of credibility, of being able to convince others that your word is good. Past records and being honest about past records, having a plan or coming across a unprepared, seeming reasonable or looking like a raving lunatic, who supports you and who opposes you. That kind of thing.

It's one thing where you can't self-complete and unilaterally declare you have a good reputation.

Heh you say you care about genocide yet you are only talking about this one gotcha