US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Standardized Profile]

Trying to deploy a federal military unit to act against a state is quite literally civil war levels of activity.

It depends on who's in charge and what they want to do. If Trump is President and he wants to put down an insurrection, the generals will threaten to resign. If it's Eisenhower and he wants to enforce desegregation, the 101st Airborne will be on the next plane.

 

[Ita Mori]

Another twist of the knife, spit from the swamp that every republican who voted for this shit should never live down, they should be called faggots all the time at every place they visit:

View attachment 4140954
View attachment 4140957

I have trouble believing Joe is sincere so long as he keeps calling illegal aliens "immigrants".

Choose your fighter

CPS1 SFII soundtrack, a real man of culture.

 

[ShitLurker]

The new house isn't sworn in until January, only 9 Republican voters would have actually meant it died in the house in the new Congress. Hence why they pushed it through now.

Fair enough, but seeing how Mitch was all aboard for this one and they always do te kabuki theater of the minimum republicans doing what the democrats want to pass the bill, would it have really changed anything? Having the house means nothing to me if it's uniparty swamp creatures.

 

[mrpatapon]

You know, all this talk about Civil War and Revolution is starting to give me blue balls.

Wasn't the upcoming American Revolution/Civil War thing supposed to have happened a few hundred pages back?

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

You know, all this talk about Civil War and Revolution is starting to give me blue balls.

Wasn't the upcoming American Revolution/Civil War thing supposed to have happened a few hundred pages back?

Arguably it started in 2020 with the side in power tacitly condoning politically motivated violence and the murdering of citizens in the streets by Antifa, while persecuting anyone who defended themselves. History might argue it started sooner, or later, or that this wasn't the start of it at all, but a smaller period they'll call something else.

Remember, living in history tends to be exceedingly boring. Decisive days and actions are usually only recognizable looking back over the total timeline of events, compressing months and years of activities into a single line or two. The 2008 financial crisis was a shitshow of 'notable' events but it also took place over the course of years, most days of which where boring days of the markets flickering up and down like normal, with a general trend towards 'down'.

 

[Breadbassket]

Arguably it started in 2020 with the side in power tacitly condoning politically motivated violence and the murdering of citizens in the streets by Antifa, while persecuting anyone who defended themselves. History might argue it started sooner, or later, or that this wasn't the start of it at all, but a smaller period they'll call something else.

Remember, living in history tends to be exceedingly boring. Decisive days and actions are usually only recognizable looking back over the total timeline of events, compressing months and years of activities into a single line or two. The 2008 financial crisis was a shitshow of 'notable' events but it also took place over the course of years, most days of which where boring days of the markets flickering up and down like normal, with a general trend towards 'down'.

History tends to remember the exciting, not the mundane. On the bright side living in more dull days give someone time to breathe, on the other hand the more "interesting" events can't seem to arrive fast enough for some.

 

[Paul Pelosi's Boyfriend]

Fair enough, but seeing how Mitch was all aboard for this one and they always do te kabuki theater of the minimum republicans doing what the democrats want to pass the bill, would it have really changed anything? Having the house means nothing to me if it's uniparty swamp creatures.

I'm mostly in agreement. What's the point of being a Republican if liberals like Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump are just going to suck off the Democrats?

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

No, practical arguments based on information appeal only to men. If you want a woman to change her tune on guns, you have to explain to her how only mean people support gun bans, and that nice people support gun rights. Supporting gun rights makes her a kind, caring, good-hearted person.

Also she has to be able to virtue signal how righteous she is to support guns on all her social media.

You know, all this talk about Civil War and Revolution is starting to give me blue balls.

Wasn't the upcoming American Revolution/Civil War thing supposed to have happened a few hundred pages back?

It’s not going to happen. What we’re seeing is the endgame of conservatives who never bothered to conserve anything. The death of an increasingly gay ideology does not a revolution make.

 

[Sithis]

You know, all this talk about Civil War and Revolution is starting to give me blue balls.

Wasn't the upcoming American Revolution/Civil War thing supposed to have happened a few hundred pages back?

One thing that sucks about history is it's hard to really pinpoint the chain of events that spark something until after the thing has already played out. Such events are typically a slow simmer but are often remembered by a single flashpoint. Things in colonial America had been fuming for years but the Boston massacre is the single event most people flip back to when in reality the colonists had already progressed to rioting in the streets by that stage or the Boston massacre wouldn't have happened. The civil war is often identified with the barrage on Fort Sumter but in reality the stage had been set years prior by events like what went down in Kansas and the increasingly severe arguments about states vs federal authority around slavery. WW1 might have officially started with the assassination of Ferdinand but the old world loyalties and arrangements were at odds for generations before he was even a sperm in a nut.

Tldr give it a few more hundred pages or so

 

[LurkTrawl]

Its not so easy. Federal military elements are legally difficult as hell to deploy in actions on US soil. National Guard are state military elements, and can generally act within their state, or be federalized for out of nation use. Trying to deploy a federal military unit to act against a state is quite literally civil war levels of activity.

You know what else was supposed to be legally difficult as hell to deploy on US soil? Voter fraud, but that happened twice now arguably on a "civil war level of activity".

 

[Individualism Incarnate]

Whats the difference between this and an actual invasion?

You can't invade a country you've already conquered.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

You know what else was supposed to be legally difficult as hell to deploy on US soil? Voter fraud, but that happened twice now arguably on a "civil war level of activity".

Its a numbers thing. Only takes a handful of hands to fuck with an election. Takes a battalion of hands to deploy a battalion. And the latter group is the only one likely to face down hostile people with guns if they try it anyway.

I'd like to raise another problem they may face with the "Just doing it for a paycheck" deterioration of the military - It will actively weaken their ability to do shit like bringing in the airborne in desegregation. When your deliberately engineering your military to have no ideals or morals, they're not going to stand up or fight for anything they believe in. This also means they're going to look at the idea of deploying into a situation that could get them shot, look at the "Illegal order, will not follow" excuse, and slam that button as hard as they can. Trying to seed ideological officers won't help much, the grunts don't need an officers permission to refuse. You can arrest them, but that's not going to solve your problem - Deploying a handful of political officers while everyone else sits waiting for a military tribunal is not conductive to any further malicious actions. And the harder you push anyway to try to use that threat of punishment as incentive to force them to do things, the worse the recruitment numbers get.

Money may talk, but only the living will listen. You start to hit a point where no payday is worth the risk, and "Every Blade of Grass" is a hell of a risk to march into for a privates salary and some college tuition.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I don't know what the current discourse is but in the last week or two, Tim Pool finally started admitting there are indeed unethical election shenanigans afoot, in the form of ballot harvesting. He raised an interesting point that was actually quite disturbing. If both parties are ballot harvesting, then there's no point in wheeling out your candidate for the public to see to persuade voters to one side or the other, it's just a rat race to get unlikely voters to color in the right ballot bubble.

From now on, our president will be a faceless name on a placard who never goes to rallies, never gives a public address nor do they ever debate their opponent on TV. This also goes for all other representatives in the nation at every level. The only losers in this anonymous voting system are the clueless voters.

 

[SBG]

I don't know what the current discourse is but in the last week or two, Tim Pool finally started admitting there are indeed unethical election shenanigans afoot, in the form of ballot harvesting. He raised an interesting point that was actually quite disturbing. If both parties are ballot harvesting, then there's no point in wheeling out your candidate for the public to see to persuade voters to one side or the other, it's just a rat race to get unlikely voters to color in the right ballot bubble.

From now on, our president will be a faceless name on a placard who never goes to rallies, never gives a public address nor do they ever debate their opponent on TV. This also goes for all other representatives in the nation at every level. The only losers in this anonymous voting system are the clueless voters.

After everything with Kari Lake it does seem like a requirement now to ballot harvest and ignore regular appeals to voters.

No one is eager to have their mind changed and putting yourself out in public is often viewed as screaming “face me in the halls of debate!”, basically just cringe. Seems like a requirement now to just focus on how to ballot harvest and ignore everything about candidate appearances for general elections.

 

[NyQuilninja]

Merry Christmas to all Kiwis may all you be warm and safe

 

[HTTP Error 404]

I don't know what the current discourse is but in the last week or two, Tim Pool finally started admitting there are indeed unethical election shenanigans afoot, in the form of ballot harvesting. He raised an interesting point that was actually quite disturbing. If both parties are ballot harvesting, then there's no point in wheeling out your candidate for the public to see to persuade voters to one side or the other, it's just a rat race to get unlikely voters to color in the right ballot bubble.

From now on, our president will be a faceless name on a placard who never goes to rallies, never gives a public address nor do they ever debate their opponent on TV. This also goes for all other representatives in the nation at every level. The only losers in this anonymous voting system are the clueless voters.

Until the Republicans win doing it. Then it will be illegal again, and the most horrific election fraud ever in the history of time.

If you want a lefty tactic to stop being legitimate, use it against them.

They raised an unholy living stink when (IIRC) Larry Elder's supporters started putting Ballot Harvesting Boxes at Black Churches, for example.

 

[mold]

No, practical arguments based on information appeal only to men. If you want a woman to change her tune on guns, you have to explain to her how only mean people support gun bans, and that nice people support gun rights. Supporting gun rights makes her a kind, caring, good-hearted person.

that's not female/male, that's care/harm moral axis and high agreeableness, having both of which probably correlates with being a girl - I don't know anything about how the sexes sort out on the Haidt moral reasoning axes but it makes sense that women would tend to be high care/harm, and women tend to have higher trait agreeableness than men - but the same reasoning will work on a male with similar traits, while a woman lacking them can in fact be convinced by common sense rational argument.

and I'm not just saying this for feminist reasons. it is in fact true that many women, maybe even most, have a constellation of traits that make emotional and conformist appeals a much better idea. but it's the traits, not the sex, and the traits can also appear in males. just please people argue as well as you can for gun rights, our lives depend on it.

 

[SBG]

I feel like I probably have a problem about going contrarian about a lot of stories and wanting to find what's wrong with them, while ending up with egg on my face regularly.

But this is just goofy.



Rand Paul apparently decided to complain about a study regarding how snapping fingers work.

The ultrafast snap of a finger is mediated by skin friction | Journal of The Royal Society Interface

The snap of a finger has been used as a form of communication and music for millennia across human cultures. However, a systematic analysis of the dynamics of this rapid motion has not yet been performed. Using high-speed imaging and force sensors, we ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

It has to do with LaMSA systems or in other words how latch-mediated spring actuated systems work. It may sound annoying on the surface to study something like snapping fingers, but stuff like this is what you want people researching in case the findings could pay off in the development of robotics or prosthetics.

Which is annoying to me since you have Dems spending an absolute fortune on transportation in solely Dem hold regions without giving a shit about right wingers, while guys like Rand want to focus on malicious misinterpretations of a fairly ordinary study. There's a multitude of stupid shit Dems want to spend money on and he instead complains about a scientific paper. It all comes across as a way of making excuses to avoid Republicans spending money on things Republican voters want.

 

[Weppers]

I feel like I probably have a problem about going contrarian about a lot of stories and wanting to find what's wrong with them, while ending up with egg on my face regularly.

But this is just goofy.

View attachment 4148421

Rand Paul apparently decided to complain about a study regarding how snapping fingers work.

The ultrafast snap of a finger is mediated by skin friction | Journal of The Royal Society Interface

The snap of a finger has been used as a form of communication and music for millennia across human cultures. However, a systematic analysis of the dynamics of this rapid motion has not yet been performed. Using high-speed imaging and force sensors, we ...

royalsocietypublishing.org

It has to do with LaMSA systems or in other words how latch-mediated spring actuated systems work. It may sound annoying on the surface to study something like snapping fingers, but stuff like this is what you want people researching in case the findings could pay off in the development of robotics or prosthetics.

Which is annoying to me since you have Dems spending an absolute fortune on transportation in solely Dem hold regions without giving a shit about right wingers, while guys like Rand want to focus on malicious misinterpretations of a fairly ordinary study. There's a multitude of stupid shit Dems want to spend money on and he instead complains about a scientific paper. It all comes across as a way of making excuses to avoid Republicans spending money on things Republican voters want.

Why are we paying for a study done some some faggot british royal society

 

[The Ugly One]

Its not so easy. Federal military elements are legally difficult as hell to deploy in actions on US soil.

Democrats can break the law with impunity.