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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
I forgot to add this to the screenshot yesterday when the OP compared the healthcare ceo dying to that lawyer that killed that climate protester. And again i don't know anyone, not even right wingers upset about the ceo dying.View attachment 6725195
The right didn't care about capitalism because they love CEOs. They did it because they love the mom and pop store. When they gobbled up those mom and pop stores, the love for capitalism went with it.
 
I prefer to think about it in terms of "did life change for an average person on the ground?" A taxpaying, normie citizen. And by that definition, his definition is retarded. When Marcus Aurelius
Just popping in to say one of the things that I thoroughly enjoy about this thread is the repeated Roman/Greek/Ancient World/ Captain Planet history lessons.

I really love browsing forums and people like me know that forums have been dying off for a long time. I'm not gonna be able to pop into a politics thread elsewhere and get in in depth multi-perspective discussion on history like this.

KF is an unironically special place, and I'm feeling a lot of gratitude in this moment, and I just wanted to share that.
 
I'm not so sure anymore, the Trump derangement is wild, to the point of both executing, and being able to execute, multiple assassination attempts on the man. I can easily see some of the crazier fuckers deciding "Well if it was ok for the Chuds to do it, its ok for me to do it" and doing what they think J6 was. And the similarly deranged intelligence assets, especially those who feel threatened by Trump, have the means to help make it happen, glowing groundswell and all that.

I also don't think it'll change anything, in either direction. But there is a juicy possibility of both seeing the Golem be smacked down, and seeing widespread praise for smacking it down among normies. It'll fucking shatter the bluesky retards if they see the majority cheering for some dangerhair taking a baton to the head.
It would be hilarious if the liberals pull of a J6 where they manage to fatally injure a RINO or a dem they thought was a Republican because they assumed that all white men there were Republicans or something. Or maybe they will set the building on fire.
 
It would be hilarious if the liberals pull of a J6 where they manage to fatally injure a RINO or a dem they thought was a Republican because they assumed that all white men there were Republicans or something. Or maybe they will set the building on fire.
They’ll be given space to destroy.
 
Sleepy Joe coming for every global dipshit with his reverse Midas touch now gotta be deliberate. He knows there's not enough time to support the Syrian beheaders (especially not with Israel bombing the shit out of the country as we speak) but any show of his verbal support is a huge target mark for the MAGA firing line.
 
And to me, that's the real parallel with America. Not putting some arbitrary 250 year timer on us, but noting there are factors that show a decline and it could go either way. I'm not a doomer and I don't feel a fall or split is inevitable, but it is possible. We see some of the same factors from Rome in our current state, namely the factionalization, demagoguery, and lawfare that doomed the Republic, and the loss of world prestige, influence outside our borders, and mass migrations of unassimilated foreigners that ruined the Empire.
250 years in Glubb's essay is an average, not saying "yeah, it's exactly 250 years with every single superpower in world history". Glubb saying that the words empire and superpower are synonymous politically is why I reject the idea of the USSR as a superpower - no Age of Pioneers, no Age of Conquest, none of that. I feel what harms Glubb's work is that he focuses too much on Europe and the Islamic world and does not get into, as I said before, the Qing Dynasty or other Asian powers. I also don't recall any of the ancient Egyptian dynasties being mentioned at all, either.

I also feel that it would have worked much better if it were more detailed plus if it were like an 150+ page political science book instead of a 60-something page essay. What really harms it is that it is "too essentialist" and not "academic enough". He could have been more thorough in describing these things, especially when describing historical great powers where not many historical texts are available in English, and Glubb wrote this thing 20+ years before the Internet. However, I'd read the chapter "The Arab Decline" from that essay and compare notes with the United States in 2024. I also disagree with his dating of the fall of the Russian Empire as being in 1916; he could have easily put the year when Nicholas II abdicated, though it's only like a year difference.

The essay is like halfway red pill literature, halfway black pill literature. I say the former because Glubb had a lot of takes modern right wing types would agree with (anti-women in public life, anti-mass immigration, anti-secularization, and the work is also pro-nationalist and very reactionary.) I say the latter as well because not one empire/superpower in world history is yet to break the cycle of imperial decline and collapse. Glubb himself was a very right wing guy whose worldview was very much inspired by the British Empire and its dissolution. Would also like to note that physical copies of the essay have been pulled from Amazon for wrongthink - maybe TPTB who run these mega retailer monopolies know there are things in the essay they don't want people to see. Doesn't help that The Fate of Empires itself is an obscure work written by an equally obscure man.
 
Another example of dumbshit Democrats thinking raising more money will ensure a victory.
And for the longest time it did. All you had to do back in the day was run more attack ads than your opponent could, and that swayed enough of the undecideds to put you over the line. Difference now is enough people don't pay attention to the places ads like that are run. Or they are found on places like facebook, and X were running blatant propaganda is just that much harder to do without some calling it out.
 
Anyone notice gas prices dropping lately and what it might be related to?
Prices went up just before Thanksgiving in time for the holiday commute and dropped this past week by 20 cents - presumably because everyone is back home and not driving as much for now.

So many people in this thread, myself included, have stories about health insurance companies not doing the right thing.
Young me had an allergic reaction that required a trip to the ER. Parents fought the insurance company for months before they finally paid the claim; they originally claimed the care wasn't emergency/necessary.

The solution would be to allow people to buy Medicare/Medicaid in every state, but also allow them to have options to buy private insurance to fill in the gaps. Regardless of what healthcare system you have, it's not going to be free.
@The Ugly One already touched on this, but the biggest issues with "Medicare for All" are:
  • How will it be funded?
  • How will the premiums compare to existing insurance?
  • If it only covers 80% of allowed amounts like Medicare does already, how much will "Medigap" coverage cost to cover the remaining 20%?
 
Happy Sunday, USPG! I spent all day frequenting the Louis Rossmann thread. I bring you some articles from The Hill for your reading pleasure. Or displeasure.
  • "5 takeaways from Trump’s ‘Meet the Press’ interview" (archive). This is the top story and, unsurprisingly, it's The Hill sperging out over a Trump media appearance on a legacy program. In the interview, Trump said he would not target his rivals and would let both Kash Patel and Pam Bondi do their jobs. Surprisingly, NBC took Trump at his word. Trump also stood by his plans for deporting illegals, mentioned pardoning January 6th protestors, and also mentioned pushing for energy independence. Interestingly, Trump also acknowledged that his tariff plans could have consequences in the form of higher prices for consumer goods. He also doubled-down on his cabinet picks. Overall, it seems like the media is... giving him a fair shake in this article, and NBC gave him a fair shake in the interview.
  • "Democrats are looking at a dozen years in the wilderness" (archive). This is an opinion piece by Douglas MacKinnon, a former staffer for Reagan and George HW Bush. The essay is basically MacKinnon demonstrating over and over how the Democrats fucked up. It's a nice read, but what interests me about this is that it's the second time in a few days that The Hill has pushed a conservative opinion piece lecturing liberals. MacKinnon also stumps for JD Vance as a continuation of the MAGA movement and argues that Democrats are in for a world of hurt in 2028 and 2032.
  • "Senate Republicans launch inquiry into unpublished NIH study" (archive). This is what you think it is: Senate Republicans are looking into the unpublished NIH study showing that puberty blockers are fucking useless for mental health. Good news for everyone who thinks it's contemptible what these trannies do to children.
  • "Progressives align with DOGE on defense cuts: ‘Let’s play ball’" (archive). Lastly, but not leastly, Progressives in Congress (such as Bernie Sanders) are warming up to DOGE if it means cutting wasteful defense spending. Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts, has also signaled interest in this. Markey has been in Congress since 1976 (first as a Rep, now as a Senator) and has a lot of strings that he can pull.
Young me had an allergic reaction that required a trip to the ER. Parents fought the insurance company for months before they finally paid the claim; they originally claimed the care wasn't emergency/necessary.
It would be one thing if these insurance companies fucked up once in a while, but it's constant. Everyone in the country can tell you a story about shit like this.
 
If America is such an empire, where are our colonies and conquered lands outside of the 50 states?

For some reason, I never get the feeling that people are talking about Puerto Rico and American Samoa when the talk of American empire comes up.
 
If America is such an empire, where are our colonies and conquered lands outside of the 50 states?

For some reason, I never get the feeling that people are talking about Puerto Rico and American Samoa when the talk of American empire comes up.
We straight up took Puerto Rico and Guam from Spain. That was Empire. We also took the Northern Mariana Islands from Japan. The Philippines was ours after our war with Spain, but we gave them independence in 1946

We acquired American Samoa via a treaty and we literally bought the US Virgin Islands.
 
We straight up took Puerto Rico and Guam from Spain. That was Empire. We also took the Northern Mariana Islands from Japan. The Philippines was ours after our war with Spain, but we gave them independence in 1946

We acquired American Samoa via a treaty and we literally bought the US Virgin Islands.

Yes, is that what anyone is actually thinking when they talk about American Empire in 2024? Is this the decolonization that people are talking about?

Like if you would like to break down the geopolitical considerations of the Puerto Rico and Guam I'm all ears, but you obviously know that isn't what people are talking about.
 
If America is such an empire, where are our colonies and conquered lands outside of the 50 states?

For some reason, I never get the feeling that people are talking about Puerto Rico and American Samoa when the talk of American empire comes up.
Canada, most of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and a fairly-decent portion of Latin America. Not being de jure American territory doesn't make them completely separate from the US - they're client states, some conquered by blood, and others by gold.

They don't serve the American people, of course, they serve the American elites, which are as American as Joseph Stalin at this point.
 
Yes, is that what anyone is actually thinking when they talk about American Empire in 2024? Is this the decolonization that people are talking about?

Like if you would like to break down the geopolitical considerations of the Puerto Rico and Guam I'm all ears, but you obviously know that isn't what people are talking about.
I get your point. I'm just being a history sperg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back