@Outlaw83's banner p

Outlaw83


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 18 02:18:13 UTC

				

User ID: 1888

Outlaw83


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 18 02:18:13 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1888

It hasn't panned out for Western Europe, because they're a bunch of weirdos who think being French or German is determined by whether your ancestors were peasants dying for some Lord who wasn't even from that area 1,000 years ago. Throw in bad housing policy, and you have a situation where even fairly well-meaning multi-generation Turks in Germany don't feel German, let alone other Muslims with more touchy backgrounds with the West.

OTOH, if you come to America, have some kids, start a business, learn English (even if it's broken), and don't wall yourself in some ethnic enclave after your first or second generation, even many Trump voters will be happy to have you as neighbors. It is funny how so many people who despise birthright citizenship don't realize the moderating influence it has.

Yes, yes, yes, I know 3rd or 4th generation college educated immigrants are all SJW's who complain about America all the time. Well...what's more American than that?

I mean, there are plenty of people who think we'd would've been better off if we turned the ancestor of the Boebert's around at Ellis Island.

A few things about this -

1.) As other people have noted, the economy is really good for entry-level work, the type that competes with people who end up signing up for the Army via a recruiter. The reality is, post-World War II, and especially post-Vietnam, the military is a jobs program, both in the form of the disparate congressional districts everything is built and being a fairly decent choice for a young person without many prospects in the many less than favorable part of the US.

2.) I'm old enough to remember when the macho Russian military with their un-woke ways were going to roll over anybody put in front of them, especially the SJW military that'd been feminized, etc., etc., In reality, what happened was those macho Russian soldiers got nailed with missiles by Ukranian's who were given targeting information by some trans furries working at an army base in Nevada.

3.) To follow up on that, one positive of the US military, compared to many militaries around the world, including even some friendly to us, is that isn't not haven of a specific ethnic group, geographic region, or familial background. It's a fairly meritocratic institution that will do what it's told, as long as it doesn't break the Constitution. Want to invade Iraq, and wreck Baghdad? Great. Want to be more friendly to women, LGBT, and other minority soldiers because we need them to fulfill specific roles in a new generation of warfare? Sure. So on and so forth.

It's a fantastic thing the military doesn't have to kneel to a bunch of Southerners upset it's not 1985 (and if I was being less charitable, 1925) anymore, and an army base doesn't look like a John Wayne film anymore. Because it means leadership can be found among the wide swath of America, as opposed to just the parts that certain demographics approve of.

4.) Even though I disagree, I have some sympathy for normal people who lost their jobs because of COVID. When it comes to the military, sorry, Charlie. You signed away that whole freedom thing. If they can send you to die in the middle of Ukraine possibly, they can make you get the jab.

5.) I'm perfectly happy to let the Right give away the military, along with football, and a ton of other things bit of the reactionary online right (including folks like Blake Masters) have soured on in the past few years.

6.) Finally, we're still the world's hyperpower, no matter what people upset with some social policy may claim online. If you look into any actual wargames we've lost, you quickly find we put so many limits on our own equipment, just to make things interesting. Yes, random think tankers, Congressman, and such, all whom either work closely with military contractors or whom have jobs in their district, will talk about China as some massive threat militarily, along with ideologues who dislike current American society.

The reality is, the way war is going for the US military, and I actually make the distinction here, is we actually need more people who are open and OK with lots of different types of people, as long as they can "shoot straight," to use a quote from Barry Goldwater, as opposed to a bunch of people with nostalgic ideas about the past of the military. I'm sure there were military families who talked about not sending the next generation, whenever things became a little more open.

But, hey like I said, if the Right also wants to totally hand the military over to us, we'll take it.

If you want the latter to happen, you need women fighting for it, not men advocating for it, and claiming that women want it. Even if it's true.

As long as most media is concentrated in urban areas, and also aimed at the youth, it's also going to seem like it's overrepresenting non-white people to many people outside of those areas. Like, the reality is, to use a recent example, it makes more sense for a young kid in Queens who gets bitten by a radioactive spider to be a mixed black and Puerto Rican kid, not a nerdy white one.

Also, as noted below, there's a distinction between "media gets attention" and "all media." There are plenty of procedural shows on CBS that are still mostly white, especially when you account for guest characters and the like.

A war largely fought by poor white people.

Hey, they could've joined the Union side, and ended the war in two weeks, basically, or failing that, and not immediately joined up with the rich white people who started the war to take rights away from black people.

World War II was mainly fought on the Axis side by poor Japanese, German, and Italian people. Doesn't make it less right.

Because "straight white guys" aren't a group. Now, even in my deep blue super-SJW city, there are Irish festivals, there are Polish festivals, there are Norwegian festivals, where all the things those people did as immigrant groups or whatever can be hailed.

Also, you fall into the problem that a lot of straight white males don't have any interest in the "cultural traditions" a lot of other straight white males do, unlike say, African-American's, where even very conservative religious African-American men like Tim Scott are a tick to the left of all of his fellow Republican's on how great the police are.

The reason why white straight men aren't allowed to organize as a group is the same reason why brunettes don't - because they're not an actual cultural group.

As far as building a civilization goes, it turns out, a lot of people have differing views on what that actually means, and in a world with less gatekeeping, people with more varied views can gain a voice, as oppose to those who want to give all the credit to a small group.

"But I think the average Democrat voter is much closer to the platform of their party than the average Republican voter. Because, again, conservatives don't care enough to take command of their own party."

So, speaking from the left, I agree with you on the first part, even if my fellow lefties don't.

On the latter part, the difference in the GOP makes sense, even if that is currently changing, thanks to Citizen's United (ironic that's largely been a negative for the GOP & a positive for the DNC), because there isn't much split between what college and non-college educated Democrat's want. Sure, the non-college educated may not be as woke, but they're not opposed. They just don't really care, but both college & non-college educated Dem's want higher taxes on rich people, a larger welfare state, left-leaning social policies, and so on.

OTOH, the college and non-college educated parts of the GOP want distinctly different things. The issue is, and I'm trying to be nice to the conservatives here, is that an actual fervent conservative loses 36 to 40 states, against even a fairly liberal Democrat, because most people like most of the things Democrat's have done, even if they don't like the Democratic party. The ACA currently has it's highest approval ever, because it's now part of society, and those that disliked it have forgotten the Muslim Kenyan passed it, they just know their sister can get Medicaid now, when she used to not be able too, or their kids can stay on their insurance through college.

Note, I'm not saying a Republican can never win. I think Trump has a 1 in 3 shot next year. But, Trump either talks a lot about the stuff where he disagrees with the unpopular stuff Republican's want to pass, or he says such insane stuff nobody believes he'll do it. Plus, most famous person since Eisenhower to run for POTUS. There's a reason why Trump can win in places, that Trump-adjacent candidates underperform, while 'normie' GOP politicians actually overperform - see Arizona.

Yeah, as somebody who was arguing w/ pro-Iraq War conservatives at the time, they brought stuff like the above, but then backed off, when multiple people said basically, "so, we spent billions and sent thousands of American's to die for Saddam's leftovers he didn't get to using against Iran? You guys were talking about mushroom clouds over New York."

Yeah. along with massive economic and cultural changes, what happened is a lot of people in those communities decided they'd rather be ruled by far-away people in DC who'd listen to you, rather than petty, corrupt local tyrants who could not be defeated on a local level, thanks to generations of control in a local area, and were corrupt in ways that the federal government could never be. The federal government may not listen to you (and even that's overrated - a lot of the reason why supposed popular things aren't done isn't because of the evil elites, but because those popular things aren't as popular as you think when they're not push polled, both from the Left and the Right - the reality is most people just dislike change, period), but it's far less likely a random cousin of a congressman is going to beat you up, or try to do something with your wife and girlfriend, and nobody will do anything about, because his father, cousins, and brothers all are in charge of various aspects of the local area.

This is true of big cities, small cities, rural areas, urban areas.

Much like poor white Confederate soldiers could've ended the rich planter's war very quickly, Russian conscripts could've ended the oligarch's war very quickly as well.

Any soldier that did not immediately surrender to the first Ukranian he saw, I feel no sympathy for. I'm sure there is a small percentage of soldiers who did legitimately hate service, and got killed before they could do anything, but outside of that, the reality is the same - just as the vast percentage of poor Confederate's preferred the system with rich planters in charge, with African-American's in bondage and aren't victims, the vast majority of Russian soldiers are OK with this war, and want Ukraine back in the Russian fold.

Now, brokering for peace is fine. A cease fire or halting hostilities is not.

I highly, highly, highly doubt this. For all the talk online about men finding more pliant traditional women in foreign countries, in real life, in a very blue city, no women even in a roundabout way is upset about it happening. Some sympathy for the women who don't know the type of guy they're marrying, but that's it.

I hate to break this to you, but most of the men who have to order in wives from poorer, less successful countries have to do so for a reason.

In a country w/ 350 million people, even allowing all of the women from foreign countries who want to come in is not going to affect the ratio, as much as you think. That's not even getting to the part where it turns out, all the foreign women moving here aren't going to be 9/10 tradwives who want to become homemakers and raise good traditional children.

Because all the efficiency isn't going to the very wealthy?

Again, the only study that has shown any sort of long-term wage depression for workers was in the immediacy of the Mariel boatlift in Miami-Dade, but that's an equivalent amount of immigration nationwide that would never happen, short of Bryan Caplan somehow becoming dictator. Yes, things don't go positively for 100% of people, but most of the actual economic downturn in certain parts of the country is actually due to outside competition from China, not immigration into the US.

Also, fertility is linked to women's education. America could become a fortress with zero immigration, and TFR will keep on going down, as long as birth control and highly educated women with expansive freedom exist.

Then some of those kids either go to college, or go to a larger city, and become blue tribe, or some sort of lib (and by lib, I mean not a Red Triber who thinks they're a super oppressed group of people who need to commit violence to survive. They still might vote for Republican's, but they just grill and don't care if their neighbors are gay.)

As long as Red Tribe kids have Youtube or any sort of access to the global Internet, we can win them over, even by such simple things as, "oh hey, the people I were told are terrible human beings who must be destroyed seem normal and have some of the same interests I do," aka, why random beauty bloggers on Youtube who are lesbians probably did more to advance gay marriage among say, rural Nebraskans under 25 than any politician, school, or normal form of entertainment.

I mean, if there's a secret amount of people who's #1 view is cut immigration, then just like w/ UKIP, an anti-immigration party should be able to run and effect politics the same way UKIP got moderate globalist David Cameron to OK a Brexit referendum.

The UK is a different animal than the US when it comes to minor parties.

I've never seen any evidence the Czech's and Slovak's hated each other, though. It was a marriage of post-WWI convenience that they both happily agreed to break, because there was no greater heritage to fight over, and the two groups seemed equal. OTOH, the Wallonians and Flemish seemingly despise one another, because they both feel ownership of what can be described as Belgium or whatever. Funny how there's probably thousands of descendants of Flemish and Walloon immigrants from 200 years ago who in the US are married, friends, and neighbors, and don't give a crap about any of that.

No, you're right. At least, as of the 2020 election, Alberta would vote as liberal as New York & Rhode Island in polling done during the 2020 election.

https://www.thewrit.ca/p/how-canada-would-vote-in-a-us-election

Now, maybe that's shifted a lot, but I doubt it. The thing isn't how liberal the rest of the world is, but how right-wing US Republicans are, even compared to even other right-leaning parties in the rest of the developed world.

I mean, except the highest minimum wage is in the most left-leaning places in the US. The US minimum wage hasn't raised nationally, because of right-leaning congresspeople.

Plenty of tree branches in the South, and there weren't that many rich planters. Hand the planters land over to white and black farmers, and there we go.

I mean, as long as there's an agreement on the decline of Western men as well.

What's happened is the end of the middle in both genders. People who would've been, to use the 1-10 scale, many, many 4-7's in 1985, and been perfectly happy either got fat, hooked on Oxy, stopped going outside, got hooked on the Internet or got absolutely ripped/in-shape doing yoga, can do much better makeup/dress better, and so on, and can be seen by more people because of social media. Like in many thing is in life, there's now much less of a middle.

Like, there are random side characters in CW dramas of both sexes that would've been top-tier heartthrobs in 1987.

Kerry was a better candidate than Hillary, and by the fundamentals, is the best 'losing candidate' (not counting 2000 for either side) in recent political history. Remember, the War wasn't unpopular yet, the economy was still fine, and Dubya still barely won. Honestly, the GOP should've seen that as a problem back then that John Kerry almost beat them, as opposed to treating it as a mandate and trying to privatize Social Security.

So, despite what the other people are saying, I think what upsets the sort of anti-anti-Trump person that talks about 2012 the most isn't the just-so story about Romney being this honorable man the evil Democrat's attacks, that were so wrong and beyond the pale.

It's that 2012 was the first time the Democratic Party realized they had a national majority and acted that way in a national campaign. The reality is for the previous 30+ years, from Carter on, the Democrat's basically agreed with the Republican prescription of things, they just wanted a slightly kinder way of doing it - yes, crime is out of control. Yes, welfare is bad. Yes, government is too big, but the GOP are run by crazies who won't cut the right things. That was basically the Dukakis/Bill Clinton/Al Gore/even John Kerry argument.

Obama shifted that, but 2008 wasn't much of a nasty election because McCain liked Obama and vice versa, and people realized the GOP were doomed. But, in 2012, the Democrat's did thing they hadn't did in deciades - talked about how maybe, very rich people weren't perfect ideals of greatness who deserved all the credit for everything.

It helped that Mitt Romney said he liked to fire people, had shut down companies to get rich, and attacked half the population as well, basically 'deplorables' (unlike Hillary, who only attacked half of the Trump voters, so about 25%). People also forget in the post-2012 election, he basically blamed his loss on people (specifically minorities) wanting free stuff before he calmed down.

Now, I know the pushback will be "well, liberals love him now," and as the resident left-wing partisan Democrat, we don't love Mitt Romney, we just accept a right-wing neoliberal is better than a wannabee fascist, and Romney's one of the last Republican's who have actual ideas. Plus, 2012 Republican Nominee Mitt Romney wasn't really what Mitt Romney wanted to be, and he'd admit that to you today. He just couldn't run and win a primary as either 2006 MA Governor Mitt or current day pro-BLM pro-child tax credit anti-insurrection Mitt. I still don't think he's a good guy, I think his wealth should be taxed, and in a perfect world, his many, many children would not get much inheritance from him.

As for the rest, the petty BS people get hung up on happens in every Presidential election - Carter almost lost because he was slightly honest in a Playboy interview, the supposed liberal NYT turned Gore into some serial liar, and peopel already went over the Swift Boating of Kerry.

I also don't regret stopping him from massively cutting people's taxes, passing right-wing social policy, and so on. Be better than the petty wannabe fascist doesn't make you good. Respecting the will of the people isn't a high bar to clear, so I don't need to give him cookies.

But yes, to a certain brand of conservative who was used to the Democrat's being the Washington Generals, where they got most of their policies passed even when the Democrat's won, 2012 was the first time in their political memory the Democrat's actually punched back, and they've never forgiven Obama for doing so, which is why they'll talk themselves into supporting Trump, again.

To be fair, some of the blame can be put on Lincoln for overreacting and putting a basically pro-slavery Democrat like Johnson as VP. America's a far better place if Hamlin is the President after April 1865, plus Hannibal Hamlin is an awesome name for a President.

Plus, there were already riots by soldiers in 1945 over not being demobilized. World War II was sold on beating the Japanese and the Nazi's. Not continuing on to Moscow.

Eh, this whole talk of 80% of men being sexually invisible is incel/PUA bullshit. Again, if you look at actual studies of this stuff, yeah, the top 20% are having a lot more sex, but it's with each other. Which hey, be jealous, but this hasn't really changed since the 60's when the Pill was invented. This idea of some random guy with a six-pack swiping right and banging a a homely girl with a low body count who'd be married to a normal nerdy guy if only society was framed differently, doesn't exist, except in very anecdotal evidence. 80% of people continue to have, I think, less than five partners lifetime and that's both sexes (so in that sense, 80% is invisible, but it's 80% of women too), and if we look at the kind of bad data set of the GSS, the percentage on younger people having sex is back to even between the genders after a few weird years probably caused in part by #MeToo backlash, younger single women being more COVID-averse, and frankly, probably some not great data.

I think what's happened in the middle is what has happened with both genders - there's easy access to entertainment that's better than dealing with a bad match. On the male side, why waste a night going out, buying women drinks, to end up with a girl who will be a dead fish in bed who you're not overly attracted too, than who will still either ghost you or be clingy, when you can play Baldur's Gate for 6 hours, then masturbate to high quality OnlyFans/amateur HD porn of any kink you have. On the female side, why waste going out, getting hit on by a bunch of weirdo and douchey guys, maybe end up going home with somebody who won't try for an orgasm or will only not last that long, and then either be really weirdo clingy or stalker-ish afterwards, when you can just watch six hours of Real Housewives, then pull up some Amazon Kindle smut and get off with a really high-quality sex toy?

As far as the CW goes, Second-tier network that was full of dramas full of pretty people - it was the home of Gossip Girl, Riverdale, all of the DC Comics superhero shows, Supernatural. If you were insanely good-looking but mediocre as an actor, it's where you ended up until recently when many of those shows ended due to a change in ownership. As another example, look at Hallmark Christmas movies - all very pretty people, many of whom are objectivally better looking than many celebrities were in the 70's and 80's, because they all do yoga, don't eat steak five times a week, don't smoke, et al, but they also aren't giant stars, the same way a relatively untalented, but very pretty person like say, Farrah Fawcett was in the 70's.