The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
No bio...
User ID: 174
I wonder how gun control advocates have responded to the fact that police have no obligation to protect anyone, if they have even addressed that at all.
Mostly they ignore it. Warren v. DC comes up all the time in online Second Amendment discussions, but since the anti-gunners and the mainstream media are on the same side, they don't have to address it in public.
I disagree only in that I think rights do not come with responsibilities (and saying they do is a common way of vitiating rights, "You have the right to do X, you have the responsibility to only do X the way we say"), but privileges do -- and what the police have as a result of being police is the latter.
You want be a cop, you can't use "the criminals might shoot me" as a reason not to do your job in any given instance. You signed up for that.
The point would not be to win, it generally rarely is with nuclear war.
The US won the first one.
And yes, MAD is supposed to work as you say. But a sane US leader isn't going to attempt to take over Canada, and a deranged one isn't going to care.
Americans don't like to live in anthills where public transit can theoretically be efficient. That's not a failing of Americans.
Public transport should be more systemically efficient (1 engine for 40 rather than 40 engines for 40: economies of scale)
It isn't, though. Because it turns out average number of riders on a bus is not 40 but 9.
If the measurement is supposed to be 56 1/2", and you measure it and it turns out to be 56 17/32", and then the next time you measure it it's 56 19/32", and then 56 21/32", then you'll now note that 56 21/32" is more than 1/8" from the nominal 56 1/2", and you'll record that. It's only if
-
You DO record the measurement each time and
-
You compare against the previous measurement, not the nominal correct value
that creep will get you.
The man is a raging narcissist, if you take him at his word that "he'll come to our rescue 100%", when he started all this by writing "[he] no longer thinks only of peace" because "we" denied him the nobel peace prize, you are far gone.
You're complaining about what he says, and then when he says the opposite of the bad thing you're complaining about, you're substituting your own headcanon instead. This is not a valid complaint.
When he says he doubts we will come to america's aid, insult aside, that means america possibly won't come to ours.
No, that is not what that means. In fact what he is quoted as saying was
"I know we'll come to [Nato's] rescue, but I just really do question whether or not they'll come to ours," he told reporters.
Which contradicts your interpretation quite explicitly.
If he attacks greenland or canada like he threatens, it's even simpler: we'll just shoot, and people will die - maybe even a real war like russia-ukraine.
Did he threaten? Or did he merely "not rule out" things. These are very different; the US has a long tradition of not ruling out things just because someone asks, and Trump knows that. He actually threatened tariffs.
And the other is total complacency; as if ignoring trump's constant threats, insults, and outrageous declarations that one or both allies will not defend the other, was the only option for america's (at this point, nominal) allies, indefinitely.
You only have to wait out Trump. The sneering at America from the general direction of Europe isn't going to stop, ever. Yeah, you have to put up with Trump doing his Sam Kinneson act in your general direction for a while. In the overall scheme of things, it really is no big deal.
That's not a natural law.
It's an accounting identity.
They both claim to be on the right, and they're both idiots.
One of the weird things about American politics is that "public transit advocates" have a hate-on for autonomous vehicles. This is despite the fact that AVs would allow running far more bus routes, more cheaply, than today.
Because public transit is a jobs and patronage program first and foremost.
It makes me curious how much anti-urban living in the US is just a result of the high crime rates following the Great migration.
Rich people live in cities in the US too, and I think almost always have (though the ultra-rich will have multiple residences of course). The working class, middle class and UMC are the ones who moved out, and I believe this started immediately after WWII simply because of lack of housing (hence the building of the Levittowns and their follow-ons), but the high crime rates and the race riots probably accelerated the trend.
No, they should just never elect commies in the first place. That will do better for them regardless of who the American president is.
The strategy could be: If you invade one of our cities, we will nuke a single city of similar size, thus turning the net outcome negative for you. If you retaliate proportionally, that will be the end of that round of aggression, otherwise we will respond proportionally (up to our stockpile size, naturally).
The whole idea of Canada engaging in nuclear deterrence against the United States is so absurd it must derive from some extremely advanced form of TDS/MAGA-derangement syndrome. But could it happen, you've put your finger on the fatal flaw: A US that deranged could win, because both the country and the stockpiles are larger. Take out Toronto and Ottawa, make a separate peace with Quebec, and annex the rest. The US could survive the losses of part of NY and DC.
Persevere enough, and you will see yourself swiftly moving from right bottom corner to left bottom corner of political compass, you will be throwing away black-gold flags and portraits of Ayn Rand and replacing them black-red banners and pictures of more imposing Russians
Except then you'll know you screwed up massively somewhere along the way, because empirically Communism fucks up everything it touches. And regardless of the economic system, Russia is always fucked up.
The "U" in "UBI" is Universal. Not everyone can become a no-show WMATA employee.
Mexico is not in any way a "second world" country. Those descriptors are pretty much obsolete, but the Second World was the Communist Bloc. Mexico is an upper-middle-income country by modern classifications, same as China.
Best case, some agreement that no matter what happens to Greenland (including "independence"), the Russians and Chinese don't get in.
I hope you all enjoyed this year's first production from Orange Man Theater. Personally I'm glad I mostly sat it out.
Superior to certain death?
Superior to Russian-style squalor.
But hot places aren't doomed to have so much homelessness. It's mostly economic dysfunction.
Sure. When I went to Buenos Aires I stayed in Puerto Madero. The government borrowed shitloads of money to basically make a nice area of hotels and restaurants for tourists, and I doubt they're charging nearly enough to make that make any sense (though I imagine the incoming hard currency is enriching someone). I was in Argentina when they elected Milei, and the prices were still written in dry-erase marker in many places. Crazy stuff... but not surprising from a socialist (Peronist) government.
Argentina (at least Buenos Aires) isn't cold enough for vodka and starvation. US-style squalor seems superior anyway.
Indeed, Newsom has almost gone full Trump on this issue.
That's the capsule description; I believe the name is "Mar a Lago".

While we're at it, can we get angels in the form of kings to govern us?
Certainly an aristocracy of benevolent and competent people could do this. These aristocracies are rare in history and fleeting at best.
More options
Context Copy link