I've wondered about that for a long time. His posts at just dripping with bitterness and anger.Quote:
Why so bitter? The world changes, poor old man remains the same. . .
Printable View
I've wondered about that for a long time. His posts at just dripping with bitterness and anger.Quote:
Why so bitter? The world changes, poor old man remains the same. . .
Ahh, the thief speaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by wqweto
Nonsense. Inflation is debasement of a currency. This can be done in many ways. Printing cash and handing it out. Artificially raising a minimum wage. Increasing the cost of creating and delivering goods through over-regulation. There is a long list.Quote:
Inflation is more money chasing the same amount of goods, the resulting price increase is a side effect.
But scarcity is an entirely different issue that can raise prices. It is unrelated to inflation.
They had a significant impact when they were first levied. Then Trump took them back off and the effect disappeared. Then he put them back on and the effect came back but less so. Then he took them back off and that effect disappeared.Quote:
If you have paid any attention whatsoever you'd realize the tariffs have had ZERO impact on prices and inflation.
Each time he's yo-yod the effect is lesser because the markets see him as the boy who cried wolf. But the pertinence of that parable is that, eventually, there actually was a wolf... and it ate the boy. The yo-yoing has allowed Trump to avoid a recession but it also means his talk of tariffs has become meaningless because nobody believes he'll actually follow through. If and when he does follow through the effects will stick. If anything they'll be worse because the markets will be slow to react and the villagers won't arrive in time to stop the wolf eating his face.
On debt, I wouldn't call myself a deficit hawk but I do think the US's debt is uncomfortably high. I don't think circus shows like Doge are the way to fix it but I do think you've been running that gauntlet since Clinton. More accurately I think you've been running it since the war on terror. You're not alone in this, the UK is even worse but I wouldn't pat yourself on the back that you're not as bad as us, we're a very low bar. The US (and the UK to a lesser extent) has been able to get away this because you were seen as a highly stable currency - the worlds reserve currency. Trumps yoyo tariffs drastically undermine that (he's even talked about defaulting) and there's less and less appetite in the markets for US debt.
The problem with blaming other countries for lending you money is that ignores the fact that you borrowed that money. And you borrowed it because it was beneficial for you to do so. You don't blame the bank for giving you a mortgage. And if you're answer to having a mortgage is to throw a hissy fit and try and charge the bank for lending it to you, don't be surprised when they withdraw their offer and you are no longer able to refinance your house.
I'm certainly at that point. I see some Trump tariff threat headline in the news and don't even give it a thought. It's turned into seemingly meaningless noise. But in reality there could be serious meaning. But it changes so much there is no way to judge.Quote:
They had a significant impact when they were first levied. Then Trump took them back off and the effect disappeared. Then he put them back on and the effect came back but less so. Then he took them back off and that effect disappeared.
Each time he's yo-yod the effect is lesser because the markets see him as the boy who cried wolf. But the pertinence of that parable is that, eventually, there actually was a wolf... and it ate the boy. The yo-yoing has allowed Trump to avoid a recession but it also means his talk of tariffs has become meaningless because nobody believes he'll actually follow through. If and when he does follow through the effects will stick. If anything they'll be worse because the markets will be slow to react and the villagers won't arrive in time to stop the wolf eating his face.
I do get a laugh when Trumps faithful describe it as "tweaking" the tariffs. 145% to 10% with China, A sudden 50% tariff on India. I wonder what it would take to be considered a major adjustment. :)
Leftist talking points intended to deflect just fall on deaf ears. The tap-dancing looks more desperate every day.
Meanwhile blue State rot from within, the depths of the corruption are hard to imagine.
EXPOSED: Tim Walz's SHOCKING $400M Fraud Disaster – You WON'T BELIEVE His "Sorry" Excuse!
https://youtu.be/5tXREtbvuBw?si=E520BT4NjlzAuuLT
Give it up. Trump has done so much good at home and abroad that it is hard to keep track of. Trying to cover up for the seditious and criminal Democrats by tarring those who support the President is as foolish as it is silly. Even the media are turning and walking away from the embarrassing mess they want to dissociate from.
Bad on many things???
The HIDDEN Agenda: Congresswoman Hageman UNCOVERS USAID Fraud, Censorship and Human Trafficking
https://youtu.be/tjDbPcP62rw?si=OuUdgIXyS8e_dgOx
What magic wand did you expect him to wave? It's not like he hasn't been working to squeeze out waste and corruption and stop the flow of revenue into abusive channels working against American interests. All the proof you need is the squealing from the left.
No, this sounds more like a mantra actively promoted by the neocons who backed the Biden crime gang and have worked hand in glove with the Democrats for decades. At least back to Reagan-Bush.
Wow, that is absolutely and utterly insane!Quote:
In manufacturing, US average hourly labor costs, benefits adjusted, are around $40 - $50.
The highest-paying blue-collar hustle I have right now pays approximately the equivalent of 7 USD/hour. If it were a permanent job, I could live a very very comfortable life here. For 40 USD/hour, I don't see why you'd ever need to do anything else. Your laborers are severely overpaid over there. My God, I had no idea the disparity was so wide. You guys should be really grateful. We'd kill for that kind of pay for blue-collar work over here. No joke.
By the way, minimum wage is approximately the equivalent of 3 USD/hour where I'm from.
Yea, $25 is still insanely high. For me to make that kind of money here, I'd have to be hold an extremely prestigious position like a doctor or something.
It's all relative though. If your rent is $2,000 a month, $25hr doesn't go far. It has a lot to do with where in the US you live. There are area where $25hr is a comfortable income and other places where you would be struggling. The National minimum wage is only $7.25. We still have plenty of people that live in poverty.
I see your point. My rent is the equivalent of around 285 USD per month, and though it's not a mansion, it's a pretty nice place. It would certainly make sense that your cost of living is matched to your average earning potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Still though, when you measure the US against the rest of the world, you guys really stand out.
I honestly don't know how you guys are going to compete globally if your blue-collar workers need $25 an hour to survive in America. That is so nuts to us like you wouldn't believe.
This is true but it's still impactful when considering international purchase power. It creates a disparity where an American can buy resources in foreign countries to the point of creating scarcity and other undesirable side effects in that country.Quote:
It's all relative though.
For example, Jamaica has an issue where they've sold off almost there entire coastline to tourism companies, primarily serving the US market. It's created a situation where native Jamaican can no longer use the beaches in their own country. That's... pretty gross actually. This sort of thing happens where you see income disparities between nearby countries, regardless of the corresponding cost of living disparities. We see it in Europe too.
That's a different issue. Blue collar workers aren't the ones buying up beach front property in other countries. It is an interesting topic. You would think the influx of all the money from tourism would lift their overall standard of living but it seems that the vast majority of the revenue doesn't reach the impoverished. Just blocks away from these beautiful resorts are large scales slums. I don't think tourism is the cause of the poverty but it's not the cure. I've never done any research on how these tourism places effect the standard of living. My guess is the rich get richer, it's an old tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I think dday made a strong point. Tariffs aren't going to create good paying manufacturing jobs here in the US. Well, I guess there is a point where high enough tariffs could make that happen but that's a very high number and would take many years to develop. The problem with that is then the price of goods would be much higher. So that nice $25hr job now has the buying power of a current $13hr job. There is no gain. There isn't a shortage of jobs here in the US, in fact we have a labor shortage. So, what have we gained??? I'd say there could be significant down side for the people who are on a fixed income if inflation starts soaring.
I'd say the simple answer is, we can't. That's why there has been a long term trend of moving away from labor intensive manufacturing. So far the tech industry has been a big help in filling that void but I'd say that is diminishing.Quote:
I honestly don't know how you guys are going to compete globally if your blue-collar workers need $25 an hour to survive in America. That is so nuts to us like you wouldn't believe.
Yeah, that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
I've lived a pretty good economic life. Not a lucrative career, but I've made choices in it that have left me fairly well off. However, I know that nobody can follow the same path these days. If somebody wanted to go to the same college, they'd end up with perhaps 4-5x the amount of college debt that I had. It might be FAR higher than that, since the official tuition cost is more than 6x what I paid. That would have created a massive drag on their economic lives.
I bought a house once I paid off the college debt. Somebody who got the same job that I had when I bought the house (it still exists), today, would be making a bit more than twice what I was making. The house is four times as expensive, though, so it would be out of reach.
I'm not sure how it is sustainable. I also don't know what would reverse that. College tuition costs are not just absurd, but are deliberately absurd. The college I went to was setting their tuition based not on their need, but based on which other colleges they wanted to be in the same price range as. Housing is more solvable. Build more houses. Two factors hold that back to varying degrees. One is cost, the other is zoning rules. Cost could be a national issue, while zoning is almost always very local. Neither problem is easy to solve.
I'd say a large segment of our society can't follow the same path as the people of my age. Non skilled manufacturing jobs could provide a very comfortable living in the 70's. In '76 I working that kind of job and was able to buy a new 3 bed, two bath 1,440sqft home for $27,500, very nice place. That house today would be probably over $450,000. That's over 15X more. The people working at the place I worked make less than 4X what I made. When I went to college in '78 there was funding available that helped pay, that funding no longer exists.
So, if you want to live to live comfortably today you better have a skill. If your able to go to college you need to be smart about what field you choose. If you can't learn a skill or afford college then at least marry someone that can. lol
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it isn't. More of an interesting adjunct.Quote:
That's a different issue.
I would say tourism can be a good part of an economy but not if it's over relied upon. It certainly brings in the cash but it also brings in a demand for resources from people who've got more spending power than the locals and are therefore able to out-compete them. In Europe, of our big three Mediterranean destinations, Spain and Italy are both having major problems rooted in this phenomenon (it's why you're seeing anti tourism protests in both). I haven't heard the same of Greece but it wouldn't surprise me if they're seeing the same.
I'm less pessimistic for you. I don't think you've got a hope in hell of competing for low skill industrial jobs (which is part of why I think Trumps drive to bring these back are so misdirected) but you guys still have a massive head start on high skilled, high tech jobs. China seems to have stolen a march on you where EVs and AI are concerned but you're still MASSIVE in e.g. the high tech infrastructure and financial sectors.Quote:
I'd say the simple answer is, we can't.
And then there's the issue of what tempting manufacturing back would actually mean. Manufacturing jobs were getting automated out of existence 50 frickin' years ago so bringing the industry back is not the same as bringing the jobs back.
I can see the attraction for politicians to shout about bringing manufacturing back to the country, ours do the same. It's a popular message to send to old industrial communities which have been left behind (and they genuinely have been left behind, I'm not denying that) but I don't think bringing industries back actually solves that problem. Unless you HEAVILY subsidize those industries to the point where you're actually just running a welfare system in a fancy (if oil stained) frock.
I think the solution is to upskill and uptrain those areas but that's expensive, difficult and takes long term social investment. It also lacks the glamour of the "hard working American" stereotype that's a large part of your National myth. It's a very difficult political sell and most politicians won't pursue it. Certainly not Maga and the Republicans but, honestly, not the Democrats either.
If I sounded pessimistic, it's because the current administration has sold the concept that bringing back these low skilled jobs will solve some type of imaginary problem. Creating a higher skilled/educated workforce is a much better direction. But as you said, that's a much harder sell. To many people dream of the "good ol days". I actually think we can compete, just not in those industries.Quote:
I'm less pessimistic for you. I don't think you've got a hope in hell of competing for low skill industrial jobs (which is part of why I think Trumps drive to bring these back are so misdirected) but you guys still have a massive head start on high skilled, high tech jobs. China seems to have stolen a march on you where EVs and AI are concerned but you're still MASSIVE in e.g. the high tech infrastructure and financial sectors.
The pink-collar jobs that you champion are exactly what A.I. targets, and it will hollow them out. DEI-fostered certificates of attendance are not "education." Certainly not in anything useful or productive.
If we needed any confirmation of this we can look no further than the foreign resistance to the recent trade deals. These are largely about where manufacturing and manufacturing investment takes place. There was remarkably little negotiation over retailing middlemen, accountants, legal aides, or social workers.
Well, that's deranged. What is pink collar? Which jobs are you talking about championing? A quick search shows that pink collar jobs are among the hardest to replace with AI. Nurses? Dental hygienists? Child care workers? Flight attendants? Teachers? None of those are even close to being candidates for replacement by AI. You'd need robots to do that, and we aren't even close.
DEI fostered certificates of attendance is the most desperately spun thing you've said in a while. Have you sunk to just throwing out slogans? I guess it's still better than linking to videos that throw out the slogans for you.
Sure, there has been grade inflation. It mostly benefits white kids, but I suppose you are probably legally required to tack "DEI" onto anything you can possibly tack it to.
What do you Americans among us make of what's going on with Texas State Rep. Nicole Collier?
You're wrong, Shag. This time next year you'll be giving yourself dental check-ups and operating on your own teeth!
How good are you at following instructions? :bigyello:
I don't think Pink Collar jobs means what I think you think it means:confused:Quote:
The pink-collar jobs that you champion are exactly what A.I. targets
As for the rest of your post, I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say.
Don't know if you saw Bob Mortimer on Would I Lie to You but, if not, You Tube it!Quote:
This time next year you'll be giving yourself dental check-ups and operating on your own teeth!
Not good at all, especially with teeth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Porter
Well, Texas passed the redistricting bill. Let the gerrymandering wars begin. Gerrymandering has been going on for a long time but I've never seen it as a nation wide agenda.
Not sure what was the point of the dem's leaving Texas and incurring all the fines, if they had no chance of actually stopping the bill from passing. I guess it's just another one of the absurdities of politics today.
Desperation to appear relevant to a rapidly dwindling base.
Only the first couple of minutes here are significant. The rest sort of dissolves into mockery of the dying left's attempts to control speech.
https://youtu.be/dyOMNUJo11Y?si=5yKOAaQV0XQ1PhPZ
Bela!
The bigotry of the Left seems to have no bottom. When their lips flap the race hustler's truth often comes forth.
https://youtu.be/aL0HFchUbUM?si=mKuZlr60W4BvzLZF
RFK is such a train wreck of a person. To put him in charge of HHS is becoming a disaster. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/27/healt...rector-monarez
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/27/g-s1-...leaders-resign
I've felt that from day one but hoped others could limit his damage. But he has went fast froward with replacing proven scientific facts with his conspiracy theories and delusions. It's insane.
Well that was overly optimistic. The current administration is all about the conspiracy theories.Quote:
hoped others could limit his damage
I will give him an ounce of credit in that I like his focus on a healthy lifestyle as a priority. But using it as a justification to reject science is just dumbassery. It's the equivalent of saying, "I don't need a house to live in, I've got a tent".
It depends on what you believe is a healthy life style. His beliefs are dangerous. Unpasteurized milk has a long history of killing people. That's just one example.
Agreed, but I'd put that under the rejection of science bit.
He has talked about eating healthily, exercising etc. and I do think that's a positive message to send. The problem comes when you drill into what he views as e.g. a healthy diet and you discover it literally includes roadkill.
Expanding a little: I guess I've got two areas where I agree with him and his ilk.
1. I do think that the western world has an increasing tendency to rely on chemical/medical solutions to what are often lifestyle problems. An example would be the Ozempic (probably spelt that wrong) weight loss drug. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a significant cadre of people for whom this does qualify as a medical necessity. But I also believe there is another significant (probably larger but I only have anecdotal evidence to support that) cadre for whom it's a quick fix that would be better addressed with a lifestyle change. I don't condemn that second cadre, it's an understandable choice, but I do think we'd be better putting more societal effort into supporting them to make the lifestyle change.
2. I think our commercial food standards in the West are absolutely awful. I'm afraid the US is particularly egregious for this but we're not that much better in the UK. The rest of Europe does better than us but they seem to be declining too. The amount of processed food we eat and the nature of that processing is bad. We would be better trying to encourage e.g. organic produce, better animal husbandry and teaching people to cook again (remember when "domestic science" was taught in schools). This wouldn't require abandonment of science but it would involve pressuring food producers to use it to improve the quality and safety of food over lowering production costs.
My guess is that most would-be casual users of those recent metabolic drugs simply as a weight loss crutch simply cannot afford it. Those are not cheap and to be effective they have to be applied over many months. They do work for many cases of metabolic disorders and Type 2 diabetes though, and even show positive outcomes for some liver and kidney disorders.
One can whinge ad wail and use the marketing term "organic" all day long, but as "science" goes that's more of a religious incantation than anything meaningful or productive. Crops produced using herbicides and pesticides are unavoidable, and that goes for "chemical" (another incantation) fertilizers as well. The problem is overuse that results in foods that carry too much of those materials over into the foods being consumed.
Don't hang it all on "the West." India is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to overuse of these agricultural materials. Nitrogenous fertilizers in particular serve as an indicator of those. Atmospheric plumes of nitrogen compounds emitted by fields in India are easily tracked by satellite observations as they trail away for thousands of miles. Africa has areas of incredibly serious water pollution from the runoff of agrochemical use. And then there is Ukraine.
Bashing RFK Jr. is nothing but political desperation. The captive media is just following orders to spin hay out of anything they can find in the face of dimming Mid-term Election prospects.
By bashing do you mean reporting his actual actions and beliefs that are well documented? Or are you claiming what's been reported isn't true? If so, then unless your willing to point out the inaccuracies, you just sound like someone making meaningless noise because they don't like what they hear.Quote:
Bashing RFK Jr. is nothing but political desperation. The captive media is just following orders to spin hay out of anything they can find in the face of dimming Mid-term Election prospects.
Did you pull out the heart and eat it so you would gain their powers? :pQuote:
One thing that I think would be beneficial for everyone is to hunt -and- fish for their food at least once. Hunting probably more so only because for me and many people I know, taking a life for the first time then cleaning and dressing it so that you can eat is almost a religious experience that gives you a whole new perspective on food. Fishing... less so, but learning to clean a fish is important.
Never felt moved by dressing the kill. Actual I tended to be a little bothered by the whole killing experience. Gave it up at an early age.
I did continue to fish. I have very fond memories of climbing around the mountain side in search of the best place to catch trout. Stream trout fishing was an adventure.
I think I agree in principle but it's not very practical over here. We don't have anything worth hunting. And, although you can go fishing, it's not really practical as a way to feed yourself. You'd spend a day catching enough for a snack.Quote:
One thing that I think would be beneficial for everyone is to hunt -and- fish for their food at least once.
As applied by supermarkets I agree but when using the correct meaning of the word it still has relevance. And it is still an option over here, albeit a niche one.Quote:
One can whinge ad wail and use the marketing term "organic" all day long, but as "science" goes that's more of a religious incantation than anything meaningful or productive
That's exactly the problem I'm suggesting we address. Over here it's possible but not simple. Over there, I get the impression it's not even possible. In large parts of Europe it's entirely feasible.Quote:
Crops produced using herbicides and pesticides are unavoidable
I should also say that I'm not against herbicides and pesticides per se. However, I do think there are real problems with the manner and volume in which they're used. Don't even get me started on your use of steroids over there.
Don't know why you think it would be harder here. The farmable land per person is probably much larger here.Quote:
That's exactly the problem I'm suggesting we address. Over here it's possible but not simple. Over there, I get the impression it's not even possible.
That said, my son has worked in produce for over 25yrs and it's amazing the amount of produce we import. Those countries tend to have much loser laws on their pesticides.
As for the steroids, I'm not sure. Most of our meat is labeled steroid free. You can make of that what you want.
I do a lot of cooking and I always get a laugh at chicken recipes that say one 3 or 4 pound chicken. I haven't seen a whole chicken that's less than 5lbs in years, many are 6+. lol
I could be wrong and would be happy to stand corrected but I get the impression your farming industry is heavily chemical dependent and based around monocultures. That could be a function of our media coverage rather than reality though.Quote:
Don't know why you think it would be harder here.
Assuming it is correct then that's the sort of thing that could be addressed. Monocultures give a short term profit because they're much easier to harvest but they strip the soil nutrients over a number of years... leading to the need for greater quantities of chemical fertilisers which leach into the water table and round and round we go. More traditional approaches are better long term but less profitable in the short term.
Couple that with the fact that genetic modification has been used as much to lock farmers into a brand and artificially increase yields at the expense of soil quality instead of e.g. reducing the impact on soil quality and it feels like your farming industry has been negatively impacted by short term corporate thinking in a way that Europe hasn't. Or, at least, not to the same extent.
I'm certainly not arguing we should blindly trust the ag industry either globally or at home. I think there is a middle ground though, we've just rushed to the excessive end of the spectrum.
If somebody is pushing back then at least it fuels the discussion.
To be honest, I don't know for sure what is being used in the agricultural industry. I know there has been a push to reduce pesticides and gmo produce. It's pretty common today to see labeling claiming to be pesticides free and non gmo. But advertisers are clever people and can find ways to word things that are very misleading.Quote:
I could be wrong and would be happy to stand corrected but I get the impression your farming industry is heavily chemical dependent and based around monocultures. That could be a function of our media coverage rather than reality though.
Assuming it is correct then that's the sort of thing that could be addressed. Monocultures give a short term profit because they're much easier to harvest but they strip the soil nutrients over a number of years... leading to the need for greater quantities of chemical fertilisers which leach into the water table and round and round we go. More traditional approaches are better long term but less profitable in the short term.
Couple that with the fact that genetic modification has been used as much to lock farmers into a brand and artificially increase yields at the expense of soil quality instead of e.g. reducing the impact on soil quality and it feels like your farming industry has been negatively impacted by short term corporate thinking in a way that Europe hasn't. Or, at least, not to the same extent.
I would like to walk back this statement,
I was lumping claims of antibiotic free, growth hormone and steroids. Those claims are big sale points Here again I'm not sure what the industry is actually doing. Though the ability to raise 6lb chickens in 6-8 weeks makes me wonder about their claims.Quote:
As for the steroids, I'm not sure. Most of our meat is labeled steroid free. You can make of that what you want.
That's interesting to hear and doesn't seem to reach us through our media. Would you say this pervades through the big supermarket chains or is it more of a niche "farmers garden" thing?Quote:
I know there has been a push to reduce pesticides and gmo produce.
It's definitely in the supermarkets. I don't go to "farmer gardens". Most big markets will will have a lot of organic produce.Quote:
That's interesting to hear and doesn't seem to reach us through our media. Would you say this pervades through the big supermarket chains or is it more of a niche "farmers garden" thing?
That said. I live in California and we tend to lend into those things a little more than other states. Though the part of Ca where I live is little more redneck than say the LA or SF areas. It does feel like less pesticides and gmo products has been pushed nation wide.
But give the current administration a little while, I'm sure they'll label healthier produce "woke" and find a way to destroy any progress we've made.
Yeah, ^that's the sort of thing we hear about and a large part of the reason we're not keen on accepting your food exports over here. It's hard to know how representative it is thought.
Some of that is due to breeding newer lines of poultry, though some is probably the use of growth hormones and antibiotics.
But overall things are no worse than the radioactive chicken that Europe gladly consumes.
Most of this reflects weak economies that require protectionism to survive. So myths are blown out of proportion to support high tariffs. This has been going on much longer than the high use of drugs has been, all the way back to the end of WW II.
Most of what???Quote:
Most of this reflects weak economies that require protectionism to survive.
Growing fat chickens? Eating radioactive chicken?
Out of curiosity when I was shopping today I checked out the chicken packages. On the west coast Foster Farms is the dominate brand and even though Tyson is one of the largest producers in the US you mainly only see it here in the frozen food section. Both were labeled hormone and steroid free. That doesn't leave me with 100% confidence, these are huge corporation and have the ability warp what is designated a hormone or steroid through lobbying.Quote:
Yeah, ^that's the sort of thing we hear about and a large part of the reason we're not keen on accepting your food exports over here. It's hard to know how representative it is thought.
As for me, I buy the store brand because it's cheaper. lol
Don't do that....but if you do, share the story, as the results can be hilarious for other people. I heard a story that...was too gross to repeat, but it sure was funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by wes4dbt
Out here, it's all monoculture crops, though WHICH monoculture rotates through a couple different options year after year. Sugar beets are a big one (there's a sugar beet processing plant here), but an interesting one is mint. Biking past a field of mint is wonderful. When it gets harvested, it's pretty nice, too. Very distinctive in a large field.
However, one particular monoculture has taken over most of the agricultural lands in the valley: Houses.
The US has a lot of agricultural lands. We also have a lot of water, but the two are not always in the same place. Agricultural lands are often near cities. Some are growing and turning that ag land into housing developments. That kind of disturbs me. I don't know whether it really impacts much of anything. Lots of smaller towns near ag land are not growing at all. They might even be fading away.
Poor guy, he's yelling in an empty hall. Nobody who needs to hear this will listen.
You've Been Misled About the Political Spectrum | A History Professor Explains
https://youtu.be/z_HQ4rHTxco?si=zeA60_16ALvUJHmx
How the Left Rebranded Fascism as “Right Wing”
https://youtu.be/1783nxCCYCU?si=1M_VjJnhSlhAlAGa
The More You Know!
Not if what you know is false or out of context misrepresentations.Quote:
The More You Know!
I suppose I would consisider things such as
* Trying to dispute a fairly won election and then constantly lying about it being stolen
* Replacing government positions with incompetent lackeys, whose sole purpose is to support you.
* Organising a military parade for your own birthday.
* Adornining government buildings with huge posters of your own orange face.
* Declaring constant states of emergency to allow you to ignore normal legal processes.
* Deporting people to foreign jails without due process.
* Building your own military force that is masked, and operates without due process or consequence.
* Using your own army against your own cities, using lies about crime rates to "justify" doing so.
* Stripping health care from your citizens. Effectively removing access to vaccines from your citizens.
* Banning books from schools that don't agree with your political thinking.
* Rolling out the red carpet to the aggressor in a war, but shouting at the leader of the invaded country about his suit.
* Openly talking about taking over allied countries (Greenland, Panama)
* Openly talking about how to defy your legal system to be able to serve a 3rd term.
* Firing people for accurately reporting statistics that you don't like.
* Describing opposition to your ideas as being hostile acts (because why shouldn't a leader get to hide information regarding paedophiles, keeping paedophiles anonymous is obviously the correct moral decision)
Might all be considered at least a little bit fascist behaviour.
On a side note...
For someone who swore to release the epstein files before gaining power, he certainly seems to be putting an awful lot of effort into suppressing them. Kind of makes you wonder if the convicted sex offender might be implicated in them. (Assuming they exist, aren't a democratic hoax, and he wasn't really an FBI agent after all)
...
Renaming the Department of Defence to the Department of War
Yeah, it's all a bit fascy
The spin cycle is over, but I'm not surprised that the duped remain so.
Neither am I :wave:
So it turns out Trump did send Epstein that "birthday message". You know, the one he told you it didn't exist. oopsy.
He just keeps showing his faithful "something shiny".Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I believe he said he didn't create it. I'm pretty sure that Trump is suing the WSJ over this hoax.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Now, when it comes to the Clintons and members of your "Royal" family it's another story.
If you want to worry about children why not focus on the illegal immigration rings that brought in children as slaves, sex slaves, and in some cases harvested their organs?