The name is stupid, the flag looks stupid, announcing it like it's some great achivement is stupid, and unless they can shoot lasers at CV with it, now is not the time.
Printable View
The name is stupid, the flag looks stupid, announcing it like it's some great achivement is stupid, and unless they can shoot lasers at CV with it, now is not the time.
Maybe the Yanks need to take control of space before the Chinese do. Maybe it's actually a higher priority than a pandemic.
It's interesting you think space can be controlled, like it's a piece of real estate. Or, more likely, you're just trolling because you're bored of shooting small animals with your airgun.
As is, any country can launch a satellite. Afaik, all satellites can do presently is take pictures and emit or reflect radio and other waves. Maybe in 100 years there'll be a war over the moon. Until then seems there's more important things to worry about than unveiling your space flag.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with a country militarising their space fleet, if that's what they want to do. I just find it stupid for the POTUS himself to be spending his time right now making a big public thing of it. Can you imagine any other country introducing their space force with a special seargant with extra stripes and a goofy flag while tens of thousands are dying of a pandemic?
"Space" can't be controlled like real estate, but Low Earth Orbits sure can. What's the point of launching a satellite if your enemy can just disable it once it gets to orbit?
The importance of military satellites to the current state of warfare cannot be overrated.
I mean... if this is your big problem with Trump, I'd say he's doing just fine.
I have a pretty active imagination.
Oh wait, they've got a "super duper" missile in the Space Force (Trump's words) - that changes everything.
Mojo, do you seriously think the POTUS should be spending his time right now hyping the Space Force? I know you like space, but come on. Surely he has something better to do.
Again, you're kinda missing my point. There's no problem with having a space force. There's a problem with presenting it like it should make people happy right now.
I have no opinion about how this or any POTUS should spend their time, so long as they're not abusing their authority.
This is not that.
Your harping on the language he uses (effectively, mind) to communicate with his base feels more puerile than genuine.
https://youtu.be/XtHbXshy-_A?t=36
Omg yes! He's doing Jonestown!
Well you've got some pretty low standards for the conduct of your leader then. Good thing I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
To be fair banana, I wasn't harping on it, I was simply pointing it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
But he's effecively appealing to his base to commit suicide, so it's ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I think you're being a little naive here. You really think all they can do is take pictures and emit waves? I mean, you might be right, but even if you are, you won't be for much longer. I don't know if they have actually weaponised space yet, but they will as soon as they can. If it's already feasible, it's done. A recent "secret" mission just went into space. Who knows what they're doing, one guess I would throw out there is taking tungsten rods up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
If China successfully weaponised space before USA did, that is a change in the balance of geopower. USA won't let that happen. So this is why space is a thing to Trump. This is probably all theatre, sending a message out to China that USA are winning, but it could already be much more.
As for the timing... well during the middle of a pandemic that started in China, I'm not all that surprised.
What's the message he's sending China? That he's an idiot with a goofy flag that thinks he can best handle a deadly pandemic by withdrawing from the WHO and pretending there's no problem while he promotes his military fantasies? Yeah, I bet they're shaking in their boots.
I have no doubt they can weaponise space. I don't pretend to know what value there is in blocking someone else's satellites from working. I'm sure it's worth something in a time of war. I just think the announcement, the super duper missile, the super seargant with the extra space stripe and the space force flag are horrendously tacky and dumb.
The "space wars" thing is a bit tin hat at the best of times, but there's a lot of speculation that Tinajin was a message to the Chinese, and that message was "we can attack you from space". If you believe that, then you could be forgiven for thinking covid is their retaliation. It would be natural for Trump to then flex his muscles when it comes to the advancement of the space programme. Sure it's goofy, but NASA probably looked goofy when that first happened.
It's not just about shutting down other nations' satellites, even though that in itself is a huge thing to do in war because it can knock out communication. If you can drop weapons from space, such as tungsten rods, these bastards come without warning at Mach fucking ten. The physical evidence, ie the rods themselves, penetrate into the ground so deep that they cannot be retrieved. If you're lucky, you might see them in a single frame of cctv footage. If one nation can take out another nation's ports at will without any defensive response and without any means of proving who did it, that's worth more than knocking out communications. That's just the start. Next up will be space mining. Who gets to stake a claim to the water on the Moon, which then can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen (fuel and air)? Whoever owns the Moon controls any space mission that relies on a fuel stop at the Moon. How long this is away is anyone's guess, it's probably not happening in our lives, but we'll see the first pawns being moved into place while we're alive.
The next great superpower will be whoever takes control of space first.
The next great superpower will be China regardless of what happens in space.
They don't need to fight any wars or control space to gain that status - their natural weight of numbers and economic growth will take care of that.
They don't need to fight the USA specifically, because the US has nothing China can use anyways. They're not going to try to invade the US. They'll invade their neighbors if anyone. And the Space Force is not going to be able to stop that.
It's easy to speculate about what will happen on the Moon in 50 years. It won't make a bit of difference to China overtaking the US before then. It's going to take a bigger cataclysm than this one that somehow affects China more than the US for that to happen.
The US may well implode into anarchy and/or civil war before they get their space force up and running on all cylinders.
And yeah no-one but Trumpers believe CV was unleashed on purpose. These are the same people who won't take a vaccine against CV. Unfortunately there's no vaccine against stupidity, but if there were, they wouldn't take that either.
I think you're being hasty by dismissing the impact space control will have. If China become more powerful than USA next year, then USA "take control" of space in the context of being able to go there at will, and stop others from doing so, then USA reclaim their status as the most powerful.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
You think USA will just roll over? China already engaged in an economic war with USA, and it's not out of the question that it's further escalated than we're aware of. Their numbers mean nothing, other than we can't invade them. But this isn't the 1900s where invading a country was the way to defeat them. Regime change and enforced US-friendly democracy is the modern way.Quote:
They don't need to fight any wars or control space to gain that status
And the Chinese are certainly not going to invade USA, you're right to observe there's nothing for China to gain. What China want is to hurt USA economically. But they also need to be able to stop USA hurting them economically if they are to remain more powerful, and that's why space is important, both from a military pov and an economic one.
We're talking 50-100 years here before space is the prime factor when it comes to the balance of power, imo.
Quite possibly. I'd say this is USA's greatest concern, not China.I think USA will defeat China. Frankly I hope they do, assuming the alternative is a world where China is the great superpower. USA are cunts, but China are even bigger cunts. I can't see why anyone would seriously want them to displace USA. Trump is surely the lesser of two evils.Quote:
The US may well implode into anarchy and/or civil war before they get their space force up and running on all cylinders.
How's that? Because they own space? How does that keep China from invading Vietnam, say? They'll block their Netflix?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think it doesn't matter if they roll over or start a war or implode. It's inevitable the way things are going.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah how's that been working out for the US lately? Can you name one country they installed a friendly government in since WWII that isn't just a corrupt wasteland now? Let's see, there's Chile, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan...nope, all corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And in any case, you haven't made a case for how the Space Force will enact regime change afaik. I think you're going to need some mind-control space drugs for that.
Yeah cause so much of China's GDP will depend on controlling space. Like at least one-tenth of one percent.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It will never be the prime factor. This is the same argument people made about the air force in the 1920s. They were saying you could just bomb the other sides' cities to smithereens and they would rise up against their gov't and end the war. It wasn't true then about the air force and it's not true now about the space force.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How do you suppose the British Empire ruled the world? We ruled the seas. A small island dominating the world because they were the first to master the oceans.Quote:
How's that? Because they own space? How does that keep China from invading Vietnam, say? They'll block their Netflix?
And why do you suppose Britain and France withdrew from Egypt during the Suez crisis? It's because USA told us to. That was the point where the UK finally had to accept that its days as the world's leading power were well and truly over. We realised we can't just go invading other countries without unacceptable consequences. We were no longer in control of our own policy.
They stop China from invading Vietnam by telling them not to, and threatening them with direct consequences that the Chinese would find intolerable. Such a threat needs to be credible. If USA have weaponised space and China have not, then that threat may well be credible enough to succeed.
The only thing that's inevitable to me is that USA will not just do nothing while China overtakes them as the leading global superpower.Quote:
I think it doesn't matter if they roll over or start a war or implode. It's inevitable the way things are going.
Chile is a complete wasteland? By South American standards, it's not even corrupt. Chile is the closet thing to a completely civilised nation that South America has. Did USA invade them? Or did you mean to say somewhere else?Quote:
Can you name one country they installed a friendly government in since WWII that isn't just a corrupt wasteland now?
And this is besides the point. The reason these places are a wasteland is because the strategy was to incite a civil war, otherthrow by stealth. China won't play out like that, the government have too much control. Overthrowing the Chinese government would require a whole different strategy. Probably outright assassination.
Which brings me nicely onto this point... assassination from space. Or, better still, maybe control of space removes the need for regime change, since disobedient governments might become more friendly to US interests if USA has such threats.Quote:
And in any case, you haven't made a case for how the Space Force will enact regime change afaik. I think you're going to need some mind-control space drugs for that.
I have no idea what will be important when it comes to space, but one thing I'll guess at in a few hundred years is phosphorous. It's kind of important, and we're slowly running out. A government that is capable of mining phosphorus will rely on space for a great deal more than a piss in a lake.Quote:
Yeah cause so much of China's GDP will depend on controlling space. Like at least one-tenth of one percent.
I started this post asking why Great Britain were such a force for as long as they were. So now let me ask... why are USA the superpower? Well it's not because of their control of the seas. That helps, but their main asset is... drumroll please... control of the air. USA have won wars in the latter half of last century in days by pure aerial bombardment. But control of the air is becoming less important as technology continues to evolve. Space is the future, it's where we'll be mining and it's where the most dangerous weapons will be stored. But that's a long way down the road. In the near future, it'll be a millionaire tourist trap, those times are nearly already here.Quote:
It will never be the prime factor. This is the same argument people made about the air force in the 1920s. They were saying you could just bomb the other sides' cities to smithereens and they would rise up against their gov't and end the war. It wasn't true then about the air force and it's not true now about the space force.
We haven't mastered space yet like we've mastered the seas and air. First one to master space is the next superpower, I'd put serious money on it.
I'd say "not abusing their authority" is a pretty high standard, myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why do seem revel in trying to push people's buttons, even when you have nothing to gain?
Not true. If any of the material is left to be found, it will be near the surface.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth
Ok I stand corrected. Still, if everyone in the world has a knife, except one guy who has a gun, then someone gets shot, you kind of know who did it.
But yeah I got caught being lazy there. I just assumed something with such mass moving at such velocity and of that shape, it would go through the earth like a needle into water. I guess actually it would turn molten pretty quickly, at which point it loses its shape and ability to penetrate.
If that's what they have to before you get annoyed at them...see the point now?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Dude. I posted a video of Trump and you started an argument about it.
I (no, Newton) told you that's pretty much what it will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Bullets can only penetrate about 36" into water before they're slowed to a terminal velocity. The higher the speed, the greater the drag, so higher energy bullets get ripped apart in the water even sooner, and therefore, not intuitively, penetrate less.
Mythbusters did an episode on this, but the only thing I found in a brief search was of too low video quality to share.
Slow Mo Guys did one on firing guns underwater, which you can easily find.
Smarter Everyday did one of those, too. (I even think Slo Mo Guys borrowed Destin's guns for their episode, but whatever)
It all hinges on the fact that in order for the "needle" to move forward, it has to move "heavy" material out of it's path. The momentum transfer from the projectile to the medium is significant.
Big difference there - a navy exists on Earth. It can ship material things around the world, including troops. The US is not going to be able to beam up a tank division to Space Post 17 and then beam it back to somewhere else on Earth in the foreseeable future.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The illogical part of this is that you don't believe the US will roll over and let China become No. 1 overall, but you seriously consider that China will roll over and let the US become the predominant space power.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Right, just like Spain tried to stop France, who tried to stop Britain, who tried to stop the USA from overtaking them as No. 1. You can try to stop them - in fact it seems obligatory - but it happens nonetheless.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was a democracy in early 1970s, the US wanted a fascist in charge, so they ousted Allende and installed Pinochet. That's what I was referring to. If you want to argue that helped them become a democracy in the long run, well good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Remember how many times they tried to assassinate Castro and failed? China would be a much harder place to pull that off imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"How did Xi die? Oh, a laser bore through the top of his head the week after they announced the Space Force." Wonder how that would play out in the world press.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah, thing about space assassinations is, you do it to someone else and everyone knows it was you 'cause you're always bragging about your space force. Not sure it's the way to win hearts and minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Seems a bit easier to harvest phosphorous from pee than to build a space mine on Mars to get it, dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I wont continue this if you're going to misrepresent what I've said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I find no personal benefit to keep explaining to you that what I meant is what I said, and not whatever you want to argue about.
To answer your question, No, I don't see your point.
disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
...Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Not so fast there. We're talking the future here. If I were intent on dominating the world in 2100, ideally I'd want fighter droids ready to be deployed. Where shall I keep them? In low orbit. So... maybe space will be precisely where troops will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
China won't roll over. Neither side will back down until it becomes apparent that the consequences are worse. Like Japan in WWII... it took a second bomb. Most people roll over after the first. I dunno who blinks first, but USA have more to lose, so perhaps they are the ones who will fight to the death.Quote:
The illogical part of this is that you don't believe the US will roll over and let China become No. 1 overall, but you seriously consider that China will roll over and let the US become the predominant space power.
But why couldn't these nations be stopped? In USA's case, it's largely because of air power. If China take space before USA, then I can't see anyone stopping China either. This is why I think USA are so publicly talking about space. We're in the opening moves of a very long game of chess. I guess USA are white, because they moved first.Quote:
Right, just like Spain tried to stop France, who tried to stop Britain, who tried to stop the USA from overtaking them as No. 1. You can try to stop them - in fact it seems obligatory - but it happens nonetheless.
I must admit I forgot Pinochet was Chilean, they're so stable now it's easy to forget they have recent troubles.Quote:
It was a democracy in early 1970s, the US wanted a fascist in charge, so they ousted Allende and installed Pinochet. That's what I was referring to. If you want to argue that helped them become a democracy in the long run, well good luck.
They didn't have rods from god and drones back then.Quote:
Remember how many times they tried to assassinate Castro and failed? China would be a much harder place to pull that off imo.
Depends who's in control of the press, really, doesn't it? I mean, a certain nation got away with assassinating a world leader by means of a bayonet up the arse, but for some reason that didn't seem to cause any outrage.Quote:
"How did Xi die? Oh, a laser bore through the top of his head the week after they announced the Space Force." Wonder how that would play out in the world press.
Not being funny, but if it's a fight between USA and China for world dominance, nobody needs to win my "heart and mind". It's already won, based on the fact the Chinese government are even bigger cunts than ours.Quote:
Yeah, thing about space assassinations is, you do it to someone else and everyone knows it was you 'cause you're always bragging about your space force. Not sure it's the way to win hearts and minds.
Also, if they could take out a world leader without killing any civilians, without the need for a full scale war, then I'd say they'd win a lot of public support.
I read it can't be synthesised. I might be wrong, but there's going to be stuff we run out of and might only be able to get in the future from space. Helium springs to mind, but phosphorous is more important for life so a little more pressing than helium.Quote:
Seems a bit easier to harvest phosphorous from pee than to build a space mine on Mars to get it, dunno.
This was a war where USA where actually trying to win hearts and minds. If USA wanted to end that war with a win, they could, but it would render the entire place a radioactive wasteland, and would cause a complete collapse in public support. It would be grossly unproportionate. Do you disagree? Do you think Vietnam can survive the war if USA goes nuclear?Quote:
Vietnam.
Sure, space will be important in the future. I'll give you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But what is their rationale for starting a war with China? You can't just say 'they're getting too big for their britches, let's fight them and lose millions of lives to stop them.'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, I think it will just be a gradual thing, as China slowly overtakes them. Might take a while, but it will probably happen naturally, without war.
Don't think so. It certainly helped, but they hardly had a bigger air force than the UK at the end of WWII.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Really effective would be a genetically-coded microbe that only kills the enemy race.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well it's an element so you're probably right. If you mean it can't be distilled from urine, I have to admit I haven't looked into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Not sure destroying a country and killing its entire population counts as a win. I guess it's not a loss, but hard to know what it would have accomplished. Point was, air power was not enough to win that war. And they tried to use it to win, short of nukes, they really did.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So there comes a time where space dominance is the most important trait of a superpower.Quote:
Sure, space will be important in the future. I'll give you that.
They could start one very easily right now, simply by declaring that they have proof that China released covid as an act of biowarfare.Quote:
But what is their rationale for starting a war with China? You can't just say 'they're getting too big for their britches, let's fight them and lose millions of lives to stop them.'
Unfortunately, history has shown that it takes conflict for the balance of power to shift so drastically. It's not just about economics. If it was, I'd agree with you. China can certainly become the next economic superpower, without a war. But are they the leading military power? They probably will become so, if they have sustained economic dominance, but that will take a long time.Quote:
No, I think it will just be a gradual thing, as China slowly overtakes them. Might take a while, but it will probably happen naturally, without war.
No, but it was able to, and willing to, deploy nuclear weapons from the air. That was a very dominant act.Quote:
Don't think so. It certainly helped, but they hardly had a bigger air force than the UK at the end of WWII.
That's pretty brutal. We only want to kill the leaders. Better than rods from god would be an army of nanobots.Quote:
Really effective would be a genetically-coded microbe that only kills the enemy race.
Gaddafi.Quote:
Who?
Nor have I, I'm basing that off memory and can't be arsed to fact check it.Quote:
Well it's an element so you're probably right. If you mean it can't be distilled from urine, I have to admit I haven't looked into it.
Haha says the man who wants a microbe that kills a race! But yes, wiping a nation off the map counts as winning a war. The prize is everyone thinks you're a cunt but won't dare say it to your face.Quote:
Not sure destroying a country and killing its entire population counts as a win
Not sure. Kind of doubt it. I think it's potential is not as unlimited as you might believe. It also has some limitations, like being really expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They'd be fighting it alone though. Maybe Boris would join in, but I can't see Macron and Merkel going along with it. Actually probably even Boris would sit that one out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The two are pretty much joined at the hip. Economic power makes military power generally.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's some exceptions where techonology trumps economic power, like when Prussia beat Austria because they had a better rifle. Pretty rare though.
The nuclear part of that is the critical thing, not that they dropped it from a plane. Any country by 1945 had the techonology to drop something out of a plane. It was the fact that that something could kill hundreds of thousands that put the US on top.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So if by air power you mean nuclear, then yeah you got a point. But, there's a whole other problem with nuclear in that it's very hard to use it when you know the consequences are so serious.
I didn't say I want it, i said it would be effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Expensive by today's standards. It'll be a lot cheaper when they don't need to take return fuel with them.Quote:
Not sure. Kind of doubt it. I think it's potential is not as unlimited as you might believe. It also has some limitations, like being really expensive.
I mean I don't believe this is biowarfare. But if it is, then we're already in a war. If you presented absolute proof that China did this deliberately, to France, then they would have no choice but to join the war. Their people would expect it. Even the Germans would probably have to chip in, even though they didn't do too bad in this. It's still a lot of people. This is kinda why I don't think it is deliberate... I can't see China risking a war with the entire world.Quote:
They'd be fighting it alone though. Maybe Boris would join in, but I can't see Macron and Merkel going along with it. Actually probably even Boris would sit that one out.
Kind of. This is why I was careful to use the phrase "sustained economic dominance" in an earlier post. The key word is "sustained".Quote:
The two are pretty much joined at the hip. Economic power makes military power generally.
Not true. If I had a nuclear weapon that I could only throw, it's not going to scare anyone much apart from those close to me. The fact they could deploy it from the air is not to be ignored. Japan couldn't stop them.Quote:
The nuclear part of that is the critical thing, not that they dropped it from a plane.
I appreciate the nuclear part is also not to be ignored. But North Korea are nuclear capable, yet they aren't really a threat to anyone except South Korea and Japan, and even then both their respective militaries can probably shoot down NK missiles. Just having a nuke isn't what matters, being able to deploy it is.
America dropping nukes on Japan did not end WWII, at least not for the Japanese.
The Japanese high war council did not even bother to meet for 3 days after the bombs were dropped. They were still issuing broadcasts that encouraged the Japanese people to "line the beaches with pitch forks." or similar stuff. They were not deeply threatened by any non-invasion assault, no matter how bad the damage was.
The Japanese high war council did meet after 3 days, not because of the bombs, but because of the land invasion of their acquired lands in Manchuria.
The sad truth is that Truman ordered the nuclear attack to no direct effect. The long-term affect of the cold war was the real result of dropping those bombs. We showed our allies (we were allied with Russia, remember?) that we were capable of inhumane slaughter of civilians from a comfortable distance, with no military benefit.
Things about to kick off on twitter.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZK1lxJU...pg&name=medium
I meant to research this a little and respond, sorry for ignoring it. Might get round to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
He really Trumped this bitch, huh?
Bob Kroll, police union chief of Minnesota very happy with Trump ending the "oppression of police."
https://twitter.com/therecount/statu...268212736?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si6RDqsYl78
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYIKL3epl7s
They turned the lights off so people would think nobody's home and stop protesting... This is too fucking funny!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZaAt_bX...png&name=small
^ So is that a fake or what?
It is. Not sure what your point is.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-trumps-photo/
I actually didn't realise it's Ivanka he's kissing. This photo is doing the rounds on Twitter, and it's the first time I've seen it.
I'm not sure if there's anything to this anonymous thing, or if it's just one huge shit smear.
There are a couple of reasons that I've found the "little black book" list to be interesting. One, it doesn't seem to be down political lines, ie it drags Trump, Clinton and Blair into it, along with some powerful names like Bloomberg, Rothschild, Soros, Murdoch. This isn't a left/right thing. It's an attack on the elite. Whether it has teeth is another matter.
Another thing I picked up on was a name. Around 20 years ago, I was told by "someone in the know" that a certain rock star had his credit card used to download child porn. I saw nothing in the press, ever, so assumed it had been explained away, perhaps his card was stolen. But he's on the list, and it's not someone you'd expect either. Not gonna name him because it could be bullshit and his name is not generally associated with this kind of stuff.
And my local MP is there. Why the fuck is my local MP in Epstein's contacts?
But a list of contacts is hardly evidence of wrongdoing, so I'm thinking I must be missing something because Twitter is going nuts for this. The left can't be that deluded that they think a list of names is proof of anything, can they? What am I missing in this shitshow?
Funny, my first thought when I heard lockdown was easing was not "time to buy some cheap furniture!"
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/stat...15123041320960
Will be funny if Biden wins a landslide while hiding in his basement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...82b_story.html
I guess that's one way to prove voter fraud exists.
^ an example of "bad faith". The banner at the bottom... click the 'x' and it fucking expands rather than closes. Wankers.
Press: "No-one is more tone deaf in this crisis that Donald Trump."
Ivanka: "Hold my beer."
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/stat...59672714694661
Looks like a good place for the R Nat. convention.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/lo..._content=wkmg6
I was trying to defend Republicans as just people who prioritize different aspects of governance as more vital and important than Democrats do in a conversation with someone who is staunchly Democratic.
I pointed out that in today's cancel culture, it's all too easy to only listen to people who agree with you and to only watch News agencies who are biased in favor of what you already believe.
They then said something to the effect of, "but why is it that one side at least tries to give a truthful take on the policies and their effects while the other side just spews propaganda and BS?"
I wanted to say, "Maybe you're seeking out nonsense and BS representations of Republican ideals," but I had to admit that I do not know of any right-leaning news agencies that I'd classify as "at least trying to give a truthful take on the policies and their effects."
Can anyone please help me, because I kinda desperately need this. I've tried to watch Fox News or other right-leaning news broadcasts, and it just all seems like lies and obfuscation to me. Yes, I can site a number of left-leaning news agencies that do exactly this - The Young Turks, e.g.
Since I don't believe there is any unbiased news left in America, I'll settle for less.
I'm trying to actually find any reasonable, thoughtful, less biased news source with Republican bias.
If anyone has any ideas, please help me. I don't want to ignore the intelligent arguments which motivate Republican policies, but I'm simply not finding any source thereof.
I think that's unfair to TYT. They give the left a lot of shit. They didn't fall for russiagate and they always try to both-sides it. They're on the polemical side, but I don't get the impression that they're trying to misrepresent anything deliberately.
Fox had two legitimate news guys in Shep Smith and Chris Wallace, now they just have Chris Wallace. The problem with having a legitimate neolib news outlet is that the only reason you'd be interested to work for one if you're mentally awake is to grift. Nobody with a well oxygenated brain who's not a capitalist in the literal sense of the word has a vested interest in promoting neoliberalism. It is overtly anti-humanity. I think there's a really thin demographic of people who are well spoken enough to be on camera and psychopathic enough to promote neoliberalism.
As exhibit A and B I would like to present Dave Rubin and Steven Crowder. Both fantastically stupid. Both aspiring comedians. Both painfully unfunny... but they found a niche in the right wing entertainment section and they are shoveling money.
fwiw by international metrics I'd rank the NYT as a conservative newspaper. Very matter of fact, very corporate friendly... they're just not crazy evil so they pass as left wing.
Exhibit C:
https://youtu.be/KBN41i_dLIo?t=267
I've posted this before but I really recommend reading this: https://waitbutwhy.com/2019/08/story-of-us.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's a series of blog posts, but probably better to think of it as a book. It's the most thorough and insightful look into how humans with their inherent biases struggle with politics.
Edit: and to state the obvious, that's not a news source, rather an exploration on why the situation is what it is.
I saw an interesting perspective on the officer who killed Georgy Floyd. It was that he's also going to have his life taken by the system. The system allowed him to accrue 18 complaints against him and let him get away with all those instances set him up for the instance that would allow him to be in the position he was, doing what he did.
Good cops that "protected" him, weren't protecting him, they were slowly letting him become more criminal, less decent. If there's justice, he will also have his life taken by the system that encouraged him to behave that way without repercussions.
Whatever good police are out there need to recognize that the system is pushing them in the same direction. The slow erosion of their sense of the sanctity of every life and their duty to serve and protect everyone, even criminals, gets lost.
They should be demanding the right to sanction those acts which offend them, and rather than losing the respect of their fellow officers, gaining it.
Today in Reading - BLM protesters demand defunding of police.
Later in Reading - Libyan immigrant stabs many people, killing at least three. Multiple (unarmed) cops run into danger, one rugby tackles the guy to the floor.
But, you know, ACAB etc.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with those 3 thoughts in one post, ong.
Are you connecting those 3 statements, or just 3 random thoughts you threw into a single post?
IDK what defund the police means in the UK.
In the US, it means divert funds from people trained to deal with violent crimes to create new response options for non-violent emergencies.
It means take away military equipment from police forces. They literally have armored tanks in many cities. That's messed up. If things get bad enough that armored tanks are needed, that's when to call in the national guard, not the local cops.
Defund does not mean abolish police.
It does not mean take away police officers' guns.
Had to google ACAB. Sounds like a fringe group, and not what a majority of protestors are saying. No?
I don't think those demanding defunding of police know what defund the police means. Defunding means to reduce their funding.
My point is that the police are essential, and that defunding them would make the country more dangerous.
ACAB means All Cops Are Bastards, and is not a "fringe" group but a slogan used for decades to insult the cops. It's been hijacked by the BLM movement as slogan to express their hatred for cops. I appreciate you're not on Twitter, but if you were you'd realise that it's not "fringe".
The stabbing incident is unrelated to the BLM protest. It's just that it happened shortly after a protest at the same park, and the irony of the protest being related to a cop killing in USA is not to be ignored.
The entire annual UK police budget is less than the budget for New York alone. That is roughly 10x the police spending per capita. So when americans say defund the police, they are talking about a police force that has 10x the funding the police force of your country has. Your police force is defunded to a level that is incomprehensible by american standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
These are numbers that I was immediately able to find. I'm sure it flattens out if you take the whole country. Another way to look at it is that police expenditure in the US has risen by over 300% in the past 50 years and cutting the budget in half would only put them back in the 90's in terms of what they were working with.
If you think the police budget in the US is appropriate and you're being logically consistent, you should be out there asking for the UK's police budget to be increased until it exceeds education and infrastructure spending. You should be calling for military weapons and vehicles as well as explosive devices and crowd control weapons that are banned by geneva conventions, because that's the stuff you need to even get anywhere close to where the US is.
When people in the country are calling for police to be defunded, the USA budget is irrelevant. All you've done there is emphasise how ridiculous it is for such demands to be heard in this country.
I don't think you can draw a direct line between something happening a lot of Twitter to something being a prevalent thread in the overall society.
That's kind of fair, but there are a lot of people who have the acronyms BLM and ACAB in their handles.
ACAB is something that, until recently, was the kind of thing you'd see tattooed on the knuckles of thugs, like people who've been to prison for violent crimes. It's a little surprising to see it hijacked by the left.
You might be right though, I'm looking at a relatively small sample size that distorts the true numbers.
https://twitter.com/NorthernerPNW/st...13465606778882
cliffs - dude filming graffiti in CHOP streaming live on Twitch, bragging about how it's an "expression of our feelings". Gets robbed, shouts "THIEF" over and over again in an area that has no people who give a fuck.
Bonus content - graffiti of the name "OSKAR", spelled the same as our friend here, which is unusual for English speaking countries (normally Oscar).
So Oskar, did you catch him?
In other news, Trump's rally in Tulsa last night did not come close to filling the arena of 19k, even though the event organiser gave out close to a million tickets. Apparently a bunch of kids trolled them by ordering big batches of tickets they had no intention of using.
The other good news is it's now less likely the rally will be a super-spreader event.
Oh, and Trump told the crowd he's ordered them to not test so much because it results in too many cases of CV.
You know what's funny? He's still going to win another term. Bank it.
On one hand you have people saying that the massive increase in policing which lead to mass incarceration for minor crimes has not lead to a reduced crime rate, and that it is a statistical fact that ethnic minorities get disproportionately arrested and sentenced for the same crimes, which shows that there is systemic racism that needs to be addressed quickly and thoroughly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
On the other hand you have a shaky video of fuck if i know what's going on.
Very doubtful at this point. Not sure why anyone would want that unless you're literally rooting for the destruction of organized life on this planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just looking ahead, by Nov. the US is on pace to have > 250k CV deaths, the economy willl be in either recession or depression, and even the Ds will be hard pressed to lose that election. I wouldn't put it past them, but it doesn't look good for DJT right now.
And as I said before, if they vote him in again then they will know what they're getting this time and they will deserve what they get.
Yeah, nothing to see here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HyKlFUMBiA
I mean this is a ridiculous exaggeration. You can't seriously believe that a second Trump term will result in the "destruction of organised life on this planet" any more than I believe that the deranged left taking control means white people will be ethnically cleansed.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Trump winning a second term is a huge problem, but the problem is that there's no viable alternative. I mean a world where Trump is the best option is a crazy fucking world. But this massive division created by BLM is reinforcing his vote base, not causing it to collapse. If this wasn't happening, if it were decided on covid, Trump would be in trouble. But BLM have allowed him to get back into the game. Right leaning people are not buying this "equality" push from BLM and see it as a "supremacy" agenda. All this kneeling is seen as submitting to the mob. Race relations have been set back 50 years, the opposite of progress. This isn't Trump's fault, no matter how much his opponents try to make it seem so.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe Trump is finished, but I don't think so.
This sounds more like the view from the far-right and/or lunatic fringe to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not his fault it exists, but he definitely isn't helping matters either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No, I'm not at all exaggerating. Even other current authoritarian regimes are at least acknowledging that global warming is a problem. They might not work sufficiently hard at solutions, but Trump is actively working against any solution that could stop a catastrophe. He will continue fracking and coal subsidies. He will most likely go to war with Iran and possibly Venezuela over their oil. That will be his plan how to stay afloat. On the domestic side he'll do something along the lines of designating Antifa a terrorist organization, which will enable him to treat subversives like the US treats Iraqi POW. Strip them of all human rights and detain them indefinitely. ICE is an extrajudicial police force that can detain people indefinitely without a trial. Currently they can only do that with brown people, but that can change quickly.
They're already treating some major US cities like a war zone right now. Curfews. No right to protest. This is a country on the cusp of fascism. This is how it looks... everywhere, every time.
He will continue to appoint young far-right judges to the courts who he can expect to rule partisan who will continue to dismantle democracy to the point where you'll never have a president who's not a neoliberal stooge for the top 0,1%.
I honestly think your incredulity comes from simply not seeing the parallels in history. If you compare this to the rise of Erdogan, or Bolsonaro, this is nothing weird or new. It is fascism. That's how fascism do. Nobody would have honestly thought this could happen to Brazil under Lula. Yet a couple years later, here we are.
If Biden wins, it's still fucking awful. Biden is as bad as it gets for a democratic candidate and I wish the plague on anyone who voted for this piece of shit in the primaries, but he's not a fascist and I'm confident that under Biden there will be a democratic election in 2024.
Trump voters are lunatics. It's a white supremacist administration. It's a pure white administration with a pure white republican congress, a pure white republican senate with 99% white followers in a country that's 20% people of color, and they're calling BLM protestors criminals and thugs. What do you think it is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We're at the point where anyone who has an opinion, however right or wrong it may be, that is contrary to left wing narrative is considered "far right" or "lunatic". I mean, I'm neither, and I'm not buying the BLM agenda of "equality". So I'm living proof that you're wrong. Do you think I'm a lunatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
If you think black people are being treated equal, then you think the reason for their much worse outcomes in life are not systemic. So what are they then?
I read the blog of a very left-wing guy who believes that Trump's only redeeming feature is his lack of desire to go to war.Quote:
He will most likely go to war with Iran and possibly Venezuela over their oil.
I agree with this, but this isn't the destruction of organised life, as you put it. And while we're on the subject of fascism, I think it's probably preferable to anarchy, which is strange coming from an anarchist who despises fascism. The problem with anarchy is there's too many cunts. Fascism keeps those cunts under control. Humanity is not ready for anarchism.Quote:
This is a country on the cusp of fascism.
Global warming? That's a bit dated. It's not even "climate change" anymore, Greta calls it "climate justice" now.
Four more years of Trump is not going to be the difference between a habitable world and an uninhabitable world.
I don't think black people are treated equal. That's missing the point. Black people want equality. BLM want more.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
As for the "worse outcomes in life" of black people...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm6ALv1Yx1Y
In other news, Egypt and Libya apparently on the brink of war. Turkey neck deep in this. More USA/Russia proxy war.
In that video I posted, the ex-cop is basically saying our job is to fill our quotas, and the way we do it is to go ticket and/or arrest black people whether they've done anything or not. It's an interesting watch, you should check it out.
I mean when I see people talk about some movement like BLM and say it really means X,y, or z, instead of what it ostensibly stands for, I say, ok that's possible but I think most people think BLM means fair treatment to everyone, and that's why they support it. At least that's why I support it. And if it turns out to mean blacks will take over the world and pretending to be outraged over racism is just a front, well more fool me.
I don't think she understands what the problem is. They're not asking for handouts, they're asking to be treated as equals.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is why they want to defund the police, btw, and give the money to social services to deal with people in distress instead.
https://twitter.com/Hindy500/status/1274566859338244096
Edit: from the thread, the police line was: "We believed he was a danger to himself."
...so they killed him.
Whatever happens, I hope these guys keep making videos.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1274748265376907265
You'd think someone who we can only assume understands what sexism in society is wouldn't be such a disingenuous witness to the ways society does the exact same things to black people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is not conjecture, this is a confession.
(Confession at 2:23)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aPx7RCott0
Those laws are still on the books. That's why they were written. The arguments put forward that got them passed were bold-faced lies as admitted by the people who made those arguments.
How anyone can argue that what's happened to black people is accidental, or incidental, or not systemic just doesn't hold water.
I think the point she's making is that she is treated as an equal, and that's because of the decisions she has made in her life. She's trying to tell black people that they all have that power. You want to be treated as an equal? Stop taking on board the message that you're not an equal then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
She's arguing that a large part of the problem is black culture. When people are constantly told they are victims, they start to believe it, and behave differently to those who don't have that mentality. They start to blame other people, the system, for their life choices.Quote:
How anyone can argue that what's happened to black people is accidental, or incidental, or not systemic just doesn't hold water.
I don't think she's oblivious to the systematic problems black people face. What she's doing is trying to tell black people that they have the power to change their lives, that they shouldn't wait for the oppressors to make the changes for them. You can argue that what we're seeing is an attempt to enforce change, but really the only power an individual has it to make personal life choices that change your own life.
The system does not stop black people from being successful. Perhaps black people do have more obstacles than white people, but tearing down monuments and alienating white people is not the way to go about removing those obstacles. She removed those obstacles by moving out of the hood and being a law abiding citizen. I'm sure she does still experience racism, but she refuses to accept that she is a victim. Good for her. If every black person had her attitude, then we'd see progress.
I support "fair treatment for everyone". And I agree that most people think BLM is trying to achieve this goal. But that's because people aren't paying attention.Quote:
I think most people think BLM means fair treatment to everyone, and that's why they support it. At least that's why I support it.
They want to bring down capitalism, too. I appreciate people like oskar are on board with that, but I'm not, and I doubt you are. It's ironic, because BLM are getting a large amount of funding from companies who BLM would like to destroy.
There is a great deal more to this than "equality". Maybe "supremacy" is pushing the boat out a bit too far, but this isn't just about the system treating black people as equals. It's also about overthrowing the economic system that gives all of us opportunity, including black people.
That's just you saying that though without evidence. Defunding the police is not the end of capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hey poop, shall we have another discussion about how you want to be spoon fed?Quote:
Originally Posted by ong
They self-identify as neo-Marxists. If you don't believe me, do some research. If you won't do the research, then don't tell me I'm wrong, because you do not know it.
You mean the discussion about supporting your arguments with evidence? That one?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't believe you and I'm not going to do your legwork for you either. And I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I don't believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I also don't believe the flat earthers, but I don't go out looking for evidence for flat earth theory. If they want to argue that makes me lazy, fine. I got better things to do with my life than chase down every whacko theory I hear about.
And it's not even relevant anyways. You might as well say they're anti-vaxxers. I don't support BLM for its global economic policies, assuming they even exist. It's not like we have a choice between voting in the BLM Party or the Conservatives in the next election.
My suspicion is this label has been foisted on them by the right as a means of discrediting them. It's an old play and its effective inasmuch as it works on people who want an excuse not to support equality.
Evidence please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I don't support Hitler for his oppression of Jews, it's his economics.
You got any evidence to support this view?Quote:
My suspicion is this label has been foisted on them by the right as a means of discrediting them. It's an old play and its effective inasmuch as it works on people who want an excuse not to support equality.
lol, give it up troll.
So this idea of posting evidence only applies to me?
You're arguing that BLM don't want to bring down capitalism, yet you don't care to actually research it because you expect me to provide evidence. Clearly you don't give a fuck what their economic goals are. If I supported BLM, and someone pointed out to me they were anti-capitalist, I'd want to know so I knew what I was actually supporting.
You claim that it's just right-wing people discrediting the movement, yet provide no evidence to support your claim. All the while you demand evidence from me to support my claim.
You can't have it both ways.
Yeah there's a surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
What's funny is Ong is quick to believe BLM means all kinds of harm to us through some economic policy they have no power to enact and that has nothing to do with their entire raison d'etre, but he doesn't consider that the establishment has a vested interest in discrediting an equality movement through a disinformation campaign.
Occam's razor.
https://m4bl.org/
https://www.joincampaignzero.org/
https://act.colorofchange.org/sign/s...ople-are-dying
I only briefly went through those, but I didn't see any mention of end of capitalism. No doubt there are some twitter posts about it though.
Well of course they're not going to SAY it out loud - it is a secret agenda after all. Thankfully some of the right wing kooks Ong follows on twitter have sussed it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill