As someone who lives in a country where rainbow imperialism and western megachurch funding walk hand in hand to create a precarious situation for LGBT rights, I'd say the problem isn't difficult at all. There is a horizontal monopoly on the material conditions that lead to this, and it's called NATO.
Who would even take on the doomed duty of being the party's second pick? Oh wait it could be Kamala.
The spin there is twofold. First, while Trump himself likes to point out that the war on terror and the destruction of half the middle east was all dumb decisions, the media doesn't. Right wing media will emphasize that Biden was there with during the Iraq War, but won't necessarily condemn the war itself. The second spin is the idea that anybody could have done it better. It's a Saigon moment. The rapid collapse of the potemkin american client is the point.
The United States is long overdue for a massive political realignment. The Democrats and the Republicans are indistinguishable when it comes to most policy issues, and also tend to court the same groups: suburban conservatives of various kinds. Where they differ is social policy, and the Democrats make their greatest efforts to make sure that difference is in name only. A lot of conventional wisdom on how people tend to vote is up to be challenged.
Such as the position of latin americans, who were often assumed to be too much of an other to be courted by the Republicans, but to whom the Democrats make no real offers besides a lot of patronizing assumptions that fly in the face of a group that skews more religious than average. Another is the distribution of populations - what matters most in these polarized times is the urban/rural divide. However communities across the country are being upended by the risks associated with climate change, deindustrialization, inflation and so on. People are moving. States are changing and the corruption of gerrymandering might not be able to stem the tide either way.
I'm still leaning that this election being a 50/50 by no merit of any living soul in Washington DC. But I wouldn't discount a landslide either way due to even greater amounts of people staying at home, or due to the aging milennial demographic gaining an importance that their grandparents once had, or whatever.
Yeah but who votes on the basis of policy? Buttigieg fans?
All that matters when it comes to policy can be condensed into the passions people feel towards, say, roe v wade. You don't need a good candidate there. You don't need reason or proposals. You just need to be on the podium and make sure not to demoralize your team. Biden is incapable of that. Barring some unforeseen demographic situation in the electoral college, Trump can totally cruise to election.
They own shares in american companies and LNG importers. They dining tonight regardless.
Oh you mean the taxed populations. Lol. Lmao.
The Afghanistan contradiction is also easily solved: Trump started to end that war (which he didn't begin), but 'Biden fumbled the withdrawal of troops making it a shitshow (and he was also there when the war began and intensified).
Self-coup is a bit of a strong word to use given that self-coups involve dissolving parliament or declaring a state of emergency in the face of a real or fabricated threat. Convincing a guy with a cushy latin american general job to drum up an anti communist circus in the capital is something else. What level of Chess would Arce have to be at if he fired Zuñiga for threatening a rival (Morales), all as a conspiracy to seize more power for himself? And then, what powers have Arce seized so far?
If I were to guess, what is behind this is the fact that Arce and Morales aren't part of a hivemind. In fact, isn't Arce supposed to be a dissident?
Been saying this for years. When your entire ideology is based around racial supremacy and defending european women from immigrants you'll accelerate the centralization of Europe, not end the EU. Talk is cheap. People like Le Pen and Meloni talk about 'ending the EU and creating an Europe of Nations'. The moment they reach critical mass their movement will just wield european institutions to further their agenda. And they won't have any agenda beyond being cultural reactionaries because they are 20+ countries fully dominated by american capital and won't agree on anything but killing migrants and sending guns to Israel.
many people are saying it
They were also high on end of history histrionics and genuinely believed that economic prosperity would lead to an american style free market economy. And I don't think people were silly to think that way in the 90s. You had to be in the know to realize the fundamentals at play. That China, unlike the Soviets, did not privatize the commons but instead implemented a market economy. The only hint of how things were going was how Japan was forcefully turned into an american sharemarket economy. China by all indications did not have to and didn't.
is making a killing
some might say thats their business model
Sorry to respond with such a small take but my impression is that the ecosystem you engaged with benefits from the socialist system preventing the worst of nickle and diming.
And I do think they make lots of money. Wether you're big tech, big pharma or big food - your market is billions strong. A small profit margin within a socialist market system is more than enough to maintain the capitalist class and ensure investment too.
More importantly: if you live within this market your expenses in dollar terms will be way undercounted.
The thing is: why? China is going through deflation. Imagine if you were in that position. You have an income, a job, and savings. On top of that you get to buy everything you need and want, and your money is constantly worth more because everything is cheap and getting cheaper. Why must this supposed frugality disappear when said savings are converted into investment and higher purchasing power for everybody?
It's only NFT level economies that need to blow 20 credit cards a month to keep up with rent.
That's assuming the economic arrangement during and post climate change is conductive to rising birth rates in the first place.
What people, especially on the right, don't realize is that falling birth rates is not a matter of incentive or culture. It's correlated with rising literacy rates. That's it. The moment people realize the costs of raising a child in an industrial society and how that affects their future livelihoods they simply don't. The reason birth rates were high in pre industrial societies is because having lots of children was the economic strategy of every living human - from peasants to landlords to kings and merchants. The reason we had exploding growth rates during the industrializing period is because literacy rates and standards of living actually went down in many places, and didn't catch up to the industrial reality until much later. Now, having a child is a luxury for the gentry few. Therefore, populations de-grow.
you must verify your income to date
hey i wonder why people won't have kids
sergent at arms arrests him and ships him to hague
the parliamentarian of course
i'm under the impression that 75k USD annually is actually a not great salary in most urban areas of the US
so there's the connection right there
