Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TheDeamon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104
General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: December 05, 2022, 10:34:37 AM »
Such a great investment.  It might go bankrupt just months after he bought it.

Well, there's bankruptcy(reorganize/restructure), and then there is bankruptcy(out of business). Time will tell. It is clear the company was fueled entirely by hype, but that is hardly shocking, it's what a great many people suspected to be the case.

In any case, one of Musk's objectives for Twitter was to basically end the company in any case and turn it into a distributed platform. It's just a question of if he can pull that off before the money runs out.

General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: December 05, 2022, 10:30:06 AM »
Internal Facebook research has shown that "outrageous" emotional claims/positions get the most clicks/views. Love/hate appeal to emotion gets the clicks/followers. So the algorithm designed to keep you engaged on their site promotes them. So the people who put out measured reasoned boring wonky policy posts are largely ignored. People throwing emotional firebombs get the clicks. Its the digital tragedy of the commons.

You needed facebook to tell you that?

The Democrats figured that out back in the late 80's, although it didn't seem to start getting used aggressively until the 1990's. Although I think Madison Avenue had also long-since figured it out by the 80's as well when it came to advertising in general.

When operating in the human sphere, if people have to choose between acting on their emotional responses, or their logical response mechanism, they will almost without fail, choose to opt for the emotional response option.

It's why Snuggles has a teddy bear for it's add campaign(cute/cuddly), likewise for the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and on down the list. It's why advertisers tend to go for either cute/"feel good" ads, or attempts to "wow" the viewer or elicit some other form of quasi-nostalgic response(Auto Insurance, and Car Companies trying to emphasize the joy of driving on the open road).

Or the infamous Democratic appeal to emotion when it comes to basically any social issue. Which is why (pre-Trump) Republicans tend to get hammered on social issues because their preferred responses tend to be more based on economic theories(which you may, or may not, agree with), but as their solutions are logic based rather than "We're going to give you 'free' stuff" or "We're going to enact laws to stop those mean people" they tend to lose those audiences to the Democrats.

I think it is nearing the point that many Republicans might be slightly relieved should Trump try to "burn down the party" in 2024.

It might cost the Republicans the 2024 election cycle as Trump "splits the vote" that is opposed to the Democrats, but it would at least clear the way for 2026 and onward to be more coherent within the Republican Party. (Or whatever the non-Trumpists form to replace it, if Trump managed to retain functional control of the GOP by some means)

I don't believe that the lesson should be that the Russians didn't have a good enough or modern enough Army to win in Ukraine.  I honestly think they did.  They just used their army, and in particular their air force, incompetently.  It was their officers and generals and soldiers that sucked, not the equipment. 

I don't think I can fully compare Russian troops to Chinese troops.  Anybody who has ever seen the Asians in action know that they have a few things down pat that the Russians don't.  Discipline for one.  Whether Chinese officers and generals are really that much better than the Russians remains to be seen.  But I have a feeling there is less corruption in China than in Russia.  The Chinese don't seem to put up with corruption the same way the Russians do.

I am unconvinced. I do think China is less corrupt over-all than the Russian Military, but that still doesn't say much. "Tofu Dreg construction" is a very real thing in China, and it doesn't apply to just structures. Chinese corruption just tends to pursue a slightly different path, and is far less overt in many cases.

As to military discipline. That can cut both ways. The US military is "positively undisciplined" compared many of the feats of military drill and a few other things the PLA devotes its attention to.

Rigid adherence to Hierarchy (and Discipline by extension) is itself often a very fatal flaw in a combat environment, just ask the Japanese about that in WW2. Or the Germans in WW2 when it came to fighting the Americans(who were often very notorious for neither following the combat action plan "as written," nor following their own manuals for how they were supposed to approach an objective)

Russia's army has a strict hierarchy, no NCO corps to speak of, and poor training among a list of other failings. China is trying to develop an NCO corps, and it will be "interesting" to see how well they perform in the field should a full-on conflict happen with a near-peer for them. As I doubt the unit's resident Communist Party Political Officers are going to be quite so accommodating where "taking the initiative" is concerned on the part of the NCOs. (Which bring us back to "Discipline can be a hindrance")

General Comments / Re: Roll Tide
« on: November 10, 2022, 06:53:33 PM »

That's pretty good for a guy who gets lost in the middle of his speeches and has a disapproval rating around 53-56%.  Apparently the only thing that sucks worse than an octogenarian Democratic President during massive inflation and losing a war is the Republican Party.  I'd hate to be a Republican in the House now.  Just waiting for the bloodbath of 2024.  I'd go independent.

There is no bloodbath coming the other way either. Gerrymandering at its finest. Only 10%-15% of seats are competitive and Democrats need to win most to have the majority. 350+ seats are not flipping parties short of miracles or uniquely unqualified candidates (see Boebert).

Pretty much, incumbent advantage is huge. Unless the Democrats field a Presidential candidate with a lot more voter appeal than Joe Biden in 2024, a Republican who wins a House race in 2022 has to do something monumentally stupid to not be able to win re-election in 2024.

Of course, much the same applies if the Republicans don't manage to prevent Trump from running on their ticket in 2024. Democrats in office as of this last cycle will likely still be in their House seat in 2025 if they want it.

General Comments / Re: Roll Tide
« on: November 10, 2022, 06:48:32 PM »
The justification for the narrative is that this should have been a cake walk for the GOP. Almost all the historical indicators were against the Democrats. The GOP should not have suffered several high profile losses and should have easily taken the House and Senate.

This. The midterm election cycle was only going to train wreck for the Republicans this cycle if "the Republicans" were the ones to crash the train. And all indicators are that what caused the crash with factors that only existed because of one Donald Trump. He can try to blame shift all he wants, but this is entirely on "Team Trump" and their desire to prove they're the bestest ever. When it is clear a great many voters differ greatly with that point of view.

General Comments / Re: Roll Tide
« on: November 10, 2022, 06:42:28 PM »
Seems like a bunch of conservatives are starting to realize that the party has a Trump problem.

My guess is they’re praying for him to die suddenly in the next few minutes before the 2024 presidential heats up.

If he doesn’t then it’s going to get really interesting.

News Flash, most of them likely realized it a long time ago.

The problem they have is how many of their party processes work at the local/state level nationwide, and in particular state Primary races. This is also something that the Republicans are uniquely vulnerable to, the Dems have the same problem, as AOC attempted to leverage things to far less success on their end.

The "problem" is they've invested in both a First-past-the-post system for their primaries, and many other party organizational votes. Which means that when you have a race with more than 5 people running in it. (Such as in the 2016 Presidential Primary Race for republicans where they had over a dozen at the start) If the candidates are "compelling enough" for their relevant constituency it becomes really easy for a 20/20/20/20/20 type split to happen at 5 candidates.  6 way becomes 16.7/16.7/so on

Which is where Trump was a problem from the onset. He "had a following" prior to his political run, he brought that following with him into the Republican Party which initially excited the leadership as it brought in "new blood," all well and good, in theory. But when you're in a 10+ way primary race that is first past the post where you appealed to... say 8% of existing Republican primary voters, and brought in enough new people to the party to make it so you have a solid 21% of the primary vote in that state... Even though potentially 92% of the original membership(or 79% of the new membership total) would vote against that candidate, he became their candidate all the same--because of first past the post.

But because these people are new, energized, and highly involved in the local political process--something most "rank and file" members don't generally do. This creates a new problem. Local party chapters suddenly find that 30, 40, sometimes 50% of the people showing up to party organizational meetings/events are beholden to that guy, and very vocally so. Enough so that it potentially drives out anywhere from 5 to 15% of the previously active party members. Which means they now control the local(city/county) party offices, where they now begin to work their way into the statewide party positions, where you end up with things like the Wyoming GOP and some of the other nuttiness that has recently passed through the RNC.

(and also in this mix, there is the matter that the GOP also had its earlier round with the Tea Party less than a decade earlier, so while they may not fully "mesh" with Trump's goals or his devout followers(much like the governors of Virginia and Florida both try to avoid association with Trump), they also are more than happy to f--k the RNC and the National Party organization for the *censored* they pulled in 2012 and 2014. So you only really needed, say, 25% "pure trump" another 15% of "pure tea party" and another 15%-ish of local party officials who decided to hybridize between the two and the GOP of 2008 finds itself completely locked out of "their party" where the non-governmental levers of power are concerned.

But as Mitch McConnel, and every other National Level Republican is reliant on support from the RNC, which has been taken over by an unholy alliance of Trump and Tea Party types, it makes them very wary of going after Trump. Because going after Trump means the RNC is likely to come after them.

Or, at least it was, up until this past week. The Tea Party Faction is hopefully going to return to their senses and distance from Trump and his acolytes, which should help the non-trump portions of the GOP/RNC reconsolidate power, but it's going to take a couple years to work through. Although as Virginia attested to last year, and Florida this year, among a handful of other races. It is clear the Republicans can win without Trump. It is even more clear that Trump is a boat anchor for the party, not an asset.

However, the RNC is filled with Trump activists and party bylaws are likely to allow many of them to stick around for at least the better part of another year just yet. So it is going to be a difficult to turn the party around between now and when the Presidential Campaign season kicks off again. And the last thing the Republicans need is another Primary campaign season where Trump can hope for his opponents to weaken each other sufficiently that his base can carry him through the primaries.

It will be "interesting" to see what horse trading happens on the national stage between Republicans. Realistically, if they're serious about not having Trump on their ballot in 2024, they need to make sure there are no more than 2 people challenging Trump with any meaningful support/backing. Which means the politicians will have to do something which is very hard for most of them to do, stand aside and let somebody else run.

Because the Russian bots don't engage in honest debate, Bill.  ;)

It wasn't Russian bots that paid liars to create a dossier against Trump in order to influence an election. It wasn't Russian bots who ordered social media to ignore the Laptop and the eyewitness who authenticated Joe Biden's crime family to influence an election. It wasn't Russia bots who spent millions of dollars and several years of unfounded attacks against their political opponents. It wasn't Russian bots who forced 50 intelligence experts to lie about Trump. It wasn't Russian bots who deny truth and claim it was really Russian bots.
One of the few times he actually manages to be in the correct ball park.

Any time someone claims that American conservatives have principles they consistently believe and/or adhere to, they are either out of touch or lyibg.
I get to play "no true scottsman" on that one. Also, "conservative" and "Republican" are NOT synonyms despite it often being used that way.

Further, there are many kinds of "Conservatives" out there. Which brings us back to there is no true Scotsman. (Or socialist government it seems)

We have:
Social Conservatives
Religious Conservatives
Constitutional Conservatives
As well as:
Fiscal Conservatives
Foreign Policy("National Security") Conservatives

Often these respective Venn Diagrams overlap the same people, and sometimes even parties most recently that overlap happened with the Republicans.. but...

Fiscal Conservatives seem to have departed the political landscape during Bush 43, although they resurfaced briefly in 2008 in a vain hope under Obama's banner. They have pretty much been a non-factor since. (Although they did seem to offer some tepid support for Trump in 2016, but absent in 2020)

National Security Conservatives were destroyed as a cohesive constituency in 2016 and remain in disarray.

Social Conservatism has always been a moving target, but often orbits in close proximity with its close friend, Religious Conservatism as the two sides push and pull on one another. Due to Social Conservativism being largely a moving target, it is best viewed as generational in nature. As recently as the 2020 election cycle, Democrats had the Social Conservative vote, but that was likely a response to Trump and Covid19.

Religious "Conservatives" remain all in on the Republican Party and many seem to also be all in on Team Trump even now, but I am not sure of that reaching the point of "most."

Then we have those "Constitutional Conservatives" who seem to be lost in the wilderness alongside their National Security and Fiscal Conservatism counterparts. Mamy remain "effectively Republican" by sheer inertia at present because while the Republicans have turned into a clown show, the Democrats are an insane asylum run by the inmates.

Most of what Trump and company are up to is pure populism and has nothing to do with Conservatism of any stripe beyond sufficient lip service to keep the last vestiges of Reagan's "Religious Right" coalition from abandoning ship.

When I was speaking of "American Conservatives" I was aiming more at the social, fiscal, and Constitutional types than the others. America tried Theocracy at the state level in the late 18th and early 19th Century. It doesn't work, and is an open invitation for abuse so Religious Conservatives can pack sand if they can't carry the culture war. National Security should follow, not lead, so mostly the same for them.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: November 02, 2022, 03:15:18 PM »
the burden still ultimately falls on the political left for encouraging people to ensconce themselves into such fragile mental fortresses
Ask me how surprised I am that you've somehow managed to reach this utterly predictable but entirely ridiculous conclusion.

Because creating what are essentially cultists is a good thing?

That's bad regardless of what their political slant might be.

Just because the mess is being dumped on my political doorstep doesn't mean I cannot fault the source of the issue even as I start to address what I can do for cleanup on my end of things.

Conservatives in the US are opposed to anyone becoming the "sole arbiter of truth" on principle.

This makes the government weighing in on matters of "truth" (outside of a court room) to be the penultimate red flag. Because there is no higher authority you can appeal to at that point.

There also is the matter of some of the things being exposed as "misinformation control" they've exercised which was fundamentally untrue on their end.

The Hunter Biden laptop story being the biggest poster child for that. But not the only instance.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: November 01, 2022, 03:05:19 PM »
Ok the left is worse and should do better, you win. Now thier is no excuse for your tribe to do some soul searching and work to do better and set a example of how we ought to behave.

Not going to entirely disagree with this.

But it still stands that even if we're dealing with a "red pilled left-wing cultist" scenario here, the burden still ultimately falls on the political left for encouraging people to ensconce themselves into such fragile mental fortresses of solitude that once the walls are breached, they lash out before their new found "compatriots on the right" have a chance to even realize they exist, never mind try to assimilate them, or bring them back to reality.

Because the other "part of the problem" with the "Random redpill" event is that there is no conservative around to take note of the event and provide guidance(or even aware that active guidance is desperately needed by the person in question)... And since that former leftist cult member only "knows" the left-wing caricature of the political right, where do you think they're going to turn to learn more about "conservatives" now? The very people the left loves to portray Conservatives as being, when they're anything but.

Honestly, I felt the claim that leftism in the US being compared to a member of a cult was bad taste hyperbole. But it seems to be increasingly clear that it is too true for far too many people. Hopefully more conservatives wake up to that fact and start taking measures to address it. But for now we're still grappling with the huge wave of whack-jobs we received when Trump was ascendant back in 2016, nevermind the complete insanity that was 2020.

This is a problem created by left, perpetuated by the left, and sadly one the "right" was being somewhat willfully blind to. We're starting to catch on, but the deck is very strongly tilted against us because the last thing the left wants to do is mellow out on their caricatures.... Because they're too busy fighting with their newly "born again" right-wing counterparts previously from the left.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: October 31, 2022, 07:36:43 PM »
There have also been a number of hammer attacks particularly in the New York City subway system and though they did get some attention they didn't get anything like this level of concern from Democrats.

The idea that this is worse because it might be political is an insult to all the other people who got hit in the head by a crazy hammer wielding nutso.

Obviously the way to fix the problem of these rampant hammer attacks is a sweeping federal hammer control program with mandatory background checks with a 3 day waiting period, and licensing in order to use one, after demonstrating you have a justifiable need of a hammer of course.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: October 31, 2022, 07:10:56 PM »
Once their information bubble is pierced, their world falls apart, and it's a short hop onto the express train into crazy town.

The political left needs to come out of its safe spaces, they're endangering the rest of society.

On a bit of further thought. There is something that the situation of many of these former lefties turned insane right-winger.

They're people who were, for all intents and purposes, members of a cult. At least for how they had built their world around their left-wing views. And from what little I do understand about things for people that have escaped from the clutches of a cult(by whatever means, up to and including the cult being shutdown), is that they normally need considerable help "returning to the normal world." Help these people are not getting after they've had their "red pill moment" ....

Which means they do something that more than few rescued cultists have done. They escaped one, only to turn around and walk right back into another (different) one. Welcome to Q-Anon and those other whacky right-wing groups. Population: Mostly former disillusioned self-professed liberals that just left the Democratic Party.

They need help, but from anyone but the Democrats.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: October 31, 2022, 06:42:04 PM »
I'd also like to point out that the conservatives that have not rioted in the past 50 years were people who voted for and generally supported people like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  You probably did not see many people who voted for Romney in 2012 at the riot on Jan 6.  But you did see lots of people who voted for His High Holy Builder of Walls.  That's another thing that makes it unique and thus defines it.  The fact that for 50 years conservatives by definition generally did not riot, but suddenly people who say they are conservatives are rioting because of.......  I don't know.  It's a mystery, right?

Would be an interesting study. But I think you might be surprised on what you find. Brandon Straka was one of the participants in the January 6th riot. I think he was previously discussed in here for #walkaway (from the Democratic Party) in the 2017 time-frame. He was a Democratic voter prior to 2016, and he probably had a lot of #walkaway friends there who were "Obama Democrats" in attendance as well. (Sadly it seems he fell into an extremist echo chamber) But what happened in his case actually isn't that unique, during 2020 there were some people (including Tim Pool) who were taking note "radical right wingers" seemed to have a disproportionate amount of representation coming from people who claim to have identified as Democrats or "Liberals" in the past... In other words, the conservatives from pre-2012 didn't really move. What you saw happen was a bunch of people move from being politically left of them to being what is generally considered to be to political "right" of them. In some respects, I guess we could potentially call this a quasi "born again" effect for those who've ever had occasion to deal with the "Born Again Christians."

Decent odds you'd also find a lot of the people who were involved in that event that weren't "reformed liberals" either didn't vote (even when able) in most of the presidential election cycles since 1992. Although some of the older ones may have started voting again in 2010 with the Tea Party... But I'd tend to bet a substantial portion of that group subsequently didn't vote in at least 3 of intervening federal election cycles in between... So largely people who were outside of the political system until a wave of populism under Trump caused them to re-engage with the system in the dysfunctional way that is all too common with movements involving populist leaders(To be clear: Obama was a populist as well, just on the other side of the political spectrum).

Thought so, see underline above for the more specific portion.

Once their information bubble is pierced, their world falls apart, and it's a short hop onto the express train into crazy town.

The political left needs to come out of its safe spaces, they're endangering the rest of society.

Given how thoroughly Russia has stuck its junk in a meat grinder, I think the current international order still has awhile to go before it collapses. The destruction of the Russian army without a shot fired by NATO I think proves that attempts to hurry along the end of Pax Americana is not a safe proposition. If we're really lucky it suggests that a modern system army is incompatible with authoritarian regimes and that anyone who's likely to play the game by the old rules will end up with similarly shredded junk.

Well, the US Navy's CNO is thinking China might invade Taiwan as early as next year. So we'll see when the meat grinder gets to have its next test.

General Comments / Re: Paul Pelosi got hammered ... again.
« on: October 31, 2022, 06:27:50 PM »

So he's looking like a prior extreme lefty who may had recently been "red pilled" and snapped in the process.

I could swear this has been discussed in here in the past.


Just one of the gems:
According to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”

“The challenge is particularly acute in marginalized communities,” the report states, “which are often the targets of false or misleading information, such as false information on voting procedures targeting people of color.”

The post WW2 order is an anomaly in human history held up by the American security umbrella.

Maybe humanity's better nature will win out at the time that America decides to drop the ball. But I'm more inclined to think there is no shortage of people, and nations, salivating at the idea of that day coming while they're in a position to leverage it.

Some nations will be luckier than others where the ability to act is concerned and how it relates to them. But it'll be a huge mess for those not comparably fortunate.

But at least the world got a 70+ year approximation of the American founding father's vision of what a global community of (near equal) peer nations could do if they set aside the imperial order of their era.

Which is to say nothing of other aspects of California's GDP not actually having much to do with California itself. If California were to become its own nation, much of the GDP would disappear near instantly, almost like a lot things did in Britain after Brexit, only much worse.

General Comments / Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« on: October 31, 2022, 02:56:15 PM »
The theory has some things lending it credence. Security cameras evidently offline for some reason. The window was broken out by all appearances rather than in, and a number of other minor apparent discrepancies from what was known last I bothered with that news cycle.

I'm not thinking its a prostitution case though. It will be interesting to see what makes its way into the public light as the investigation proceeds. Getting potential shades of Jussie Smollett here.

Aside: The story of Costa Rica with regards to having a standing army (it doesn't have one) is interesting. It made the move in spite of the US and Russia trying really hard to 'infulance' them other wise. Apparently no standing army makes it difficult for coup's. They prefer to spend thier money on health care and education.

Located in Central America, protected by the Monroe Doctrine whether they like it or not, whether former President Obama believes it still exists or not.

Also close enough to America that any nation that dares to violate the UN Charter by invading them is going to be getting a very heavy dose of high explosive, precision guided "freedom" in their immediate vicinity not long after.

Russia in this story is not Japan. Russia in this story is America, Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, and a few other imperial powers of the last century. Russia is taking what doesn't belong to them and the reason is because they think they can. Just like the U.S. took the Philippines and Hawaii and the entire U.S. actually.

Uh. You do realize who we took the Philippines from, don't you? You do realize why they're called the Philippine Islands?

The US took the islands from Spain. Who had taken control of (most of) the islands centuries earlier, although it wasn't until the Americans controlled it that a western power had fully pacified all of the islands.

I keep reading about the current thing about suicide drone attacks.  Really?  I mean I guess the drone does not exist any more, but if the drone was designed to be a one use weapon, as compared to one that normally goes back for refueling and does many missions, how is it a suicide drone?

"Suicide drones" are basically "the poor man's cruise missile," likely with greatly improved ability to maneuver in tight spaces and at very low cost.

Drones as delivery platforms certainly do exist as well, the US certainly loves to give their drones missiles rather than using the drone as a missile. But as seen with the Switchblade Drones, even the US will "suicide" drones in the right circumstances.

Small, highly portable, and cheap enough that their loss is expected and won't be mourned--so long as the supply chain holds up.

If Japan had succeeded all of Asia would be unified like China is now except instead of speaking Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), they'd all be speaking Japanese and English or maybe German. But the main thing is they'd be safe and free from European imperialists. In a thousand years someone would ask a person if that unification was worth the atrocities and they'd say yes.

Not going to disagree. The problem Japan had/has is they were the last ones to do it that is both widely known about and acknowledged at present. Prior to the industrial era, very few people would have called them out on it.

Our perspective now is that of people assuming that colonialism hardly exists anymore and we incorrectly believe it's collapse was inevitable. Not so.

Its collapse was a combination of Industrialization, and American involvement in WW2. Without lend-lease, Britain's government goes bankrupt in 1941 and sues for peace with Nazi Germany, ending WW2 for the British Empire and much of Western Europe. Parts of the British Empire possibly get "gifted" to the Fuhrer, and likewise Vichy France possibly does much the same with some of the French colonies before getting more of the French rump returned to it. And with the Nazi's being the reigning power, nobody's going to bat an eye at brutal suppression of dissidents. So Ghandi likely pursues a path that is not non-violent, as IIRC even he admitted that the non-violence approach he took only worked because the British people had "a better nature" to appeal to.

With Western Europe out of the fight, there is no Breton Woods agreement, so the United States doesn't get to use that lever to force the European powers to let their colonies go over the course of the 1950's and 60's. A whole lot of other things also shift around at that stage as the American approach to everything would have changed by necessity.

Of course we can't know for sure but it certainly looks like Japan's actions directly resulted in the collapse of Western imperialism. If WWII never happened, or if Japan had never been a part of it, would all the countries like India and Vietnam and the Philippines really be free from their colonial masters? It's easy to say yes of course but connecting the historical dots doesn't lead us to any such conclusion. They could very well all still be colonies along with more of African too. And again, of course, Hawaii. Why was Hawaii colonized? Let's be honest now. The real reason and the only reason is because they didn't have the military power to stop it.

Without Japan's involvement in WW2, I'm pretty confident the European Colonies would have still been dismantled by the United States, although it likely would have taken longer. D-Day would have also been "different" to say the least, as that means the D-Day planners don't get the benefit of expertise, experience, and equipment developed over the course of the US fighting the Island Hopping campaign across the Pacific.

Britain would still have likely gone broke in 1941, as Japan didn't even declare war on them until December 7th, 1941(same day as Pearl Harbor).

The fall of the European Colonial Empires lies entirely at the feet of Adolph Hitler bankrupting their treasuries by way of wartime material support provided by the Americans. And as the Americans were not okay with the imperial colonial model, they used that opening to start taking it apart systematically.

This also means that if the Americans remove their thumbs from the scale, if nobody else steps in to take their place, expect colonialism to attempt to make a comeback. Although that's probably not going to work well for those nations, as Russia is seeing now.

The Europeans and Japanese were only able to dominate their colonial possessions like that did because they had a significant technological advantage. As it stands right now, thanks to 70+ years of the American imposed order, everyone is in a rough general technological parity with each other, except the guys with the "top shelf" American/NATO gear. So unless they're willing to feed a proverbial meat grinder, or their neighbor is effectively toothless for some reason...

The Native Americans didn't fight like the Japanese. They didn't industrialize, militarize, conquer other nations for resources, and all the rest that the Japanese did. Maybe they tried to be brutal and savage in their own way but not at scale. And look what happened to them.

Many of the Native America tribes didn't "militarize" because they were already as militarized as their culture, traditions, and resources allowed them to be. Also, they did "conquer other nations for resources" it just happened that those other nations are "simply other tribes" which white men casually brush off as "no big deal," and not worth spending any time thinking about the mass population displacements tribes were imposing on each other long before the Europeans came along. The Europeans simply didn't "fight fair" because they had material, technological, biological(through germs), and numerical advantages.

It's be interesting to see an alternate history in which the Japanese war machine never went on the march. If you look at the rest of the world, it wouldn't have ended as well for the Japanese as what they have now. At least they still have their country. What do the Native Americans have? A reservation and a casino, if they're lucky.

Arguable. If the US hadn't been paranoid about the Japanese/British Alliance being used to contain the US in the 1920's and thus made the abrogation of that alliance a condition of the Washington Naval Treaty, things might have been different. But probably not by much. It just likely would have translated into the transition from the UK being the global super power to the US being it becoming one of the instances where Thucydides Trap did result in a war rather than a (somewhat) peaceful transition by war of the US and UK allying to defeat Germany and Japan in WW2. However, even that could be questioned, given the US attitudes towards the military in the early 1930's and even late 1930's even with Nazi's and Imperial Japan on the march.

A Japan that was able to freely trade and interact with the British Royal Navy and the USN could have been a very different thing. However, without many of the reforms that MacArthur forced on them during occupation, that probably would have had a communist revolution/revolt of some kind, which says nothing about their possessions in Korea and Northern China that predated their post-ww1 aggressions.

Obviously, Japan shouldn't have done what they did and the way they did it in China and pretty much everywhere else either. I guess they didn't get the memo on how to colonize countries and plunder their resources in the civilized tradition of the West. But I bet if you took a closer look you'd see that the West didn't colonize people with the velvet glove you imagine.

The west did plenty of horrific things, but killing people at an industrial scale wasn't one of them. Especially as colonial powers. Most of Europe's activities predated the ability to bring the industrial age to the Military fully. Basically, the only place that got to fully experience that from the Europeans would be the Chinese... Who then had a second helping of it from the Japanese not even 2 generations later.

It was the advent of "industrial scale warfare" which led to the European's imposing all kinds of rules and restrictions because Europe had been one of the primary proving grounds for exactly how horrific that could get.

Not really. You just need significant coastal defenses. Might have to return Hawaii to the native dwellers. Mexico has got a lot of coast, so does Canada. What's Canada got?

As of 2021, the RCN operates 12 frigates, four attack submarines, 12 coastal defence vessels, eight patrol class training vessels, two offshore patrol vessels, and several auxiliary vessels. Oh

...and the United States Navy.

Even Canada must have some military. Yes, they'd fall down in front of the US and probably even Mexico, but they *have* to have *something.*. You're not a real country if you don't.

Canada is largely moot in any case. The only other nation it shares a land border with is the United States, and its next closest neighbor is Denmark by way of Greenland. Neither are likely to bother with invading them, and the US will react very forcefully to anyone else who tries to do so.

Canada "does fine without a military" because it quite literally hides in the shadow of the United States.

This has nothing to do with defending the way they prosecuted the war. I thought we were talking about who started it. That's two totally different issues. Remember we're talking about the time of manifest destiny and the white man's burden. Japan didn't roll over like the rest of the world, and it's no coincidence that colonialism only ended after the hypocrisy of decrying Japan's imperialism while perpetrating our own, coupled with a lot of protests and wars, became too much to bear. And in some cases it never did end, for instance with Hawaii. It's almost amusing how we freak out about imperial Japan attacking a colony and outpost of our own empire, one savagely conquered and stolen from its rightful owners. Japan shouldn't have done things the way they did but they had to do something.

The Phillipines were already on course for independence in 1945 prior to Japan invading it(and causing delays, and other problems, in that process), in fact, the transitional Commonwealth was formed in 1935(and was itself the culmination of work started years earlier). Before Japan started in on another round of conquest in China in 1936.

Hawaii became a state, that matter is moot for them now. And also completely aside from the matter that Hawaiian independence has exactly 0 legs to stand on in Hawaii except for the fringiest of the fringe, even among the natives. Guam and Puerto Rico remain in the US by their own choice.

As to Japan not being colonized? That's because they had something of a mixed blessing. They had nothing particularly unique, or of sufficiently compelling value, for the European powers to consider conquest of Japan to be "worth their time/effort." That was also why Japan turned into an expansionist power as soon as it completed initial industrialization, that expansion was desperately needed in order to secure the resources needed to continue to support industrialization without being at the mercy of other nations/empires.

It's possible that after the Suez Canal opened in 1869, in an alternate timeline where the Americans hadn't turned up and forced them to open their markets at least slightly in 1853. A European power might have bothered with them as they likely wouldn't have been industrialized and established as "valued trading partners" with major powers in that scenario. But even then, chances are their worst case would have been either the UK or Portugal turning up and creating a "trade city" of their own on Japanese soil in line with Hong Kong/Maccau/Singapore, but that they'd otherwise be ignored except for whatever outside trade they bothered to engage in. Because once again, Japan had nothing unique to offer the imperial powers of the time. They could get more/better elsewhere and much closer to their home nations. The only non-Asiatic powers that Japan truly needed to be worried about were Russia and the United States of America, because Japan was in their respective back yards; unlike the rest of Europe.

To bring it back around to Russia, there's a lesson in there for them too. No matter what they think their justifications for war are, they and their children and grandchildren will suffer the shame of the way its prosecuted.

Unless of course they win the way the U.S. did in which case our own raping and brutality was swept under the rug.

The raping and brutality of the US vs the Natives was a mutual thing, and it was in vogue everywhere at the time. "Right of Conquest" was enshrined in International Law right up until the ratification of the UN Charter after WW2 which had its signatories renounce it from then on. But not before they made some retroactive "corrections" on Japan's and Germany's territorial claims. In Germany's case even making some ahistorical "corrections" to my understanding, but given Germany had been the anchor for the losing side in two World Wars in three generations, and the primary instigator for the second one, that's somewhat understandable.

Russia won't find their actions "swept under the rug" unless the entire global order crumbles, because that isn't how everyone agreed things should work 70 years ago.

There is also an interpretation of history along the lines that Japan didn't really lose the war. Yes, the lost the war for conquest of Asia but they won the greater war because they are one of only two Asian countries that were never colonized and never suffered a commie civil war, either of which would have been worse than what they suffered in the war including the nukes, also noting that some countries experienced the pleasure of suffering both like Vietnam which today enjoys a GDP of 271 billion compared to Japan's 5 trillion.

To turn things on their ears. It could be argued that Western Germany, Western Europe, Japan, and most other (non-Soviet) nations "won WW2" and the United States arguably surrendered to everyone who wasn't aligned with the Soviets based on the outcome.

The primary reason for Germany and Japan going to war was to better secure their frontiers in order to ensure they had a secure and stable supply chain of needed natural resources. Because pre-WW2 the world lived under a Imperial and rather merchantilist system of trade. If you didn't control the resources directly, and couldn't secure the transport routes, you were somebody else's b*tch.

So imagine their surprise when they get defeated by the Allies, and a few years later get invited into the Breton Woods agreement, and are given access to this new fangled "global market" the Americans had created, where the Americans were giving everyone equal protection and access under it--and the Americans paid the lion's share of the bills with no demands of tribute/taxes(aka forming a PAX).

It's funny to see how much many people vilify Breton Woods these days. It was one of the most singularly historically unique events in human history. The United States had everyone by their tender bits, and than using to create a literal empire, they went for a far more abstract one instead. "We're going to give you basically everything you ever wanted to ensure your nation prospers. But in exchange, when we come calling on matters of national/international security, you better answer 'yes.'"

When did I imply that a country shouldn't be able to defend itself? You don't need a blue water navy for that. You do need a blue water navy to establish the Monroe doctrine and related concepts. You do need a blue water navy if you need to punish and subjugate the country with the temerity to have attacked you.

Apologies for not thinking of a more sophisticated analogy from fiction.

You need a Blue Water Navy when the only people who might attack you would have to transit across "blue water" to get to you. The United States has a lot of coast line, it's a natural maritime power.

The Japanese were *so* bad that the literal Nazi ambassador tried to tell them to chill with what they were doing in China. Think on that for a moment. Early 20th century Japan were the bad guys, no ifs ands or buts.

Just seeing a written overview or pictures of the rape of Nanking makes me wish they'd had a third nuke to throw at them.

And those actions were significant contributors in the US decision to cut off the supply of materials helping support Japan's war efforts in China coming from the US. Which made Japan fall into critical shortage and "forced" them to attack the US so they could regain the resources they needed to continue carrying out war crimes? But America was the bad guy in deciding not to help them continue to do so... Right. By all rights, we should have pulled the plug much earlier, except our Navy was in no position to face them down just then.

Even Canada must have some military. Yes, they'd fall down in front of the US and probably even Mexico, but they *have* to have *something.*. You're not a real country if you don't.

Canada is largely moot in any case. The only other nation it shares a land border with is the United States, and its next closest neighbor is Denmark by way of Greenland. Neither are likely to bother with invading them, and the US will react very forcefully to anyone else who tries to do so.

Canada "does fine without a military" because it quite literally hides in the shadow of the United States.

General Comments / Re: The Jan 6 Commission
« on: October 14, 2022, 11:32:04 AM »
Well, given what some new reporting is indicating. I now await the subpoena of Nancy "I've been waiting for this" Pelosi. Although I guess that'll have to wait until January.  ;)

General Comments / Re: Russian War Crimes
« on: October 14, 2022, 11:14:49 AM »
Thanks to modern technology, we have the means to make it happen, even if the Russians completely destroy the paper trail.

Russia's citizenry is really not going to like what that entails though.

DNA testing for every child living inside Russia's borders. Presumably their parents as well.

In what world are you living in where Russian citizens agree to DNA tests for every child?

One where Russia takes it in the face in a rather big way. if their government has no choice in the matter, there isn't much they can do about it.

You have money, or you have nuclear weapons , or you have both. In the grand scheme of things, that's all that seems to matter. Recall that the UN was absolutely against the second Iraq war. You saw how much good that did.

All else considered, there was at least a legal pretext that can be argued about Iraq in 2003. A simple declaration that Iraq was violation of the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement is all the authorization needed. They arguably didn't need a new Security Council Resolution, the one that authorized Desert Storm also indirectly gave authority for Iraqi Freedom. (That and there were a few other resolutions passed after 1991 that Iraq could be found to be in breech of even without the WMD issue, and those also had that cease fire hanging over Saddam's head.)

No such UN Security Council actions are on record as it relates to Ukraine for Russia to even begin to argue that they had any kind of legal pretext (under the UN Charter) for invading Ukraine this past February.

General Comments / Re: Russian War Crimes
« on: October 14, 2022, 11:07:41 AM »
In the bigger sense I get what you're saying, do you track down every Ukrainian kid? They've been spread out through the Russian Federation and as sad as it is, I don't see a way to get them back.

Thanks to modern technology, we have the means to make it happen, even if the Russians completely destroy the paper trail.

Russia's citizenry is really not going to like what that entails though.

DNA testing for every child living inside Russia's borders. Presumably their parents as well.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 14, 2022, 12:44:27 AM »

”Persons used to count as 3/5th of a citizen, no, for purposes of representation?”

No, not exactly; negro “persons” counted as 3/5 of a person.

Actually, it wasn't negro's specifically, if you read the constitution honestly. You have to infer the negro part.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"All other persons" who are not "free" or are not bound to an indefinite service term(aka slaves) and not an indian(Native American).

It could be argued that an illegal immigrant could qualify as "all other persons" except that we revised it when slavery was abolished.

So we're left with:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

And as Macaroon sits at the table in NATO, that means he has effectively told Russia that NATO will do nothing to escalate things should Russia decide to take "more extreme measures" in Ukraine. Because France will block it.

Which means "coalition of the willing" time once again, and more pissing on NATO once again by the United States.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 13, 2022, 12:25:07 PM »
Quit crapping on NATO.  Stand against Russian and Chinese aggression.  Grow allies.  Grade B+.  This is the most important element for me, and it is where the most success has been.  The only thing that would have been better is getting Ukraine in NATO in January, or the US entering the war in some form to end it quickly instead of dragging this on for 8-9 months or longer.  NATO and the US can end the war in a week.  Not pleased with how things have ended up with the middle east and India backing Russia.  Real diplomatic failures, but it's not just the admin's fault.  But that is who will be blamed.

NATO admission for Ukraine in January would have been complicated by the matter of Crimea and portions of Ukraine already held by "pro-Russian forces" even then. It would have immediately placed NATO in a state of war against Russia. This still applies should Ukraine be admitted right now as under international law(even the UN charter), Crimea is territory occupied by a hostile force, which immediately invokes the mutual self-defense clause for NATO.

As to *censored*ting on NATO. The US has been *censored*ting on NATO since Bill Clinton was in office, we've just typically been more polite about it. Yeah, yeah, the US is the only nation to have invoked the self-defense clause in the treaty, but that was after being asked by everyone in NATO at the time for them to do so. And NATO participation in Afghanistan did mean Bush43 was a lot more circumspect in how he handled the matter, but he wasn't all sunshine and rainbows on NATO either.

But NATO had their wake up call after Putin's activities at the end of February this year. The "unthinkable" that the US had been warning them about, if they kept neglecting defense, for nearly 30 years happened. Although it remains to be seen how long the wake up lasts, given Russia's very poor performance in the field.

If Russia does an extremely limited nuclear strike of the tactical kind, the NATO response should be a massive conventional counterattack. With it made clear that any more nukes means the nukes will come out in response. Otherwise the conventional assault continues until the entire Command Chain that authorized that nuclear strike is turned over for prosecution for war crimes.

"Nuke for a nuke" is a sucker's game. The only way to make it clear that the global community does not want to see nukes used in warfare is to do everything possible short of that final option.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 06, 2022, 12:28:58 PM »
I feel like OPEC+may have overplayed their hand here. They will simply hasten the transition to alternatives.

Politically it should be spun as “I was right to push for the energy and infrastructure transition so we no longer need to be subject to the whim of the oil producers in fact we should have done more, if only the Republicans would stop serving their oil sheik masters and start serving America”

Just how much Sheik oil money is Jared managing again?

You do realize the Republican line is to unfettered domestic drilling and production. Domestic oil production would help drive down oil prices and take money out of the pockets of those Sheiks both directly(American produced oil purchases), and indirectly(lower prices being supported on the market).

Yes, our refineries would need to adjust to light sweet crude. But they can do that easily enough. They just need to be certain that the next time Democrats get a chance, they're not going to destroy the supply chain for political reasons.

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: October 05, 2022, 07:57:22 AM »
Maybe he was about to be banned.

The Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) chief executive suggested that Crimea, which Moscow seized in 2014, be formally recognized as Russia, that water supply to Crimea be assured and that Ukraine remain neutral. He asked Twitter users to vote 'yes' or 'no' on the plan.

1. It was a poll.
2. As he pointed out, it still currently remains a highly probable outcome. Ukraine has a long road to haul before they can even reach Crimea, and Russia is likely to use nukes before it gets to that point.

Speaking objective truths, and posting unpopular polls shouldn't be bannable offenses to most Americans.

I hope Ukraine does get Crimea back, I think they have a chance of doing so. But I think they're going to be reigned in before then by NATO due to the nuclear threat.

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: October 04, 2022, 05:48:47 PM »
Alternate option is a lot of Musk's activities seem to hinge on his financial status at the time. So it could be one of his companies is about to do something that he expects to increase his valuation sufficiently that he doesn't need to sweat it out any longer.

General Comments / Re: Musk and Twitter
« on: October 04, 2022, 05:45:00 PM »
So is this basically Musk admitting he will loose the case if it goes to trial?

Or he is afraid something embarrassing will come out.  Or he has a reason he wants Twitter faster than might occur if it goes to trial.  Or this is a delaying tactic. Or ....
Or another Billionaire (or more) has decided to get involved in the purchase with comparable goals for Twitter. Which means Musk won't be fronting as much of the financial burden.

Once the sale goes through, the current board can't say squat about what he does 5 minutes later, unless they locked something into the contract that prohibits it.

General Comments / Re: So, how is Uncle Joe working for you?
« on: October 04, 2022, 02:17:24 PM »
If they ever stop giving millions to union bosses to spend, then they would never get the union executives to continuously ignore their rank and file.

Change that subject of that from union bosses to Corporate CEO's and you have the issue on the other side.

Not really these days. They're basically the same, as mich of the fortune 500 is unionized.

Cut a nice big contract for unionized workers to get paid working on, and allow the CEO and top execs from the contracting company to walk away with big fat bonus paychecks.

The Democratic party represents mega-corporate CEO's and big union leadership fron those entities.

General Comments / Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
« on: October 03, 2022, 06:05:08 PM »
The famous Wagon Mound case set the reasonable foreseeability requirement as “the foresight of a reasonable man”. (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. 2), [1967] 1 AC 617) While some people are more susceptible than others to serious psychiatric injuries, it would not be reasonable to require third parties to be aware of such possibilities.  Unusual or extreme events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable.  The law of negligence draws the line for compensability of damage.  One cannot use unique frailties as a form of insurance.

That's your legal case, not that it actually applies in any way. It is obviously reasonably foreseeable that someone might suffer from post-partum depression. Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.

This is one of my biggest reasons for having a pet theory that so many of the women who vehemently pro-abortion rights are also people who have had abortions themselves are even a thing.

They're suppressing/rationalizing what happened with their own abortion, and view any attempts to restrict abortions as personal attacks on the choice they made.

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 08:28:18 PM »
The issue isn't the jokester - but the logic behind the law. A University official said: "...Utah law doesn’t distinguish between jokes or terroristic threats that are not attempted or not possible. Just don’t do it: Don’t post a threat on social media. We have a zero-tolerance policy for these kinds of threats,” said Chief Jason Hinojosa. “In the age that we’re living in, we have to take every threat seriously.”

What law says a joke must be found criminal, regardless of whether it was or not? Shouldn't the law be about the intent, and whether harm was done? Growing up, there were kids who pulled fire alarms in school to get out of tests. That was criminal. Threatening to do something is wrong if it causes fear or problems for anyone. Judging non-threatening threats as criminal seem to cause more problems than the joke. There is nothing wrong with shaming someone who causes problems on purpose - but promoting cancel-culture is worse than most problems they claim to be concerned about.

By the way, policy is not part of the criminal justice code. Policy is only something designed for the benefit of the policy-maker.

The police chief doesn't prosecute the crime. That's on the county prosecutor's office if the charge is criminal. All they can do is refer it to the county for further action. And this would be an instance where "prosecutorial discretion" is applicable. Also possible they could downgrade the charge before sending it to court, or make a plea deal, again for a lesser offense, where some community service might be involved.

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:20:23 PM »
If a threat is impossible, then I'm sure its going to be different. I don't see that the student has been charged with anything as of yet. Just arrested. I mean this is far out there as opposed to "I'm going to stab the quarterback."

"I'm going to blow up the cold fusion lab, I swear!"

Well, while varying definitions of "detonate" apply, there is record of an incident involving a nuclear reactor failure in Idaho that investigators believe may have been the result of a love triangle involving two of the men operating the reactor at the time it went critical and generated a steam explosion with sufficient force that all of the men inside the reactor containment area were dead within either moments, or hours depending on where they were in the room.

General Comments / Re: Joke, not a joke
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:16:27 PM »
For instance if the message had been "If we don't win today, I'll have to go ahead and detonate the sun" would a person be arrested for that?


Technically, the sun is an ongoing fusion detonation that is both constrained and sustained by the force of gravity due to its huge mass.  ;D

General Comments / Re: Guns
« on: September 24, 2022, 03:11:01 PM »
Do you have evidence that they weren't worried about foreign invasion? It seems reasonable for them to be concerned that the British might try and get their colony back. Or that other colonial powers would try and take advantage of poorly defended real estate.

The War of 1812 showed the British could invade if they chose, so it was more historical accident that the US was mostly left alone rather than being attacked.

They were concerned to a degree, but I think both they, and those same foreign powers realized that subjugation of the United States was not viable with the technical capabilities that existed at the time. The advent of the Railroad and telegraph made it that much worse for an invader.

The reality the British faced during the Revolutionary War was that the American Colonies were already too large in terms of both area and population for them to viable occupy. Emphasis on the term "viably" in this case. The economics of the situation simply made it not worth doing. As their attack on Washington DC demonstrated in the War of 1812(and various other locations during the Revolutionary War), they could exercise supremacy over part of the United States at any given time, but they would require a much larger, and far more expensive force, to be able to hold most of it, never mind attempting to hold all of it.

The colonies simply were not that valuable to them in the short/medium term, and their treasury couldn't support such an undertaking in any case. The war of 1812 proved the Americans were tenacious enough to look after their own interests, even if their performance against the British was rather lackluster, the Brits weren't concerned about that part. They were more concerned about other powers(France) being able take over. The war of 1812 set that aside. If the Brits couldn't pull it off with control of Canada giving them a land border, in addition to other Caribbean and Atlantic claims the Royal Navy could stage from, France and every other European power had no chance.

It was more economical for the UK to foster strong, long-term diplomatic and trade ties with the United States and let the Americans have to concern themselves with their own defense. Rather than make the crown have to both worry about "keeping the Americans in their place" and worry about defending them at the same time. Through trade they could get everything they would have obtained through the colonial control in any case, and they didn't need to worry about most of the other overhead. Yes, it was mildly annoying that they weren't "locked in" to trade with the Empire, but still, a lower cost option with better returns than the alternatives available.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 104