They gave up their bicycles and quaint straw hats for modernity and now they think they’re entitled to the same standard of living as Americans.

Don’t care

It’s easy to ignore the suffering of others. Have you spent any time in villages where the richest people live like medieval peasants because the whole town hasn’t had any infrastructure improvements in over a century? “Rich” in those places just means slightly less desperately poor. They’re quite egalitarian, it’s just that they’re all broke together.

I’ve never heard of Siemens referred to as an “automation company”.

That’s technically true but they’re much more into heavy industry. They build power plants, trains, ports and industrial automation equipment. They’ve had to lay off some of their own employees but I’m not aware of any cases of their business putting other people out of work.

Is absurd that we essentially have a regressive income tax. I also wouldn’t ignore the global environment during that period.

During those decades, the US was effectively the only industrialized nation in the world. Everyone else either never had factories to begin with, or had smoldering piles of rubble where their factories used to be.

The major difference is that in “blink” and “chicken” you expect to keep doing your thing (eg driving straight ahead) while only your opponent makes concessions.

The Cuban missile crisis involved significant concessions on both sides.

The Cuban middle crisis was resolved through negotiation and concessions, not by a game of nuclear chicken.

I don’t know if any of your predictions are true. They might be, but I don’t have nearly enough evidence to be confident in any of them.

If they are, I don’t see how the complete collapse of Russia is even remotely feasible. Those predictions add up to saying that none of the necessary pre-conditions have been or will be met. Together, they say that we have no way to coerce Russia into the desired state and we have no way to re-align their interest to get them to do so voluntarily.

China definitely won’t swoop in to defend Ukraine against Russia. I think we can agree on that. It’s pretty clear the US won’t either. I think we can agree on that too.

That’s why I’m wondering if you think the EU can get big enough to do so on it’s own, and do so quickly.

I can see why this would be a good outcome for Europe.

It essentially turns Russia into a puppet state. If we were to eliminate China and the US, that would make Russia Europe’s puppet state. While it has some obvious advantages to Europe, it’s clearly not in the interest of either Putin or Russia (the most pessimistic estimates put his approval rating at over 60% among Russians).

Since it’s obviously not to their advantage they won’t agree to it. That means someone would have to force them to accept that new status quo. The US just dropped all support and China has made it pretty clear that they’re not going to participate in any operation like that either.

So that leaves the EU. I’ll circle back to my earlier question. Do you think the EU is ready to adopt and ratify a constitution if it came up again? Absent that, do you think the EU can put together a military coalition that’s big enough and permanent enough to induce an immediate surrender by Russia? If not, do you think that the EU is willing and able to wage a protracted direct war against Russia?

What would be the best way for that to happen? More specifically, how can we pull this off safely?

We have very little historical precedent to go on. The USSR collapsed in 1991. There was some nervousness around what was going to happen with all their nukes. Ultimately, we ended up with Russia, led by Putin.

How would we stop Putin from triggering nuclear retaliation?
If we stop that, how do we make sure some other oligarch doesn’t immediately take his place?
If Russia were to completely collapse, what would happen to Russia? Would we be willing to let China take over? If not would we be willing to maintain an indefinite occupation of Russia?

There may be good answers to all of these questions. It seems the more practical solution is to contain Russia. Do you think the EU would be ready to adopt a constitution if it came up again?

Where do the Thunderkittens fit into this evolution?

Or Fritz the Cat?

Wasn’t she picked to replace a white guy with a cock because it was obvious to everyone that he wasn’t gonna be president?

Maybe. “Allowed” suggested that they wanted or welcomed it.

A bunch of formerly powerful people in the Republican party are now much less powerful. Many of them have been sidelined in the Republican party and replaced. Several prominent former Republicans have effectively switched to the Democrats.

The Republicans and Democrats have differences in how they structure their organizations but neither one wants to intentionally allow outsiders to take over.

Maybe. I think it’s more likely that she truly believed that her milquetoast approach was actually the safer option. I’m not even sure Harris was exceptionally cowardly.

Many other people would likely have folded and taken that “safe” option.

The problem is that we needed someone who went well beyond just “not cowardice”. We needed an actual hero. We needed a candidate who was willing to boldly face down big money interests, even when it seemed unwise and hopeless. Harris definitely wasn’t that hero.

The Democratic party, as it stands, is dead and the Greens are stillborn.

There’s nothing but hopes and prayers to support the idea that the Greens will ever get anywhere in the US. They have neither a policy platform nor any individuals who inspire broad support.

It is absolutely possible to take over parties from within though. We’ve seen it happen twice with the Republicans. They tried, and failed, to keep the Tea Party from taking over. Then they tried, and failed, to keep Trump from taking over.

History suggests we have a better chance getting AOC to take over and clean house with the Democrats than we do waiting for the Greens to make any headway.

I agree. Her speech on the Monday after she got picked was great. She came out of the gate swinging. She laid out a solid initial vision with a realistic warning that it was going to be a hard fight.

Then she didn’t.

Somewhere along the line she got cold feet and decided that not rocking the boat would be a safe option. She thought that pushing too hard would galvanize her opponents. Instead she tried to play nice with them and alienated large chunks of her base.

Harris raised 50% more than Trump. It’s hard to pin this one solely on big money influence.

I think that’s the point of this tour. He isn’t running for president. He’s trying to build a support base for a real alternative.

That’s presumably AOC but it’s still too early.

There might be some advantage in electability advantage for old white guys but the outcome doesn’t really seem worth the effort.

AOC would certainly have a bunch of biases to overcome but from everything I can see, she would be a great leader. She seems to have a solid understanding of many spheres including economics, international relations, people, politics, marketing and more. She also seems to prioritize the good of the people over her own power or pocketbook.

She might be harder to get in but it’s absurd to dismiss her as a clown.

Ah. Now I understand. I think those people prefer more naked propaganda like “American Sniper” though.

We might be talking about different things. I’m just saying that Starship Troopers is an anti-war film and most of the people who like it are fairly liberal.