I don't think anything I wrote disputes any of that, in fact the whole message is about the fact that you can help choose the candidates even if it's a "deep blue" or "deep red" area through the primary process, so there's no such thing as a fully foregone conclusion.
If you had a good idea that something big and bad was coming, wouldn't you want to say something ahead of time? Even if you didn't intend to change anything by your words you can at least go back and say "well I did warn about what was coming"
I don't follow.
If you choose not to vote in a primary, it was still the people who did vote who chose the candidate. Meaning I'm not ignoring the role of voters...
If you choose not to vote in a primary, it was still the people who did vote who chose the candidate. Meaning I'm not ignoring the role of voters...
How so?
You vote in the primary and then you vote in the general for the candidate who won the primary.
You vote in the primary and then you vote in the general for the candidate who won the primary.
One of the things that you said in there feels like something really important and something that I strongly agree with.
One of the reasons that liberalism does need to be something of a value is that we do need to coexist with people that we don't strictly agree with, and the better we can do that tomorrow more harmonious our society. Of course there's going to be people that you just can't coexist with for example if I want to live and you want me to die then we can't compromise I'm not going to die just a little bit. On the other hand, for the most part that's not really the sort of things that people disagree over. We tend to disagree on things that may seem life or death but perhaps aren't necessarily.
I've told people on here before that I don't necessarily even agree with everything that I say so it's pretty important to find ways to coexist with people I don't agree with!
Ideally it becomes sort of a two-way social contract, where you leave me alone to live how I prefer even when you disagree, and I leave you alone to live how you prefer even when I disagree, and maybe we can come together on the things we agree with. Especially if we both happen to agree on some very important things.
That's one of the things that I find most mind-blowing about some of the current political back and forth is fundamentally I think that most people agree on big things, whether they're left or right. Instead of using that commonality as a starting point, we fight over the stuff we disagree with, leaving the stuff we could agree with and do something about on the table.
One of the reasons that liberalism does need to be something of a value is that we do need to coexist with people that we don't strictly agree with, and the better we can do that tomorrow more harmonious our society. Of course there's going to be people that you just can't coexist with for example if I want to live and you want me to die then we can't compromise I'm not going to die just a little bit. On the other hand, for the most part that's not really the sort of things that people disagree over. We tend to disagree on things that may seem life or death but perhaps aren't necessarily.
I've told people on here before that I don't necessarily even agree with everything that I say so it's pretty important to find ways to coexist with people I don't agree with!
Ideally it becomes sort of a two-way social contract, where you leave me alone to live how I prefer even when you disagree, and I leave you alone to live how you prefer even when I disagree, and maybe we can come together on the things we agree with. Especially if we both happen to agree on some very important things.
That's one of the things that I find most mind-blowing about some of the current political back and forth is fundamentally I think that most people agree on big things, whether they're left or right. Instead of using that commonality as a starting point, we fight over the stuff we disagree with, leaving the stuff we could agree with and do something about on the table.
The problem is that any term with a defined meaning will simply have that meaning changed by the opponents of the thing.
Liberalism has a definition, it's had a definition for centuries. What is called liberalism today there is very little resemblance to liberalism. Just as you said, you have two factions both trying to silence speech they don't like, well arguably neither one of them is liberal in that regard.
I've heard some deep conservatives make a good argument that while liberalism is good, it is also a blank slate that can't be the sole basis for an ethical system. You have liberalism as the basis of how a state behaves, but there must be a moral foundation so that the people when given the freedom to behave however they want, choose to behave in a way that is prosocial and beneficial to the liberal society.
It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, the fact that some of the constraints on our lives aren't necessarily social or economic, but just constraints based on reality. It doesn't matter what economic system you live under, you need to eat food and drink water or you die. It doesn't matter what social mores say, for the human race to continue we need to procreate and ensure that our offspring thrive. Liberty therefore is always constrained by reality, and if we are a wise species, then alongside our Liberty we should be passing on the lessons of how to survive and thrive and attempt to pursue happiness.
Becoming a father was a little bit of a gut punch for me, because I never expected it to make me happy, but it does. I never really expected fatherhood to be fulfilling on a fundamental level, but it definitely is. Meanwhile, if the only thing that you care about is Liberty then of course you would not want to have children because they are going to just tie you down. But sometimes being tied down isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes it's those constraints and the responsibilities that you take on that give life meaning.
Anyway, going back to my initial point, one of the ways that you can end up with multiple meetings layered over an initial concept is that people will always look to the most powerful concept around to justify what they want. I once work somewhere with a very strong union, and if you asked people everything that they wanted was exactly what the union said that they needed to have even though that was false. When I worked in a place of a very strong safety culture, everything that they wanted had to be done because it was related to safety. And society that is extremely focused on liberalism, whatever people want will be reframed in terms of how liberalism demands it, and so I relatively simple concept ends up getting tied down with 100,000 individual social and political causes not because it necessarily follows but because that's how those individuals get what they want. Unfortunately along the way it also means that a relatively simple concept ends up becoming really complicated.
Liberalism has a definition, it's had a definition for centuries. What is called liberalism today there is very little resemblance to liberalism. Just as you said, you have two factions both trying to silence speech they don't like, well arguably neither one of them is liberal in that regard.
I've heard some deep conservatives make a good argument that while liberalism is good, it is also a blank slate that can't be the sole basis for an ethical system. You have liberalism as the basis of how a state behaves, but there must be a moral foundation so that the people when given the freedom to behave however they want, choose to behave in a way that is prosocial and beneficial to the liberal society.
It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, the fact that some of the constraints on our lives aren't necessarily social or economic, but just constraints based on reality. It doesn't matter what economic system you live under, you need to eat food and drink water or you die. It doesn't matter what social mores say, for the human race to continue we need to procreate and ensure that our offspring thrive. Liberty therefore is always constrained by reality, and if we are a wise species, then alongside our Liberty we should be passing on the lessons of how to survive and thrive and attempt to pursue happiness.
Becoming a father was a little bit of a gut punch for me, because I never expected it to make me happy, but it does. I never really expected fatherhood to be fulfilling on a fundamental level, but it definitely is. Meanwhile, if the only thing that you care about is Liberty then of course you would not want to have children because they are going to just tie you down. But sometimes being tied down isn't such a bad thing. Sometimes it's those constraints and the responsibilities that you take on that give life meaning.
Anyway, going back to my initial point, one of the ways that you can end up with multiple meetings layered over an initial concept is that people will always look to the most powerful concept around to justify what they want. I once work somewhere with a very strong union, and if you asked people everything that they wanted was exactly what the union said that they needed to have even though that was false. When I worked in a place of a very strong safety culture, everything that they wanted had to be done because it was related to safety. And society that is extremely focused on liberalism, whatever people want will be reframed in terms of how liberalism demands it, and so I relatively simple concept ends up getting tied down with 100,000 individual social and political causes not because it necessarily follows but because that's how those individuals get what they want. Unfortunately along the way it also means that a relatively simple concept ends up becoming really complicated.
That's definitely what happened after world war 1 and world war II. One thing that was a little bit different at those times is the country wasn't nearly as entwined in the entire world as it is today. That lack of investment in productive infrastructure would really bite hard in a world war 3 scenario. Meanwhile, China would likely be on the other side of the world war 3 scenario and they manufacture all of our stuff! (A long with Taiwan, who they'd either take immediately or bomb into the stone age)
I think that it's inevitable that that will happen, it's just a matter of when and how.
What's going to end up happening is prices will continue to slowly rise and previously uneconomical sources of oil will become economical, leading to much higher prices for oil but not an immediately reduced supply.
One thing that I think the market distortions we're seeing are going to cause is a premature lack of supply because nobody is investing in those critical future supplies. We are likely going to end up having to have some kind of big crisis and that will be the impetus to restore investment, and the oil companies are going to make money absolutely hand over fist for a while.
What's going to end up happening is prices will continue to slowly rise and previously uneconomical sources of oil will become economical, leading to much higher prices for oil but not an immediately reduced supply.
One thing that I think the market distortions we're seeing are going to cause is a premature lack of supply because nobody is investing in those critical future supplies. We are likely going to end up having to have some kind of big crisis and that will be the impetus to restore investment, and the oil companies are going to make money absolutely hand over fist for a while.
I tend to agree that part of the problem is the way that the word liberal has been co-opted by people who are clearly not liberal.
You have authoritarians going around calling themselves liberals, which is just wrong.
You have authoritarians going around calling themselves liberals, which is just wrong.
GameStop has always been funny because anyone who actually knows anything about video games knows that video game stores are basically not even a thing for most people anymore. Like, I have a game collection of thousands of games and I think I have stood in a game store maybe five times in the last 15 years? You can either buy it through online game stores, or you can get it through amazon, but there's also options like your local Walmart or for console games even pawn shops. There's so many options to buy your games from, and most video game stores don't really give you any kind of reason to buy from them.
Even people have worked at GameStop can tell you stories, and none of those stories are of a healthy company with good margins and lots of revenue.
Even people have worked at GameStop can tell you stories, and none of those stories are of a healthy company with good margins and lots of revenue.
The powers but that be think that they can continue doing this forever, but the quality of life in the west is becoming so poor we are already starting to see migrants go back to where they came from because it turns out life isn't actually any better in the West.
That process is just starting now, but I strongly suspect it's going to be happening more and more.
That process is just starting now, but I strongly suspect it's going to be happening more and more.
The darkest Day in Canadian history.
I remember passing by the 8-ft tall sign that said "the land of rape and honey" and it brought me so much joy. But now, it's gone probably forever.
Truly dark days.
I remember passing by the 8-ft tall sign that said "the land of rape and honey" and it brought me so much joy. But now, it's gone probably forever.
Truly dark days.
I understand why he did it, but what I don't understand is why he made this the base of operations?
An important thing to keep in mind is 1.4 degrees Celsius per century.
That is the rate they claim climate is changing at.
Once you remember that, then the high pressure used car salesman tactics become clear. A particularly warm year becomes a rallying cry that the world is going to end right now so we need to kill billions of people with similarly histrionic proposals. On the other hand, a particularly cold year is said to not represent anything because "the weather is not the climate".
Use of carbon as an energy source can't last forever regardless of climate change. There's only so much out there at any rate.
That said, one of the problems that the central planners have is that they only look at one variable at one time.
Let's say that you're paying attention to climate change, but what happens if you completely destroy your productive capacity as we have, but countries that don't really care about the environment like Russia and China continue to produce? Well, presumably your green society gets rolled over, and all your trees are chopped down for fuel, all your Meadows contain new factories. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you actually do try to push billions of people to die. Most people aren't willing to put up with that. If you're lucky that will mean a major Democratic shift towards anyone who isn't following your agenda, if you're unlucky it'll mean a coup where anyone promoting your green agenda becomes worm food, and the new regime absolutely refuses to follow anything like your genocidal green agenda. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you successfully push billions to die. Well the first in line would be people who agree with you that the earth needs fewer people. People who don't agree with you will have plenty of kids, and eventually the Earth is filled with people who disagree with you and your ideology fades into Oblivion. The history books write of your folly.
I certainly came to the same conclusion that if we wanted to immediately transition everything over to Green energy that you would need a lot fewer people on earth, but mu -- the question is wrong.
That is the rate they claim climate is changing at.
Once you remember that, then the high pressure used car salesman tactics become clear. A particularly warm year becomes a rallying cry that the world is going to end right now so we need to kill billions of people with similarly histrionic proposals. On the other hand, a particularly cold year is said to not represent anything because "the weather is not the climate".
Use of carbon as an energy source can't last forever regardless of climate change. There's only so much out there at any rate.
That said, one of the problems that the central planners have is that they only look at one variable at one time.
Let's say that you're paying attention to climate change, but what happens if you completely destroy your productive capacity as we have, but countries that don't really care about the environment like Russia and China continue to produce? Well, presumably your green society gets rolled over, and all your trees are chopped down for fuel, all your Meadows contain new factories. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you actually do try to push billions of people to die. Most people aren't willing to put up with that. If you're lucky that will mean a major Democratic shift towards anyone who isn't following your agenda, if you're unlucky it'll mean a coup where anyone promoting your green agenda becomes worm food, and the new regime absolutely refuses to follow anything like your genocidal green agenda. The history books write of your folly.
Let's say you successfully push billions to die. Well the first in line would be people who agree with you that the earth needs fewer people. People who don't agree with you will have plenty of kids, and eventually the Earth is filled with people who disagree with you and your ideology fades into Oblivion. The history books write of your folly.
I certainly came to the same conclusion that if we wanted to immediately transition everything over to Green energy that you would need a lot fewer people on earth, but mu -- the question is wrong.
There's a bunch of other stuff that'll happen on the trouble too.
In 2008, the federal debt had increased from 4 trillion in 2000 to 8 trillion in 2008, but gdp was 14 trillion dollars. Today, debt is 32 trillion, but the GDP is only 27 trillion, and besides that, GDP(which we denote as Y) is divided into four components(Components of GDP). Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government purchases (G), and Net exports (NX).
Y = C + I + G + NX.
So there's some problems as a result of this.
Consumption is in trouble with households at record levels of debt, credit cards making up 1.1 trillion dollars for the first time ever.
Investment in productive assets has been in trouble domestically, with a continuous outflow of capital to other countries.
Government debt is at historical highs, and federal spending as a % of GDP is closer to where it was after the 2008 financial crisis than before it, so there's much less room to increase government in response to a recession.
The trade deficit has been so bad for so long people don't even pay attention to it, but it does matter.
This all leaves a lot fewer potential ways out of a recession than in the past, and they're already leaning on the levers they might rely on to get out of one..
It's making numbers look good in the short term, but I suspect it'll be like if you dip into your emergency rations before there's a famine -- eventually the famine comes and you have no food.
In 2008, the federal debt had increased from 4 trillion in 2000 to 8 trillion in 2008, but gdp was 14 trillion dollars. Today, debt is 32 trillion, but the GDP is only 27 trillion, and besides that, GDP(which we denote as Y) is divided into four components(Components of GDP). Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government purchases (G), and Net exports (NX).
Y = C + I + G + NX.
So there's some problems as a result of this.
Consumption is in trouble with households at record levels of debt, credit cards making up 1.1 trillion dollars for the first time ever.
Investment in productive assets has been in trouble domestically, with a continuous outflow of capital to other countries.
Government debt is at historical highs, and federal spending as a % of GDP is closer to where it was after the 2008 financial crisis than before it, so there's much less room to increase government in response to a recession.
The trade deficit has been so bad for so long people don't even pay attention to it, but it does matter.
This all leaves a lot fewer potential ways out of a recession than in the past, and they're already leaning on the levers they might rely on to get out of one..
It's making numbers look good in the short term, but I suspect it'll be like if you dip into your emergency rations before there's a famine -- eventually the famine comes and you have no food.
"Look here folks, I'm not Dylan Mulvaney. That's a fact, and facts don't care about your feelings. I can't be Dylan Mulvaney because I'm already Brett Cooper, and I'm playing the beautiful Snow White in a new show on DailyWire Plus"
Some people think that Microsoft is going back to a major windows release every 3 years. Windows 11 was in 2021, Windows 12 could be this year, and so following this schedule, I'd expect Windows 2027 in 2027.