***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

unfortunate.

 

[Mark Antony]

AB inBev stock seems fine, they were talking like it took the meanest hit.

 

[RustyShackleford]

unfortunate.

Every day I become more convinced that we live in a simulation, and aepps20 is the lead programmer.

 

[Mark Antony]

I wonder if we get so damn stupid that we all agree to hit the reset.

 

[aepps20]

Every day I become more convinced that we live in a simulation, and aepps20 is the lead programmer.

CONSERVATIVE In 4

 

[chao7]

From the party of muh free speech

 

[noskey]

"Anti-woman activist" is a new one. Gross way to describe a trans woman

 

[rexanglorum]

I will never forgive Wisconsin for reelecting that corrupt idiot again.

Literal white supremacy aside, Ron Johnson really lacks an historical perspective about mass migration and how it upends existing social orders.

To be clear and before I go further, by mass migration I mean most or all of the people in a given area having to relocate, en masse, to a new area, all at once and all together. This is distinct from current patterns of immigration to the US which are not mass migration at all. The US has a lot of immigrants in total but almost every immigrant community in the US has similar ethnic communities in several countries as well. e.g. Taiwanese immigrants live in the US but they also live in Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Canada, and the majority live in Taiwan itself. So the first element is demographic, it has to be a near universal transfer of people from one area to another and it has to be done fairly quickly.

The second element is coercion be it from pull factors (with the most extreme example being intercontinental or inter regional slave trades) or from push factors, with invasion, or civil war, and/or climate change being the the impetus for entire population groups to pull up stakes and leave.

When a migration has the element of coercion but not the requisite demographic aspects, that would make it major or great migration. Those types of migrations are already momentous in both human terms and in terms of the political changes that they can cause. The trans Atlantic slave trade being the biggest example in US History with major Irish, German, and other European migrations from the 1820’ through the 1910’s, Asian immigration in the 19th century and post 1965, Mexican migration has been impactful, and in Europe, the great migration of Syrian refugees has caused European politics to become influenced by white reactionary identity politics to a similar degree as in the US.

Much to the chagrin of the right, there is no ability to duck the climate induced mass migrations that are coming AND keep the existing social order.

Ron Johnson is basically asking for the sort of mass migrations that ended the Western Roman Empire. There's really only a few outcomes that can happen when a polity is visit by a mass migration.

- The state is too weak or too divided to stop a mass migration and the new community of migrants becomes a distinct community with its own interests and is its really strong, it could seize what is left of the state and if they are not very strong, they can still make alliances with existing communities and tip the entire balance of political power.

-The state has enough power to block the migration but they let the migrants in with conditions. Those conditions are either one of two things. Either the new community contributes soldiers to which ever faction is in control of border crossing points and has either internal enemies or other external enemies to deal with. The other outcomes is that the new arrivals have to submit to hyper exploitation (by that I mean exploitation above and beyond the routine exploitation of wage labor and tenancy. Additional forms of plunder due to one's identity. Basically the inverse of economic rents or super profits). Either way, you are upsetting the existing order because you have a new armed faction or you have a new faction that is already alienated from their new polity and can and will get armed and/or make alliances with other potentially dissenting and revolutionary groups.

-The state gets a reputation for blocking and/or exploiting migrants. A voluntary mass migration involves people fleeing some sort of mortal peril so they have nothing left to lose, everything to gain, so they get armed and are ready to force their way in and once they do, they will take reprisals against, at least the state, or against the broader society that was trying to let them die and/or hyper exploit them.

-The state is successful at turning itself into a fortress but the whole society has to be militarized and surplus wealth stops getting reinvested and gets used for its military and its fortifications on its frontiers and/or policing the migrants that it lets in in order to hyper exploit. The high taxation and large number of armed masses with the polity also set the stage for revolution. Moreover, revolutions tend to go hand in and with civil war. Which can lead to the first scenario of a state that is so weak and/or divided that one faction lets in the migrants precisely because they have the ability to help over throwing the old regime.

So anyone who thinks of themselves as conservatives, should be the ones who want to reduce and eliminate carbon emissions because climate change and the mass migrations that it will trigger, will end up ending the United States as we currently know it.

Lastly, I'd point out the fact that many social scientists have argued that inequality is so persistent and so self reinforcing that only massive upheaval can reduce it. I hope that that is not the case. If it is, the conclusions we have to reach are pretty grim. Either we have to learn to live with and manage fundamental inequality or we have to be involuntary accelerationists, and hope that something upsets the existing order and is not bloody or ruinous.

So the Ron Johnson's of the world had better be careful what they wish for. A destabilized United States, where the right wing forces are battling a multi racial left wing fact and the leftwing fact can keep allowing climate refugees en masse and they provide soldiers, those are the condition under which rightwing ideology could be scoured from the Continent.

 

[swendro]

If you don't mind watching 30+ minute youtube videos, give this a shot.

I'd be curious if any NT legal minds could at least weigh in on the NDA part @ 17:17. Seems a little shaky.

 

[rexanglorum]

CONSERVATIVE In 4

Sometimes I dream, that he is me. Like Don, if I could be like Don. Like Don, if I could be like Don.

Your post about that was maybe the funniest post ever in the history of the internet.

Every MJ highlight, I now picture Donald Trump in his suit and with his weird hair shoulder shrugging after hitting a half dozen threes, Don dunking from the foul line, Don hitting the left handed lay up against the Lakers in 199, Don crossing up Bryon Russell in 1998.

If my brain in a terminally online death spiral caused by online brain poisoning? Yes, but then again beer contains poison as well and drinking it is based as well. So if we're in the matrix, keep the unapologetically conservative posts coming and may we all achieve your powerful and winning mindset.

 

[big j 33]

Disney

 

[IATT]

 

[dragicon]

Random tangent, I was in Columbia for work and toured the capital building… it’s a beautiful building in itself.

(Here is the senate room where twiddle nuts up there was talking (the sword behind him in the video is kept in a case below the hooks, and is brought out to show that it is in session)

 

[Belgium]

Every day I become more convinced that we live in a simulation, and aepps20 is the lead programmer.

As a software test engineer I sometimes have to send aepps20 ’s work back to him for fixing but his work is generally fantastic.

For example, the other day I did some field testing of our DeSantis presidential model, which aepps20 modified with increased personality. His face started doing weird things though and became even more awkward. Clearly not ready for a full release yet.

 

[Belgium]

If you don't mind watching 30+ minute youtube videos, give this a shot.

I'd be curious if any NT legal minds could at least weigh in on the NDA part @ 17:17. Seems a little shaky.

Disclaimer: I’m neither a lawyer or American but I consume an ungodly amount of US law podcasts and enjoy reading about various laws.

Those Daily Wire NDA’s are perfectly legal from what I can tell. Excessively oppressive, sure, but I don’t see anything that would invalidate it.

There’s also the part of him altering the NDA to delete parts about penalties for disclosing confidential information, which both he and the company (who obviously didn’t verify his signed altered contract) signed. I’m guessing this is what your question was about?

As far as I know, sending back an ’edited’ contract is not inherently problematic. Striking out, or perhaps deleting, certain parts could be an easy method of showing exactly which parts you disagree with during contract negotiations. The key here is that you ensure the other party is aware of any alterations.

I think the issue here is that he made zero mention of his deletions to the company representatives, on purpose.
That clear intent to trick the other party by not disclosing the deletions in the contract would undoubtedly count as a “material ommission of fact. “
That renders the contract void.

 

[Belgium]

Btw in case anyone else here is also interested in US law and legal issues (probably not), here’s the legal podcasts etc I follow.

The Serious Trouble podcast with Ken White & Josh Barro
Barro plays a sort interviewer role of asking questions to Ken White, who is a lawyer known as @Popehat on Twitter. Very laid back, easy to understand, and Ken White is a pretty funny guy. This postcast is $5/month but you could also just stick to free episodes on Spotify.
https://www.serioustrouble.show/podcast

The National Security Law Podcast (with Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesny)

The name kinda says what it’s all about. Steve Vladeck is a highly regarded lawyer and law professor at University of Texas School of Law, where he holds the “Charles Alan Wright Chair.”
Bobby Chesny is the Dean of University of Texas School of Law. I’d say this podcast isn’t ideal if you don’t have much knowledge of US law at the time. It’s fine when you generally grasp most basic elements of US law though.

Other places I learn a lot from:

Lawfare Blog, as well as the Lawfare podcast on Spotify.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/

Both funny and informative
https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes

 

[osh kosh bosh]

all I could think reading this interview;

 

[aepps20]

As a software test engineer I sometimes have to send aepps20 ’s work back to him for fixing but his work is generally fantastic.

For example, the other day I did some field testing of our DeSantis presidential model, which aepps20 modified with increased personality. His face started doing weird things though and became even more awkward. Clearly not ready for a full release yet.

This is Ron in V1 of da program so practice makes perfect B. Put an extra 0 and 1 and we are good

.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This dude was a top-tier loser

Like elite-level pathetic

 

[WASHED KING]

This dude was a top-tier loser

Like elite-level pathetic

Well I know who wasn’t getting any play.

 

[moonman818]

all I could think reading this interview;

Dianne is the prime example of why politicians should be subject to term limits.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dianne is the prime example of why politicians should be subject to term limits.

I don't agree with term limits, but age limits for sure.

Term limits just empower unelected people.

 

[WASHED KING]

RBG should've retired.

70+ year olds shouldn't be making decisions that impact the future of this country.

 

[moonman818]

I don't agree with term limits, but age limits for sure.

Term limits just empower unelected people.

You can be 100 and still sharp mentally... I just don't think you should be allowed to serve 24-30 years in an elected position.

 

[WASHED KING]

Old people are the most stubborn stuck in their ways individuals that exist. Every politician should have a hard age cap of 70 regardless of office.

After that you shouldn't be able to hold office. Go collect social security.