- 11,996
- 3,286
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Not gonna link his tweet but ALL IS WELL?! Yeah just on the brink of war, base got blown up. All good though. Clown.
Seems obviously in reference to US casualties
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Not gonna link his tweet but ALL IS WELL?! Yeah just on the brink of war, base got blown up. All good though. Clown.
Good points.
Today's relatively soft attack and then threats of destroying entire cities (if only rumors) are a) to placate their base and save face in the short-term (until they make their real move) and b) to try to bait Trump into a terrible move. Otherwise, they'll just wait and then strike when there's a good opportunity.
Meanwhile, Putin is enjoying all of this.
I dont think he got scared. I honestly think they're preparing for war and talking strategy, who infiltrated, prepping cities, talking the economy and election, etc.
I dont think trump is stupid. Everything he does is calculated but not to social norms.
They wanted this.
A number of whites, in the 60's and 70's and 80's, literally and figuratively abandoned and then burned down the semblance of a decent, civil society that they had built after WWII, rather than share it with black people. There's no doubt about that.
At the same time, we are not forever caught in an inescapable curse that was cast in 1964. There have been at least three moments since that year that the prospect of a multiracial workers coalition looked possible and it was the Professional-Managerial class wing of the part that defeated it. In 1988, in 2009 and now, we have the urban professional faction of the attacking Jesse Jackson, the post 2008 mandate for socialism and now Bernie 2020 (who is leading with non white voters, it is just a plurality but he's leading. This is not 2016 where his base was almost all white).
Of Course, the Party elders now and back then would say that they share the same goals as Jackson or sanders or Obama's campaign promises in 2008. The problem is that we live in a super majority white, center-right country and we just can't fly too close to the sun. They'd argue that it'd be better to get half of what we want rather than nothing. Ok sure, let's say that's true at the national level. What about in virtually every major city and in some States who whites aren't a majority and the GOP is not a serious threat?
One would expect the Democratic Party and its elected officials to be further left in those places but they end up being hostile to workers, especially the poorest workers and especially to unhoused people. To get them to even moderate their ruthless towards the unhoused, for instance, you have to do a ton of direct action and sometimes you have to beat them in city council races and district attorney races. I don't expect any incumbent politician to just give up but after seeing enough elections where real estate interests spend lots of money to stop left wing, pro homeless candidates, it is hard to think of the Democratic Party as one big happy family of progressives with the same policy goals. When you got advocates for the housing secure and the housing insecure on the one side and you've got landlords and real estate developers, there is intractable conflict there.
So when I see a national politician in the Democratic Party not serve the homeless and instead serve real estate interests, I have to ask myself if they are doing this to appeal to suburban moderates or is this politicians doing what they wanted to do all along, which is serving their class interests and/or the class interests of their donors.
In this scenario, we'd have proportional, national voting for an American Parliament. Since the GOP has lost most popular votes this century, they would not be able to get 50% outright. Therefore, the left and center parties would be in the driver's seat to form a government. The GOP's path would involve getting close to 50% and grafting on one or more of the most centrist parties. Now in a situation where we have multiple, indentitarian, rent seeking PMC parties, the GOP would obviously reach out to the white PMC Party or they'd reach out to the women's PMC Party (which we know in this counter factual, would be mostly a white women's Party). I doubt that the hypothetical black PMC Party would be offered nor would it accept a offer to form a government that would be centered on the GOP and fascism.
The reason why I'm so down on the PMC is related to my experiences in a blue part of the country and, as I mentioned above, the discourse and rhetoric about homeless people in particular. The sight of or even the mere mention of unhoused people turn plenty of well educated, woke urban professionals into tea party style monsters. I think of how they act now and imagine the barbarism when we hit a major recession and of course, the coming effects and displacement of climate change.
Hes not them tho. He moves different.on a night like this when a major attack goes down it would make sense to address the American people and reassure them/calm them down. Maddow made a point that both bush and Obama has dealt with this before
It's much better when this fool doesn't open his mouth, so I'll take it.What a jackass. Also scared to say anything ASAP, gotta have the writers come in and pull overtime.
It's much better when this fool doesn't open his mouth, so I'll take it.
Hes not them tho. He moves different.
Hes not the type to not say and do something crazy. An angry trump is a scary thought.
This day has been all sorts of insane man
Really hope it's not a flight 655/MH370 type situation
The 737 + small airline makes me think the same thing.Given Boeing’s recent 737 troubles, no way I’d get on that plane.
It has no redundancy: it takes input from just one AoA sensor at a time. That makes MCAS completely unable to cope with a sensor malfunction. It can't “sanity check” its data against a second sensor or switch to a backup if the original source fails.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1912131159.pdf#page=3RustyShackleford
I hear you on almost all of this. But a question:
On what grounds (evidence, really) can you claim that Sanders "has not expanded his base of non-white voters"? Like, how does one substantiate this declarative and absolutist claim that flattens the particularities of place, region, etc?