US Politics: Time for the Stormy season with a chance of conviction

[Larry of the Lawn]

I'd be absolutely fine never hearing another Florida man / Florida joke for the rest of my life, because this thread specifically has ruined my ability to appreciate it by oversaturation and the need to shoehorn any tangential reference to Florida into lazy and unoriginal jokes.  It'd be one thing if the jokes were good, but they're not even funny.

Eta: C'mon board, you can all do better.  Wait for the right opportunity or for some real inspiration.  One good joke is better than 500 shitty ones.  

 

 

Edited April 13 by Larry of the Lawn

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I'd be absolutely fine never hearing another Florida man / Florida joke for the rest of my life, because this thread specifically has ruined my ability to appreciate it by oversaturation and the need to shoehorn any tangential reference to Florida into lazy and unoriginal jokes.  It'd be one thing if the jokes were good, but they're not even funny.

Eta: C'mon board, you can all do better.  Wait for the right opportunity or for some real inspiration.  One good joke is better than 500 shitty ones.  

 

 

     Well said, @Larry of the Lawn!     Agree, enough with the 'jokes'! 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I wanted to leave the Florida Man Games joke behind in the last thread. But boy you are making it tough.

Tough, rough and burly.

17 minutes ago, Zorral said:

An obsession to compulsively trash where people live as a personal character defect does reveal personal character defects.  Or some will say. 

Only if it's in a hateful fashion. A bit of playful elbowing is actually a sign of affection. 

[Zorral]

https://www.wnyc.org/story/how-much-of-your-tax-dollars-are-going-to-israel-and-ukraine

 

[polishgenius]

I'm sorry but the seeming current trend in US political discourse to equate support for Ukraine and support for Israel as morally similar things or even vaguely similar issues

is

fucking

insane

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I'm sorry but the seeming current trend in US political discourse to equate support for Ukraine and support for Israel as morally similar things or even vaguely similar issues

is

fucking

insane

Well, many agree, but . . . . well, you know.

However, the story analyzes the enormous amounts that are taken out of the US budget to fund Israel and sell them armaments.  Essentially we make big loans that Israel can draw upon whenever it wants, and even over draw, and then do with the money and the purchases just as they like.  Israel gets the elephant share of US federal overseas aid money -- and interestingly, Egypt isn't far behind.  A very interesting and illuminating story, of something that's been going on for over 3/4 of a century.

Edited April 13 by Zorral

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

a sign of affection. 

Get a room then.  It's damned boring after all these years.

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The population that is more and more disenfranchised with each passing day and has no power and is barely allowed to vote if their skin is on the darker side? The powerless population? And not now but just you wait and watch Mango use the US military against its own citizens. Hell, the way the police is already militarised and free to shoot and kill people w/ no consequence, you’re one executive order away from the armed forces being used against people peacefully protesting. And who’s gonna say no? The most zealot and corrupt SCOTUS ever?

This sounds incredibly naive or misinformed to me, but maybe I’m just too cynical.

This seems to fit better here, and if you want the truth I'll tell you that my inclination in this is to be inward-focused and reconstructive as a nation right now. That's what I'd like to do. 

But the tiger's tail is caught, there's no wishmaking away America's unique capacity as a world agent. I can't make nobody have nukes. What I can advocate for is that nobody else gets them.

And yes, I am aware that in the coming decades of resource scarcity and climate change that that means there is an effective Imperialising of the world to the benefit of the eight outgoing nuclear-armed states. 

But that is a world that has proven, so far, viable. That viability must be enforced. America can do that. So we should. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

This seems to fit better here, and if you want the truth I'll tell you that my inclination in this is to be inward-focused and reconstructive as a nation right now. That's what I'd like to do. 

But the tiger's tail is caught, there's no wishmaking away America's unique capacity as a world agent. I can't make nobody have nukes. What I can advocate for is that nobody else gets them.

And yes, I am aware that in the coming decades of resource scarcity and climate change that that means there is an effective Imperialising of the world to the benefit of the eight outgoing nuclear-armed states. 

But that is a world that has proven, so far, viable. That viability must be enforced. America can do that. So we should. 

"viable" doing a lot of work here.  What does viable mean in this context?  

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

"viable" doing a lot of work here.  What does viable mean in this context?  

I understood that as viable for said nuclear powers, the rest of the world is fucked or more fucked, whichever way you prefer to phrase it. But again, maybe I’m reading it that way because of by cynicism.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

"viable" doing a lot of work here.  What does viable mean in this context?  

Astute question.

Nuclear capacity being isolated to rational actors. And I include Kim as a rational actor. 

Now that's not me saying that all nuclear-armed countries are guaranteed to be led by rational actors! Far from it! Each and every nation on earth armed with weapons is a danger of producing a madman that could end the world. That's why NO MORE get to join the club.

[JGP]

9 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Astute question.

Nuclear capacity being isolated to rational actors. And I include Kim as a rational actor. 

Now that's not me saying that all nuclear-armed countries are guaranteed to be led by rational actors! Far from it! Each and every nation on earth armed with weapons is a danger of producing a madman that could end the world. That's why NO MORE get to join the club.

Looking forward to the US Admin shitfest when Canada tests its own. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just force feed Don Cherry with some Uranium and you have a dirty bomb.

[Zorral]

The genie's out of the bottle.  It's a globalized world and the genie cannot be contained by a few 'good' actors that, btw, the rest of the world views as a monster.

Rome was hated by the rest of world.  So was Great Britain by its colonies.  The US is not different.  It may be younger but it started far ahead of where Rome or GB did, with its weapons capacities.

Any ideas otherwise, including that the US pop as a whole won't be rounded up and put into (labor/re-education) camps by the dominionists etc. is nothing but a fool and has never read the histories of what happened in those countries where the minority fascists and nazis took power.

[Jace, Extat]

So for the sake of what, "fairness"? For fairness you say take a structure that is already unsteady and apocalyptic and let it become moreso? 

No, no, no! Hear yourself, Z. No man, no woman, and no body of persons on earth should hold the power to kill billions. The fact that 9 people already can is the most horrible thing to ever have happened on this planet. You can't really believe that adding more people to such a game is the correct answer. You can't believe such a thing- I refuse to accept that.

[A True Kaniggit]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Get a room then.  It's damned boring after all these years.

FUCK YEAH MOTHERFUCKER!

 

But not really. I thought we all took other poster's little idiosyncrasies in stride.

Especially after all these years.

Edited April 13 by A True Kaniggit

[Jace, Extat]

Oh nooooo

Of course Trump's having a rally 

[A True Kaniggit]

2 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

Oh nooooo

Of course Trump's having a rally 

For World Peace?

[JGP]

17 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

So for the sake of what, "fairness"? For fairness you say take a structure that is already unsteady and apocalyptic and let it become moreso? 

No, no, no! Hear yourself, Z. No man, no woman, and no body of persons on earth should hold the power to kill billions. The fact that 9 people already can is the most horrible thing to ever have happened on this planet. You can't really believe that adding more people to such a game is the correct answer. You can't believe such a thing- I refuse to accept that.

Putin has made an irrefutable argument regarding the value their possession however. Whether it's peace or The End, maybe the bomb would end all war... if every nation has them.

 

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

For World Peace?

Crowdfunding for the development of a new type of spackle that'll smooth over his pores. He's still networking a solution for the wattle. 

Edited April 13 by JGP

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

Astute question.

Nuclear capacity being isolated to rational actors. And I include Kim as a rational actor. 

Now that's not me saying that all nuclear-armed countries are guaranteed to be led by rational actors! Far from it! Each and every nation on earth armed with weapons is a danger of producing a madman that could end the world. That's why NO MORE get to join the club.

Let me rephrase.  You said :

Quote

But that is a world that has proven, so far, viable. That viability must be enforced. 

You've already established that "that world" is the 8 'rational' nations with nuclear weapons.  But I'm asking you is why has that been proven "viable"?  What does viable mean in this context?  Does it mean that this is what has happened so far?  Do you simply mean that nuclear weapons haven't been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki?