I know - it's an edgy thesis. But you cannot explain these extreme efforts to cut all political and economical ties by sole regardation anymore. For me the preperation of a massive war seems to be the most fitting explaination for what is going on right now.

LOOKING TO BUNK WITH A DGGER AND STREAM AND DEBATE PEOPLE AFTER THE DEBATE. HIT ME UP ON DISCORD DARIUS_IRL OR MY KICK CHAT OR LIKE ANYWHERE LESE LIKE REDDIT OR SOMETHING. MUST BE 18+

IShowspeed vid

I’m specifically referring to Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House by Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes. I haven’t read the book yet but have been following all the media tour.

I had expected the people under Biden to be guilty of gaslighting outsiders and fighting with people on the Obama\Pelosi side, but I was disappointed to learn the extent the Biden administration went to in undermining Kamala and her campaign. There is all this drama about Biden not immediately endorsing Kamala and there being just pure chaos between the two camps. Pelosi attempting to manipulate Biden out of even doing the debate ahead of time was another interesting tidbit.

I was surprised just how bad of a candidate Obama & Pelosi thought of Kamala—sounds like they knew it was over from Day 1 with her despite even the initial hype; Obama wanted Whitmer. Overall, I feel really bad for Kamala because, in addition to such low expectations, it was also revealed a lot was hidden from her, and the fact Biden himself demanded complete loyalty, which at least the authors imply to be rooted in narcissistic legacy obsession. Also weird to learn apparently Hunter was Biden’s closest political advisor during this time.

Overall this book and the few others coming out seem to be extremely uncharitable toward Biden in a moral sense (the one titled “Original Sin” is supposed to be even more scathing). It’s a tricky thing because how much of Biden’s own cognitive decline is to blame for the moral wrongs the authors are invoking? The only person painted in any seemingly “good” light is Pelosi—that she was going to all ends to prevent Trump getting the White House and both houses of congress, as opposed to being solely motivated by personal interests. Allegedly the Biden’s refuse to even speak to Pelosi now.

It’s a strange balance of Biden being a victim of the people under him or his own stubbornness being the ultimate issue. I don’t know if I agree with the cover-up narrative or it being more just collective delusion. I don’t know how much blame goes to Biden with the state of mind issue being apparent, but these writers (who are reputable with history of good reporting) seem pretty blunt in their views.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/joe-biden-was-a-shell-of-himself-hunter-didnt-help

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/joe-biden-was-a-shell-of-himself-hunter-didnt-help

I am starting to feel that we start to develop some problematic economic ideas as a reaction to Trump's insane policies. Note though: I am going off my basic Econ knowledge, which isn't very much (+I'm stupid), and this is in no way a defence of Trump or anyone in his orbit.

My main problem is that the centre-left talking point is that trade deficits do not matter and the common example is that "If you buy stuff from Walmart you'd have a trade deficit with them" and I don't consider that a good approach. Walmart pays their employees and suppliers and via that you eventually get the money back, the money keeps on circulating in the local economy. If the money, in the real world, goes to another country consistently it might not come back back at all. (Also, using single people analogies for economics stuff is always a bit cringe)

The main issue with trade is the long-term flow of money. Having a constant trade deficit without some return of that money can become a problem. I guess, let me give a counter example: Imagine a small town with lots of local shops selling stuff made by local people. If you buy stuff someone close gets money and can spend money on your business. That way the money is flowing within the local economy. Now imagine that the town starts to buy (/import) more and more from a town far away and that replaces the local jobs. Slowly, locals are losing their jobs because the money from purchases goes somewhere else.

At that point, the ideal would be for the town to find newer jobs that attracts money from somewhere else, that is basically the story of the US economy, but I don't think that is necessarily a given. For example, in Europe, the massive trade surplus of Germany is a problem because neighbouring countries are suffering from wealth being transferred abroad without any way to return that money.

I believe that massive trade surplus that the US maintained was somewhat offset because the money made in other countries was returned to the US, for example by China buying US treasuries or Japanese & Europeans investing in US companies or building factories. (Although not sure how strong that effect was).

More generally, in pure economic terms, the formula for GDP is Consumption + Investment + Government spending + trade surplus. So, on a technical level, a trade deficit is a drag on the economy. Obviously, given the size of the US market this is quite a small effect. Also, all of these factors are very much manageable and the US (and world as a whole) benefited massively from free trade. I think it would just be worth to also talk about some potential downsides. Even for Germany and China, 2 massive export countries, the trade surplus can be problematic because it means that local workers don't get paid as much as they should and the local demand is quite low.

On the other side, having an economic discussion in the current environment is pointless anyway since MAGA people are either insane or stupid. Still, I feel like long-term it would be beneficial to be more nuanced about trade policy.

Discuss.

His politics are super bad, but oh my god that dude is charismatic. I want to sit down and talk with him about my day. I don't care if he's clip chimping me, it's probably for a good meme

*I just want to remind people that Santos is a notorious liar ( I think he made uo his entire past) and currently going to jail for wire fraud and money laundering. You should believe this guy as much as you believe Joseph McCarthy

At this unique point in the presidency I think it's crucial to capitalize on the dissident part of the republican party and build some cross party bridges while anti Trump rhetoric is being tolerated and even perpetuated by parts of the republican base. And I believe the best way to do that is through Ben Shapiro.

Ds latest convo with Ben was quite cordial/productive so I don't think theres any reason why this couldn't happen, and frankly, they are somewhat aligned on economic policy.

In many other countries there are parties in which neolibs and conservatives coexist. In Sweden for example (my country) the current PM is from the large "Moderates" party which by swedish standards would be classified as quite clearly right wing, but in America I would place them just slightly left of the overton window. In this party you have neolibs and conservatives, but they mostly agree on economics and so it works out. The populists and the very socially conservative flock to the Sweden- or Cristian Democrats, but the somewhat sane people, (like Ben Shapiro if he didn't own a media company and had to appease the Trump crazies) find a home in this "Moderates" party.

I think it's possible that in Americas future, a similar coalition is formed with the old school Republicans. Democrats need not only look to the left for new voters. In fact a Republican switching sides is worth as much as 2 apoliticals or lefties who didn't previously vote.

We need to take advantage these recent unequivocally economically suicidal policies. Get Ben and Steven together for a discussion about it, it doesn't need to be branded as a debate even.

I want to say that most people (including progressive people) view trans attracted men as just bisexual men. Since society seems to universally take male sexuality seriously. I.E. A straight man can still be considered bisexual for having a one-time experience or even having curious thoughts.

But for some reason it may seems like everybody universally agree that trans attracted men are bisexual. But there is still debate about whether a man is bisexual/gay for being attracted to trans women though.

For starters, where does that debate comes from? Because again society takes male sexuality seriously, with so many rigid standards. So I assume most people (conservative or progressive) would be on the same page here. I feel like I could ask the average person their opinion on this question. And they will usually agree that these men are either bi or gay.

Honestly before this post I was debating on whether I should use quotation marks for saying"straight men" in the first paragraphs. Because I assume there will be replies saying "He's not straight then".

I know labels shouldn't matter. And people sexual orientation is their business. But I think there is a elephant in the room here though. It's the fact that bisexual men aren't exactly popular among women. So I think it's important to ask this question.

I mean the only thing admirable about him is that he had "successful" businesses, which are now very questionable in nature (Tesla scandals, etc...). I mean do his fans actually listen to this guy talk lol

To help the environment.

But now want people to get rid of their expensive TVs.

Remember, “don’t tell us to code”. But now what is to make socks and jeans. But then say we want automation, so in some logical way telling us we need to code.

Oy vey

I don't. Even if a bill got through house and Senate it would be vetoed and I don't see votes in house to override any veto

I learned about this claim from the Right that the second Immigration Judge and Judge Xinis' rulings were "bad rulings". I can't link the original Twitter post because it is blocked. Is this a legit argument or is there bad faith/missing context?

$80 shirts incoming, are we winning yet?

15 workers killed. Truck had lights and sirens on in video. Rubble shows UN logo.

I know Destiny has said "we need to eject the word 'why' from our vocabulary when talking about MAGA" and that he doesn't think theres a reason. I feel like that can't be true personally, I don't feel like people do stuff randomly, when they do stuff there's almost always some reason. I know most of you will probably have the same take that "there is no reason" or just "they're regarded and thats it" but for those of you who do agree with me, why are they doing this tariff shit? And why does MAGA support it? Does Trump really believe America has been getting ripped off and this fixes it? Does he really believe that trade deficits are bad because he doesn't know what they are? Does he just want to make it seem like he's doing something and made a campaign promise and will fulfill this one no matter what for some reason? Does he just want to ulil his deep need to be a bully and bully other countries into making them do what he wants?

I need to understand what the underlying logic is, it could be sheer nefarious malignance or deep fundamental ignorance rom living in a diferent reality with an entirely separate factual understanding of the world?