US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Verpa Teutonica Ingens]

some 30 year old Twitch streamer called DudeWeedBonerHitler will beat her because the internet thinks it's funny

That's ridiculous, we're talking about the President of the United-fuckin'-States of America here! He'd be a 35-year-old Twitch streamer named DudeWeedBonerHitler.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Are you going to sit there and tell me that America has the same drive and energy today that it did 250 years ago?

250 years ago "America" was still a small collection of colonies hanging off a vast, barely explored, and barely populated continent in the greater British empire. 1776 wouldn't happen for another two years. An "American Empire" wouldn't even be a realistic description until after the American-Mexican war. So I'd say America has more drive now than it did 250 years ago. America's real problem isn't that we have an enemy that is undefeatable in the field, or our people don't have any drive/lack the virtue needed to be a great nation. Our problem is that we are two nations trapped in one, fighting over an increasingly oligarchic central government.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

250 years ago "America" was still a small collection of colonies hanging off a vast, barely explored, and barely populated continent in the greater British empire. 1776 wouldn't happen for another two years. An "American Empire" wouldn't even be a realistic description until after the American-Mexican war. So I'd say America has more drive now than it did 250 years ago. America's real problem isn't that we have an enemy that is undefeatable in the field, or our people don't have any drive/lack the virtue needed to be a great nation. Our problem is that we are two nations trapped in one, fighting over an increasingly oligarchic central government.

And this is why I made comments about people not reading the essay. Glubb defines what he means by empire in the essay and if people are not going to read the essay and use that definition then there's no point in discussing this, because we're comparing apples to screwdrivers. If you're going to criticize Glubb's views of the lifecycles of Empires, then use his definition. If you're not going to do that, there's no point to this.

 

[MirrorNoir]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=MW8BaH-w7-4
They made a movie about getting payback on scummy healthcare people, one of the better Saw sequels, too.

Sadly Saw 10 super hard retconned the entire plot/premise of Saw 6 by revealing that the insurance executive was 100% right to deny Jigsaw said treatment because it turned out to be a HUGE fucking scam to bilk money out of rich people dying of cancer. Jigsaw got said "treatment" in between Saw 1 and 2 and basically killed everyone running the scam in horrific fashion, when he realized he had been conned.

 

[LiquidKid]

And this is why I made comments about people not reading the essay. Glubb defines what he means by empire in the essay and if people are not going to read the essay and use that definition then there's no point in discussing this, because we're comparing apples to screwdrivers. If you're going to criticize Glubb's views of the lifecycles of Empires, then use his definition. If you're not going to do that, there's no point to this.

The problem is, even with his definition, his essay is still pseudo-intellectual bullshit that’s not worth anyone’s time or energy. We should argue it because nobody should be reading it anyway

 

[Calandrino]

Egypt lasted like 3,000 years. Governments that are not headed by an avatar of Horus simply do not work.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

The problem is, even with his definition, his essay is still pseudo-intellectual bullshit that’s not worth anyone’s time or energy. We should argue it because nobody should be reading it anyway

If his critics aren't willing to actually engage with his work, use his defined terms and the like, why should anyone give a single fuck what you think of it? Criticizing his work while using a different definition of the term that he uses is motte and bailey-style disingenuous bad faith bullshit. If you don't like his work, fine, but most of the criticism in this thread isn't exactly demonstrating comprehension of it.

 

[just Reading a post]

It seems that many Democrats want to avoid any accusations that they intend to stage their own January 6th.

You will get some weirdo antfia UC Berkley fags who will turn up with trans flags and shit, but they will mald and seethe in a corner and wont do anything big.

 

[Betonhaus]

Egypt lasted like 3,000 years. Governments that are not headed by an avatar of Horus simply do not work.

I suppose that's easy to do when your entire governing structure gets burned down and rebuilt every time your king dies.

 

[XYZpdq Jr.]

I suppose that's easy to do when your entire governing structure gets burned down and rebuilt every time your king dies.

I'll admit I haven't dug into (heh) ancient Egypt stuff in decades but I recall a lot of fairly smooth transitions when it was the usual father to son heir, the freakshow stuff like Akaenhaten or whoever Tut's uncle that tried the monotheism (and guess who the one god's one prophet is!) was?

 

[Biggest Bubba]

You niggas need to stop dooming about America. The libshits are a dying breed they are just throwing death spasms right now.

 

[Betonhaus]

You niggas need to stop dooming about America. The libshits are a dying breed they are just throwing death spasms right now.

A cornered animal is at its most dangerous. Until they accept reality they will resort to anything. And they have no intention of accepting reality.

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

Of course violence is never the answer. Violence is the question.
The answer is always, yes.

If violence is never the answer then why do people stop askin' stupid questions when I answer em with it?

 

[LiquidKid]

If his critics aren't willing to actually engage with his work, use his defined terms and the like, why should anyone give a single fuck what you think of it? Criticizing his work while using a different definition of the term that he uses is motte and bailey-style disingenuous bad faith bullshit. If you don't like his work, fine, but most of the criticism in this thread isn't exactly demonstrating comprehension of it.

That’s because he was a retard and his work was bad. You can’t keep saying the same shit over and over and expect the results to somehow be different. You dropped the equivalent of a movie bob tweet in essay form and expect people to waste their time reading it

 

[Quiet Guy]

Edit: Less than 100 pages until Peanut's.

What do you mean? Did I miss something?

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

Glubb defines what he means by empire in the essay and if people are not going to read the essay and use that definition then there's no point in discussing this

What is his definition than? I've looked a little at the essay and he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what an empire is. Only that there is a period of expansion, defense (or stabilization) and eventually decline. The stages are roughly age of pioneers, conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect, and finally decadence. Even by these stages I still don't see how America follows this pattern. Pioneering (take over of the natives) didn't finish till about the 1900s. Which at that point America had fought three major powers (some several times), and fought other new world nations. Maybe I'm trying to find a hard definition, when it simply isn't what he's talking about.

You niggas need to stop dooming about America. The libshits are a dying breed they are just throwing death spasms right now.

Libshits are, progressives and conservatives (speed limit liberals) aren't. The Republican party won because a democrat, with a bunch of other democrats won for them, after they (the democrats) were all shut out of the Democrat party for being 10-20 years behind the curb.

 

[invisibult plus+]

What do you mean? Did I miss something?

Before the thread was temporarily locked, people mentioned about dedicating page 10000 to Peanut, whose death was so ridiculously unwarranted it probably helped Trump win the election. For context, he was a pet squirrel who died because his owner kept a "rabies vector species," a raccoon, without a permit/license. He was big on social media and his owners were trying to get a sanctuary based on him*, but a woman from TX got upset about his fame and reported his owners to gov't organizations in NYS. One day, NY raided his owners' house, arrested them, and took Peanut and Fred the raccoon away. Peanut bit one of the men who took him, but he and Fred were both put down.

*They tried to make him a wildlife representative of sorts, but he ended up representing absurdly heavy-handed government overreach instead.

 

[Levitcus prime24]

You niggas need to stop dooming about America. The libshits are a dying breed they are just throwing death spasms right now.

Doomers should throw themselves off a bridge or shut up.

What is his definition than? I've looked a little at the essay and he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what an empire is. Only that there is a period of expansion, defense (or stabilization) and eventually decline. The stages are roughly age of pioneers, conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect, and finally decadence. Even by these stages I still don't see how America follows this pattern. Pioneering (take over of the natives) didn't finish till about the 1900s. Which at that point America had fought three major powers (some several times), and fought other new world nations. Maybe I'm trying to find a hard definition, when it simply isn't what he's talking about.


Libshits are, progressives and conservatives (speed limit liberals) aren't. The Republican party won because a democrat, with a bunch of other democrats won for them, after they (the democrats) were all shut out of the Democrat party for being 10-20 years behind the curb.

What do you mean by speed limit liberal exactly?

 

[LiquidKid]

What is his definition than? I've looked a little at the essay and he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what an empire is. Only that there is a period of expansion, defense (or stabilization) and eventually decline. The stages are roughly age of pioneers, conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect, and finally decadence. Even by these stages I still don't see how America follows this pattern. Pioneering (take over of the natives) didn't finish till about the 1900s. Which at that point America had fought three major powers (some several times), and fought other new world nations. Maybe I'm trying to find a hard definition, when it simply isn't what he's talking about.


Libshits are, progressives and conservatives (speed limit liberals) aren't. The Republican party won because a democrat, with a bunch of other democrats won for them, after they (the democrats) were all shut out of the Democrat party for being 10-20 years behind the curb.

Since he’s being such a asshat about it, let me break it down.

Glubb describes an empire as a superpower that has a great influence on world affairs.

This is a terrible definition of an empire because it ignores what an empire actually is, a group of countries all ruled by a single monarch. So the fact that he ignored this right away makes his entire essay invalid, but fine, let’s continue for his sake.

He claims they all follow the same structure:

1. The Age of Pioneers: where the relatively unknown race of people burst out with great initiative, optimism, and energy



2. The Age of Conquests: rapid expansion, often through military conquests and the establishment of dominance over surrounding regions



3. The Age of Commerce: conquest shifting to to trade and economic prosperity



4. The Age of Affluence: wealth and luxury that leads to complacency and a decline in the values that drove the empire's success



5. The Age of Intellect: increased emphasis on intellectual pursuits and cultural achievements



6. The Age of Decadence: decadents causes the empire to lose its vitality which eventually leads to its decline and fall

The problem is this whole system doesn’t really apply to any of the empires that had existed before Glubb and didn’t apply to the few after.

The affluence, intellectual, and decadence very rarely appear any of these empires as all of them seem to die out when they fail at commerce or get invade by immigrants or a stronger power. And literally none of it applies to the United States, China, the Dutch, the French, Astria-Hungary, the USSR, or even the British. The absolute closest is Rome, and it’s a a massive stretch to compare it.

Believing in Glubb’s shitty essay is like reading the communist manifesto and thinking it’s actually a good idea.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

That’s because he was a retard and his work was bad.

Show how he's retarded and his work is bad. That's all I'm asking.

What is his definition than? I've looked a little at the essay and he doesn't seem to give a clear definition of what an empire is. Only that there is a period of expansion, defense (or stabilization) and eventually decline. The stages are roughly age of pioneers, conquest, commerce, affluence, intellect, and finally decadence. Even by these stages I still don't see how America follows this pattern. Pioneering (take over of the natives) didn't finish till about the 1900s. Which at that point America had fought three major powers (some several times), and fought other new world nations. Maybe I'm trying to find a hard definition, when it simply isn't what he's talking about.

I'm rereading, but I don't know that he gives a simple, one line answer, it's more the cycle and the shared characteristics. Not every state is an empire. The Swiss, for example.

V Characteristics of the outburst
These sudden outbursts are usually characterised by an extraordinary display of energy and courage. The new conquerors are normally poor, hardy and enterprising and above all aggressive.

Doesn't really fit for them. Rome, Macedonia, America. Compare the US and Canada, or to break down further, Quebec. Similar situations and opportunities, but the US took them.

Spoiler: And as for America

IX U.S.A. in the stage of the pioneers
In the case of the United States of America, the pioneering period did not consist of a barbarian conquest of an effete civilisation, but of the conquest of barbarian peoples. Thus, viewed from the outside, every example seems to be different. But viewed from the standpoint of the great nation, every example seems to be similar. The United States arose suddenly as a new nation, and its period of pioneering was spent in the conquest of a vast continent, not an ancient empire. Yet the subsequent life history of the United States has followed the standard pattern which we shall attempt to trace—the periods of the pioneers, of commerce, of affluence, of intellectualism and of decadence.

We may not have finished off the Indians until the 1900s, but we'd effectively controlled the land much earlier.

XIII The Age of Commerce
Let us now, however, return to the lifestory of our typical empire. We have already considered the age of outburst, when a littleregarded people suddenly bursts on to the world stage with a wild courage and energy. Let us call it the Age of the Pioneers. Then we saw that these new conquerors acquired the sophisticated weapons of the old empires, and adopted their regular systems of military organisation and training. A great period of military expansion ensued, which we may call the Age of Conquests. The conquests resulted in the acquisition of vast territories under one government, thereby automatically giving rise to commercial prosperity. We may call this the Age of Commerce. The Age of Conquests, of course, overlaps the Age of Commerce. The proud military traditions still hold sway and the great armies guard the frontiers, but gradually the desire to make money seems to gain hold of the public. During the military period, glory and honour were the principal objects of ambition. To the merchant, such ideas are but empty words, which add nothing to the bank balance.

We were using the rivers and building the transcontinental railway well before we'd beaten the Indians, but also during conquering them.

XV The Age of Affluence
There does not appear to be any doubt that money is the agent which causes the decline of this strong, brave and self-confident people. The decline in courage, enterprise and a sense of duty is, however, gradual. The first direction in which wealth injures the nation is a moral one. Money replaces honour and adventure as the objective of the best young men. Moreover, men do not normally seek to make money for their country or their community, but for themselves. Gradually, and almost imperceptibly, the Age of Affluence silences the voice of duty. The object of the young and the ambitious is no longer fame, honour or service, but cash. Education undergoes the same gradual transformation. No longer do schools aim at producing brave patriots ready to serve their country. Parents and students alike seek the educational qualifications which will command the highest salaries. The Arab moralist, Ghazali (1058-1111), complains in these very same words of the lowering of objectives in the declining Arab world of his time. Students, he says, no longer attend college to acquire learning and virtue, but to obtain those qualifications which will enable them to grow rich. The same situation is everywhere evident among us in the West today.

XVIII The Age of Intellect
We have now, perhaps arbitrarily, divided the life-story of our great nation into four ages. The Age of the Pioneers (or the Outburst), the Age of Conquests, the Age of Commerce, and the Age of Affluence. The great wealth of the nation is no longer needed to supply the mere necessities, or even the luxuries of life. Ample funds are available also for the pursuit of knowledge. The merchant princes of the Age of Commerce seek fame and praise, not only by endowing works of art or patronising music and literature. They also found and endow colleges and universities. It is remarkable with what regularity this phase follows on that of wealth, in empire after empire, divided by many centuries. In the eleventh century, the former Arab Empire, then in complete political decline, was ruled by the Seljuk sultan, Malik Shah. The Arabs, no longer soldiers, were still the intellectual leaders of the world. During the reign of Malik Shah, the building of universities and colleges became a passion. Whereas a small number of universities in the great cities had sufficed the years of Arab glory, now a university sprang up in every town. In our own lifetime, we have witnessed the same phenomenon in the U.S.A. and Britain. When these nations were at the height of their glory, Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge seemed to meet their needs. Now almost every city has its university. The ambition of the young, once engaged in the pursuit of adventure and military glory, and then in the desire for the accumulation of wealth, now turns to the acquisition of academic honours. It is useful here to take note that almost all the pursuits followed with such passion throughout the ages were in themselves good. The manly cult of hardihood, frankness and truthfulness, which characterised the Age of Conquests, produced many really splendid heroes. The opening up of natural resources, and the peaceful accumulation of wealth, which marked the age of commercialism, appeared to introduce new triumphs in civilisation, in culture and in the arts. In the same way, the vast expansion of the field of knowledge achieved by the Age of Intellect seemed to mark a new high-water mark of human progress. We cannot say that any of these changes were ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The striking features in the pageant of empire are:
(a) the extraordinary exactitude with which these stages have followed one another, in empire after empire, over centuries or even millennia;

and
(b) the fact that the successive changes seem to represent mere changes in popular fashion—new fads and fancies which sweep away public opinion without logical reason.

At first, popular enthusiasm is devoted to military glory, then to the accumulation of wealth and later to the acquisition of academic fame. Why could not all these legitimate, and indeed beneficent, activities be carried on simultaneously, each of them in due moderation? Yet this never seemed to happen.

If you're going to accuse me of essay writing, there's some sections. Glubb's noticing patterns in how great states rise and fall, the sections after the Age of Intellect are a bit much to directly link, but they're worth reading, especially as they relate to our current political situation. Section XX on. Tell me if all of that doesn't start sounding a lot like what we're seeing these days.

One of his points is that while the lives of Empires rhyme, if you will, no two empires fall is the same. There's no reason to doom about the fate of America, even if we collapsed we're in an absolutely fantastic position to weather it. We love are Rome parallels, it pays to remember that Rome continued on much as it had when it transitioned from Republic to Empire. After all, it was still SPQR, they still had their senate, Augustus was merely First Citizen. It didn't end in fire, America isn't likely to either. It just changes.