Josef bugman posted:

It's one of the unexpected consequences of people living longer.

Though I am not sure it will stick, all this has happened before and will happen again.

Revelation 2-13 posted:

Well, I don't know. it looks like 35-40% of the US voters are literally going to vote for a fascist sometime in the next 3 months, I'd say that ranks pretty highly up there on the 'world is hosed' list, even if he doesn't win.

Pakled posted:

Josef bugman posted:

Wasn't manifest destiny a really bad thing?

Epic High Five posted:

Like the best case scenario for a lot of Europe right now is a wave of Reagan clones coming in and gutting everything and dooming multiple generations to scrabble and pray for 1/10th of what the current EU citizens are enjoying. Worst case scenario should be pretty obvious.

Europe is just too loving white to prevent fascists from gutting the place. Plus most refuse to acknowledge the rise of authoritarianism because lmao, that's an American thing

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Look at this American exceptionalism crap

Also Europeans are a lot less racist than Americans. Just look at any statistics of cops blowing away minorities and getting away with it.

e: phoneposting

Lightning Knight posted:

Oof, what? American police are the natural evolution of and have inherited the original sin of the institutions that were used and abused to keep slavery in power. You can basically draw a straight line from Columbus -> colonization and genocide of the Native Americans -> importation of African slaves to replace them -> creation of institutional and military power to keep slaves in check, division among the elite over who gets profits from slavery and what direction slavery goes in terms of use and investment -> Civil War as manifestation of rich Northern industrialists who stand to profit off of abolition versus rich Southern aristocrats who profit off its continuation -> segregation replacing slavery, wage slavery and oppression used to keep black people down -> desegregation leading to white flight and backlash, modern America scarred from centuries of slavery and trying to support the weight of a permanent underclass it refuses to help rise up. Modern American police are just an extension of all that and the reason they're so racist as an institution is because they were literally created to protect the white, rich ruling class from black slaves and disaffected non-slave owning poor white people.

axe_vendetta posted:

Integenerational social mobility is something you can measure objectively, and the US has low mobility compared to most European countries. You may be correct regarding the mobility of the actual politcal class, though, but in America the amount of donations required to become a realistic contender means that any politicians must be supported by a group of wealthy donors - the candidate herself is just the tip of the iceberg. In the UK, political donations are significantly lower than America even given the smaller size of the population and the economy.

Epic High Five posted:

Lmao if you believe there will ever be room for Einsenhower-style Conservatism in the Republican party again.

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

What refugees have we accepted into the US? Come back when the US starts taking in refugees at the level the Europeans have and then we can a proper talk about taking down to other countries about how accepting we are of them.

Oh wait, you're too loving racist to do even just that. Canada has taken more than the US has. We should be ashamed of ourselves for it.

axe_vendetta posted:

There's a lot of data out there on the internet about social mobility. Almost all of it shows that America compares poorly with most countries in Europe, although the United Kingdom is often rated equally as bad or worse than the US. I'd be interested in a source for your statistic about people moving from the middle class because AFAIK the upper classes in the last decade have seen the greatest increase in income compared with all other classes.

quote:

The most spectacular change involved the explosion of the upper middle class (incomes from $100,000 to $349,999). It grew from 12.9 percent of Americans in 1979 to 29.4 percent in 2014 — from 1 in 8 U.S. households to more than 1 in 4. The rich ($350,000 in income or more) went from 0.1 percent of households to 1.8 percent in 2014. If these two groups are combined, nearly one-third of Americans have incomes exceeding $100,000. (Note: All these thresholds apply to three-person households; income levels are adjusted for differences in household size.)

Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to 32 percent.

All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose.

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

As for Muslims specifically, there's just as much if not more Muslim hate here in the US because every time a mass shooting happens D&D starts a circle prayer group hoping it isn't a Muslim.

fishmech posted:

Sure is weird that they measure class based on the same nominal incomes when 100,000 1979 dollars is 330,000 2015 dollars due to inflation.

quote:

Clinton said U.S. allies in Europe blocked proposals to adjust or remove the embargo. They justified their opposition on plausible humanitarian grounds, arguing that more arms would only fuel the bloodshed, but privately, said the president, key allies objected that an independent Bosnia would be "unnatural" as the only Muslim nation in Europe. He said they favored the embargo precisely because it locked in Bosnia's disadvantage. [..] When I expressed shock at such cynicism, reminiscent of the blind-eye diplomacy regarding the plight of Europe's Jews during World War II, President Clinton only shrugged. He said President François Mitterrand of France had been especially blunt in saying that Bosnia did not belong, and that British officials also spoke of a painful but realistic restoration of Christian Europe. Against Britain and France, he said, German chancellor Helmut Kohl among others had supported moves to reconsider the United Nations arms embargo, failing in part because Germany did not hold a seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

This is all a bunch of hearsay from a guy who decided not to intervene in Rwanda.

Revelation 2-13 posted:

Reading the last 5-10 pages, it occurred to me that people have some really weird ideas about Europe. Keep in mind that there are very large differences between Western and Eastern Europe (much larger than between the individual states in the US), so what i wrote below might not be accurate for all European countries, but certainly Western European ones, and most likely at a general European levels. Also keep in mind that rankings are generally terrible, because the take a (usually) complex and nuanced phenomenon and reduces it to a single number, and in addition ranks might rank one thing over another, even though the differences are minute, or barely can be said to be differences in reality.

Anyway, social mobility is without a doubt lower in the US than it is in general in Europe. I realize this can be somewhat provocative, seeing as the American Dream narrative is so strong, but it's the truth regardless, social mobility (while trending downwards) is higher in most European countries. The US definitely has more income inequality than most European countries. The US consistently have more poor people than most of Europe (there are a lot of different measures for this, all of them can be critiqued rather heavily, but at best, the US can be compared to poorly ranking European countries). The US education is at best on par with Europe, but (again lotsa different measures), probably lower ranked, and at the very least tend to spend less on eduction than most European countries. The US ranks below most of Western Europe when it comes to democratization, but higher than eastern-southern Europe. The US ranks as a middle of the road European country when it comes to happiness and when it comes to freedom of the press. People in Europe generally have more money to spend (that is, purchasing power) the US is about between a western and a Southern European country, when it comes to how much money do individual people actually have in comparison to what things cost. The US has a vastly higher incarceration (and execution) rate, even above many dictatorial hellholes. The US healthcare system ranks lower than most European ones (this one is also hard to measure), also has somewhat lower life expectancies. Murder and violent crime is a lot higher in the US (also traffic fatalities, per capita, per capita and per vehicle-km).

I'm actually not writing this to poo poo on the US, just to clear up some of the confusion there seems to be about Europe. There are plenty of aspects where the US is doing way better than Western Europe, for example personal and economic freedom, the US ranks lower than a couple of European countries, but higher than many. GNP, military, etc. is stronger for the US and racism/discrimination is much, much lower in the US (though it's not as overt in Europe as some here seem to think, no one in politics are actually calling themselves racists or nazis or anything, outside the very radical fringe. The new style of neo-nazism is much more tv friendly, and present these selves as just being very concerned about their countries proud 'culture', and the economic impact of immigration, etc.).

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Does it have a part where Madeline Albright has some nice and totally not racist things to say about the Serbs?

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

I don't go around comparing Serbs to the Japanese or Nazis, tbqh. That is a very misleading historical depiction of what actually went down in the Balkans. And I certainly don't go around accusing the major Europeans powers of aiding and abetting their genocide.

Dead Cosmonaut posted:

Bill Clinton wasn't even in power until after Bosnia was recognized as state by the EEC and admitted to the UN. You got basic facts mixed up.


By the Pentagon, no less- not the Europeans.


How?

And people forget it today but back then that set the bad precedent of being the first NATO intervention ever. That's a terrible legacy to leave behind.

Schizotek posted:

Sing it brother
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3B85zur1jA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f5ojDWMpV8

ImpAtom posted:

There are people who use 'trigger warning' in a lovely way. That doesn't devalue the concept of warning someone that you're about to discuss heavy poo poo and give them the chance to politely excuse themselves or prepare themselves beforehand. It's really annoying whenever someone goes (BAD THING HAPPENED) = IDEA WORTHLESS. It just means someone is being dumb about it. Don't get into the same sort of mindset that grumbles about WELFARE QUEENS or whatever.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Exposing people to negative things "in brutal ways" frequently backfires, because education is complicated and nuanced. If you do it wrong you just desensitize people and end up with goons. Any educational strategy targeted at getting an audience to accept an uncomfortable truth has to be prepared to work through the stages of denial the student is likely to go through. Look how many times patient conversations about racism here have been met with a reflexive "So you're saying I'm evil because I'm white??!?"

One of the many horrible things about the workings of the human mind is that when someone sees something terrible happening to another person, the instinct is to assume they had it coming somehow. The worse the punishment, the more the victim must have had it coming. So if you just throw images of human suffering at students with no context all you're doing is creating another batch of Just-World shitheads. Not a great use of taxpayer dollars imo.

Lightning Knight posted:

Whatever happened to Joementum? Did he die?

doodlebugs posted:

https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/769364496796254208

Necroskowitz posted:

Why does REUTERS/IPSOS have Trump up by 14 in New Hampshire? That's a 15 point difference from their last poll a week or so ago.

quote:

Can we just agree that Reuters is completely bullshit at this point? Trump doing 27 points worse than everyone else is projecting in Alabama and West Virginia? Clinton doing better in Nebraska than in Wisconsin? Trump gaining 15 points in one week in New Hampshire, 11 points in one week in Missouri, and 6 points in one week in Idaho? Clinton gaining 12 points in one week in Alabama, 19 points in one week in Nebraska, 9 points in one week in South Carolina, and 7 points in one week in Pennsylvania? Really?

Crows Turn Off posted:

Link? I've seen people chat about it but haven't seen it yet.

awesmoe posted:

It's reassuring to see chaos still reigns

The angle he might be going for is to stare Nieto down and tell him to his face that theres gonna be a wall, you'll pay for it, you need to stop sending your rapists and murderers and instead you should send your best, blah blah blah then come back and tell his base about it

Of course the other hot take (given the invite came from Nieto recently - not months ago, I misunderstood) - is that Nieto is trying to bury local news and trump is just playing into it because he's...not very good at this.


e: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/770811688966770689

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Actually if recent history is any precedent he's going to travel from Washington (state) to New York to Mexico to Arizona to New York in less than 24 hours

Pellisworth posted:

I don't really know much about Mexican politics but is there a chance Pena-Nieto would offer vague support for a Trump border wall? Obviously not suggesting Mexico pay for it because that's not going to fly politically, but could he make an anti-cartel and border security argument? Then Trump can fly back to NY with the smug satisfaction he's "struck a deal" about the border wall and gotten some vague support from Pena-Nieto. He makes the best deals.

Also, is it against any laws or tradition for nominees to be meeting with foreign heads of state? Seems a bit unusual and suggests influence or meddling of other nations in domestic politics.

Shbobdb posted:

Yeah, privately. Aside from some lip service or when he was demonstrating that he's not a secret muslim it wasn't "in your face" like it is in the Hillary campaign. "Vote for me because I love Jesus" is not something a democrat should be saying at the national level. It's gross.