Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

"It is thus highly unlikely that Moreno – who has shown himself willing to submit to threats and coercion from the UK, Spain and the U.S. – will obtain a guarantee that the U.K. not extradite Assange to the U.S., where top Trump officials have vowed to prosecute Assange and destroy WikiLeaks."

"But the Trump administration has made clear that they have no such concerns. Quite the contrary: last April, Trump’s then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, now his Secretary of State, delivered a deranged, rambling, highly threatening broadside against WikiLeaks. Without citing any evidence, Pompeo decreed that WikiLeaks is “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” and thus declared: “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us.”

Oh boy, going to be fun watching all the QAnon conspiritards play this one off.

see more

Play it off? They'll just insist that it's proof that everything they said was right and Trump is just getting Assange into position where he can give Trump the information to arrest Hillary Deep State Clinton or something.

Apparently the French rounded up guys like Mbappe from the African nation of Paris & forced them to play for the nation that they were born in, raised in, play football in & identify with, as opposed to identifying with people who happen to have the same skin colour thousands of miles away.

see more

Or, you know, African nations have pride in the accomplishments of the people who emmigrated from their countries and in the children of those people? Is that really such an absurd thing?

I disagree that it was an unwinable war, the thing that held the US back was morals and a willingness to fight the vc/nva on their own terms

see more

It wouldn't have mattered, because we were trying to prop up a govenrment that was completely unsavable.

When we first got involved it was Diem running the South Vietnam government. He was so bad and corrupt and terrible that we encourage his generals to have a coup and assassinate him in 1963. But then things got even worse; it was just a constant struggle between greedy corrupt generals fighting each other for power while basically ignoring everything outside of the city of Saigan. Eventually one of them managed to hold a fake election and pretend to be a real government, but that didn't get better either.

South Vietnam was never going to be a legitimate government or create a real army capable of keeping down guerrilla fighters without foreign support, and we know it.

Besides which, the other reason we were holding back is that in Korea we did fight the North Koreans on their own terms, and the result was pulling China into the war in a way that was absolutly catastrophic for us. A full invasion of North Vietnam might have had the same effect.

We shouldn't have created the facade of a non-US government.

In Korea Macarthur very much had the capability to counter the Chinese, except Truman held him back. Plus in Vietnam, the North Vietnamese wouldn't have received Soviet aid due to the Chinese-Soviet schism. A full invasion wouldn't have been necessary if the US was actually serious about crippling the ability of North Vietnam to wage war on the South.

see more

We shouldn't have created the facade of a non-US government.

If we eventually wanted to get to a point where South Vietnamese troops were able to at least hold their own, if we didn't want US troops to be stuck in an endless unwinnable war, we had to. There's no way any significant number of Vietnamese would have been willing to fight and die for an openly colonial govenrment system. At least a few were willing to fight for a corrupt South Vietnamese government that was in theory independent and in theory they thought might eventually be able to stand on it's own, even if that was never very likely.

In Korea Macarthur very much had the capability to counter the Chinese,

You mean, by using nuclear weapons against China, and potentially starting WWIII in Asia?

The Chinese were holding back too. They could quite easily have bombed the US troops stationed in Japan and killed a lot of them, they had the capacity to do that and it would have hurt us quite badly, but they didn't want to expand the war outside of Korea either.

A full invasion wouldn't have been necessary if the US was actually serious about crippling the ability of North Vietnam to wage war on the South.

We were doing more and more to try to weaken North Vietnam, both carpet bombing and various ground raids. None of it helped much. A lot of the people we were fighting on the ground were South Vietnamese anyway.

Load more comments

Centrist? No.

Radical? Yes.

You're never going to convince the general public to abolish ICE and have open borders just because the state has a vested interest in knowing who's coming and leaving. It makes no sense to let in refugees and the people they're fleeing from and it's pretty naive to think Mexican drug gangs wouldn't exploit the system.

Never mind that historically it was normally the case that parent and child were never, ever separated in deportation proceedings in the US up until Obama changed the laws and incentivized parents to game the system.

see more

the state has a vested interest in knowing who's coming and leaving.

That certainly does not conflict with "open borders", at least not the way most people here use the term.

Knowing who's coming and going in the context of barring some people from entering the country.

If nothing else the borders need to remain semi-closed for the simple fact that open borders invites countries like Cuba to dump their criminal populations on us and heavily allows corrupt governments like Mexico's to dump the population that would historically form the backbone of a revolution on the US.

see more

Knowing who's coming and going in the context of barring some people from entering the country.

Most people's interpretation of "open borders" is something like "anyone without a criminal record who wants to come to the US to visit or work or whatever should be able to just file paperwork and come in a few days without any hassles." I don't think anyone has a problem with keeping literal felons out of the US.

It's also kind of absurd that Mexico is going to "dump" population on us. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the US is lower than it was 10 years ago.

If anything we should be worrying about how we can attract enough immigrants from countries like Mexico to suit the needs of our economy, because right now we aren't.

4 points · 1 day ago

I mean “Dems are openly admitting to being commies” is a pretty bad look

see more
2 points · 1 day ago

It sounded like she was openly admitting to be a Republican

The US punishes light crimes too severely, and Europe punishes severe crimes too lightly.


see more

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Load more comments

What's up with r/neoliberal?

I saw their post on /r/starterpacks, and I noticed that they have a daily meme contest with thousands of memes in it every single day but only a few upvotes. I rarely see this amount of memes even at the top of /All.

I also noticed that /r/centerleftpolitics (who also posted in starterpacks) does the same thing but with less comments.

Are these subs organic?

Edit: Look at these

see more
49 points · 1 day ago

Uh. The sub has a daily discussion thread and has a bot which automatically posts it every day. That doesn't mean that the rest of us here are bots, lol.

Also, we have "thousands of memes every single day"? Lol. I wish.

I think this is pasta from the r/conspiracy sub

see more
16 points · 1 day ago

Lol. Should have known, I saw that trainwreck

Load more comments

27 points · 1 day ago

"People who get paid to drive for Uber are employees of Uber" seems like a fair ruling. You're not really an independent contractor if you can't set your own rates.

The question of who is more stupid between commies and ancaps is purely academic IMO.

see more
7 points · 1 day ago

Answer: Anprims

42 points · 1 day ago

Try again but with 50% less cringe

48 points · 1 day ago

Is there a rule on what minimum dose of hallucinogens you need to be on before making a meme here?

137 points · 2 days ago

I think part of the problem here is that (in America) people are equating two different concepts here: race and ethnicity.

The problem is that Americans are applying an American conception of race and identity to people who are not American.

see more

More complex than that, because I think that Noah was saying as an African that Africans are proud of the people who recently emigrated to other parts of the world. He was saying that people in Africa cheer for the French team. Which is true, and was more a comment about his own culture than anything else.

I can't be the only one uncomfortable with these chants, am I? Even if it's perhaps for the right reasons...

see more

Any kind of nationalism makes me deeply uncomfortable but I'm unusual there.

Although even I'm fine with this. American patriotism tied specifically in service of the good American founding values like democracy and equal rights and so on is one of the few kinds of nationalism that can be net positive.

Broke: climate change denial

Woke: electron denial

see more

Electrons are an illusion, it's all jut a quantum probability wave.

Load more comments

Well I find it hard to think you're arguing in good faith, as all we have are campaign slogans and her economic illiteracy on display here. "Bernie 2.0" is pretty obviously meant to say she's a populist with starry eyes making promises she doesn't understand, and will let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But, stuff that makes me dislike her:

  • Medicare 4 All - Shes endorsing a Bernie style plan which is expansive, unfunded and doesn't emulate the countries she idolizes (le Western Europe)

  • $15 minimum wage. Dumb. Makes sense in Queens, not Nebraska.

  • Free college and eliminating all college debt. Sounds great, how ya gonna pay for it?

  • 100% renewable energy by 2035. You'd have to completely misunderstand how energy in the US works to think thats a realistic goal.

  • Housing policies. She seems anti-development. We will see.

  • Wall St reform. Her main call is "restore glass steagall." Thats often code for "I dont understand financial regulation, so I'll repeat Bernies talking point."

see more

"Medicare for all" is not well defined but it isn't necessarily bad, depending on exactly what is meant.

In order to keep global warming under 2.5 degrees, we basically have to stop burning fossil fuels by 2040 according to the best models we have now. So setting a goal at 2035 is probably the right thing to do. Granted I'd be happier if she said " mix of renewable and nuclear".

Except for the anti development thing, none of these takes are that bad or especially extreme. $15 minimum wage is probably too high but I think that with unemployment so low but wages not rising yet this probably is a good time for a moderate minimum wage hike.

All of those have incredibly difficult combat terrain. Americans are concentrated in cities around the country all connected by roads and reasonably easy to traverse terrain (especially if you're on a highway)

see more

Fighting against guerrilla fighters in a densely populated urban area, where the fighters have support of the local population, is one of the hardest things any army can do. Look at how hard it was for the US army to do that in Iraq, which is a much smaller country with a much lower population.

That's a fair point, however in those situations having better training and tech definetely helps. Also not many people aside from guerrilla fighters would interfere, and the urban areas aren't dense enough (in a lot of more spread out US cities) to be a hinderence to the military.

see more

That's a fair point, however in those situations having better training and tech definetely helps

It helps, but trying to find the one guy who's picking your soldiers off with a rifle in a city is a nightmare, especially when there are so many guns in the US that every time you kick in the door of a house or apartment there's a 1/3 chance the guy behind the door has a gun.

And if it came to that point you'd probably have at least part of the US military refuse to follow orders and join the guerrillas, and then things would go full Syria.

Load more comments

If something was an interview that was on television or on the news or on the radio something, then I think clips of it should be fine; people are legally allowed to show short clips of something like that for purposes of commentary, and you see those everywhere, including on other TV shows.

Lots of article show clips in them and that's fine too.

If the original video is on youtube and someone is just rehosting a clip from it somewhere else that's not great and if you can link to the original it's better, but I don't think we should worry as much about original sources in most of these cases unless it's obvious someone is taking advantage.

When did we verb "drone" to mean "extrajudicially execute"?

Not gonna lie, it's pretty funny to see it used that way.

see more

For a few years it was we were going to " drone strike" someone then we shortened it.

Doesn't work, literally everyone in this sub is too young to be President

Agent78787 untuk Presiden Republik Indonesia 2044, though

see more

Hey I'm old enough to be President.

Vote Yosarian2, I'm technically qualified in the most literal way.

Load more comments

If you assume she was comparing inflation-adjusted wages to inflation-adjusted health care costs and inflation-adjusted education costs and inflation-adjusted rent, she was still entierly correct.

I mean, no, she is not.

The only way this would make sense is if you compare nominal wages to nominal health care costs, or nominal education costs, which would indeed show that the costs of these services have risen much faster than wage growth. Which is true enough.

But real wages in the aggregate are already adjusted by the entire increase in cost for these services. Unless you believe CPI, or the GDP deflator, or whatever else is broken, then all of the aggregate increase in the cost of these services is already adjusted for in real wages.

Note that I'm acknowledging prices for these services grew at a much faster pace than inflation. I am not claiming otherwise.

I am merely pointing out that in the aggregate, the entire increase in cost for these services has already been used to adjust wages downward. Except for the rising costs in these services, there would be real wage growth.

She can't claim:

a) There has been zero real wage growth for decades b) And health care costs have risen at the same time

b) is a variable of a)

From an economic perspective, that doesn't make any sense.

see more

I fully understand what you are saying.

From the point of view of a person struggling economically though, it's not reassuring to hear "your health care cost and college loan costs and rent are up, but you can buy a much better phone and laptop for the same price compared to a decade ago which we're going to count as 60% deflation in the tech area, so in real terms your wages are the same." They might be, but the things they have to pay for are now a larger cost of their budget. Their luxuries and maybe groceries are cheaper but that means you can't save as much by cutting those in an emergency.

The total amount you can buy with your wages is the same (I do accept the CPI figures) but you have much less flexibility and much less ability to respond to any problems, because your fixed costs are a much higher percent of your budget. It makes people less resilient and more likely to end up bankrupt or evicted.

Anyway, if you expect a politician writing a tweet to get this technical you're going to be waiting a long time. They need to communicate with voters who don't have an economics degree.

I agree with you entirely. It's a huge problem.

That doesn't mean it makes sense to deflate wages for increased health care costs and then compare those deflated wages against the same rising health care costs we just deflated for.

That is the only point I was making.

see more

I'm saying that I don't think that's what she did. If you assume she was comparing inflation-adjusted wages to inflation-adjusted health care costs and inflation-adjusted education costs and inflation-adjusted rent, she was still entierly correct.

Load more comments

"it's a shame what's happening to Paul Manafort. Such a nice man. It's almost like Al Capone really!" Wtf does that mean!? Capone murdered people.

see more

Al Capone murdered people, but instead went down for tax evasion.

So I guess by analogy Paul Manafort betrayed our country but instead went down for money laundering? Lol

What about increasing the workforce participation rate? People with no jobs who don't count as unemployed because they haven't looked for work in X months beginning to get jobs.

see more
18 points · 3 days ago

Workforce participation was steadily increasing even before the tax cuts, and it's unlikely that the tax cuts changed much there.

Why would tax cuts change unemployment numbers but not workforce participation rate?

see more

I think when an economy has a lot of slack, putting more money into it can speed up recovery some.

Ours does not have much though, so dumping money into the economy probably wouldn't do very much to stimulate things farther.

When an economy is running at full employment, people who have given up looking for a job may slowly get pulled back into the labor market, but that takes time, and I don't think a an economic stimulus would do a lot to speed that process up. I suppose it could do a little, if it increased consumption and made employers more desperate to find workers (but this tax cut was aimed at the telepathy so it probably didn't even increase consumption). For the most part though, stimulating the economy when the labor market is tight will probably just cause inflation.

Original Poster-1 points · 5 days ago

OK, well I sure would like America to convert to capitalism then. Maybe we could afford to join the 21st century, and have cost effective universal healthcare like those wealthy capitalist countries, namely Cuba.

see more

Yeah, that sounds like exactly what most people here advocate for.

11 points · 3 days ago

I like the part where the author implied that the opposition to the EU must be neoliberal because Trump and Nigel Ferage were "unlikely to be" the vanguard of opposition to neoliberalism. Uhhhh...they're not?

I think the author is just someone who decided that neoliberalsm means austerity and extreme hard conservative values and even anti-environmentalist values and so thinks that anyone who has those things must be a neoliberal. That's almost the exact opposite of what everyone around here means by "neoliberal" which is what makes it so silly.

Seriously though, if the author things that anti-EU hard right "Euroskeptic parties" are "neoliberal" then that's just another example of how so many people now think "neoliberal" just means "anything I hate".

10 points · 3 days ago

"it gives you something to think about 🤔"

"something to drink about! 🍺"

is fiddler on the roof /our film/?

see more
11 points · 3 days ago

I mean the play basically did end with them deciding to just move lol

Uh. I'm not sure if you would call that "just move lol" more like semi-forceable relocation.

see more

I know. It was a terrible joke and I feel terrible for making it.

In retrospect I probably should have gone with the "If I were a rich man" joke instead.

Load more comments

Original Poster2 points · 4 days ago


"what? I don't want war..."

Pro interventionism is part of neoliberalism

see more

I doubt you could find anyone outside of a few on the far right who think that war with North Korea is a good idea right now. Millions of people would die, and for what? And that's only if China doesn't get involved, which honestly it probably would; if they do it's more like hundreds of millions.

Original Poster2 points · 4 days ago

One graph with your subjective definition of "poverty" as if it were some sort of universal measurement

It's not, there are various other factors easy to manipulate such as cost of living, people left out of the measurement, etc

Many people in "extreme poverty" in North Korea are still doing A-ok, while they would be dying in droves if we declared war on them. Which I don't want to do. But you do.

see more

it were some sort of universal measurement

There are a lot of ways you can measure poverty. That's one, but you can also look at hunger, education, access to safe drinking water, and so on. All of those measures are headed in the correct direction. Global poverty is rapidly declining, and has been for decades.

Which I don't want to do. But you do.

What the hell? Nobody wants war with North Korea. Where the hell did that even come from?

Load more comments

How do these fake stories about Hillary gain so much traction? It's incredible how fervently people believe them

see more

We have an incredibly deep grained cultural suspicion against any woman who seems to be ambitious or seeking power. Been that way for a long time; people see an ambitious woman and right away begin thinking "Lady Macneth."

3 points · 4 days ago

government is aware of and efficiently responds to individual needs

this still isn't a dystopia

see more

I would think a world where everyone get super stressed out trying to get their viewer numbers up to get more famous, while in reality nobody was watching them at all and it was all for nothing, would be pretty dystopic

Load more comments

31 points · 4 days ago

It's cheesy because it plays straight the Virgin/Chad dichotomy without any of the ironic edge that makes memes memey

see more
11 points · 4 days ago

Yeah, it's kind of like one of those facebook memes that moms share because my gosh mondays are hard.

Cake day
December 6, 2012
Moderator of these communities

13,161,503 subscribers


5,706 subscribers


3,566 subscribers

Trophy Case (3)
Five-Year Club

Verified Email

Team Orangered

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.