That gets you monitored by law enforcement. European governments are not that naive as to fall for the "it just means anti-fascist, it's not an organization".
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
? You can carry on questioning me all you like, feel free.
It becomes a little pointless if you're just endlessly repeating the same gripe that I asked a question a second time, though, so I'll point out how bizarre and petty it is.
* ask a question once more when it had not yet been answered.
That is possible. But it won't stop you from going to any university nor will there be any other restrictions.
That fucker has no good ideas. Aside from serving only himself. Though, that's not really a good idea, either.
Yeah, America is great as long as you're a cis white guy making 7+ figures with no moral qualms about all the shit the people in charge of us are doing lol
You keep saying it wasn't answered when it very clearly was. It just wasn't an answer you wanted.
Um...hate to break it to you, but that's a mix of irrelevance, confusing outdated circumstances for current ones, spin doctoring and straight up American exceptionalism.
Broadly irrelevant. The USA is not some unexplored frontier in which resources are free for the taking so long as you can plant your homestead there. It's a very mature capitalistic society in which those resources overwhelmingly belong to corporations. Farmers (who nominally have large swatches of land to their name) need to be subsidized by the government to eek out a living because their Return on Investment is so low. And we have some of the most extreme wealth disparity on the planet, with the top 1% of households owning 31% of the country's wealth while the bottom 50% collectively only holds 3%.
You might as well have been arguing that Feudal Europe had a good 'resources to population ratio'. Even if we take that as true for the sake of argument, it means bupkis when those resources are claimed and so heavily concentrated under the aristocracy and nobility.
Cheap food due to the government putting its finger on the scale through the aforementioned subsidies to farmers. Never mind that, despite this, the availability of nutrition and quality (as opposed to simple calories) are radically uneven, resulting in the US simultaneously having both one of the highest obesity rates on the planet, and one of the highest rates of food insecurity.
Which is only as good as the presumption that the military will be used well. Never mind that the US's actual military record is appreciably worse than commonly represented. E.g., the common story we're told in school is that the US almost single-handedly won World War 2, but the fact of the matter is that the Axis had overextended and momentum had been turning against them by the time the US got properly pulled in, and even then we had the unfair advantage of being half a world away from the enemy combatants, meaning that we got away relatively unscathed largely because both our allies and the ocean were a buffer between us and the enemies.
Similarly, we get cases like Vietnam and Korea which we bill internally as successes, but by any reasonably metric, were either failures or stalemates, despite our on-paper military superiority. Our claims of success were a function of getting frustrated with the stagnant war, and then looking for a small military success to end on, which we moved the goalposts to claim represented winning the war rather than just that battle.
Point being: our record is far from as flattering as we pretend it is.
...DUDE.
1) That's only relevant if you're at war with said neighbors (or are planning to be). Otherwise, weak neighbors are a bad thing, because those neighbors should be your allies.
2) That's patently false. Mexico and Canada may not be in the top 5 in terms of military strength, but they're both easily in the top quartile.
Again, not what we pretend, due to the aforementioned wealth inequality concentrating that disposible income at the very top. In actuality, roughly 62% of americans are living paycheck to paycheck (https://www.jpmorganchase.com/insti...lnerable-are-americans-to-unexpected-expenses).
Good for them. Truly. But that's the circumstance from generations ago, which had a much more favorable housing market. Have you checked the housing market lately? It's not good. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/decline-u-s-housing-affordability-1967-2023/
And it's been getting worse at a positively idiotic rate. https://www.marketplace.org/story/2...res-50-more-income-than-it-did-five-years-ago
The market today is much more expensive than the one your parents bought their house in. When someone says "my parents bought X house on Y income," the relevant question is could someone in the same class today replicate that? And the answer is overwhelmingly no.
To put more concrete numbers on it, IIRC, my father said he got his starter home for somewhere in the neighborhood of $72,000. You know what the median starter home price was last year? $250,000. That's already an increase of around 350%. And in over 200 cities, you can't get a starter home for less than $1,000,000. You know how much real wages have risen since 1970? Less than 10%. Housing is enormously more expensive today than it was when our parents got their houses.
And this carries forward to a lot of the other perks you're citing: The veracity of the statements about living here have a big red asterisk of if you can afford it attached to them.
Shall I go on?
The US certainly has its advantages, but the socioeconomic and political circumstances are increasingly ominously reminiscent of those of France by the time of Louis XVI, including the wealth concentration, the rising costs of living vs stagnant wages, and the fracturing legitimacy and loss of institutional trust, to name but a few examples.
...My dude, I seriously question your perspective and geopolitical awareness if "hasn't had a civil war in over a century" is something you perceive to be praiseworthy. Would you also indulge in French exceptionalism on the same grounds, considering that the French Revolutionary Wars ended in 1802?
The United States has won every war it fought in. Every war it has lost is reclassified as a "police action" and does not count.
World wars happened since, that quite involved France. Some of the major nations in Europe arguably didn't exist at the time of the American Civil War. The current US party system is older than many of those nation states.
It was answered in the same way that "i don't like peaches" is an answer to the question, "do you like apples?"
As in, its a response of a sort. But the information requested was not provided.
I read it more as answering "I don't like fruit," to "Do you like apples?", but with your clarification on why you didn't find the first response satisfying, I do understand your point of view. Just shows how important it is to understand both sides of the argument and not just assume the other person is on your page.
Yes. Your curiosity isn't owed anything. It isn't the answer you wanted, but it is an answer.
The supreme leader is also building ballrooms in his Versailles equivalent. And making its decor golden.
Now am I allowed to criticize Harris?
He's also impressively bad at doing that as well, he's just blessed with a system that refuses to see him fail. Which is strange and embarrassing.
(Yeah, I'm leaving it to others to do the heavy lifting on Gergar's argument because I don't have to words.)
Sure.
I have yet to find anyone actually wanting her as the next democratic candidate.
Since when has what the voters wanted ever mattered to The DNC when it came to them choosing who they'll let us vote for?
Never said i was owed an answer. Just asked again for an answer that provided the requested information. Something pretty innocuous that humans do all the time.
Any time you want to end this strange inquisition, feel free.