The programs you mention expiring along with COVID-era cash welfare, reversed the poverty/food security trend for 2 years and these Dem dipshits literally can't figure out what's going on.
The first question would be "why are you at this guy's front door?", she can't answer that in any rational way. That's the main problem. She literally has no business there in the most literal sense of the word, combined with the fact that Fuentes got doxxed online, and combined with the fact that this is likely not even the first person to try this shit. It's very unlikely that he would get prosecuted.
The world in which Fuentes goes down for this, is the world where this can be weaponized against women by their stalkers.
Except "people that come up to your door" is literally removing all the context of the situation that this woman provided to the police and in her posts online.
The whole context is getting nuked on FB and Reddit. Here's a screen-cap of the post. Note how it doesn't start out with, "I'm a journalist", it starts out with "This guys sucks and I'm going to do something".
Show
Also here's another comment from her and what the cops think:
Show
Edit: Found the full full post:
Show
Show
In court and to any normal human this reads as looking for a fight. She cannot even explain what she wanted out of the outcome. She didn't mention being a journalist. This is all hysteria.
Also recognize what the law considers the opposing party doing. This is purely harassment, and she admitted it. Nobody is going to rule in her favor in a criminal court.
Unpopular opinion, sure he's a fascist moron, but this woman clearly is playing stupid games and won a stupid prize.
If you think you're going to "confront fascists" or "do journalism on them" you're liable for this kind of shit. Americans have literally lost the fucking plot, especially these Dem Party Fedayeen women who don't know what they're actually signing up for and think they're fucking invincible. If this had been a much more intelligent and vicious Nazi this woman would have been dead.
This reminds me of the whole Kamala Harris series on "you can vote different than you husband" which hilariously didn't pan out in the actual voting. Furthermore it incited a very real moral panic on the right wing, which could have ended horribly across the country. Had Kamala won, the moral panic she stoked would have left many women vulnerable to domestic violence regardless of their actual vote.
Stop playing with these people in real life. All Fuentes has to do is literally call the police a couple of times before he's gonna get free reign to shoot you through the door and the fascist American cops and juries aren't going to get you justice. Stop being idiots. Normal people aren't going to take your side for harassing someone you think is bad.
Kyle Rittenhouse is free for a much more egregious murder. Remember that. You're on uneven terrain. Unless you're going to shoot first, stop larping.
One of the funniest things to me is that my position towards libs in real life was:
I am an immigrant, who came here via asylum. I will not vote for anyone who prevents people from seeking asylum. The Biden administration has effectively destroyed asylum in the US, that is illegal under international law. Kamala Harris is campaigning on the Biden border policy.
Nobody could actually fucking answer to that. It was glorious to watch the cogs turn, because I knew in the back of their mind was the racist thought of throwing me out of the country because I'm "disloyal" or "ungreatful". They just could not say that out loud in polite company.
CHIPS was always going to be a giveaway for nothing. It reminds me of that FoxConn CEO's quote about the fact that the US could pay them to fab in America but nothing would actually come of it. Then they just dropped that $10B Wisconsin project as soon as possible.
That was under Trump. Biden literally saw this and doubled down thinking that TSMC would roll over.
I dunked on him on the IBCK Patreon after their last nonsensical "media criticism" episode and he blocked me. He can't even put his ego aside to secure the bag.
This is what I wrote:
"I have a lot of friends who have a lot of opinions about Michael Hobbes because they're also annoying New Yorkers.
A constant opinion among people who I would describe as more "nerdy", around Maintenance Phase is the fact that Michael Hobbes is a critic but does not offer solutions or alternatives. You can call this kind of parlance "Michaelisms". Things that feel like it's about the debate, not about the content, not about the solution to the problem, but about winning.
My defense of Michael's Maintenance Phase work is that Michael is not a scientist, he cannot offer alternatives, he can only compile, analyze and weight studies that have already been done by others.
This episode is rife with the worst "Michaelisms" and gotchas, things that make you feel that it's not about improving the media or providing an objective lens but about Michael (and Peter TBH) proving he's right -- I feel that it's indefensible here. Michael is able and qualified to offer solutions and alternatives because in our media the only qualification you need to be able to explain how things should be is podcaster."
Hobbes is so fucking annoying because he just needs to be right all the time. Doesn't matter the actual content of things.
If anything Kamala's "plans" as messaging, literally make no sense in the grand scheme of things.
Remember 2 years ago in 2022 when people were complaining about the price of gas and every Democrat was like "OH YOU DON'T GET IT, THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T CONTROL THE GAS PRICES YOU UTTER MORON!!!".
Kamala's plans literally are like, "the President is going to make groceries cheaper." Which one is it guys? Do you control prices or do you not? Of course the response is going to be technocratic mumbojumbo that's half lying anyway. Because the truth of it is that whatever they can take credit for they will even if they didn't explicitly have anything to do with it. They can't actually do anything because that makes their donor class nervous.
existing domestic oligarchs and the political class in Russia. They had no interest in handing the country over to the west.
I think this only holds true if you copy-paste Putin and the oligarchs from 2024 onto Putin and oligarchs in 2000. Putin is the reason oligarchs in Russia found ideological consistency and power ranking. During the years of Yeltsin and the early years of Putin, oligarchs were hypercapitalist outgrowths of organized crime, corrupt Soviet politican holdovers, and a new class of educated liberals leveraging knowledge and forging western ties. All of these people simply were stealing from the same pot, and trying to kneecap each other. They were all essentially vors, the oligarchs didn't care about "handing the country over to the West", they cared about personal enrichment. In fact the educated liberal oligarchs would have loved more Western ties.
In this critical period if the US blitzed strong economic ties and huge foreign direct investment, they would have easily bound Russia. If every oligarch regardless of position was offered significantly good deals from the US overnight, Putin would have either been forced into making a real mistake to capitulate to it or he would have had to fight it during a time where he was relatively weak.
The end of this period really started with the jailing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2003, that's the point where Putin's direction and dominance finally crystalized. Compared to the jailing of Khodorkovsky the killing of Boris Nemtsov or any other actions against dissidents were swatting away flies. If in 2000 the red carpet was rolled out Russia would have been captured, and would only need the typical maintenance that the US offers to Gulf States.
Right, and that’s why there are growing tensions with the west now. The only reason Turkey gets concessions is because NATO wants to have access to Black Sea, and that makes Turkey strategically important. However, the attempts at regime change clearly demonstrate that the west is not content with the status quo.
Sure Turkey is embattled, but it's restrained. That's the point. By allowing Russia to slip out of NATO's grasp Russia doesn't have the same restraints.
France may have resisted more than the rest of Europe, but it is politically captured by the US to a huge extent today. As we saw during recent elections, the Atlanticist centre was not displaced even despite being deeply unpopular with the public. France continues to pursue self destructive policy that benefits US in regards to Russia and China.
Marcon's unpopular policy decisions such as raising the retirement rate, and neoliberal economic reforms wouldn't even raise an eyebrow in Russia with the public. Just look at how quickly Ukranians who are much more annoying as a population capitulated to IMF capture of their farmlands despite the existence of constitutional barriers. Conscription is deeply unpopular in Russia since WW2, and that barely creates resistance 3 years into a meat-grinder war.
It’s also worth noting that what you’re describing is precisely the strategy that US took towards China. The US leadership thought that if they brought China into the fold, created economic ties, and so on, then eventually it would become a vassal. It didn’t work in China and it wouldn’t have worked in Russia.
The problem with the US-China relation is the ultimate problem of the US as a Capitalist Empire. Capitalists and the runaway displacement of manufacturing were responsible for the US screwing up keeping the lid on China. In 1995-2003 Russia would not have represented a real shift away from US manufacturing given your previous observation and my agreement with that Russia is in fact a gigantic strip mine for natural resources.
However, my original point is precisely that equal relations were never on the table.
I agree, however I think that they weren't on the table more from the US side, than they were from the Russian side.
Realpolitik is often used as imperial cheer leading and appologia. Mearshiemer is a real one for the fact that his version of realpolitik binds the empire as well. A major difference with him is that Mearshiemer recognizes that as powers grow their understanding of what security under the realpolitik framework becomes more paranoid. He essentially recognizes that under realpolitk the power of a country is inverse to it's actual ability to hold to its advertised values.
I will always read Mearshiemer because his analyses are actually serious. Also fun fact Mearshiemer is actually Sanders left in his personal politics which is something you will never understand from reading his work. That's why he's worth reading.
The goal of the west has always been to try t Balkanize Russia and then plunder the resources. This is what they tried to do during Yeltsin years and what Putin ultimately put a stop to. While Russia is capitalist, it does have its own interests and it does not see itself as an inferior to the west. That’s the real point of contention.
I agree with this. My point is that I think this would also been possible through tiered neocolonialism by giving Russia a seat at the table.
The west was literally trying to get regime change in Turkey in the last election, and Turkey is now shifting towards BRICS as a direct result of that.
Turkey has always been playing both sides. It's bought Russian weapons throughout the 2000's to the detriment of NATO weapons dealers. Turkey has never been a rank and file loyal soldier. The US will always have to do this intranacine management within NATO, esp. with Turkey. In the case of France it has been resisting this kind of management and instead letting France manage it's own colonial legacy through NATO. France has resisted many hegemonic actions spearheaded by the US and the US has simply done internal propaganda against it and has left it mostly alone. My point is that this would have been a viable strategy for managing Russia within NATO and would have worked a lot better against it because unlike France who has a restive population, Russia has a captive population and is well-managed through its hypercapitalist oligarchy.
Not only that but tighter economic ties that would come through NATO would actually have allowed America to over time disassemble Putin's stranglehold within the country had they played the long game. Building up a cadre of oligarchs that overshadow Putin's power would have been a lot easier with NATO alliances, because everyone would get rich and many would not have wanted to rock the boat. The West's best tools of hegemony are economic and cultural. By attempting to isolate Russia they are fighting with one hand behind their back.
Putin's positioning in the 2000's was that he wanted a France-style relationship with NATO, not a Turkey one. He wanted NATO to roll out the red carpet as a show of that. That's ultimately why Russia and NATO fell out. Putin sought his own way.
The other benefit to this is that by giving Russia a France-style seat, it diminishes the power of France. France has special rules because in reality France is the leading military power of continental Europe. The UK is just a tag-a-long. By having 2 large military powers in continental Europe in NATO, the US can easily play one off of the other.
Show
·17 days ago
The programs you mention expiring along with COVID-era cash welfare, reversed the poverty/food security trend for 2 years and these Dem dipshits literally can't figure out what's going on.