00:00
@Steve I mean those migrants are the global working class. Where do you want them to revolt? In the poorest parts of the world. Killing each other and leaving the resources behind for global companies to exploit? Of course they seek to go to the richest countries on the planet and who are you to blame them? And what do you achieve if you condone gated communities? The same way you keep the poor out, the rich are going to keep you out.
@Steve Because he's saying the quite part out loud. He's a cartoon version of what people accused them of being for decades. Like that the U.S. violates human rights is as much a fact as it is a scandal for a country wanting to be world police. Trump says they should torture more. The whole "soft power" approach is undermined if you tell the other side how you exploit them. That's why the capitalists hate him, the rest hate him because that's straight up appalling.
@Steve Again now liberals seem to be rich elitists conservatives? Seriously there's no consistency in how you use that word.
@Steve Yeah there are those that support Hitler because he vows to do the stuff that helps them and persecutes their enemies. While anyone with more than 1 brain cell realizes that this isn't going to stop there and that the cost of that is by far exceeding the benefit.
@Steve Not sure about that part, though there would have been a lot less public scrutiny of his cases without him pushing that vigorously into the public sphere.
@Steve The entire voting system in the U.S: is a rigged antiquated mess. But it's exactly this rigged antiquated mess that works IN FAVOR of Donald Trump. If the president would be selected by popular vote he would have never had a mandate in the first place. So if people complain about not getting exactly what they want then no system but tyranny will serve their needs and that on the expense of the vast majority of people.
Like only 1 person can win the lottery on the back of everyone that lost with their ticket. If everyone wins the lottery they would get less than their ticket price as a win. So either you give up on the idea of getting it all and compromise (you know do democracy) or you take power and instantly created millions of enemies who YOU are oppressing with that power. That's not ideology that's just how power works.
@Steve His primary targets were "the Jews" which or centuries had a rather rough standing within society. And he didn't actually attack the rest of Europe either, he attacked smaller neighboring states (you know like Putin does currently), it's only that after the 3rd attempt the rest of Europe came to realize he's not going to stop and so they became more serious in making him stop.
@Steve Oh those who can are massively buying in the rest of Europe given that their Russian assets are otherwise worth a lot less. Though public stunts like football teams are probably rarer as that might add them to a sanction list.
@Steve That's not so much a "waste" that's unused potential. On the contrary it pretty much shows that in many regards we already have a post-scarcity economy where bullshit jobs and unemployment can be afforded and thus where the values are there, the distribution just sucks.
@Steve Are you a recruiter? Like no what people get from soldiering is getting their character be broken, their will and moral destroyed, their self-worth reduced to being a tool and thus being made dependent on the people that exploit them.
@Steve Again the means are there, the people are there, the knowledge is accessible. All things that Marx couldn't even have DREAMED about or has literally advocated. So in some regards the revolution has already happened while in other regards the result is sill vastly different from what he had imagined.
@Steve Again Russia is not a socialist country. Putin isn't fighting liberalism he's fighting for Russian imperialism and these people are dying for ... idk what they are dying for some are conscripted, others might be mercenaries, other's might believe the propaganda and so on
@Steve No. The shit that Marx actually said looked at the structures of society and how they result from the material conditions. The stuff that Lenin added essentially reverted the class struggle to a form of racism where you fight an other, essentially fascist and no longer socialist. Also what caused the world wars is a bit more complex and the liberals ended up being on the same side as the USSR...
@Steve The U.S. largely stayed outside of the world war with individuals often times supporting both sides until they were directly attacked and thus got directly involved in the wars (usually when the winner was already foreseeable).
@Steve Partially. Like Russia was part of the allies and got supplies to fight Germany, yet Lenin dropped out of the war so countries tried to get their stuff back. Though while capitalists in the U.S. tried to fight "communism" as well, their own generals apparently told them that that is not part of their mission.
@Steve If you kill strikers they won' work either. Also if a government mass kills civilians, that only causes more protest, sabotages and resistance, not less. Like look at where the U.S. fought wars and where they lost. Like setting all ideologies aside if you kill civilians for no reason, you'll breed your new batch of terrorism
@Steve Again what is the "liberal" goal here. Like there's already protest against that. But also just in general apart from actual genocide, no matter how many generals an army can kill if that involves also killing thousands of civilians you're not being seen as the liberator but as an aggressor and that battle will continue. So that's a war that cannot be won, only lost. And there's nothing liberal about that.
@Steve Again what is stopping you from doing that? Again this is not the 19th and not even the 20th century. Where protests resulted in massacres, where political participation was only for people with land or where those votes count multiple times, where women couldn't vote, where minorities weren't even counted as human. where organization was technically and legally disallowed. Those political goals have been reached. Are you really fighting the power or empower tyrants?
6 hours later…
06:22
@haxor789 the liberal isn't "pro-freedom", they're pro-freedom specifically for the rich. Freedom for exploiters, chains for the exploited. I really do wonder why I'm having to explain this to someone who, it seems, earnestly considers themselves left-wing in some way.
I accept Trump is capitalist. I accept he's a crook, I accept he is corrupt. That much does not distinguish him from liberals.
What seems to distinguish him is his own ego and hubris. He seems less concerned about liberal ideology than about actually winning the election for himself. He seems unconcerned about demonstrating the criminality and corruption that liberals would usually prefer to keep discreet and concealed. And he seems utterly uncowed by what the liberals have thrown at him to discipline him into compliance, which instead seems to have angered him further.
What would I prefer? Harmony at the top of liberalism, or discord? A rich man who puts his class interests ahead of his own and obeys, or who puts his own interests in winning a ballot ahead of the interests of his class?
I'm perfectly aware that liberals could attempt to stage such a conflict. They usually do, by capturing both parties then engaging in slapstick. But there's something this time that makes it seem like it's not a controlled game but a genuine struggle amongst the ruling class, in which Trump represents contradictions and unpredictability.
@haxor789 I really don't want this to come across as anti-trans, but in fact yes, those with hooligan ideas about gender identity are in fact the same liberals who bankroll slave factories around the world! You're not the ones opposing slave factories at all, but the ones advocating offshoring and wage attacks.
@haxor789 who do you think extracts capital from other countries? Don't you think the unequal acceptance of migrants, many of whom are relatively wealthy or skilled, is itself a form of colonial extraction from other places? And don't you think the liberals constantly smashing up the place induces flows?
@haxor789 who's suggested anything about slavery or claiming others' bodies? It would be quite sufficient if liberals merely supported those who want to have families and be parents. But most liberals are vicious Malthusians who want to enslave women in the workplace for low wages instead.
@haxor789 I'm not really blaming migrants. I'm blaming rich liberals. Liberals are the ones that make these other places poor and war-torn, and then liberals are the ones who use desperate and dislodged people as scabs in the West.
If you want to see the contradiction in your views, it's on show between saying criticism of US bankrolling destruction in Gaza is "anti-semitic", yet expressing pity for the poor and dispossessed of the world.
@haxor789 Jews (very expansively defined by the Nazis) were a significant target of Hitler, but that wasn't the main reason why Germany went to war.
Frankly it's a completely ridiculous analysis of WW2, and ridiculous to suggest Hitler only attacked the weak, when his agenda consisted of attacking a good majority of all the strongest and most industrially advanced nations in the world.
I'm not trying to make out Hitler to be a man of kindness and benevolence, or to say that he wasn't cruel to the weak, but it really should be obvious how preposterously false it is to claim Hitler only took on the weak in battle. He was himself a decorated war hero in WW1.
@haxor789 I'm not actually a recruiter, but my two grandfathers, father, father's best friend, uncle, and step-brother all served in the armed forces, and I've known many others. I've heard many criticisms, but never the ones you make. The two most badly affected were affected by losing friends in fighting.
@haxor789 oh I know Putin is not a socialist. But you're right he's fighting for Russian national interests not the interests of global liberalism in attacking workers. And that's fine by me.
@haxor789 that's not the perceived point. The point is to kill some to intimidate the others into subservience. Mass killings cause uproar precisely because most people won't be cowed that way, and also because revolutionaries often have to start bulleting would-be collaborators too, to deprive the enemy of the benefits of that strategy of intimidation.
The point I was making was that liberals systematically seek to attack the confidence and skills that workers could have to fight. Wars force the liberals to deliver those skills. That's why they hate war, to preserve their control over weaponry and skills, and ensure that only a small trustworthy minority have access to it.
4 hours later…
11:46
@Steve You're missing the point. The "classical" caricature of a capitalist has no ideology they have interests. And their goal isn't a class interest to dominate others, it's to be the monopolist. So class interests among capitalists only exist as long as they are mutually beneficial and not on an ideological but on a pragmatic basis. So ideology and actual relation between people are more of a person thing not one based on the material conditions...
@Steve What you describe sounds more like "libertarians", which is also a misnomer as libertarian would mean anarchist, but those people in the U.S. mostly care for free markets and private property and any other liberties come second if at all. Though even their ideology is a deviation from the classical capitalism which would not let itself constrain it's interest and quest for power by any ideology. Like the free market is not the goal it's a means to an end
The irony is that the "old money" folks have, probably through ancestors heads on sticks, realized that they should not show of their power and wealth and rather conceive savior narratives and those where they are the benevolent ones and some might actually be, except for how they make that money Brecht has wrote an interesting play about that en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Person_of_Szechwan It's usually the "communists" understanding exploitation that do it raw
That being said even if you "benevolently" oppress and exploit people that's still exploitation, that's part of what gets the boomers so angry, that they behave nicely and benevolently according to their own rule book and minorities still tell them that what they do results in exploitation and oppression. The point is it's not a character flaw and often enough hatred against them is misplaced it's rather a structural, systemic problem and an unwillingness to solve or even see it.
Also even to be the monopolist might not be an interest in itself, but a necessity that arises from the fact that they are entrapped in a global competition. Like everyone knows bigger guns, mean bigger problems. But if one starts it the other has to follow or give up and capitalism isn't kind to losers. Even if you had totally nice people and not narcissistic psychopaths in the position of presidents, chairmen, CEOs and whatnot, their job title would in some way require them to turn into that.
So the entire right wing anticapitalism idea of "let's get rid of the foreign influence and let OUR capitalists exploit us" is complete bullshit. It doesn't matter if your banker is a Jew or your neighbor, the problem is that you are in a dependent relation where you are expected to work for someone else's profit. Even worse if that other person has also borrowed money, because then your exploitation is non negotiable as they are also exploited and need that money.
@Steve He is like a caricature of a human being, obsessed with the media and the media depiction of a capitalist. So his main concern is ratings, popularity, playing the tough anti-hero from 80s movies not realizing that these were often fictional narratives mocking corruption and that the system though not perfect is not THAT corrupt either, though he really tries to go there. He has no ideology he has (self-)interests, so he's actually a capitalist, not a liberalist...
... and I'm not seeing how it makes it any better if a movie villain identifies as movie villain. Like it's annoying if the villain thinks they are the good guy, but how does it actually improve if they think off themselves as the bad guy?
@Steve There's never truly harmony at the top of an exploitative system, because the same mentality that lets them throw the poor under the bus also applies when they throw each other under the bus. Selective empathy is not how that works. Out of sight out of mind works to some extend, but there's always an interface that chips away that empathy one at a time, making the inside of the wall as horrible as the outside.
@Steve Yes Trump or rather his enablers (lets be real Trump is a moron who would sit in jail if the conservatives would care), are at the point of actually chipping away the last veneer of democracy, they have for quite some time engaged in gerrymandering, voter suppression and all kinds of shenanigans to bend the law, but with Trump delegitimizing elections and the supreme court basically making him immune from anything, that's going straight for tyranny.
It might for a brief moment feel refreshing and like "Hate to say I told you so... Wait actually: Hahahahahah". But after that comes the realization that this is not actually a good thing after all. Like Trump is ushering in a new era of colonialism, slavery and potentially WWIII (with nukes) as Russia and China are just waiting to take the torch, but with even more exploitative and oppressive systems. Where all 3 superpowers suck and none is even pretending not to suck...
@Steve The far right Israeli government can legitimately be criticized for it's excessive use of force particularly against civilians without that being anti-semitism. But to insinuate that the U.S. is bankrolling genocide and that this is part of the "liberal agenda" as if Gaza is in any way shape or form economically interesting is nothing short of demonizing to the point of latent antisemitism.
@Steve You can make the case that Israel is the foot in the door of the middle east for Western empires. As Israel is too small to effectively defend itself so any intervention seem legitimized as "defense" of a weaker ally, while there is plenty of terror from both sides to always be able to escalate a conflict without it seeming to come out of nowhere. But even if you had such a caricature of a narrative, genocide would be counter productive as...
it would either put an end to the conflict or ignite the whole region. And likely the latter which at this point of multicrises is really not what anybody needs. So the U.S. doesn't really seem to benefit from that at all, it's rather that telling Israel to stop is difficult as they still have enough weapons to go on and as completely withdrawing any support at all is also unpopular akin to a death sentence that could also ignite the conflict further if Hamas and Iran see a chance to win.
The inherent problem with combat is that if you attack each other, each side will use being attacked as moral justification for further attacks and they're not even wrong doing so, the problem is just, that all that accomplishes is intensifying the conflict.
@Steve Nope, it's your classical conservatives that feel threatened by "gender ideology" that also support military action as a result of hamas terrorism. The "liberals" in the sense of U.S. center left people seem more in support of Palestine so also sometimes in a shockingly naive sense as well.
@Steve The vast majority of people that flee their place is not really rich, that's why the nationalists want to close the borders. When it comes to people bringing money, experience, knowledge and other forms of capital, the nationalists usually only object to them being foreigners and try to expropriate or exploit them, but not to them entering. It's the poor who are hit meant to be kept out.
@Steve I mean sure extracting resources and products with cheap labor from countries, meddling with political systems and create conflicts and proxy wars between empires that can't be won and where thus escape is the only option sure does help. But so will or is climate change already contributing to that and we'd need global solutions but fracture in nationalist "meh let the others do something"... So even without active destabilizing that's not going to stop.
@Steve Like you see reproduction as a woman's duty or thing transpeople are escaping their burden and whatnot. So you clearly argue that they should not be in control of making that decision for themselves aren't you? Also afaik the so-called socialist countries were the ones most effectively getting women in the workforce and often not even to their complaint as work also means participation in society. Whereas staying at home means solitude
@Steve Partially. Sure you can find tons of examples where capitalism does contribute to those things, to insinuate dedication and malicious intend is missing the point, that's just economic self-interest. China as well is enslaving people and bringing countries under a colonial yoke, that's just the most effective way to make business and you got to generate numbers and power to do what you want to do, that's just how the system works. Which is the problem.
@Steve It's always fascinating how people want to give Hitler more credit than being a fanatic racist. Why? Like since WWI the German conservatives have flooded the population with the narrative that the military would have won if not the socialists/communist (but actually the social democrats) backstabbed them and signed the one sided surrendering contract. So sure there probably were some who actually believed the high command didn't fuck up and wanted a rematch
@Steve But Hitler himself made that all about "the Jews" and "the Jewish world conspiracy", took inspiration from that likely Russian forgery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which even back than was known fake news) and developed that into a whole ideology. He even pushed through the extermination campaign while the war was waging and used the war as cover.
@Steve No fanatic racism was front and center of his ideology. Now whether that was attacking a weaker scapegoat as that is easy detraction or whether that is just the result, but he actually believed that. Well probably the latter as a pretender would likely have stopped that nonsense when it became harder to do then just talk shit and look the other way.
@Steve So where again didn't he? Eastern Europe? Russia? Overrunning an illequipped France by again rushing through neutral states? Africa? The British empire was mostly bombed and missile struck no actual combat. The Japanese got engaged with the U.S. and Germany going for world domination thought they sooner or later have to fight the U.S. anyway, but primarily weak targets.
@Steve Also he had the lowest rank of a voluntary enlisted person and some participation trophy that tens of thousands have gotten, it's not like he would be recognized in the streets by anyone or that generals like Hindenburg would have taken him serious unless he made friends in high places through other means.
@Steve Have you served in any army or even gone through basic military training? If no, you don't know what you're talking about. If yes, how do you still say that if you should know what you're talking about?
@Steve That's the same crude logic that I already don't understand with people buying into U.S. libertarianism. Like they treat "the state" as the evil controlling entity enslaving the individual by regulation. What they don't see is that without the state and without actual equal empowerment of the people, someone else will just fill the vacancy so "the state" will now be idk google. But as long as it's not the original enemy that weirdly fine. Why?
The Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War consisted of a series of multi-national military expeditions that began in 1918. The initial impetus behind the interventions was to secure munitions and supply depots from falling into the German Empire's hands, particularly after the Bolsheviks signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and to rescue the Allied forces that had become trapped within Russia after the 1917 October Revolution. After the Armistice of 11 November 1918, the Allied plan changed to helping the White forces in the Russian Civil War. After the Whites collapsed, the Allies withdrew...
@Steve It causes uprising because it withdraws the veneer of the civilized society. It deprives the other of any option but to do or die. It's like pushing a wild animal into a corner. Also yeah "revolutionary" killing their would-be collaborators always works great /S
@Steve So it's a psychological problem? Are you kidding me? Like seriously what do you think you're taught in military training? In reality, "that's the standard rife, this side is pointing forward, go boy", plus maybe some lay low don't be seen, don't walk right next to each other so that you can be shot with a low number of bullets and so on. You're not turned into an action hero or whatnot.
@Steve And mentality wise a soldiers life is usually described as 99% boredom and abuse and 1% absolute terror. Especially since the 20th century and industrial warfare these things are called meat grinder for a reason. Like it's no wonder WWII gave rise to existentialism and philosophy that argues all great narratives are bullshit if that is their ultimate conclusion... It's rather that war teaches you to dislike war... if you make it out after the first terror.
13:19
@haxor789 I don't agree. It is quite clear that liberals represent an enlightened capitalist ideology where they broadly recognise that they need numerical ballast amongst themselves, and there can't simply be one monopolist. Call it ideology or call it interests, the point is that it is a political goal around which they are capable of coalescing and penalising defectors.
@haxor789 because they are all cartoon villains, except that Trump doesn't wear a mask and doesn't even pretend to be holier-than-thou, and he seems to be agitating the other villains as much as anyone else.
@haxor789 you've implied a great deal more into my argument than I ever said. I didn't say liberals have an economic interest in Gaza - although they do benefit from Israelis practising torture and brutal policing and so on associated with that conflict - they have an economic interest in using Israel as their bulldog in the Middle East.
The tail is starting to wag the dog of course, just as it did for the British in South Africa, and in Northern Ireland, where the autonomous politics and autonomous state powers of settler colonists takes on a life of its own, interfering back in the politics of the metropole.
I accept Zionists play an unholy role in all this, but it's a mistake - and a smear - to suggest I'm making some sort of criticism particularly about Jews (and especially not Jews as expansively defined by Hitler, who's also been mentioned so far).
14:00
@haxor789 eh? You do realise some women and men actually want to be parents? That it's not something everyone sees as a burden upon them?
Transpeople, I don't have any particular problem with them, so long as they aren't misrepresenting their reproductive capabilities to the public (i.e. they aren't misrepresenting it to anyone who cares about that because they are seeking someone to start a family with). I personally don't care, but I'm far from adopting the stance that it isn't socially relevant.
Moreover they are a small minority and it's far from clear they cause any significant harm even when they are misrepresenting themselves. What I do care about are malicious liberals attempting to violently impose a mentality of identarianism on us, and that is what I think needs to be fought.
@haxor789 as I say, I'm not denying hostility to Jews. I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest even Hitler thought Jews were his only problem. It's true as well that not only did the Nazis define Jewish widely (wider in fact than many people defined themselves), but also used it as a slur for wrongheadedness in ideas.
14:40
@haxor789 I simply don't see that Hitler chose weak targets. Certainly he thought he could win against his opponents, but to say he chose for example the whole of France to conquer because it was intrinsically weak, that ridiculous.
@haxor789 the reality is that isn't how they reproduce soldiers. For a start, only a fraction of soldiers are even in the infantry where they'd be carrying rifles!
You do realise that they have leaders and officers and so on, the majority drawn from the ranks themselves? And that the confidence that soldiers have to get onto the battlefield and fight is not a given, but a confidence that is created by their training process? It's remarkable what a caricature impression you have!
15:08
@Steve But that would as well be in contradiction to Marx, who argued that this is precisely not what is happening under capitalism, but instead argued that there would only be two classes bourgeoisie and proletariat with no numerical ballast of a middle class. That capitalism will constantly revolutionize itself not settling anywhere to form a stable system. Hence always seeking the monopoly and thus cutting the branch that they sit upon.
@Steve Forming an ideology on the other hand is reactionary, as that is closer to what the previous systems had done. Also it's not even that "liberalism" is a coherent ideology either. Lots of groups use it for lots of reasons and it gets even worse when you go to "neoliberalism".
@Steve Few people are cartoon villains, though often enough propaganda narratives make them out to be. Which can be dangerous especially when one is wrong about that.
@Steve Again it's very conterproductive to use "liberal" as a political fighting term because it positions yourself on the other side of liberty. Rather point out how what they argue for is not in fact liberal. Which is a point one can actually make given that at least some actually seek to promote their own liberty and only that. Also again there are plenty of groups pushing for freedom and to subsume them under the same label is not helpful either.
@Steve And? Yes loads of people are, become or want to be parents, what's wrong with that? The point is rather that women for a long time had become parents far before they even knew what that meant like marriage of minors was common, rape in marriage was common, divorce was sanctioned, contraception not available and so on. So society forced a role on people, that is different from choosing a role for oneself.
@Steve Exactly they are a small minority and their problems largely effect themselves rather than other people, so it's understandable that they seek recognition of their problems, but it's not understandable why people not effected by those problems are making it a life or death issue FOR THEMSELVES.
@Steve Why does that need to be fought? Because a slave with an identity needs to be accounted for and cannot be dealt with a broad template? Can't be uniformed and treated as pawn in a chess game? Like of course it would be better if people had that much empathy that people could speak their issues individually and would be taken seriously, however the reality is that in bigger groups majorities usually dictate the path forwards meaning minority group issues are overlooked
and as a result minority members need to organize form groups and amplify their voices to be heard. Like idk what does it matter if for example people realize a win against capitalism but you happen to live in a sexist society and are a member of the oppressed sex? Then the class struggle is not the most important struggle in your life. Sure that's tedious for a socialist as that means there are lots of vectors that divide a working class from class conscious and actually getting things done
But to expect or even to demand people to sheepishly following a master into battle that exploits and oppresses them and that if they win is no even going to consider their problems as relevant is not going to solve your problems either. So how do you deal with that? It's naive and dangerous to treat that as an individual problem and to just get rid of the outliers and things are fine again. There will always be such outliers as adhering to one strict line is not how humans work.
That's not an ideology, that is... and I hate to use that kill all argument... human nature. That is a problem that is intrinsic to the human condition and trying to suppress it only works at best temporarily.
@Steve The "individualism" that people should be much more concerned is the cult of personality bullshit. You know the "meritocracy". Where people who happen to have success are seen as role model and embodiment of all good qualities where the wage of 400 people for a single manager is justified because they are JUST THAT GOOD AT IT... Where presidents are considered goods rather than people that were given a job. But there's suprisingly little backlash to that...
... despite knowing the history of the inbred... I mean purebred aristocracy (rule of the BEST) being nothing but a scam.
@Steve It sounds ridiculous now, but that's actually what his speeches and politics revolved around. Fanatic racism. Also there were probably people in his inner circle who were just opportunist and had other motives and for whom the Jews were simply not worth standing up for, but in terms of Hitler that pretty much was his deal. Add in the Bolsheviks whom he also though inferior but he mixed them in with the Jews as well.
@Steve Not necessarily wider. He used it as a race rather than a religion. So people are born Jewish and thus part of the conspiracy so even children are evil. Which is absurd if you don't think in racist terms. Also using an identifiable "race" makes it easy to divide between "us" and "them". That being said he also exterminated anything social, and anything not fitting the norm of the willing soldier at least in lip service. And if he would have gotten rid of all the Jews he'd probably
have found more inside the country that are "Jewish by nature" even if not by birth or whatnot. So yeah that would probably been treated wider and wider and wider.
@Steve France and Germany had for decades been enemies and as soon as the war ended the Reichswehr planned on attacking France and stacking up supplies beyond what was permitted through Versailes. So Germany was probably more equipped to war with France than the other way around. Also again attack of neutral countries and other war crimes pretty early on.
@Steve Anybody goes through basic training even if they don't end up in infantry. Also yes officers usually take a special path rarely become promoted from the average soldiers, partially a matter of education probably a remainder of the aristocracy.
« first day (3 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (46 days later) »
Transcript for
Nov4
Nov5
Nov7
Discussion between haxor789 and Steve
Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
