Holy fucking clown show, Batman. :rofl:

if you get the picture. — Claude

Yes, I think I do.

No worries, I'll take care of it. Best of luck.

Basically your bonds give you the interest they promise (if you hold them until they mature), yet the selling price of the bond goes up if interest rates go down and down if interest rates go up. — ssu

Oh, I didn't know that, but having looked into it, I get it now.



Cheers. I might take you up on that at some point. I don't have much spare for investments right now, but delving into finance, I'm starting to realize how easy it is for people who do to suck all the money out of the system, especially in this kind of low-interest rate, weak fiat, environment.

Forces of freedom hard at work.

"Canberra, Australia (CNN)Australian elite forces allegedly killed 39 Afghans civilians and prisoners unlawfully in an environment where "blood lust" and "competition killings" were reportedly a norm, according to a long-awaited official report.

...

The Australian Defense Force's (ADF) four-year inquiry into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan alleges that some patrol commanders, who were treated as "demigods," required junior soldiers to shoot prisoners to achieve their first kill, in a process known as "blooding." The report presents what it says is "credible information" that weapons or handheld radios were then sometimes allegedly placed by a body to make it seem like the person had been killed in action."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/18/australia/australia-afghanistan-war-crimes-report-intl-hnk/index.html

"...the sadistic behavior detailed in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba’s fifty-three-page classified report, including the sodomizing of a detainee with a chemical light, offers “an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels.” Those implicated, among them employees of a private military contractor who apparently had no training in the handling of prisoners, claim they were following orders from their superiors, who urged that prisoners be “softened up” in order to extract information."

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/horror-abu-ghraib/
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/taguba.pdf

Nice balls.

I'm just going to pretend I didn't see that.

He's currently getting ratfucked — fdrake

Same principle by which Trump is managing, among a large proportion of the population, to paint the Dems as trying to steal the election: Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty. Now that calls for loud and forceful pushback.

Generally good advice. You'd have to be more specific though. I reckon stocks are the weakest link here as per ssu's warning, so I'm staying clear. And gold is to me just a similar (but inferior) store of value to Bitcoin, so though I had some, I dumped it (and I'm glad I did as it dumped soon after that). I don't know shit about bonds and I have a share in some property and some cash. Does that work?

I don't think there's much disagreement. It's not about being moderate, it's about reality and appearances, packaging if you like. The ratio of actual policy achievement to socialist scare factor (the fuel of Republican propagandists' political wet dreams) needs to increase drastically. Wolves in sheep's clothing, not sheep in wolves'. If you can forge a loud left populist line that won't backfire where it matters in terms of gaining the power to effectuate it, great. But so far, that's been failing.

You can't know anything for sure but you can use macro analysis to give yourself an advantage. It's just another way of saying the game is not one simply of luck (and I think ssu is acknowledging that anyway. I'm just adding a refinement to his take.)

And then you have gold very high also. Which isn't actually good sign for the economy. — ssu

Gold is generally positively correlated with Bitcoin. It's similarly seen as a hedge against inflation. A massive economic crash would hurt everything of course but the Fed has signaled it will keep printing money to prop up Wall St. and Biden is likely to push congress for more stimulus. So, the monetary and fiscal direction in the US, in particular, currently favors this form of investment.

Street be like:

You're correct when you say that the left has a problem with their tactics. — Echarmion

So I think it's true that there needs to be a new approach. — Echarmion

So, we agree. But if you do have a bone of contention with something I said, you can quote it and I'll deal with it.

:100: and expect fireworks before the end of the year if BTC breaks its all-time high. It will be all over the news and a new round of retail mania will ensue. It's already available to buy on PayPal in the US along with a few other cryptos and a quarter of a billion worth has been snatched up within weeks.

https://cryptobriefing.com/paypal-reaches-85-binance-us-volume-first-month/

I have reviewed this craze, declare it a fad, and await its demise. Carry on. — Hanover

:lol:

Fixed it for ya.

Someone needs to force retire Ghouliani and quick.

Kill all the boomers? Oh, sorry, that was Street's idea. :lol: I don't know is the honest answer. I need to understand the dynamics more. But I feel like it should be more like boiling the frog slowly than chasing it into the pond.

I think the Dems need to move back to their roots representing working class people and deal with their problems and recognise class warfare is alive and well and show the GOP is selling them out at every turn they can. — Benkei

Yes, but... it's not that easy. First of all, it's a money game. Look behind the curtain and there's always a special interest pulling the levers. And those interests are diametrically opposed to the working class's by definition. So, how do you get a party that can survive and fund itself without relying on big money? Bernie got some of the way there with his grassroots movement, but ultimately failed. Secondly, even when you do have the money in your pocket, it's a culture war game. Sure the GOP is selling out the poor and the working class, but for those of this demographic that aren't already won over (largely non-college-educated whites) guns, religion, and "freedom" is in their blood and that's the easiest tune in the world for the GOP to keep whistling. A class-orientated ideological transfusion just isn't going to work when you have to drag the patient kicking and screaming to the operating table.

He'll fold like a wet cardboard box.

For me the most reasonable comparison is to look at their closest geographical, cultural, demographic, economic and political counterparts, which include the countries you mention and Denmark. It's not absolutely cut and dried but the u-turn is in itself an acknowledgement that their strategy up to now has not been successful.

Sweden finally realizes they fucked up and locks down.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sweden-stages-coronavirus-u-turn-banning-public-events-with-more-than-eight-people-11605538856

Free course in Bitcoin and Crypto from Princeton if anyone's interested.

based on your taste in whiskey you might as well. :razz: — Benkei

We do actually call alcohol "piss" in Ireland. I'm fairly sure I can taste the difference though... :gasp: :wink:

Great minds. :cool: I jumped in in July. I don't know if I'd want to write 15 minutes worth of spiel about Bitcoin, but there's a couple of important things about it. First of all, it's based on an important technology that has a multitude of use cases, i.e. the blockchain. Secondly, it's a currency that can be transmitted securely, quickly, cheaply, and globally. Thirdly, it's a store of value, a digital gold, and a great potential hedge against inflation. Fourthly, it's the granddaddy of a whole tribe of so-called altcoins, including a world computer called Ethereum on which the nascent field of decentralized finance is largely based through the use of smart (i.e. self-executing) contracts built on its protocol that remove the need for financial middlemen, such as banks. This in itself is huge. Loads more to say, but for now...

(BTW if you want some resources or advice, PM me as I'm a little ahead of you and have been diving right in.)

Hehe, I know.

I'm due an icepick, aren't I? :cry:

And I'm the nutjob? — StreetlightX

I think you know I don't think you're a nutjob. And it's not about what I think anyway, it's about what can and can't be done in a hostile political environment. My disagreement is not fundamentally with your principles but with your approach.

Christ on a bike.

insofar as it's possible — Baden

And your "strategy" is just to keep repeating like a broken record how shit everything is. As if we didn't know...

:point:

We're trying like hell. :mask: On the ground here in Atlanta, in the midst of the pandemic, the struggle to keep all potential Democratic-leaning voters mobilized & engaged goes on. Like so many of others, my neighbors and out-of-state comrades, I'm giving whatever I have left to that end; and though confident now, I'm not optimistic yet. — 180 Proof

:strong:

As for this much vaunted 'smarter approach' - which boils down to what? Giving the status quo a chance? The poor thing, it's only been at work for the last 5 decades, I'm sure it really needs it - it's the same ineffectual gently-gently nothingness that got the US to where it is now. — StreetlightX

This shouldn't need to be said but to emphasize, no, it's not about giving him a pass, it's about using him insofar as it's possible in a strategic way. That means engagement. Giving him a pass would be something like ranting about how everything is fucked and he's evil, and so giving him the opportunity of painting the left as a bunch of extremist nutjobs who he should ignore. The reality is the diametric opposite of the way you're painting it. Essentially, you're the smartest guy in the room with the worst attitude.

I was critical of Biden before and now that's he poised to continue doing the very things I'd criticized him before on, I'm supposed to get a new line because, what, it's very tiring for you? — StreetlightX

What you're doing is not criticism, it's venting. Biden is President-elect and all anyone on the left should care about now is what they can get him to do for the left. Period. I couldn't give two fucks whether he's evil or not at this point, I want to make it politically expedient for him to do what serves the interests of the politics I support. And if you think calling for his transition picks' disembowelling (or whatever) with the Senate still up for grabs is "criticism" in any meaningful sense then, yes, you do need to get a new line because that's not going to help the people on the ground who are going to have to live under this administration and a potential McConnell stranglehold in the Senate.



What I've written above before I saw your reply serves as mostly an adequate response to what you've added. My only other question is, given we are where we are, what exactly do you want? And what's the path there? Seems to me like you don't have an answer to that. That's my major issue.

Btw, it should be obvious from the above that I've changed my view somewhat from the position I took around the time of the primaries. I've changed it because I've been observing and learning. I suggest you do the same.

I can't disagree more. First, worrying about a 'shift on the right' when the right in the US is basically Nazi apologetics is simply not a concern anyone should take seriously. North of the north pole is nothing. Second, the narrative being pushed - and which I'm afraid that you're uncritically reproducing - that left-wing policy and candidates have no political viability is quite frankly empirically false. — StreetlightX

Don't have much time but speaking of uncritical, just to quickly deal with this strawman.

Here's what I said:

The reality is that the structure of the electoral college and the Senate means any shift left in the Dems will result in a concomitant shift right that will blow up any hope of even milquetoast European style social democratic politics there in the foreseeable future. — Baden

You left out the important context in your reply.

And you demonstrate this by presenting data on a bunch of House races. This is where you are not paying attention, again. The Senate and the electoral college are set up in such a way that disadvantages the left. So, when you move left in areas that can result in local gains in liberal areas, you risk the Senate and you risk the electoral college. And I think you know this, so I'm not going to go into detail on it unless you insist on pressing the fantasy that somehow a big heave-ho left would be uniformly politically advantageous. And no, it doesn't matter that left-wing policies are actually popular with the general public because the general public does not decide who runs the country, a small group of voters in states with outsize representation in the Senate and the electoral college do.

So, where the left goes wrong and your gung-ho hang-the-bastards shtick is a good example of this (and is something I've been guilty of myself), is being crap tactically, acting like because we have the moral high ground, somehow we'll win. Sorry, but that's kindergarten-level politics.

Moreover, it is blindingly obvious to anyone that it was precisely the strategy to 'stick to the centre' that resulted in Biden's frankly dismal showing. The fact is that he barely eeked out a win over one of the most abhorrent political leaders in US electoral history, and did so only on account - as you noted - that he wasn't Trump. — StreetlightX

Dude, have you forgotten what got us here? Have you forgotten how Bernie got destroyed vs Biden in just the places he needed to win to swing the election? Have you forgotten how unpopular he was with voters in swing states that helped Biden scrape through in the general? Do you seriously think Bernie would have won Georgia, for example, when the southern black vote went overwhelmingly for Biden in the primaries? And the Senate? Again, the competitive races are in relatively conservative states. It's arguable that Bernie may have done better with the House and may also have won the popular vote, but the Dems have the House anyway and the popular vote doesn't mean shit. Also, I've mentioned the demographics, Bernie voters held their nose and voted for Biden, but moderate suburbanites in conservative-leaning states like Georgia and Wisconsin, who could easily have been scared off Bernie showed up for Biden. These are the folks for whom left-wing slogans like "defund the police" are anathema. And their support is the reason Biden who, according to you, had a "dismal" showing won 10 million more votes than any other winning candidate in history. Wake up, man.

Sum of my point is that tactical stupidity is rife among the left. And it's a tactical stupidity that ignores the systemic conservative bias in the US and the huge disadvantage to the left that presents, which is only compounded culturally. So, the left end up being sheep in wolves clothing. The "defund the police" slogan is a good example. The slogan being the wolf, the reality, the sheep. The police are never going to be "defunded" in any meaningful widespread way, but the slogan is primed to scare away just the voters in the places that are needed to give power to the left to do anything about the police. Circle jerks on ideological purity end up achieving nothing but filling the cannons of the right's propaganda fear campaign. You could just as easily call it "reform the police" with no substantive change in aim. But, no we must have a fight, so we can lose again. Fuck that. Enough. Time for a smarter approach. That's my central point, not a criticism of you criticizing Biden but the self-destructive and politically naive nature of your critique, which seems more about blowing off steam than any attempt to realistically further the goals of the left. What it says to me is you don't understand America and, maybe, you don't care enough to understand it because you are just too overwhelmed by contempt. Which is fine, but you're not going to contribute anything of value with that attitude.

:rofl:

Waiting to be enlightened. :eyes:

No worries! I'm not going to piss in a glass that's half full.

But at least his reading lists are still inspired. — 180 Proof

Both of you on that one. :up:

“Never, ever in a million years did we see Joe Biden as a destination,” said Nicolas O’Rourke, the Pennsylvania organizing director of Working Families Party Pennsylvania, a labor-aligned third party. “He’s a doorway to the kind of terrain and world that we could actually organize in.
...
About a half-dozen progressive politicians addressed protesters last week. State Rep. Chris Rabb (D., Philadelphia) called Biden “harm reduction” and said work on more liberal policies would only intensify upon his election.”

:up:

https://www.inquirer.com/news/biden-trump-victory-election-2020-progressives-green-new-deal-leftist-aoc-philadelphia-20201112.html

...so long as the upshot isn’t counter to the pragmatic choices that have to be made to keep the worse of them out of power. — Pfhorrest

:up:

Sounds like you haven't being paying attention to anything specific that's happened during this cycle and are just intent on repeating the same shit we already know as if we're all stupid because we're not listening to you. Nice strawman.

Here's a dose of reality on the specifics of what happened this time around. Biden got 78 million votes. That's 10 million more than Obama. The left (what there is of it in America and there isn't much) came out en masse and voted against Trump. So there wasn't a turnout issue. But even then, Biden only won because suburban moderates couldn't stand orangeman enough that they got pushed Dem. Suburban moderates don't vote for "socialists". Conclusion, Bernie would have lost (and I say this as someone who previously thought he could win). And any, even mildly, leftwing candidate would have lost. And then what? Vaseline, lube, arse on fire, Trump for another four years. Great, you may say, taught those neolibs a lesson. But then what? America flips socialist in 2024? AOC for pres? Accelerationism? What?

The reality is that the structure of the electoral college and the Senate means any shift left in the Dems will result in a concomitant shift right that will blow up any hope of even milquetoast European style social democratic politics there in the foreseeable future. The only hope I see for change is in the demographics. And those take time. As the boomers die off and minorities become the majority, politics will follow to a degree. In the meantime, it's a holding pattern against the extreme right. And it's fine for you to say "fuck it all" but you don't have to live under Trump and his growing cabal of leftist-hating apparatchiks.

But tell me I'm wrong. Tell me what the realistic alternative to Biden was or is in the current political environment, under the current systemic political constraints, that justifies the burn-down-the-village-to-save-it narrative? Or switch tack like some of us have done to accepting the US is what it is for now and looking at what the left can do tactically in hostile political circumstances to both gain some foothold in terms of policy and stave off another Trumpist-style administration. I'm just not hearing anything of substance from you that you haven't said a million times before that is relevant to the specific place we're in right now and what can be done about it.

It's possible to be critical of Biden and agree with @180 Proof on this. Things that aren't going to change include some important stuff like the US's pro-Israel stance, neoliberal economics etc. Things that are going to change also include important stuff like courts around the country no longer being packed with unqualified conservative extremists and renewed efforts to combat climate change. There's also the issue of minorities not having to live under an openly racist, quasi-fascist nutjob. Let's have a balanced conversation about this.

Seriously, anyone who is not as critical of Biden as they were of Trump may as well be a Trump supporter — StreetlightX

It was you who pointed out more strongly than anyone else that the focus on Trump for being Trump was misguided. You're making the same mistake with Biden (and Hillary) as far as I can see.