There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos
Based based based based based
There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos
Based based based based based
if whoever is in charge next in the US does not burn down the white house as a symbol of starting over, I will be disappointed
besides, think of all the Russian spy equipment that's probably installed in there now
Leave the white house. Burn down Mar a Lago
Anything short of a full overhaul of every IT system that DOGE every glanced at is 100% necessary.
i don't think you can take the stink out without burning it down anyway
If they need help they can always ask the Brits/Canadians, since we have a lot of experience in that.
You think you're the only countries that want a shot?
Kumbaya with the s'mores and the world peace. Invite everybody!
That would be a neat tradition, to burn down the last seat of government. Maybe a little violent as a metaphor, but a fun spectacle!
I propose we abandon the notion of even having a capital city. Instead of a capital, each branch has its own arrangements:
Legislative branch: Congress is supposed to be the branch that most closely represents the people. The site where Congress meets relocates after each census to the mean center of US population. They'll be prohibited from constructing buildings of any kind. Congressional meetings will occur in rented spaces like high school gyms, convention centers, etc. Congress members won't have to worry about expensive apartments, as they'll be expected to sleep in quarters supplied to them, often in old dorm rooms, former homeless shelters, and other such communal living facilities.
The Supreme Court: They're supposed to be above it all. Let's make that literal. They will be relocated to a new building constructed on the peak of Mt. Denali, the highest mountain in the US. SCOTUS justices once confirmed to the court will be expected to relocate to their new home. They will live in simple on-site monastic cells. The only way they are ever allowed down from the mountain is if they resign their seat or die of old age. All petitions to the court must be delivered on parchment scrolls carried up the mountain by hand. The only communication they are allowed with the outside world are court briefs and rulings.
The executive: the president gets to literally be homeless. To keep them humble, the president will be ineligible to own private property of any kind. They will either have to sleep on the sidewalk or travel from home to home, accepting shelter from whomever will give it to them. They can stay on the property of any one person no more than 3 days over their entire presidential term. Also we'll make it perfectly legal to kill the current sitting president. The president literally does not get the protection of the law. Let the most powerful be the most vulnerable.
After scraping all the gold
based based based Fall of America will save the world. It wont be easy tho
Starlink shouldn't exist. it's unnecessary , we have better options... make internet a utility and force the companies we already gave millions to, to actually modernize infostructure and bring internet to undeserved locations that still have 56k
Running fiber to low density areas is expensive but there's no way it can be as expensive as launching all those satellites.
Even if it is, the ROI has got to be way worse for satellites.
There's also the cost of relaunching satellites once they run out of fuel. The maintenance cost is also higher compared to fiber.
talking out of your ass here. satellites don't typically just run out of fuel. they don't really need fuel once they're in orbit. the reason why spacex satellites fall down after like 5 years or sth is because they're in an intentionally low orbit, where atmospheric friction is still relevant.
I literally clapped my cheeks together on the keyboard to write that last comment and couldn't be bothered to provide the numbers or context that you provided to support my statement.
Starlink should 100% exist in some form or another, but it replacing terrestrial landline internet is madness. We can and should absolutely do both things.
Starlink should have been a global effort, so that we didn't end up with dozens of private companies all vying to put thousands of satellites into orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
I disagree that we should haphazardly be putting more stuff into space than needed... when we have alternatives...
Just because we can doesn't mean we should...
Kessler syndrome doesn't apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they'll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
"building orbital telescopes"
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It's like saying we won't build bridges anymore because we have planes.
E: grammar, a little bit
Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.
What's better than Starlink in the boonies?
Posting from my fiber-to-the-home connection in rural bumfuck Japan presently for no particular reason.
Rural Japan, is like the suburbs here in the states. Japan is fucking tiny.
We still should have fiber everywhere in the states. And it should be provided by the electric coops that most of our rural areas run off of, but suggesting that Japan's rural areas are anything like the US's rural areas is laughable.
Thank again, Japan is the size of California. This is rural Japan not a suberb. And even many of the actual suberbs in California don't have fiber to the home.
This is about monopolies running rampant and misuse of public money not about the technical feasibility.
Edit: These companies literally bought back their own stock to inflate their market cap instead of building out the infrastructure we funded.
I'm not saying that the USA shouldn't have fiber everywhere, it should be like water or electric, my point was suggesting that rural japan is even remotely close to rural US is a bit of a stretch.
And cali is slightly larger than japan, not by much but it is, and that's just one state.
I grew up in rural Ohio and spent time in rural TX as well for a brief period. As a kid, I walked about 20+ minutes to bail hay in my neighbor's fields in the summer for cash. I am currently farming in rural Tohoku Japan.
Certain things are similar and certain things are different. To call where I live a suburb is just wrong yet we, and those even more rural than us, have fibre. I looked at buying land on the side of a mountain before buying this place and, although I'd have to pay for the run from the nearest point, I could still get fiber. Being Japan, I of course had to apply by fax machine, but the infrastructure is there for most of the country, both urban and rural.
Edit to add: we have multiple fiber companies as well, at least one of which being a fully private company.
Rural Japan, is like the suburbs here in the states. Japan is fucking tiny.
Doesn't fucking matter when you have as much money as we do.
Posting from a fiber connection in rural vietnam. Also have 6GB 5g/day for <7USD/mo
Not even close to as small as people think.

Japan is 146k sq miles
Cali is 163.5k sq miles
Sure Japan's not small but it's not anywhere near the size of the US.
Japan is much more spread out which would also increase the logistics of getting fiber to rural areas.
The majority of Japan lives in the cities though. It's a reason smaller villages are dying.
The younger population is moving to the cities.
The US has people moving to rural areas now, as it's cheaper than cities.
We're doing the opposite of what Japan is doing though.
If you live somewhere that has electricity coming from the energy grid then by default should also have Internet coming to your house as well. By defining the internet as a utility and treating it like one you would get more funding to build out the network. Something similar happened with phone lines way back in the day if I'm not mistaken.
The isps have been given finding. Multiple times. Then they merge with another ISP and claim they're not obligated to fulfill the contract despite owning the company that signed the contract... And a greedy politician finds some reasons in their pocket to allow that excuse
There is a lot of controversy around this ... and recently trump changed it to allow things like starlink... make of that what you will
Sometimes, I feel regret that Romney didn't beat Obama. Not because Romney would have been a better president. Just because of the timing, if Romney had won, then maybe Trump would never have become president, or at least he'd have been president later. Romney's still a Republican, so it would have sucked, but Trump is fucking poison.
That's an interesting thought... I can't help but feel like it would have just delayed an inevitable outcome though, potentially allowing the underlying political movement even more time to grow and fester. It's unknowable, but I feel like we'll be pondering questions like that for a long time.
It seems like logically, we should feel lucky to have such an incompetent campy comic book villain con man as the face of their ridiculous movement. But it doesn't feel like that at the time.
Now imagine how different our country would be if Gore won...
With all the nonsense about "fiscal conservatives", people forget that the last administration to balance the budget was Clinton/Gore - and not only was the budget balanced, it actually had a fucking surplus. One of the big debate points going into the 2000 election cycle was what to do with this surplus. Naturally enough the surplus went towards tax cuts for the rich and now we're fucking $35 trillion dollars in debt.
Someone will weigh in here with "deficits don't matter" and "the government can just print money if it needs it".
"If we counted Gore's win"
I’ve always said this was the start of our descend into the hellscape that we’re currently stewing in. Having Gore's president, would have gotten strong internet/telecoms and environmental guardrails/legislation passed. At a time when we really needed to start addressing those things. Amongst many other things..
5 SCOTUS fucktards are responsible for where we are today. that’s my take at least.
I think a McCain victory would have been the best shot at averting the Trump wing. The Tea Party was the first manifestation of what we see now, and that was triggered by Obama's first term.
But that could have gotten us President Palin.
Because much of what's happening right now is a direct, racist reaction to the US having the gall to elect a black man president.
Its also a reaction to the Hope and Change candidate bailing out the banks who just stole millions of homes, bombed a dozen countries, sending the natl guard to shut down protests in furgison, both-sides a cop arresting a man in his own yard, deporting more people than W or Trump, giving us means-tested subsidies for health insurance.
Obama disillusioned a generation with politics, hence why so many people stayed home in 2016. Biden did the same shit, and Newsom will do it again if given a chance.
Don't forget the part when Obama created a joint federal/local/corporate-bank task force to illegally surveil the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the brutally crush them. Or decided not to prosecute the authors of the torture program in the Bush administration.
I guess people think our memories are really that bad that we'd believe shit like this... OK bud.
Dude literally said "both sides" lol
I'm guessing Obama was before your politcal awakening. Is there anything specificly I said you don't believe and want more information on?
Everything is Democrats' fault, and anyone who disagrees is a child
We don't blame the Democrats for the crime, we blame the Democrats for positioning themselves as the only ones who can stop the crime, and then just not doing it.
The whiplash when a dem wins president ad all the libs flip to "actually this this we all agreed was bad when was doing it isn't that bad and its really important we keep <funding ICE camps/bombing country/backing Israel/giving money to corporations/funding police attention the expense of literally everything>"
They lost to Donald fucking Trump, twice. Do you think Trump is a uniquely gifted politician? You have to have exceptional distain for your constituents if you can't get them to come out when the alternative is the republicans.
I'm not a fan of the Democratic party, I just hate the obvious bullshit double standard that's everywhere.
The left just can't not shoot itself in the foot. Always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Care more about bullshit purity tests than stopping the literal fascists from destroying our republic.
Our standards coincide with what a candidate needs to do to win. By pretending otherwise, you allow the DNC to maintain the delusion the can win without doing what their constituents want. This is basic politics. How thrilled would you be if the republican politicians behaved like the DNC and told their base "haha eat shit, what are you gonna do, vote Democrat?"
He inherited that quagmire of illegal wars, it's not something you can just withdraw from at the drop of a hat. It was either drones or boots on the ground, not exactly a stellar choice to be left with, and he chose to minimize American lives lost. Most certainly not defending any of America's vile military engagements but the picture is a little bit more nuanced than that.
Typical liberal thinking. Trump is just byproduct of neoliberal, genocidal war mongering state of america. If not Trump, someone else wouldve come. You should be glad he didnt came sooner and I am sure far far worse times are yet to come.
In reality the Dems will do none of those things though. They won't nationalize anything because they are neoliberals. They won't fully defund ICE because they want racists to vote for them too. They'll just reduce the budget and maybe stop putting kids in cages. They won't shut down funding for the exec branch because they'll say it is "irresponsible".
More things they'll never do:
I'd love to be proved wrong, but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
Shutting down funding for the executive program means cutting pretty much every program the government has, if you're not going to reformat it. Which is not implied.
They should still do it and bring the country to a standstill if necessary. If extreme measures aren't applicable now, when will they be? It'll cause some short term pain, but it'll get everyone out in the streets.
The person who posted the tweet in this post who suggested cutting funding was a Republican and now is a independent
Founding Fathers, 1776: Democracy is worth fighting and dying for! We must water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. We must risk our fortunes and our lives so that our children can live in freedom.
Democrats, 2025: Trump is a dictator destroying democracy, but we can't risk temporarily shutting down government transfer payments in order to stop him.
Could they even do any of that with just the House? They won't do it anyway, but could they?
At this point it doesn't even really matter, it's just a question of whether anyone would step up to stop them. "The Rules" in general have already been well and truly trod upon and I'm not sure we make it out the other side of this without some restructuring of them.
Obviously with the Senate they can cut any budget/pass any law.
On their own the house can cut funding eventually. Push comes to shove, the house needs to vote for spending. They either pass a budget with the cuts, or the government shuts down.
There really isn't a mechanism for the house that nationalize anything without the support of the Senate that I'm aware of. The house can call the vote day one to nationalize, but it's symbolic without a legit path on the Senate
Iirc any resolution to that extent would likely have to pass through both levels of Congress. But, if enough seats flip in both chambers next year, it could certainly happen. Checks and balances and whatnot.
correct analysis. Absolutely go down to their level. Weirdly enough, you will even take some of their voters away with that. Some of them don't care that much about the words, just the way they are spoken.
How is he allowed to remove the secret service protection from the former vice president?
What?
There was an order in the previous administration to extend protection for extra time. This administration just cancelled the extension.
The former VP actually only gets 6 months of protection by default. Beyond that it needs to be actively extended, which Trump didn't do.
my understanding was that biden did extend it for a further year. trump actively cancelled that.
it wasnt just him letting it lapse, it was a move of spite
To be more accurate, he actively cancelled an extension granted by a previous executive order.
This is the thing that has you dumbfounded you? The how is he...? Questions go much deeper.
top 93 comments