Sad dude in a chair

There was that movie with Donny yen as guan yu that remains rent free in my mind

There are ev and hybrid retrofit kits.

They're basically the same car (Cutlass and Monte Carlo)

In the time before prozac, dusty men with mustaches like push brooms would use hand planes to chamfer all the sharp corners in their world

Navigating bureaucratic systems is a specific skill that is highly complex and labor intensive in and of itself and there are no mechanisms to confront that

Capitalism is a ponzi scheme?

Same

She played banjo on Beyonce's country album

Also that it's not indexed for zip code blows my mind

Repeal the AUMF. Better late than never.

In other words, people are concerned with getting the goods, so to speak. But there are so many levels of abstraction in the American system that prevent the will of the people from translating into the will of the people.

No to all of it, because despite the material backing of these reactionaries, from California to the Gulf stream waters, the "people" so long as they exist as an identifiable bloc, just want to be left alone and not taxed too much. Even better if the government helps them when they're hard up.

In the form of states or counties, or even congressional districts. In short, the reactionary forces in the US have recreated the Roman Republic from first principles. The question before us, as I see it, is Trump really gonna be a Caesar? Is Vance or any of these other schmendricks Octavian?

Since at least 1950, integration of all the worlds people in the United States under a system that serves the interest of the people has been the call, and reactionaries have successfully been able to halt the revolution because of juristic mechanisms like the Senate or the courts or fiefdoms

Especially in the Americas, because rallying around a king is a violation of American values, as stated in tomes of doctrinal documents and in conversations had on the street, and also because working people interact with the multicultural nation every day just to survive.

The preponderance of evidence I have available to me is that the American people, i.e. just regular people out and about, are not right wing idealogues, regardless of how they're propagandized. That's why the right wing propaganda machine is so powerful: right wing propaganda is weak

Nonetheless, regardless of the vehicle, the entire legal structure that allowed the genocides and police state to form must be eradicated root and branch. That means full detrumpification, real economic justice (up to and including nationalization of natural resources), and true popular sovereignty

And each time the forces of reactionaries have carried the day. Part of that is because the foundation of American society is the flim flam man. People will buy anything if it's sold well enough. Part of it is because it's very easy to imagine yourself as self sufficient and beholden to no one here

Bernie Sanders called it a political revolution in 2016, but what he was selling then was the bare minimum. In 2026, there's going to be a need for the devolution of the power of the few to dominate the many. There have been at least two, and probably more like 4 revolutions in the US.

Just relistened to the entirety of the revolutions podcast by @mikeduncan.bsky.social and it's even more applicable in 2026 than it was in 2016. Regardless of the disposition of the two party system, there needs to be a broad coalition for social revolution in the United States.

The English have been trying to justify their existence for at least 250 years, and at every turn I support any revolutionary army against them more.

I find that the vibes police are like regular police: generally wrong and sometimes dangerous, and we'd all be better off if they were stripped of power.

I can go on but I'm just tapping at this point.

The long and short is that you get paid by a third party to make things of substance, not because of who you are abstractly, so a Hollywood star and an internet cook are not in the same class in many ways.

For example, that's the entirety of the gospel of wealth from Andrew Carnegie, and it's descendants in effective altruism (which is functionally indistinguishable). For the wealthy, their wealth is their virtue, and because they're wealthy, what they do is virtuous, up to and including expanding it.

To me, the fact that someone asks that question in earnest means they're already not in the rapacious sect of extraction of wealth. I mean if we're going to look at historical examples, that's the cutoff. The point of capital is return on investment and growth.

Wealth has no morals. Having morality precludes wealth.

It's like, one half step from that already isn't it?

中国特色社会主义

Mistyped I think, there was male on male rape in addition to the violation as the primary plot line.