[Renzy]

(03-13-2019 10:08 PM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

Hence why I said the aim should be to get 3 million or 5% of Trump 2016 voters. You can completely overwhelm low population states like Wyoming and North Dakota.

State populations under one million:

Delaware - 961,939
South Dakota - 869,666
North Dakota - 755,393
Alaska - 739,795
Vermont - 623,657
Wyoming -579,315

With 3 million, you could completely overtake with super-majorities Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota regardless of what left-wing presence was there already and/or was en-route from places like California. Might also be wise to focus in one state to have supreme numbers with votes (like 90% majority MAGA / pro-secession people). And these are states that are already pretty conservative and have a strong foundation for a new MAGA country. You can do it in a place like Vermont for example... but you'd have a lot of dissents to deal with while also being surrounded by many big blue populated states in New England.

It's as simple as convincing people to move and vote in their new state. That's it.

It's not on your list, but in terms of secession, I think Texas has the highest chance of succeeding. The Texas National Movement (TNM) is the probably the most well funded and highest profile of any separatist movement in the US. They're going to serve as a bellwether as to whether a state seceding has any real chance of happening, and if they do so it will set a precedent for other states- ie, the states that *are* on your list. For that reason alone, I think they are worth supporting and I plan to use the money I would have donated to Trump's 2020 campaign towards TNM instead.

I'm half way through TEXIT, the book that details the TNM movement, the impetus behind it, etc. and rather than coming off as a bunch of extremists the book has a very reasonable tone- essentially that the federal government has become a bloated albatross that is dragging Texas down and that the deep state swamp is too deep and entrenched for any meaningful change to ever happen.

I imagine that the Trump election may have diverted some of the energy away from these secession movements with people hoping that Trump would be able to turn things around. Now that everybody is starting to realize that barring some huge turnaround from Trump, this isn't going to happen, I suspect we'll see a renewed push for secession, especially if Trump loses in 2020.

Conservatives and Liberals have values that are antithetical across a wide range of issues - immigration, gun control, free speech, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It's hard to see a middle ground with the Left and it's hard not to notice they are becoming more extreme and more authoritarian. Unless something changes, I believe we're going to see major civil unrest in the 2020s. Peaceful red-state secession seems much more preferable.

[ChicagoFire]

^^

Very interesting post! Love it. I might now relocate to Texas instead of the Dakotas or Alaska now.

Call me out of the loop but today I learned by searching on the internet people here in Illinois want Chicago to be its own state which will never come into fruition. This state is so corrupt barring massive arrests (anyday now Trump DOJ) or an actual civil war the rats aren't going anywhere.

I clicked the site and apparently TNM blocked Kanye's New Slaves "music" video. If you all think Trump is letting you down then either find other causes to support or work on your own life. Contrary to that rumor it doesn't appear his inner circle reads this forum

[ChicagoFire]

(03-15-2019 06:39 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

It's not on your list, but in terms of secession, I think Texas has the highest chance of succeeding. The Texas National Movement (TNM) is the probably the most well funded and highest profile of any separatist movement in the US. They're going to serve as a bellwether as to whether a state seceding has any real chance of happening, and if they do so it will set a precedent for other states- ie, the states that *are* on your list. For that reason alone, I think they are worth supporting and I plan to use the money I would have donated to Trump's 2020 campaign towards TNM instead.

I'm half way through TEXIT, the book that details the TNM movement, the impetus behind it, etc. and rather than coming off as a bunch of extremists the book has a very reasonable tone- essentially that the federal government has become a bloated albatross that is dragging Texas down and that the deep state swamp is too deep and entrenched for any meaningful change to ever happen.

I imagine that the Trump election may have diverted some of the energy away from these secession movements with people hoping that Trump would be able to turn things around. Now that everybody is starting to realize that barring some huge turnaround from Trump, this isn't going to happen, I suspect we'll see a renewed push for secession, especially if Trump loses in 2020.

Conservatives and Liberals have values that are antithetical across a wide range of issues - immigration, gun control, free speech, abortion, gay marriage, etc. It's hard to see a middle ground with the Left and it's hard not to notice they are becoming more extreme and more authoritarian. Unless something changes, I believe we're going to see major civil unrest in the 2020s. Peaceful red-state secession seems much more preferable.

Rebumping this post. I've reached out to Samseau and Libertas on what they think of secession.

For selfish reasons I want to protect my future children and make sure they grow up in a safe environment. Once I get my issues settled (starting in the oil industry next week) I'll be more than happy to support this movement if it's feasible. Just browsing the book I can agree federal government is overreaching and should be done away with.

I promise to pick up the book when I have time and from there I'll consider at the very least volunteering. Since I work in oil I can easily transfer to Texas and find work.

[Deepdiver]

Hate to be the bearer of Cold Hard Reality - Texas is one of the most Patriotic and Now Global Corporate based States in the Country. I have worked there and know that Texas is far more than just the Oil and Cattle business.

Whether a Texican or Texit instigated breakup it will be rapidly suppressed by our Intranational Militaries - the Army and Air National Guard that are often deployed from even more Red States in a mutual aid pact.

A breakup of the USA is pure mental masturbation by treasonous fantasists and resentful jealous foreign agent provocateurs hoping for another Soviet Union Style Breakup so they can go on bish banging runs to capitalize on their Passport God status... A vast network of Hardened Military Armed Veterans many with high powered highly accurate long range hunting arms are standing by at the ready and the Traitors should be extremely careful what they wish for. The coming 2nd Amendment showdowns will be eye-opening.

Who will the AOC/Beto/Bernie/Lizahontas liberal whiner supporters beg for protection when their radical leftist Socialist Marxist policies flood their communities with violent immigrant felons? Think about it. In an ironic twist the more radical the left "progresses" the better things become for well Armed Patriots especially in the Live Free or Die States.

[Dusty]

A big problem with a Texas secession is that it has such a big economy with lots of entanglements. There’s a lot of corporate headquarters and corporate branch offices in Texas, and lots of good paying jobs. American Airlines is headquartered in Dallas for example, and would surely move their headquarters elsewhere upon a secession. Banks like Citi and Charles Scwab have big operations in Texas, and they could easily move them upon secession. Think of what that would do to the economy and to real estate values. The citizens of Texas have it too good and are too comfortable to throw it away.

Secession might be more viable in states like Wyoming and Montana and Idaho that have far fewer national entanglements. There’s plenty of land too, to grow the population if they became independent and patriots are drawn there. Cities like Boise Idaho and Bozeman Montana could become major cities like Dallas and Atlanta over time.

[ChicagoFire]

This was Sam's reply:

"Hey Chicago,

The only way for Texas to rebel is if the USA goes bankrupt. I outlined the best strategy to quickly achieve this goal here: thread-48360...pid1947067

I think Texas is one of the future dominant states in a post-USA world, and will be rivals if not direct enemies with Commiefornia."

Thank you Dusty and Deepdiver. I don't whine but at the same time I don't want to devote myself to a pointless cause. Open to hearing responses from established people. Still time to make a decision.

[Polniy_Sostav]

I am not American , but I am pretty sure the USA has expanded after its creation through purchasing lands and wars. Has a part of the USA ever left the USA ?

[Orson]

(03-16-2019 04:07 PM)Polniy_Sostav Wrote:  

I am not American, but I am pretty sure the USA has expanded after its creation through purchasing lands and wars. Has a part of the USA ever left the USA ?

No. But quite a few have tried (eg, notes on Puerto Rican independence...all failed; smaller territories in the Pacific had tried to loosen ties. But "finding" goes to benefit those who bend to US will).

This is, indeed, a defect of the US Constitution. If the Libertarian Party were ever to become effective, it would take up the cause of various parts of the Constitution and remedy things (eg, line item President's veto; "Only" Congress shall have the power to declare war; and procedures for leaving the Union of States).

Unfortunately, this common sense third party Amendment birthing goal goes neglected.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-16-2019 02:47 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  

...
A breakup of the USA is pure mental masturbation by treasonous fantasists and resentful jealous foreign agent provocateurs hoping for another Soviet Union Style Breakup so they can go on bish banging runs to capitalize on their Passport God status... A vast network of Hardened Military Armed Veterans many with high powered highly accurate long range hunting arms are standing by at the ready and the Traitors should be extremely careful what they wish for. The coming 2nd Amendment showdowns will be eye-opening.
...

What happens if things simply continue on at their current downward trajectory?

Currently your constitutionally limited democracy is on track to become a constitutionally limited latino socialist democracy, and that's even if you stopped all immigration right this second.

[DChambers]

I can't speak to the entirety of the military, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of the politics and thoughts going on inside of it right now. As background I am currently on active duty in the USMC infantry and coming up on my second enlistment. I won't into any more detail here but if anyone wants to ask any more questions feel free to PM me.

I remember reading an article a year or so ago that showed the polling for the military in terms of political views(it was actually on who supported the president, but I believe the numbers are fairly similar) and by and large it was still vastly conservative but, and it's a big but, it does vary drastically between the service branches. Now this was in the USMC newspaper so take the reported polling with a grain of salt. The Corps was at least 80 percent in support of president Trump, and the other services fell below it but still in a majority until it came to the Navy, which was half and half, and the Air Force, which was 60-40 against or so. This is the part that worries me, I think whichever side can gain support from the Air Force and Navy will have a step up in the opening stages of a conflict. For conservatives with more resource rich areas it is less necessary, but for leftists it would be a necessity, they would fail rather quickly if they can't get the support of these two branches.

As far as the makeup of the combat arms goes it is vastly conservative, to the point where you will probably never find a liberal simply because they wouldn't speak up for fear of getting laughed at or ridiculed. When Trump was elected I remember sitting outside the barracks watching all the returns come in, every time Trump won a state hooting and hollering would go up and echo across the quad. If things turn violent you may or may not see a tremendous amount of outright desertion en mass back to the States if unconstitutional orders are given, or simply refuse to carry them out. The catch here is how many will follow an officer's order simply because it was given by someone with shiny on their collar. There are people who will do awful things simply for this reason. Morale however is at such a low that it is also a good possibility that in the event of actual breakdown in military discipline some of these officers would have to get out of Dodge fast when shit hits the fan, or they would risk a forced removal by their men.

The officer Corps in my experience is conservative, however this is tempered a lot with by the fact that you have to tow an increasingly impotent fusion of military and leftist politics in order to advance up the career ladder. The majority of platoon and Company commanders I have known are conservative, with their numbers falling off as you get on up higher. I still think most of those up in the higher ranks are concerned with constitutionality, but they have to remain hidden so as to not rock the boat and find themselves quietly forced to resign. The military has moved away from promoting people with strong personalities and beliefs al la McCarther, for the very fact that men like him have enough personal authority to challenge the government at times. That is something the modern military industrial complex cannot allow. As far as Masonic goes, maybe, I don't see any Mason symbolism around though at the Battalion level. I can't speak once again for officers outside of the combat arms or at higher commands.

If something were to happen that would force the military to choose sides I think something like two thirds plus fall over to the conservative side, with the remainder moving left and forming the nucleus of their new military. The caveat is that a disproportionate amount of command and control would fall to the left, while the right will see a lot of good boots on the ground grunts. After that it is a race to see if the left can train, arm, and supply the men it would need if a ground campaign was fought, or if the right can form a proper higher headquarters and coordinating commands to organize and prosecute a war.

I could go on into the shifting culture changes I've seen in the past four years but this isn't the right forum for it. I'll just say it's there, it is despised, but it is being pushed down by those up higher.

[DChambers]

I forgot to mention something that also might come into play. The insanely high turnover rate among first time enlistees. Of my peer group that came in four years ago there are exactly three of us out of over fifty or so that reenlisted. The knowledge drain that happens after every deployment is ridiculous. Platoons and companies have to start back at rock bottom usually and gear up for a year before they are fit to deploy again. One of the reasons for this drain is the lack of competitive pay, if you want socialism just look at the military, the lack of promotion opportunities, and the shear amount of annoying bullshit that everyone, especially the infantry has to deal with. Some of us like the lifestyle and reenlist, some of us still feel it is a duty, or some of us use it to get ahead and just plan on getting out a little later with extra college done while on active duty and making a solid paycheck. However this is a very small proportion of those who stay it. Why I mention this is because a lot of the people you get who stay in and make it to Staff NCO level who are calling the shots are the people who are indoctrinated and institutionalized, or the people who don't have the ambition and drive to make it out in the real world and see the military as a safe bet with a pension. The military butters their bread and they are unlikely to do anything against what Washington says. Even among the lower enlisted E3-E5 there are problems. The promotion system is......far from perfect to put it mildly. A lot is based on what people think of you instead of how good you do your job or how smart you are. It is based of a composite score, with proficiency and conduct marks that are almost arbitrarily assigned by a command, among some other factors. So a huge development I've seen is females getting promoted ahead of their male counterparts, without good reason. I have seen almost 100% of females make unusually high pros and cons, and get a promotion recommendation as soon as they rate one. It took me two and a half years of hard work to make E4, with an very high cutting score, one of the three girls who just got to the company nine months ago already picked it up with a similarly high score. I suppose one good thing about a lot of people getting out after one enlistment is, there is a horde of Military veterans who are out now but would form the nucleus of armed militia groups in the advent of a civil war.

[MrLemon]

Any major 'civil war" problems in the US will be fixed quickly by starting WW3.

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(03-13-2019 09:14 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

(03-13-2019 10:57 AM)Dr Mantis Toboggan Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 01:55 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  

Yep.

I'd broaden that to not just be officers, but many of the careerists. Keep in mind however that access to the senior enlisted ranks is controlled by Masonic connections and that most of the careerist NCO's are masons.

The reason why this is concerning has been covered in depth in other threads ( like a certain 40-ish page thread in general) but suffice it to say that nobody who is actively involved in Masonry is on our side. Them and other secret "fraternal" organizations are one of the key control structures because they control access to positions of influence and anyone admitted to them will have been vetted by the other side.

Sort of, I think you're conflating Black Masons with "normal" Masons (I don't want to say "white" as they're open to all races, although most are white). I don't think the latter are an issue necessarily--the ones I've known have all been conservative, family oriented, religious, and self-sufficient. The Black Masons absolutely are an issue but from what I saw when I was in--and I could be wrong--it's pretty much restricted to certain communities, and not combat arms.

When the left talks about the US military "sending minorities to die" etc etc they leave out the fact that, while the military as a whole is pretty representative of the country's demographics as a whole, whites (and to a lesser extent Hispanics) are hugely overrepresented in combat arms and especially in SOF.

Are you sure about that?

I might have been combat arms. Promotion to senior NCO ranks was governed primarily by admission to the masons.

If that was your experience I believe you, but I didn't see any of that in my MOS (not combat arms, but overwhelmingly white with a healthy Hispanic/Asian population and very few blacks) and never heard about it from anyone I knew who switched over from combat arms, although to be fair never specifically discussed it. It is well known in certain heavily black MOS' like supply.

[Barron]

A well-articulated video by CRP on why he thinks a 2nd civil war is inching nearer with the recent mosque shooting in NZ acting as fuel on that fire for the media and politicians using it to further their marxist agendas against white men:

[Dulceácido]

(03-17-2019 11:49 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

I forgot to mention something that also might come into play. The insanely high turnover rate among first time enlistees. Of my peer group that came in four years ago there are exactly three of us out of over fifty or so that reenlisted. The knowledge drain that happens after every deployment is ridiculous. Platoons and companies have to start back at rock bottom usually and gear up for a year before they are fit to deploy again. One of the reasons for this drain is the lack of competitive pay, if you want socialism just look at the military, the lack of promotion opportunities, and the shear amount of annoying bullshit that everyone, especially the infantry has to deal with. Some of us like the lifestyle and reenlist, some of us still feel it is a duty, or some of us use it to get ahead and just plan on getting out a little later with extra college done while on active duty and making a solid paycheck. However this is a very small proportion of those who stay it. Why I mention this is because a lot of the people you get who stay in and make it to Staff NCO level who are calling the shots are the people who are indoctrinated and institutionalized, or the people who don't have the ambition and drive to make it out in the real world and see the military as a safe bet with a pension. The military butters their bread and they are unlikely to do anything against what Washington says. Even among the lower enlisted E3-E5 there are problems. The promotion system is......far from perfect to put it mildly. A lot is based on what people think of you instead of how good you do your job or how smart you are. It is based of a composite score, with proficiency and conduct marks that are almost arbitrarily assigned by a command, among some other factors. So a huge development I've seen is females getting promoted ahead of their male counterparts, without good reason. I have seen almost 100% of females make unusually high pros and cons, and get a promotion recommendation as soon as they rate one. It took me two and a half years of hard work to make E4, with an very high cutting score, one of the three girls who just got to the company nine months ago already picked it up with a similarly high score. I suppose one good thing about a lot of people getting out after one enlistment is, there is a horde of Military veterans who are out now but would form the nucleus of armed militia groups in the advent of a civil war.

Thanks for your service. Most people will never do it. You are part of something important. I applaud you for re-enlisting. Another thing most people will not do, exactly as you stated. I encourage you to stick with it, as long as you are enjoying the job. The pay will level out as you make rank and if you pick up some specialty skills or volunteer for hazardous duty, you'll see a pay increase there, too. Not to mention, the more specialized you become, you'll start seeing re-enlistment bonuses on top of all that incentive pay. The more skills you acquire, the more you will pull away from your peers and you'll be promoted more quickly. That's my advice.

If you pick the "take the college money and run" route, there's no shame in that and you'll have a leg up on your new peers when it comes to filling out job applications because you have military service under your belt. A word of caution: depending on what you want to do in life, a college degree is hardly worth the paper it is printed on these days. Unless you're doing something like engineering or computer science--something along those lines, the "training" you get in college is practically meaningless. Be very wary of thinking you're gonna just jump out of the service, get the easiest degree you can find, and go land a great job. As soon as you start thinking things are gonna be easy after you leave the service--you've already fucked up.

You make some unqualified observations about the way people are promoted in the military. Some of the things you say are, indeed, fact. On other things you are mistaken. It's not a ding on you--there is no reason for you to understand these things as an E-4--but your perception of things, although it seems reasonable to you with your limited scope of experience, is not accurate.

The ranking boards that your senior NCO's rule over are very complicated. Of course, everyone wants to get their service member promoted over the others, so there's that. I'd be lying if I said there was no favoritism involved. Even in the board itself. Some NCO's carry more weight than other NCO's of the same rank, just because of their reputation and the command's perception of them as leaders, and also because of seniority/experience. A brand new NCO (theoretically) should have the same influence on the board, but get the fuck outta here. Think about it.

Another thing, you have to look at the bigger picture. Who is up for promotion? How many times have they been up for promotion? If I rank a young new guy my number one E-6 at the command (presumably for merit), to whom did I just give a head-shot because it's their last chance at promotion before they get forced out after 16 years of service? No retirement. Yeah, the dude may have outperformed the other dude, but he has 3 more chances for promotion whereas the other person is going to be forced out of the military after devoting half their lives to the service... See? It's complicated. It sucks, for sure, but that's the way it works.

That's the life of an enlisted dude who is career military. If you want easy promotion, become an officer.

[Gremlin]

(03-16-2019 02:54 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

A big problem with a Texas secession is that it has such a big economy with lots of entanglements. There’s a lot of corporate headquarters and corporate branch offices in Texas, and lots of good paying jobs. American Airlines is headquartered in Dallas for example, and would surely move their headquarters elsewhere upon a secession. Banks like Citi and Charles Scwab have big operations in Texas, and they could easily move them upon secession. Think of what that would do to the economy and to real estate values. The citizens of Texas have it too good and are too comfortable to throw it away.

Secession might be more viable in states like Wyoming and Montana and Idaho that have far fewer national entanglements. There’s plenty of land too, to grow the population if they became independent and patriots are drawn there. Cities like Boise Idaho and Bozeman Montana could become major cities like Dallas and Atlanta over time.

This is basically the argument against Brexit - that the UK has too many trading partners within the EU that they'll lose and therefore go bankrupt if they win their independence. What people forget is the UK will find many trading partners outside of the EU without all the EU red tape and taxes imposed on business. Similarly, Texas has enough resources and enough of an economy that financial independence is assured even if some big business flees. Big business can be replaced after all just as the UK can replace their trading partners.

[Gremlin]

(03-17-2019 05:47 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

If something were to happen that would force the military to choose sides I think something like two thirds plus fall over to the conservative side, with the remainder moving left and forming the nucleus of their new military. The caveat is that a disproportionate amount of command and control would fall to the left, while the right will see a lot of good boots on the ground grunts. After that it is a race to see if the left can train, arm, and supply the men it would need if a ground campaign was fought, or if the right can form a proper higher headquarters and coordinating commands to organize and prosecute a war.

My guess is many people in commanding roles in the military didn't get there by competence, but through loyalty to the leftist agenda. We see this everywhere from private corporations to academia to the entertainment industry. Can these commanding officers organize and lead fighting men outside of military jurisdiction that tells them what to do and what to parrot?

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

(03-20-2019 08:15 AM)Gremlin Wrote:  

(03-17-2019 05:47 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

If something were to happen that would force the military to choose sides I think something like two thirds plus fall over to the conservative side, with the remainder moving left and forming the nucleus of their new military. The caveat is that a disproportionate amount of command and control would fall to the left, while the right will see a lot of good boots on the ground grunts. After that it is a race to see if the left can train, arm, and supply the men it would need if a ground campaign was fought, or if the right can form a proper higher headquarters and coordinating commands to organize and prosecute a war.

My guess is many people in commanding roles in the military didn't get there by competence, but through loyalty to the leftist agenda. We see this everywhere from private corporations to academia to the entertainment industry. Can these commanding officers organize and lead fighting men outside of military jurisdiction that tells them what to do and what to parrot?

True to some extent but not entirely, while the SJW agenda in the military has been around for a while its really only gone full throttle in the last decade or so from what I understand. Many senior ranking officers and enlisted have been in for 15-30 years, and were around before it got as bad as it is now (actually it has gotten a little better under Trump from what I understand talking to guys who are still in--but still not nearly as much progress as you would've hoped for over 2 years into his presidency). There's also the fact that the vast majority of the military, even most the careerists who toe the SJW line once they're in, are from conservative upbringings (after all, if they weren't they likely wouldn't have joined in the first place). How many of the SJWs in uniform are true believers and how many are just paying lip service? Who knows, and I'm not even excusing the latter--at least at the senior level, I'm not going to blame anyone who's about O-4 down for not rocking the boat--but it's worth considering.

And even if the "senior leadership" does lean to the left, I'm not too worried in the event of a split. Combat arms, especially guys with recent (Afghanistan/Iraq) combat experience and especially SOF, leans heavily right. If anything, a 35-year-old SFC or MAJ with 3 combat tours spent largely outside the wire is arguably more qualified to lead than a 55-year-old general with the same 3 tours, but who spent each of them sitting in a TOC in Bagram or the Green Zone. In WW2, when senior officers were getting killed right and left, colonels in their 20s and generals in their 30s were not unheard of.

Plus, the right has a MASSIVE advantage in terms of armed civilians many of whom are themselves military veterans. That said, on the other hand the right (at least in the present day US) is--rightfully, for now--far more hesitant to initiate violence against political opposition than the left is.

[heavy]

The idea of a civil war seems crazy until I read headlines like this on Drudge regarding new Lib dem candidate Andrew Yang...

Wants Penalties For 'Fake News'

I love when liberals mask their meanings.

"fines", "penalties", "taxes" = "jail" or "prison"

[Dusty]

(03-20-2019 10:58 AM)heavy Wrote:  

The idea of a civil war seems crazy until I read headlines like this on Drudge regarding new Lib dem candidate Andrew Yang...

Wants Penalties For 'Fake News'

I love when liberals mask their meanings.

"fines", "penalties", "taxes" = "jail" or "prison"

Not to mention that the Democrat candidates are talking about eliminating the electoral college and expanding the number of SCOTUS Members so they can pack the court.

If this happens, the country will be run by a couple large liberal cities, and red America will be completely disenfranchised with no meaningful representation.

The democrats plan is to just crush red America.

[url=https://twitter.com/davidoatkins/status/1107710372373360640?s=21][/url]

[heavy]

^----Exactly Dusty.

I wish I had all the headlines (whether from Drudge or other source) of what the lib dems are pushing for that make me think civil war is inevitable.

Thankfully it won't take long to accumulate a bunch.

Even Universal Basic Income....what?

I'd could easily employ, tomorrow, a bunch of unskilled guys to do a ton of work around my city if they're willing to show up on time and work hard. We're nowhere near UBI.

This universal basic income talk is coming from a bunch of people who don't know how hard it is to find good help. I don't understand how Rogan doesn't know this. Maybe guys are flocking to cut his lawn and clean his pool, build his new deck or fix the leak on his roof...but around here, where I live, it's hard to find good people.

It must be people with their heads in the tech, AI, the-world-is-ending cloud. The world may be ending, but in the meantime, right now, there's plenty of work to be done.

I guarantee if you want to work, pursue it, show up when you say you will, work hard, you'll make money. That means there is work needed, probably everywhere. Hell, I know a guy up north (very rural) who couldn't even find a guy to plow his driveway this year.

[Curunír]

(03-20-2019 04:58 AM)Barron Wrote:  

A well-articulated video by CRP on why he thinks a 2nd civil war is inching nearer with the recent mosque shooting in NZ acting as fuel on that fire for the media and politicians using it to further their marxist agendas against white men:

Best video and perspective I've seen in a long time. Thank you for posting!

[Easy_C]

Rogan doesn’t know that because he does not want to. He is a paid shill in all probability. Notice how Rogan is completely insulated from the usual slander and deplatforming? There’s a reason.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-20-2019 12:09 PM)heavy Wrote:  

...
Even Universal Basic Income....what?

I'd could easily employ, tomorrow, a bunch of unskilled guys to do a ton of work around my city if they're willing to show up on time and work hard. We're nowhere near UBI.

This universal basic income talk is coming from a bunch of people who don't know how hard it is to find good help. I don't understand how Rogan doesn't know this. Maybe guys are flocking to cut his lawn and clean his pool, build his new deck or fix the leak on his roof...but around here, where I live, it's hard to find good people.

It must be people with their heads in the tech, AI, the-world-is-ending cloud. The world may be ending, but in the meantime, right now, there's plenty of work to be done.

I guarantee if you want to work, pursue it, show up when you say you will, work hard, you'll make money. That means there is work needed, probably everywhere. Hell, I know a guy up north (very rural) who couldn't even find a guy to plow his driveway this year.

It's hard to know for sure what would happen if a UBI dropped but it wouldn't necessarily play out you like you think.

Currently if people are receiving welfare benefits of various types including food stamps and concessions and whatnot then there's a certain thresh-hold they have to earn above simply to make their efforts "worth it". Few people are interested in working a month's worth of 4 hour shifts at minimum wage if they only break even compared to welfare at the end of the month or come out just a little bit ahead.

The idea of Wang's UBI is that you get it even if you're working, so there's no way whatsoever you can sweat for a boss only to break even on payday or worse, in some cases, be better off on welfare.

The current welfare system means that for many people it's simply not worth it to go to a shitty, low-paid job, especially if you make income on the side for doing easy shit like selling weed or doing cash-in-hand work.

The UBI makes it so that not only is welfare streamlined but there is more incentive to get a job because nothing you're earning is being sucked straight back out of your welfare.

Would it work like that? I don't know. But it's not as cut and dried as "the UBI will make people lazy". The effect might be quite the opposite.

[heavy]

Interesting idea Leonard. If it's as you describe, that would be nice.

I'm sure they'll get rid of welfare and replace it with UBI. I'm sure they'll simplify the system.



Would really love a simplified anything though. I'm guessing it won't amount to less chicks shuffling papers or less money flowing through DC.

That's what drives me crazy. If they presented their ideas and added, oh and this will allow us to cut x,xxx jobs from the welfare department and save $xxx,xxx,xxx of the public's dollars...

...but I highly doubt that's the plan.

Thanks to your post, however, I will read up on Yang's UBI plan.