Its hilarious to me that people think that the founding fathers, who ostensibly designed this entire country specifically for the benefit of the land-owning gentry, would hate maga politics.

I think they would. Land-owning gentry culture had one visible advantage over most of modern political culture - if you make a rule, then you follow it, and if you say a word, you mean it. It was important, people would fight on duels for these things about them being put in doubt. Not that they all would really act this way, of course.

Differences between MAGA and Democrats for this purpose are not important.

I would bet every dollar I have that if the founding fathers snapped back to life right now that they would be no different than the maga morons or libertarians that want to run this country into the ground

I think they would find some similarities with libertarians for the reason stated above. Some.

But in general I think they’d disown whatever in the modern world is ascribed to them.

Compared to before, no, there aren’t.

Well, that can be said about Greeks and Armenians in Crimea as well as Crimean Tatars. That’s because after Stalin’s forced movement to Kazakhstan (which is barbaric act, of course) or wherever, when descendants of those people were allowed to return, they were more likely to move elsewhere in the union. And after 1991 Greeks would often repatriate, well, to Greece, changing the ethnic character of the whole Russian and Ukrainian Black Sea coast, and Crimean Tatars to Turkey.

I think you also underestimate the role of Sevastopol. Purely due to strategic importance there’d be people coming from all parts of the empire and the union, and the “melting pot culture” there was Russian.

There has been an ongoing genocide since the tsarist times,

That’s a weird way to say this, before Crimea becoming part of the Russian Empire the actual Crimean Khanate didn’t exist for too long. It seems you have a misconception of Crimean Tatars being some sort of the native population of Crimea. They were not. They were a nomad vassal state to the Ottoman Empire, conquerors themselves. They weren’t the majority there ethnically under that khanate either.

That’s why people are “wary” of Russia - because it is a genocidal state since time immemorial.

That’s gross from someone who’s likely a US-American or a European. Also “time immemorial” doesn’t quite mean what you seem to think.

One would think on the decline of democracy and accompanying problems you should gain faith in democracy.

But somehow it’s always the opposite.

The less scientific progress there is, the more people “lose faith in it”, the less peace there is, the more people are skeptical of it, the less equality there is, the less people value it.

I think it’s not natural, rather an illustration of covert media propaganda being very powerful.

Tell me, why are there no more Tatars in Crimea?

There are, in fact, Tatars in Crimea.

I’ve never been in the USA, but my cousin lives there, so she had legal practice connected to softening terms or whatever, I don’t remember, for such sex offenders.

Say, there was a story when a guy decided to take a shit on the car of someone who insulted him, and didn’t see that there was a kid in that car. So the intended offense was much less than what, eh, he actually got.

… and the rock cried out “no hiding place” …

Sorry, this is just funny.

Ancap makes perfect sense. It wouldn’t be hated\ridiculed otherwise.

If we make a triangle spectrum of social bases, I’d have in one of the corners ancap, in the other communism (perfect neutral one, like between ancom and trotskyism), and in the third fascism. I won’t make this a square and any kind of “liberal democracy” a corner in it.

Neither of these extremes makes practical sense when taken pure because it’s impossible to create such a situation.

They make equally good sense as components.

(I also think leftists all over the world usually not seriously contemplating how much of their views is actually fascist stuff are making a mistake. It’s better to be conscious.)

It’s even weirder that judging by the names (wife’s first name and husband’s second) they are a pair of Iranian Armenians. It’s not as if Trump hadn’t broken every promise given to Armenians in the US.

I don’t think you can strip someone of US citizenship because of dual citizenship, no? I mean, maybe there’s some loophole about some oath technically being not possible to keep.

That doesn’t make it better, you know, is someone has such a dual citizenship yet lives in the US, maybe they are not part of the problem, no?

Probably at some point some Latino person denied ass murder to Laura Loomer.

A weird statement, I think the percentage of hypocrites around is the same for all nations. The Jewish ones are easier to notice due to the events highlighted in media. But I don’t think there’s been a recent event showing any other group as less hypocritical.

It’s also, in pure abstract moral terms (which is also why, despite lots of idiots around scolding it, you’ll take ancap only from my cold dead hands), that USA is not an ethnic state of some USian people. It even claims to be an international, open entity in its bloody constitution.

So I’m not sure that, speaking purely ethically and abstractly, USA even gets to limit immigration in any way (other than quotas to prevent crowds of third world peasants stomping it out ; but not too small ; maybe also other than keeping out those who can’t explain how they are going to make their living there). Probably a homeless immigrant that doesn’t have a job and doesn’t speak English shouldn’t be able to naturalize and get citizenship, but those who pass these three conditions - should and easily.

That or descendants of immigrants (which is almost all of the USA) going back to their countries of origin and freeing the territory for descendants of the native peoples.

That’s, again, using ancap-like rigid morality.

But then in this particular case ancap rigid morality aligns with traditional marxist rigid morality perfectly. So basically in any consistent system of morality underpinning laws it seems that limiting immigration to such a nation is not the same as limiting guest access to your apartment.

Just in case - I live in Russia and I would with no doubt make the same rules for Russia, if it were up to me.

It’s an instrument, not a solution. In general I’d advise everyone to think of security thus:

If someone wants to find your ass, they’ll find your ass.

But if you follow all the best practices, they won’t find your ass accidentally or just for fun. They’ll have to work.

Started reading this as “stacking up animation” and thought you are going for inner escapism with your anime collection when there’ll be problems with interwebs, interpipes and intergunshots on the streets.

Yeah, see, you are already dreaming of that other American thing.

Trump is literally America’s spirit animal, he represents everything that America stands for: greed, ignorance, hate, racism, bigotry, misogyny, corruption, and deceit. Trump is not an outlier, he is America’s mirror.

Probably because that demented walking corpse was picked intentionally as an avatar. He represents a group of people in power. Without Trump they’d probably find some other one. But he’s too convenient.

I’ve recently had a thought that direct democracy is possible.

I’ll elaborate:

Sometimes we (humans or even societies) don’t update our ideas for the new information.

Say, when I was in kindergarten, I was once sitting behind a table waiting for my mom to get me. A kindergarten teacher put a box with a puzzle in front of me. When I was leaving, I took it. It was apparently intended for another kid who had a birthday.

(I’m autistic, so I have rather early memories.)

So - I was ashamed of this for many years until I realized this was bog standard entrapment and the only thing that teacher wanted, probably, was to feel how forgiving they are and probably better than my parents.

That realization was when I revised the old idea for additional information I had as an adult.

The elaboration itself:

This can be applied to direct democracy.

It’s considered impractical to have a national vote on every issue, because big countries have more stuff to deal with using laws, and because it’s technically challenging, and because the crowd is unwise.

But! The general populace’s ideas of what is practical and what isn’t for democracies are from the times when living people would switch telephone calls.

We live in a world where you can have a national vote every day and all the facilities have been created many times, with cryptographic signatures, with highly loaded systems like those of Facebook and other social media. We can have direct non-anonymous democracy, it’s not impractical.

And also the so-called Soviet democracy (not the USSR, or rather it existed purely on paper in the USSR, except its first few years and last few years) is often considered impractical, because it can be disrupted by recalling higher council members from the lower ones, putting pressure on the lower layer councils’ electors, but I beg your pardon, in today’s world that wouldn’t be a disruption.

One could make an argument in favor of not relying upon the Internet and computers for such important institutes, but unfortunately the inverted way of using these opportunities is already embraced to effectively kill democracies.

So it’s better to think of some thoroughly resilient global system of discussion and voting over the Internet, other than discard the idea.

If you mean anti-migrant violence, that was so normal for Russia in the 00s that nobody batted an eye. It seems to already have become normal enough in the US. He just has to show it’s still happening. No need for any further buildup.

Clamping down of filthy liberals … it depends if doing it very slowly is acceptable for him. But he’s old and demented, I don’t think he’ll be around for most of this process regardless if it’s fast or slow.

gives him no option but indiscriminate violence

That’s where you are wrong, we live today in a world where all processes seemingly requiring indiscriminate violence work just fine with precision violence.

And when it’s indiscriminate, it’s not because they need it for the stated goal, but because they need, say, to ruin half a city for some future riches from contracts from people close to power. And they don’t need the population around to resist or register plunder by occupying troops. Similar with murder of civilians - that’s too sort of plunder, a huge proportion of the population feels something erotic from murders.

It’s a bit like William the Conqueror gave lands to his Norman nobles.

Today they give plunder and future construction contracts to their herd of cronies and corrupt officials and acquaintances.

It’s like in criminal groups they sometimes try, or so I’ve heard, to have everyone involved in a few serious enough crimes, so that they couldn’t just try to leave.

In this case the general population is made dirty by economic integration with some occupied parts and making it normalized, like triangle trade. The military is made dirty by allowing and even ordering plunder and murder for fun. The “elite” is made both dirty and interested by sharing in the spoils (but notice how that’s a post-success activity, so first the general population and the military are made dirty, and then people actually profiting and making the decisions ; a win-win situation). The foreign elites are too made dirty and interested by their share in the power offering of a victory (some kind of it at least).

It’s sort of an unholy hybrid of cartels and feudalism.

You don’t seem to be able to separate your own logic from the context of my conclusions, implicitly assuming either my context is the same, or it’s my fault if it’s not.

In other words, you are unprepared for any intelligent discussion, which your first reply shows well enough.

So much for who should be opening their mouth or touching their keyboard on whichever subject.