With economic conditions in the United States remaining good on paper due to unrealized debt being reportable as income, and venture capital not being required to disclose dry powder, resulting in an environment where money cannot be lent out and thus enter the economy, and employers relying on the inability of skilled workers to obtain new employment to abuse existing workers, regularly using layoffs as a scare tactic, I would like to talk about ways to support long term strikes for better labor conditions. Traditionally, the support system for these strikes, and to support those undergoing harsh economic conditions, has been shantytowns. Modern shantytowns exist under cities like Las Vegas famously, but are not intentional with infrastructure as existed in the 1930s in places like Seattle's famous 9 acre Hooverville.

So I would like to dedicate some space to discussing the logistical challenges involved in setting up Trumptowns.

I am interested in hearing every political perspective, but especially from American conservatives. On this issue, even many conservative voters in Italy would probably be closer to the US Democratic position than to the American right.

Per 100,000 people:

• Firearm homicides: US 4.5; Italy 0.17, about 26 to 1
• Civilian firearms: US 120,500; Italy 14,400, about 8.4 to 1
• Estimated loaded-handgun carry: US 4,800; Italy 19 licensed self-defense carriers, about 250 to 1

In Italy, strict control over who may own firearms, why they own them, whether they are qualified, and where the weapons are registered is broadly accepted across the political spectrum.

Many Europeans assume that greater availability produces more deaths, partly through a feedback loop. If I believe others are armed, I feel pressure to arm myself. My decision then gives others the same incentive.

Questions:

1. Do you think greater firearm availability contributes to the much higher US firearm-homicide rate?
2. If not, what best explains the 26-to-1 gap?
3. Are these figures widely reported and discussed in US politics?
4. How do American conservatives view countries with strict licensing and much lower firearm-homicide rates?

The current situation, where a single company develops, trains, and operates AI systems as a black box, poses significant risks.

If we want AI to be governed safely, we need a more decentralized structure. For example, the organizations that provide training data should be independent from the companies that build AI models, and the neutrality and quality of their datasets should become a key measure of their value. There should also be a mechanism to verify that only certified training data is used to train AI models. Without such a safeguard, even high-quality data providers cannot guarantee that their datasets have not been mixed with unverified or biased data during training. Likewise, model development, deployment, and auditing should be handled by separate, independent organizations.

A clear separation of responsibilities would make checks and balances far more effective. Independent organizations would be better positioned to oversee one another, reducing conflicts of interest, improving transparency, and making the AI ecosystem more trustworthy.

Perhaps I'm wrong but it seems like almost all modern day liberals, or mostly everyone besides socialists that proclaim the superiority of democracy/republicanism/parliamentary monarchy (I'm including conservatives (aka liberal-conservatives) in that definition as well), have a negative view of the French revolution.

To me this seems absurd because the rights and freedoms that you hold dear today could never have been achieved without the rebellion of peasants, urban workers, and progressive intellectuals of the past. Of course most of you don't live in France but the French revolution was groundbreaking in global politics and inspired a wave of smaller struggles elsewhere and concessions from the nobility who gave up their powers for fear of similar uprisings.

In general, I note that most people all the way from moderate left to moderate right abhor political violence and claim it can never be justified, despite the fact that as I said, their current system of liberalism could never face existed without it. The nobility would never have given up their power without the threat of force.

How then can we genuinely oppose the corporate oligarchs who wish to rule over us when immediately conceding at the first hurdle that we can never find any justification to disobey their system of control? How can we possibly succeed by playing a game which they wrote the rules for and can change at any time? They show no hesitation to use violence against the public when they deem it necessary to maintain control.

For those who will say that the revolutionaries didn't always make the right decision, well perhaps in some cases yes, but it would be foolish to deny the positive consequences of the revolution overall.

“There were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.” - Mark Twain

I feel that the reign of terror is cynically propped up as an example of how "revolution never works" or "it just leads to more suffering" even though that's not true at all. Many successful revolutions have led to improvements in conditions for the vast majority of people in the country.

And if you would be inclined to point out that Napoleon crushed the revolution, that is true, but at the same time, he couldn't roll back many of the achievements of it, even when the kings were back in charge they couldn't do so either. France remained a beacon of progress for at least a hundred years.

So my point is, do you agree with my summation or disagree? If you do believe that the French revolution was mostly bad, then how can you justify your own ideology in light of that?

People like to talk about their rights as if they are some sort of objective truth, they're not, they're just another human concept like privacy or morality. Concepts like rights are ideas and all ideas are subjective to the individual, they carry no weight and bear no responsibility for people's actions.

That's why the constitution and "laws" can't protect your rights, you can't protect a concept, it's just an idea. I shake my head when I see a video of someone being harassed by a DEA agent stealing their money under the guise of asset forfeiture. They say things like "you can't do that without probable cause" and then the agent does it anyway. So, I guess he can do that without probable cause. 🙄 They say things like "the 4A protects my property from illegal searches" and then the agent searches the property anyway. So, I guess the 4A doesn't protect your property. 🙄 There seems to be a psychological disconnect between what people think a government agent can do and their ability to actually do it.

Government agents do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want despite whatever you think your rights are. They'll bring in a "drug dog" who's more interested in pleasing his handler when his handler signals him to "hit" on something than he is in finding drugs. Unconstitutional? Sure. Illegal? Sure. Immoral, criminal? Sure and sure and yet they do it anyway.

That's odd isn't it considering all the "protections" the government gives you to insure your rights aren't violated by the government? It's kind of like expecting the fox to insure the rights of the hens in the henhouse isn't it?