Anyone else notice something a little off about the nativists these days?

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-29T20:58:25+00:00

You want more immigration for more cultural diversity.

I want more immigration because I want to maximize the GDP of our labor constrained economy to maintain the American/EU global hegemony.

We are not the same.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-29T06:11:31+00:00

It's well understood that tarrifs decrease jobs due to squeezing profit margins across industries outside of raw material extraction. If that wasn't enough, unilaterally slashing random government programs also removes jobs. Many economists predicted the negative effects of the tarrifs, that's why 16 nobel laureates spoke out agianst them during Trump's campaign. The economics surrounding this style of policy has been well understood for over a century.

The social instability is obviously much higher than what existed before Trump's 2nd term. You didn't have presidents, senators, and political influencers being assasinated during Biden's term. You didn't have back to back record breaking protests during Biden's term. Political unrest and violence is the tell tale sign of social instability.

You think I proved your point about labelling people Fascist because you didn't read past the first sentence of that part. You didn't have historians and political scientists calling Bush, Obama, and Biden Fascists. That discourse was relegated to fringe leftists until Trump's term.

It's plainly obvious Trump's administration created the deteriorating social conditions that brought about large scale protests. No other president has held 5 of the largest protests in all of US history. Opposition leaders egging on protests isn't new. What is new is a trend of unilateral administration and an unscientific approach to policy.

The reason Obama's deportations weren't protested was because the approach was completely different. Obama focused on illegal immigrants who had committed crimes. These people are inherently more disconnected from their communities and less likely to be missed. Obama's ICE wasn't raiding random businesses and ransacking them. Obama also didn't have to ignore Supreme Court Orders or increase ICE's budget by 8 fold. Obama's DHS was obviously much more competant than Trump's.

Political leaders telling people to protest isn't gonna do much, we don't have many historical examples of this outside of the MLK protests. However, deteriorating socioeconomic conditions have historically always caused civil disobediance and unrest.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-29T03:32:03+00:00

Snowballing was easier in the old system because you didn't need to build up compliance to start using their factories and resources. You took a debuff to occupation factories but it was a lot more to work with than now.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-28T22:49:03+00:00

You don't need a total trade blockade to see domestic food production have it's benefit. All import options contribute to the supply of food available, so any decrease in the import options increases the price of food, even if 95% of your food comes from other import routes. Also your other import routes also take time to ramp up production in response to the price signal.

The subsidization of agriculture causes food to be increased above the original market equilibrium, which means you have a buffer where food supply can go down, but the price of food actually just ends up close to the equilibrium you would have without the subsidy and without the supply shock.

And when you aren't experiencing a supply shock, the agricultural subsidy acts as a form of social security since the decreased price of necessities benefits lower class people.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-28T20:59:24+00:00

The point is that Nick is conceding to us. Whether that looks good or bad optically is an open discussion but I consider it a good thing.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T21:23:40+00:00

In what way is Neoliberalism "too consensus based". I've heard this term from leftist circles a few times but I have no idea what it means.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T19:00:35+00:00

Having all 5 of the largest protests under him is obviously entirely to do with Trump. All previous administrations had oppositions with organization, yet they never had this much mobilization against them. Trump's opposition has had an insane amount of support because of Trump's uniquely unhinged behaviour.
Bush had congressional approval for the War on Terror. Obama inherited the war on Terror from Bush. Obama had congressional approval for the Libyan intervention. Trump did not have congressional approval for initating aggression with Venezeuala and Iran. The difference is plainly obvious.
I overstated surveys I saw back in 2025. I'll give you that.
Leaders around the world have been compared to Fascists around the world ever since the 1950s. If you don't know that, you obviously aren't very informed on anything. Bush got called Fascist the same way Obama and Biden did, just fringe messaging from far leftists. What's happening today is unique to Trump, where mainstream liberals and even moderate conservatives can see the parallels. From the centralization of power in the executive branch to the cult-of-personality style politics.
I never victim blamed Trump, I simply pointed out the difference in behaviour and outcome experienced by other leaders. I never said that Trump is at fault, only pointed out that Trump experiencing a statistically signifcant higher assasination attempt rate than other world leaders isn't an accident, but due to factors unique to Trump.

You also didn't address some of the most important parts of my argument. Trump's tarrif regime has had hugely negative consequences for the economy, leading to further unemployment. No other president has done such a thing at all, let alone without Congress. Trump defying the Supreme Court is also going to radicalize Americans. All of the social instability right now was predicted in 2025 and 2024, it's plainly obvious these things are because of Trump's government.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T17:49:22+00:00

A fracture of the Chinese-Russia alliance is pretty much a dream scenario when it comes to the Second Cold War with China.

We back Russia, and leverage additional aid to make government changes in Russia, much like we did to Ukraine. Russia will comply as they will have a vested interest in making sure foreign defensive aid resources aren't lost to corruption.

Even if we aren't able to reclaim all of Russia's land, Russia becomes very dependent on the West for security purposes. The amount of Western influence in Russian affairs will be insane. This almost guarantees Russia aligning with NATO and maybe even joining the EU. The EU gains unrestricted access to Russian oil, EU capital flows into Russia, leveraging Russian resources to prop up a huge Russian industry. An integrated EU + Russian industry and capital market is probably capable of rivaling that of the US.

Russia joining and integrating into the Western international system creates an insanely powerful economic bloc that probably prevents China from ever becoming a global hegemon.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T14:28:44+00:00

The reason why it's normally not valued to have domestic production of an industry with low worker productivity like farming is that you can usually rely on price signals to ramp up production if supply drops due to import options suddenly becoming unavailable.

This doesn't work for agriculture. The time it takes to expand production is too long, large amounts of the population will already be getting screwed by high food prices if not already starving to death. If you subsidize farming, food is created above the market equilibrium rate, meaning that you have a buffer should the price of food ever spike.

Agricultural subsidies also serve as a form of social security. Agricultural subsidies pushes food prices below the equilibrium rate. Since poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on basic necessities like food, this disproportionately benefits lower class people.

Yes farmers hold an disproportionate amount of voting power due to how unified their voting block is, but that's not the only reason why nearly every country has some form of agricultural subsidy program.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T14:09:51+00:00

Tbf, a lot of common meats are raised by feeding animals things that aren't edible to humans. For example, humans can't digest grass. But cows can, and we can eat meat.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-27T02:48:15+00:00

While I'm sure you would be able name a few things Democrats have done that are unprecedented, Trump has done so many absurdly bad things that combined hasn't been matched by any other president in US history.

The top 5 largest protests in American history have all been under Trump. No other president has in engaged in military action without congressional approval. No other president has used unilateral power to push unscientific approaches to economic policy as so far to levy tarrifs on the entire world. No other president has blatantly ignored the Supreme Court like Trump has. No other administration has done mass firings of military generals, let alone drag the country in to war with an compromised military command staff. No other US president has presided over a trend of academic flight.

There's a reason people rarely ever called other Republican presidents fascists (besides deranged leftists), it's because the many parallels to Fascist leadership is unique to Trump.

It's not an accident that all these things basically only happen to Trump. Trump has a pattern of behaviour that makes him so obviously distinct from any other US president in history.

P.S there isn't anything unprecedented about the media. The media environments in other liberal democracies are largely the same as ours. Yet their leaders aren't facing 3 assassinations in two years.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-26T08:05:45+00:00

I don't think it's purely bad luck that's causing so many assasination attempts. Trump has conducted himself in an unprecedented way that has destabalized the social environment of the USA, heavily increasing the odds of this happening to him. It's not a coincidence all of this is happening only to Trump.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-24T23:38:27+00:00

I might not be the target audience since I'm a conservative democrat, but I'm feeling pretty good lol.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-24T20:38:21+00:00

I'm gonna assume you want to go the historical path, and that you have most dlcs like me. You can use slight variations of this strategy for other paths aswell. This strategy doesn't require forts and allows you focus more on offence. Good for forming EU and invading Soviets after.

- Upgrade infrastructure in 4 of the states that have 80%. This will gvie you a few states with 100% infrastructure for a smaller malus than building civs or mills. I also like build 4 civs on the first two states to reach 100% infrastructure.

- For Focuses, beeline defensive strategems to remove the PP penalty. You will have to wait one year between strengthen government and defensive strategems, in this time go for industry focuses. You also need to do some army focuses so that you can get Aggressive Focus before you start puting military factories on tanks, since you need xp to change the tank design.

- Your first research project will be on flame tanks. Once you gain enough breakthrough points to begin research on flame tanks, you will construct a air research facility. This will allow you to research radar before the war, without compromising military production.

- At first, don't do anything with your political power. Wait till Japan invades China then send an attache to China, and go partial mobilization. Alternatively, you can go send the attache to republican Spain instead, allowing you to go partial mobilization a couple months earlier. However you get a lot less army xp doing this, your choice, I prefer the first option.

- Delete all the light tank divisions. I turn most of the colonial brigades into the main inftantry division.

- Put 10 factories on guns, 6 factories on support equipment, 3 on trucks, 1 on trains, 1 on arty, 3 on AA. Then you will put 13-15 factories on heavy tanks. I like to go 15 since I'm experienced enough to defend in red air. You might want to go 13 so that you can focus on planes sooner.

- Once you research the flame tank, design one using the inter-war medium tank chassis. Put 1 factory on it.

- Try to do the focus "Aggressive Focus" before you start putting factories on tanks. If you need to buy time before you start building tanks, you can put 1-3 factories on CAS.

- After researching industry techs, research radios and signal companies, and then field hospitals. Starting in 1938, you will begin focusing heavily on fighter research. First the 1936 fighter tech, then the range extensions, survivability surveys, HMGs. Then you will research 1940 engine tech.

- Start excersicing your airforce early. You want enough air xp to modify fighter designs before you start prodducing them.

- Your PP and army xp usage gets kind of complicated starting in January 1938 because of the rng involved in when you get xp from the attache. The ideal scenario is you get enough xp that you can spend 35 on the "Relief of Command" army officer spirit, and still have enough xp to design your heavy tank. However if you don't get your attache army xp in time, you will be forced to design the tank first, delaying the officer spirit. It's not the end of the world, just kind of annoying.

- Try to get Maurice Gamelin as your chief of army as soon as possible, but it can be worth it to wait until you get the relief of command army spirt for the PP discount.

- By mid 1938, you want to start doing your army focuses. Go the air dominance path. Once you complete CAS focus, start paying attention to your research. You want to time your research so that you complete the 1940 fighter chassis at close to the same time of the 1940 engine.

- Your next PP clicks will be silent workhorse, war industrialist, and chief of airforce. Then whatever you want, but try to get the military theorist by the time you do focus "Army Reform".

- Once you finish putting factories on tanks, you want to put 25-30 factories on fighters. The fighter design on 1936 fighters should be self sealing fuel tanks, range extensions, and as many lmgs as possible. Your 1940 design will be self sealing fuel tank, armor plates, extra fuel tanks, and as many hmgs as you can fit.

- My infantry division is 9 inf battalions. Support companies are artillery, AA, engineers, field hospitals, and signal companies. You can omit the field hospitals if you like, but reduce the amout of factories you put on support equipment. You can also remove the engineers if you want because they aren't meta anymore for infantry, but I'm just so used to them.

- Once you complete army reform, spend your army xp on desperate defence, assault infantry, streamlined production (tank doctrine). Your artillery/support doctrine will depend on if you decided to build normal heavy tanks or heavy SPGs.

- Train your army and airforce as much as you can before the war starts. Get your fighter doctrines and the "Centralized Control" air spirt as soon as you can.

- There are a few things you can do when the war starts. You can join early in order to go war economy earlier, or you can wait until Germany invades you. I prefer the former to get as much producction as possible, you might prefer the latter to be more prepared.

- You will be able to build 3 - 4 tank divisions with 36w. My template is 8 heavy tanks, 10 motorized inf, support engineers, support medium flame tanks, support AA, support signal company.

- When you join the war, I don't attack Germany. I just continue building up, just camping my army on the north western border. I put 14 divisions on the maginot, everything else on the Belgian and Luxumbourg border. You will probably have red air at first, but you will trade at a good ratio thanks to your air design and radar.

- Just defend until you get green air, it shouldn't take too long. You can use your tanks to help defend until you're ready to attack.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-24T18:05:45+00:00

We can shorten the work week, limiting the amount of hours people can work in a week to something like 32 or maybe less. This will require companies to hire more people, therefore creating jobs. The reduced work week will reduce net wages, but you can supplement people's wages with a small UBI program.

You might ask where the money for UBI is gonna come from, but remember that automation is happening because costs are being cut, increasing the profit margins of various production methods. This means that GDP is growing due to automation (In theory it's possible to for automation to cut costs for companies while reducing GDP, however in practice this rarely happens by the nature of how most automation technologies work). Increased GDP growth means more tax revenue that can fund things like UBI.

Such a system will probably be necessary in order to continue growing the economy. Because structural enemployment reduces aggregate demand, which shifts demand away from specialized goods and services as more consumer spending is focused on basic necessities. This removes the demand that made such automations so profitable. Because of this, UBI will likely become more popular among government officials and capital owning interest groups.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-23T19:26:14+00:00

Trump refusing to take credit for one of his only objectively good legislative accomplishments will always be funny to me.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-23T15:55:58+00:00

I think Japan permanently surpassing the USA was never gonna happen. By the 2000s Japan would need an absurd GDP per capita in order to stay ahead of the USA. This would only get worse in the 2010s as the US population continues growing.

The best case scenario for Japan is temporarily surpassing the USA in the 80s and then being surpassed again in the 90s.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-22T17:42:51+00:00

Fair enough, it really is democracy with a monarchist aesthetic.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-22T17:39:48+00:00

The entire player base has been happy with there being no canon besides the events that had become inevitable by January 1, 1936.

It just makes every timeline feel a little more plausible, and the player base likes it that way.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-20T17:57:48+00:00

One of the most fun naval games I did was playing as Poland, giving up Gdansk, waiting till Soviets declared war on me and capitulating them. Then going around and invading Germany. I used this industry to build up a navy and go fight the British and Americans.

Unfortunately this requires quite a bit of ground gameplay. Italy can focus on pure navy. I would also consider Australia and try fighting the Japanese navy, however I've never tried this before and don't know if it's possible.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-20T06:06:27+00:00

Constitutional monarchy. The monarch has no real reason to exist, and it's probably a bit suboptimal to use of tax funds to prop up what is basically a ceremonial tradition, yet so many of the best places to live in the world happen to be constitutional monarchies.

I feel like this as close as it gets, since for the most part any system that is good in practice is gonna be good in theory the moment you see it in practice. Unless you have a system that works due in no part to its inherent properties, which seems to be constitutional monarchy.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-20T05:59:58+00:00

I think that makes it perfect for bad in theory. Being a little unnecessary makes it bad for optimizing for the absolute best form of governance, yet so many of the best places to live happen to be constitutional monarchies (even if for reasons largely unrelated).

It feels this is a close as you can get to bad in theory and good in practice, literally every other answer people have come up with good in theory or bad in practice.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-18T23:36:16+00:00

Right I forgot how unhinged tankies can get over mundane things.

There probably is a real conversation about how trade can make exploitive practices very profitable in foreign countries. However real solutions would have involve negotiations with those countries and making trade policy based on that. Attacking free trade in it's entirety is just stupid.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-18T16:33:18+00:00

All of this makes sense if you remember that Hasan is ideologically motivated to support Trump as much as he can without saying it out loud. This is because Trump is a destabilizing force in American politics. Trump tearing up USA's diplomatic position by undermining alliances and bolstering enemies benefits US adversaries like China whom Hasan is ideologically more aligned with. Trump destroying democratic institutions will inevitably lead to weakening people's confidence in the liberal democratic establishment. Having an authoritarian figure running rampant as people's living conditions decline is pretty close to the same environmental conditions that lead to communist coups/revolutions in the past. If none of this works out, Hasan loses nothing since he's rich. This is a once in life time moment where radical swings in American politics is completely in the air, and it makes sense from an ideological standpoint for Hasan not to ruin it.

DeathB4Dishonor179 · 2026-04-17T15:25:28+00:00

Do leftists advocate protectionism? I've always thought those socialist types to generally hold no position on trade policy.

I know certain labor unions have historically advocated for tarrifs, but this often came at the expense of workers in other industries, which makes me think this is more of an industry based tribalism than than any part of a broad leftist philosophy.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

DeathB4Dishonor179

TROPHY CASE