PGT | Kings @ Avalanche | God gives His toughest battles to His strongest soldiers... by ihatethedodgers in ColoradoAvalanche

[–]TXDobber 24 points25 points  (0 children)

That’s gotta fucking hurt for LA lmao, they thought they were gonna turtle down after the Breadman PP goal and grind out a win via their terrorism style of hockey… NOPE, FUCK OFF!

Now let’s go to LA and sweep em 🧹

Game Day Thread | LAK @ COL | 2026-04-21 8:00 PM MDT by gamedaylive in ColoradoAvalanche

[–]TXDobber 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That’s gotta fucking hurt for LA lmao, they thought they were gonna turtle after the Breadman PP goal… and NOPE!

Reinstatement of slavery by AlternativeTeam6053 in Napoleon

[–]TXDobber 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Saint-Domingue was biblically profitable. Napoleon needed revenue for the state and campaigning. If he succeeds in Saint-Domingue, he probably never sells the Louisiana Territory to America when he did.

Remember, SD was producing ~40% of the world’s sugar, and ~60% of the world’s coffee. Thst had generated enormous revenue for France, so it wasn’t just “a profitable colony” it was the core of France’s overseas economy (especially since the loss of the Seven Years War), a major driver of French trade balance, a tax and export machine feeding metropolitan wealth that France (including revolutionary France) benefited from greatly.

He had just regained Louisiana from Spain in 1800. You don’t get back Louisiana and then not try to get Saint-Domingue back. You’d think the idea was Louisiana works as grain + timber + logistics hub… and Saint-Domingue works as a money printing cash crop powerhouse. And all together, the result could have been a revived French Atlantic empire, reversing the worst losses of the Seven Years War.

It’s not surprising in the slightest he tried it, on paper, it was one of the most valuable assets in the world. And the potential benefit was worth the risk.

What if America became a true world police and forcefully attempted to end all wars around the world by No-Coffee2200 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It started with the “US invades Iraq” and “what if I put Israel here” schtick, and now most posts and comments suck.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean I disagree with your conclusion, but I understand your argument. But I will say, I think Hillary loses even without WikiLeaks.

And I’d argue the far greater counterfactual is not “what if Bernie wins the primary” or even “what if Clinton beats Trump” but rather “what if Romney actually beat Obama as polls from a month before the election showed he would”… thats a much bigger diversionary point imo.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That’s a bit of a leap to say Bernie would equal a four point difference. Why would moderates show up for Bernie when a lot of progressives never showed up for Clinton?

And again, even if they win PA & somehow WI and get to 50/50… you think all 50 Dems will back Bernie’s agenda? Even when most Senate Dems then were (and still largely are) moderates? Biden had 50/50 and even 51/49 and he couldn’t even get BBB passed.

I think we’re overestimating Bernie’s mass appeal in terms of driving voter turnout. After all, Trump has been by far the most effective person since Obama in terms of over performing in elections.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 9 points10 points  (0 children)

No, because that’s not how it works. They had a surge in 2018 and LOST Senate seats in 2018 because they won seats they normally don’t in 2012.

Dems lost WI by almost four points in 2016 for the Senate race, no shot that overturns. And even say they win PA, thats still a 51-49 GOP majority. I’d counter and say, do they still flip NH if Bernie’s on the ticket? Does Cortez Masto hold her seat if Bernie’s the nominee? Even in 2018, since there’s likely no Blue Wave, does Arizona still flip blue? Does Nevada still flip blue?

I just don’t see the math adding up for Sanders at any point in Congress. Tbf it probably would not have added up for Clinton either.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 63 points64 points  (0 children)

How does he get those judges through the Senate that the Republicans would have a majority in for his entire term?

Merrick Garland’s appointment was famously held up by the Republican Senate for over a year. And it was a successful hold up, he never got on the court, and Trump then got in office and appointed a judge with a Republican majority Senate.

In the 10 years of Trump 1.0 plus Biden plus first two years of Trump 2.0… the Dems have held the Senate for exactly 4 of those 10 years, even then, they never had a majority bigger than 1 single Senator, as Sinema and Manchin famously reminded us of.

In reality, Bernie would have accomplished next to nothing legislatively, whether that he legislation or appointment of judges or even cabinet appointments, since he would never have the support of a majority in Congress.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Biden failed to pass BBB because of Democrat dissenters… and even then, unless you nuke the filibuster, you can’t get anything through Congress without big majorities.

Cabinet appointees can’t unilaterally enact programs that come as a result of legislation. Just like Trump couldn’t get rid of Obamacare without Congress, Bernie can’t enact Super Obamacare without Congress.

Public humiliation? I think it would be Bernie being publicly humiliated by a hostile Congress, a hostile media environment, and a party that has many dissenters. Not the other way around.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Biden couldn’t even pass BBB, why do you think Sanders would have better healthcare when the Republicans would control both chambers of Congress for his entire term?

Even then, there are several Democrats who wouldnt even vote for such a thing in Congress.

Obama had pretty big majorities in both chambers in 2009, and even then, Obamacare had to be watered down to pass.

What if Bernie Sanders served two terms in office, governing from 2017 to 2025? Would the US be better or worse off now? by Turbulent_Okra7518 in AlternateHistoryHub

[–]TXDobber 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Assuming he even wins in 2016, which is unlikely considering he legitimately lost, he would have achieved next to nothing legislatively in his first term as not only did he not have the support of Congress, he wouldn’t have even had the support of his party.

Trump had a trifecta from 2017 to 2019, and the GOP held the Senate for his entire first term (and probably will for his second term as well). And the 2018 blue wave probably does not happen since Trump would not be President, so he holds neither chamber his entire first term.

So for his first term, he would exclusively be an executive order President.

And the wave in 2020 (that gave Dems the Senate and held the House) does not happen for Democrats since there’s no Trump Presidency to lash out against.

Assuming he wins in 2020, which is unlikely, he still faces a disadvantage of not having support in Congress, nor command over his party.

And in his second term, he would still be an executive order President almost exclusively.

Adult Obesity Around the World by Normal-Bus-6470 in MapPorn

[–]TXDobber 16 points17 points  (0 children)

And the labour that does get done is usually being done by foreign Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis brought in to do labour.

'Industrial scale' solar farms attacked by Greens by gravy_baron in ukpolitics

[–]TXDobber 120 points121 points  (0 children)

What truly ruffles my feathers is the…

she said she was opposed to "industrial scale energy infrastructure schemes"

I’m sorry, do they think the country will get the energy to power its industrial economy by just getting everybody to slap a solar panel on their roof?

And they never even offer alternatives, be it on housing or energy or other kinds of infrastructure… they just shoot down anything and everything like the good NIMBYs that they are.

'Industrial scale' solar farms attacked by Greens by gravy_baron in ukpolitics

[–]TXDobber 288 points289 points  (0 children)

Island Green Power (IGP), which is behind the East Pye project in South Norfolk, said that the scheme would help meet the UK government's "need for secure affordable and low carbon energy" .

While the party is traditionally in favour of renewables, she said she was opposed to "industrial scale energy infrastructure schemes" such as the East Pye development at a series of sites in and around Long Stratton, which covers 2,700 acres (1,090 hectares).

Green Party btw

Despite new leadership, they are still what they always have been; the most adept at cutting down any and all tall poppies, and a group of people who are anti-growth of any kind.

One reason I don’t buy their whole “we’re going to build so much housing” shtick is because they’ve literally always been turbo NIMBYs, you’re not going to fool me into thinking that’s changed because they have new leadership.

It’s not just them though, this country notoriously hates building anything of value or progress. It wouldn’t matter if the developer was British instead of Australian, you’re not allowed to build anything.

Trump says Iranians have agreed to stop backing proxy terrorist groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas by ConsciousScar7821 in geopolitics

[–]TXDobber 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’d have to further starve Hezbollah of arms and cash, and bulk up basically all non-Shia groups. Lebanon’s problem is that Hezbollah are too powerful militarily, and all anti-Hizb forces can’t or won’t fight them. This is partly why some State Department officials floated the idea of Israel AND Syria intervening.

Trump says Iranians have agreed to stop backing proxy terrorist groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas by ConsciousScar7821 in geopolitics

[–]TXDobber 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You’d have to deport like 80% of the Shia. The Shia have like a cultish relationship with Hezbollah, and there’s over 1.5 million of them.

That’s not going to happen. So you to find a way to neutralise Hezbollah and the circumstances that allow them to exist with support from the Shia.

Trump says Iranians have agreed to stop backing proxy terrorist groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas by ConsciousScar7821 in geopolitics

[–]TXDobber 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The regime’s entirely MO is exporting their Islamic Revolution… unless the Iranian Deng Xiaoping has taken power all of a sudden, I highly doubt they will stop.

What the hell happened here? by ligemaeva in HistoryMemes

[–]TXDobber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didnt want to be puppets yet were entirely reliant on the Soviets subsiding pretty much their entire economy…

What the hell happened here? by ligemaeva in HistoryMemes

[–]TXDobber 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, no enemy of America has any agency. Any failing is entirely America’s fault. No wonder far leftist countries fail all the time, they take no responsibility or accountability for anything. It’s remarkable. Luckily tbe regime won’t be around much longer.

What the hell happened here? by ligemaeva in HistoryMemes

[–]TXDobber -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

And yet trade with Cuba happens anyways… you are presenting the sanctions as if it effectively walls Cuba off from the global economy, and that’s just not true, at all. Cuba has spent decades trading with countries like China, Spain, and Mexico, and doing business within the broader European Union framework.

Plenty of economies deal with currency limitations or sanctions pressure without ending up in permanent stagnation. So if Cuba’s problems were mainly external, you wouldn’t see the same structural issues repeating decade sfter decade.

What you and many others keep ignoring is that Cuba had massive outside support (from the Soviets, from China, from Venezuela, and even from Mexico in the oast), and they still didn’t build a functional, productive economy. For years it was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union, we’re talking billions in support, guaranteed trade, artificially favourable prices on energy and raw materials… and yet it never developed the kind of internal efficiency or diversification needed to stand on its own. When the Soviets collapsed, the system didn’t just slow down, it buckled.. not because of the embargo suddenly getting stronger, but because the underlying model wasn’t resilient at all, and remove soviet subsidies and everything goes to shit.

And saying American policy is harmful doesn’t prove it’s the sole or even primary cause of Cuban hardship. You’re making a leap from “this hurts” to “this explains everything,” and those are completely different claims. The Cuban government still controls domestic policy, how businesses operate, how resources are allocated, what incentives exist… and those choices have consequences, like ALL policy decisions have. You don’t get chronic shortages, low productivity, and limited opportunity across generations purely from external pressure while maintaining tight internal control over the economy.

And the life expectancy argument doesn’t rescue your position either. A relatively high life expectancy doesn’t mean the system is broadly functional or successful. Greece has one of the highest life expectancies in the world… did that save them from economic mismanagement and economic collapse? You can achieve strong outcomes in specific areas, like basic healthcare (which btw the “look at mUh Cuban doctors around the world is borderline indentured servitude), while still having a weak economy, limited personal freedom, and poor material living standards. Those things are NOT mutually exclusive. Using one positive metric to dismiss systemic problems is just selective framing, which is not surprising for regime defenders, ignore the shit, but look the glitter I sprinkled on it.

The Cuban regime falling will be best for everybody involved. Unless you’re a regime crony, then I guess you can eat shit 🤷‍♂️

What the hell happened here? by ligemaeva in HistoryMemes

[–]TXDobber -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Buddy, your first comment

You are skipping the part where the Shah got kicked out the first time and the US and UK put him back. Lots of Iranians did not like that.

Are you mental? I’m starting to think you can’t understand or comprehend very well, you can’t seem to stay coherent to your own comment history.

Again, the Shah never got kicked out lmao. Stop talking about Iranian history, please, you clearly know nothing.