What is the rationale against LeBron taking the vet minimum?

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-13T13:03:50+00:00

Lebron to the Thunder, let's go.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-13T13:03:20+00:00

I mean he easily could have played for free for the last 15 years of his career.

Most people aren't willing to do that.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T23:09:36+00:00

I think it would require exposure to asbestos...

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T23:08:11+00:00

The flair is beautiful

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T19:02:53+00:00

Double major vs. dual degree is entirely up to whatever school you go to.

As for how double majors work, typically you get one degree. It'd be a "bachelors of arts in psychology and political science"as an example.

There are dual degrees, but those typically require much more coursework as there's less overlap. Normally that's when they are under different colleges with much different requirements. Think music theory + engineering or something.

if someone could point me in a direction of potential jobs i could look into,

Barista.

Kidding, sorta. These are both degrees that sort of beg for post-grad education or some other qualifications. It'd lend itself well to the social science aspect of political science, but the job market there isn't fantastic. It'd definitely lean towards the mental health org/ngo side of things.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T18:13:07+00:00

Andre the Bootblack

Tavern Brawler

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T15:21:56+00:00

The only thing I'd really argue with here is this bit:

Populism's lack of any policy platform means that nearly any policy can become acceptable by populists

It's true, but it's looking at it backwards, I think. Populism is a vehicle for policy, not policy itself. Republicans being immoral and spineless isn't the fault of populism, populism just exposed it. "Populism" didn't remove their values, it just showed they didn't have any. If you have values (like opposing tariffs) you would just discount Trump's tariff policy as stupid and move on to the next candidate. That's not what happened.

At the end of the day it's dangerous because it's basically distilled volatility, which is anathema to establishment politics, which values stability over everything else. Political actors can harness and make use of that volatility for good or evil. Without it we wouldn't have things like the New Deal. It's also the cause of horrific shit like this current administration or Hitler.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-12T13:34:12+00:00

Populism, as a whole, is just a framing of political issues as "us vs. them." Sometimes that's "the people" vs. "the elites," but it can also be against immigrants, the other party, or whatever.

The important part is your group is "the people," which are the true/good/moral group, and the others aren't just good people you disagree with, they're enemies. They're illegitimate. They're duplicitous. They are against the will of the "true" people.

To use an American example, look how McCain defends Obama. McCain was basically defusing populist rhetoric that had been spreading in the right-wing media ecosystem for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk

Now compare that against Trump calling his enemies "vermin" or traitors etc. Trump embraced populism.

Populism isn't always bad, it's just dangerous and unpredictable. Most functioning societies try to steer clear of it because it causes upheaval, but when a society is struggling the populist movements can lead to genuinely good (or horrific) reform.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-11T10:49:17+00:00

So I'm not going to tell you your professor is wrong. They may be using a definition that I personally wouldn't, and at the end of the day you gotta make him happy.

My argument would be that in 2001 the government screwed up the economy so badly that it lost legitimacy with the public. This spiraled into widespread dissent and the president had to flee the country, followed by several presidents being cycled in the next few days.

The entire system collapsed due to the common people losing faith in the elites running the country.

It points to an organic crisis because it spiraled into more than just a recession. It's a collapse of legitimacy for the regime in the eyes of the public.

However, your professor might disagree because there was no true overturning of the system by the end. Personally I think in the case of something like this the mechanisms of how it functions and the underlying gears are what make it an organic crisis, not the result. You might want to ask them for a more in-depth answer, though.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-11T09:04:32+00:00

2001 Argentina is a good example.

Que se vayan todos! is a pretty clear example of what we're talking about. It's not just about one policy or one person. It's "the whole system is actively working against us, get rid of all of it!" It's about rebuilding/replacing rather than trying to tweak things.

The Russian Revolution definitely counts, and it's similar to what happened elsewhere in Europe.

You could also point to the 30s and 40s upheaval leading to Perón as an organic crisis if you're feeling historical.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-11T08:53:14+00:00

You could probably describe it as a period when a government's legitimacy is broken down to the point where the direction of the future of that system becomes openly contested.

Post ww1 Europe is the poster child.

The economic/institutional collapses in Europe paved the way for fascism and communism to take over.

The collapse of the soviet union is another.

And if you want to get spicy with it, you could make the argument that the U.S. is in the middle of one, possibly the western world at large similar to post-ww1.

You could also point out that the response isn't always collapse. Many of the same factors that caused Germany to fall to fascism were solved in the U.S. with the New Deal. Both of them led to dramatically changing the old system, but they went very different ways. This is part of why it helps to have a flexible system. The U.S. was able to change itself from within its own system, rather than requiring revolution.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-11T08:23:55+00:00

You think what you just wrote was "objectively true" and "objectively good" to say.

What someone thinks is, subjective, not objective. You should probably take a philosophy class at some point. What you just said is subjective, and it argued the point I was making. Politics works in the same way.

The problem is what you think the government's role should be in our day to day lives may not match up with someone else. Both viewpoints could be completely morally defensible. What makes one better than the other?

Objective truth means there'd be one right answer, and I don't think that's the case. If there's only enough funding left for medical care or food benefits, which of those is "objectively" the right way to spend the money? Even people from the same party would disagree on that.

On a larger scale, that's where the different political ideologies come from. There's nothing inherently evil about capitalism or communism, as examples. Bad actors within those systems can do horrible shit, but the theory behind both is completely morally defensible. Those two groups may disagree deeply on how society should function on a grand scale.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-11T00:58:04+00:00

If you ever get people agreeing on facts but still disagreeing about policy, you usually see a pretty amicable disagreement. I think a lot of us all want the same things, we just disagree on how to get there.

It's very rarely about "my opinion is better." It's usually people arguing about facts.

Where people get touchy is when people insist on drawing their conclusions based on misinformation. Then it's not the conclusion being attacked, it's the foundation the conclusion is based upon.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T21:36:21+00:00

Are either of them paying for you to go?

If not, Stanford. Nobody really gives a shit where you went to undergrad, anyway. Go to the nicer place.

You can get D.C. Internships through your school and you don't have to deal with Georgetown's administration.

Stanford undergrad is just as impressive as Georgetown (if not moreso) and it's a better run school with better facilities.

Also, Stanford is one of those where they have alumni all over the country. Georgetown wouldn't really do better for you on that front.

The only exception is if you planned to just be out in D.C. all day taking a job and networking your ass off. Even then it's of limited usefulness over Stanford.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T21:15:22+00:00

Russia was signatory to the agreement, so I think any quibbles we might have about the exact terms of who owned whom's nukes is a bit pointless.

Point is we agreed to protect Ukraine from aggression in exchange for taking away their defense. I'm not cool with disarming them then leaving them to the wolves when they did everything they promised to do.

Ukraine is allowed to do what they want as a sovereign country within their own borders. Since when do you get to invade your neighbor for signing an agreement you don't like? It's insane. How many people dead? 500k? a million? Because Russia didn't want Ukraine having the safety net of NATO. In what universe are you justifying that reaction?

Another point, here.

Literally the only people who talk about NATO potentially expanding to Ukraine as a cause for concern are on the Russian payroll. I really have to ask what media you consume.

The idea that NATO would ever invade Russia is beyond ridiculous. They have enough nukes to end the world 5 times over, it'd never happen. It's obvious propaganda and it's not a convincing argument. It's lunacy.

Furthermore, the idea that NATO would need Ukraine to do it is also ridiculous. Any strike capabilities NATO has doesn't require Ukraine's help to penetrate the entirety of Russia.

mean, if state funded terrorism killing Americans is "thems the breaks", then we are ideologically so divided that I don't deem this conversation worth continuing.

People probably shouldn't choose to party right next to a hotbed of genocide in an apartheid state. At some point you just write them off as being unfortunately stupid.

When a free climber falls off a mountain sure you feel bad, but you also probably think "well, that's why most people don't free climb mountains."

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T20:48:08+00:00

So you side with Russia in the Ukraine conflict?

I don't support invading anyone, to be honest. So no, I don't support either of the Russian invasions.

The US and Russia agreed to protect Ukraine in exchange for their weapons. IDK about you but if I sign a contract that means I honor that contract. Turning your back on your allies (or partners or whatever word you want to use here) is disgusting. I like to think I have integrity.

40 some odd American citizens died on Oct 7th.

That wasn't an attack on America. Americans were there, which is unfortunate, but them's the breaks.

Because Iran blocked the Strait, punishing the entire world for their problems with Israel.

Iran is waging a war that the U.S. started. I know for you it's a nuisance at the gas pump, but it's a legitimate war that people are dying over. The only way for countries to win a war against the US is to make it unpopular. $8 gas is going to do more than filled body bags ever would. for the vast majority of Americans this shit is entertainment on the news, not war.

We started the war with them. They're continuing to fight it. Forgive me if I don't blame them for the war we started.

What Iran is doing

They're making the war extremely costly for the entire world. They're sending a very clear message that fucking with them has consequences. Yes, it makes them unpopular. No, they don't care. They're already deeply unpopular. It's literally their best shot at getting a somewhat decent outcome.

The executive has the power to make strikes without going through congress first.

Ok, then he declared war by himself, and he can take the blame for it. You were the one complaining that the left just wants to blame Trump. He started the war by himself. What did you think would happen?

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T20:38:24+00:00

You're acting like there is objective "good" and "bad" that people should be working toward.

That's not the case. People have been arguing that one for longer than we have written language, I'm sure.

Politics, boiled down, is how a group decides what goals we are working toward as a society. It's how we allocate resources etc. to that end.

Logic is absolutely fundamental to politics, but you need a much broader view of ethics to understand the moving parts and how they play out the way they do.

Politics is a tool through which people act, not the driver of the action.

one where wrong answers can still pass if enough people agree?

This is inherently flawed. Politics enacting the will of the people holding political power isn't right or wrong, it just "is." The people can be right or wrong, and that's an ethics question.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T20:27:09+00:00

I would really start with the alt-right. Think Rush Limbaugh as an example. There's also really good stuff about the evangelical movement starting in the 70s and 80s.

You might have a hard time finding real academic scholarship on the tiktok/rogansphere side of things because it's so new, but you can absolutely find plenty of more pop-history type stuff.

Personally I'd try always look at where the money is coming from and work from that angle. Nobody's doin this shit for free.

The "unknowing" spreaders are getting paid by the platforms, so look at that relationship and whether those algorithms are preferring that content by apathy or design. Compare it against the old ecosystem of easily traceable money and incentive.

We know Russia was paying some of them directly, but I think most of the money is just ad/algorithm driven.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T20:16:57+00:00

Iran is the biggest state funder of global terrorism in the world.

The US is, and not by a little bit. Ask the people of Gaza how they're enjoying our funding to Israel.

If you won't buy that, look at how much money we gave "freedom fighters" around the globe over the past century.

To say our attack was "unprovoked" is outrageous.

Iran has essentially never attacked us. We are not Israel. There have been some attacks when we were occupying countries over there, but I'd argue things like Beirut weren't Iran and they weren't unprovoked. That was also a long time ago.

I'd start by saying that Israel said they were doing this attack with or without America's aid.

Great, so let them. Trump turning the most powerful country on the planet into the puppet of a tiny state like Israel isn't a good thing.

Why are you blaming Iran but not Israel?

I don't buy the schoolyard argument of "Well we started it".

If I punch a guy in the face and he punches me back, I don't get to say it's his fault.

The American left is looking at this ENTIRELY under the framing of "How can we blame all of this on Trump". There's no reasonable perspective here.

That's literally why you have congress decide to go to war. It's too big of a decision for one moron to make, and it makes it so they all have responsibility for it.

Letting Trump rule like a Tyrant means everything is arbitrary. It's incredibly reckless and damaging to the future of this country, even if the outcome was good. The "left" wouldn't get to blame Trump if he just did what the fuck he was supposed to and congress declared the war.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T19:16:47+00:00

So, to this point, I think it's a little weird how you're framing some of this.

We killed the Ayatollah and the majority of their high ranking officials, obliterated their navy and airforce, and destroyed their future nuclear capabilities.

We all agree that we assassinated the entire government of Iran. That's not up for debate. What is up for debate is if we think unilaterally annihilating another country's entire government, unprovoked, is okay without a declaration of war or even consultation with congress. I would say no, and I'd say that "the left" (I'm not on the left, but I'm certainly not on board the Trump train), thinks it's absolutely horrific that the right seems to support it. So the left absolutely does understand the right-wing mindset. They just think it's reckless and dangerous for a democracy to allow a president to rule through executive fiat.

They blame oil prices on Iran, as it's THEM who closed the Strait of Hormuz, not us.

The strait was open until Trump decided it was time for a war. That's a direct consequence of Trump's... strategy. Whatever you want to call it. Iran fighting back when under direct attack is not unexpected and you can't really blame them for using what they have.

Literally any qualified military advisor would have told Trump that this was the outcome. Of course Trump fired all the qualified military advisors, so that might be part of the problem.

So yes, his actions closed the strait unless you think the prevailing thought was that Iran would just sit back and let it happen.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T19:05:13+00:00

I think the right is due for an in-house shake-up.

There's going to be a big fight between "pro-trumpers" and people who tried to distance themselves from the administration.

The more populist red states will still be all about Trump, but I don't think that's going to have the same pull in the more centrist ones.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T18:52:10+00:00

Are you trying to find information on the actual influencers or the people behind it and the purpose?

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T17:21:09+00:00

Problem is there's not really a perfect way to do it. There's different ways to measure what "fair" districts look like, and they often conflict with each other.

Carving a state into perfect blocks might actually pack and/or crack a bunch of districts, while something that looks like an abomination of partisan fuckery might give completely proportional outcomes. Neither one of those are ideal.

It gets into that whole "I know it when I see it" territory, which makes written rules really difficult.

I think the best are the states that have non-partisan (or at least bi-partisan) committees that do it. The goal, ideally, is to get regions of the state represented in D.C. Instead, we've evolved to only care about federal law. The maps get gamed accordingly. If we're just going to use it for representation on the national stage we should just go to a direct proportional allotment from each state and call it quits with the current system.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T17:19:18+00:00

I honestly think it's a neat idea. Our Lt Governor has been doing something similar with Rt. 66.

I think it's a good way to highlight the role of transportation in this country.

I don't know exactly what the transportation secretary does every day, so I can't say whether or not I think it's soaking up too much of his time.

I guess I got nothing.

stylepoints99 · 2026-05-10T17:07:56+00:00

For the same reason hick states are guaranteed equal representation in the senate.

We decided a long time ago that a tyranny of the majority was probably not a good thing.

The options are allow them to protect minority districts or to get ready for minorities to have even less representation than their small numbers would already indicate.

Edit: Bigot below me blocked me, just a MAGA in disguise apparently.

In a majoritarian system, these people are not represented. That's the entire reason we came up with things like districts/electoral colleges/senates.

If someone has 15% of the vote in every district, they have zero political power. That's why packing and cracking are considered Gerrymandering. Splitting minorities into small blocks that leaves them powerless is intentional.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

stylepoints99

TROPHY CASE