Poll of the Day > Who is the left-wing dishonest loudmouth celebrity equivalent to Alex Jones?

(+) Yeah! (+)

JigsawTDC posted...

I mean, you could make a separate topic for that if you want to discuss it. It doesn't seem like a likely hypothetical to me though. Any future civil war in the U.S. is less likely to be red vs. blue and more likely to be the government vs. the people. The side with nukes probably wins.

That's part of why I usually decree 'no nukes' when I run set-ups like that. It turns wars unpredictable at best.

Generally I assume 100% loyalty/fervor (at least at the start), official declarations, and no nukes. But I don't think any of those would apply except maybe the last in a U.S. civil war at this time. Though I can predict how it would go easily enough.

Red would smash down south and stomp out dissent in the central area while blue would try to surge the coastlines. Following that there will be a stand-off due to the Rockies/Appalachia. If blue decides to fortify they can force a battle of attrition but will have to struggle by being split in half. If they go on the offensive they have the advantage of hitting from two sides but will need to co-ordinate over a massive distance. Assuming the sides to be mostly equal otherwise you'll likely see either a red victory, red crushing one of blues two sides but unable to seize victory, blue enduring but needing to form two separate nations, or blue obtaining outside help and crushing red. I don't think it's likely blue will win without outside help because of the sheer distance between its two sides but I don't think red has the manpower to win the two-fronted war so either options 2 or 3 would be the most likely. The single most important question would likely be if blue decides to try to keep DC as a capitol or relocate it to the west coast. The latter would be a massive tactical disadvantage though so I don't think it's likely.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

I mean victory gardens were a thing.

...when nyc had about 6m less people.

Do you not realize there are full-on urban farms in every major city rn? Sure, not currently at a level to self-sustain, but we're arguing hypotheticals here so the precedent is there. You keep focusing on outdoor farming, parks, landspace, etc. while refusing to acknowledge that indoor farming is something we already currently practice, including in NYC. It's even the preferred method to produce better quality in certain plants (marijuana!).

Dark_SilverX posted...

go back to sleep ._.

Sleep is for the weak

---

JigsawTDC posted...

Do you not realize there are full-on urban farms in every major city rn? Sure, not currently at a level to self-sustain, but we're arguing hypotheticals here so the precedent is there. You keep focusing on outdoor farming, parks, landspace, etc. while refusing to acknowledge that indoor farming is something we already currently practice, including in NYC. It's even the preferred method to produce better quality in certain plants (marijuana!).

Unfortunately the scale of farming you need in order to sustain requires open fields. I don't think there's enough space for a city to self-sustain even if every citizen went farmer.

Edit: And even if there was; the primary advantage of a city is being able to leverage it's population for industry; which you wouldn't be able to do if you converted things into farmland. You can set up new production lines but you can't make tomatoes grow faster.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

Unfortunately the scale of farming you need in order to sustain requires open fields. I don't think there's enough space for a city to self-sustain even if every citizen went farmer.

Edit: And even if there was; the primary advantage of a city is being able to leverage it's population for industry; which you wouldn't be able to do if you converted things into farmland. You can set up new production lines but you can't make tomatoes grow faster.

I'm not actually arguing that we try to make cities self-sustainable completely on urban agriculture, only illustrating that rural farmers, while certainly important, might not be as integral as Whiskey thinks. Farmers need this whole infrastructure to survive too anyway. It's kinda goes off that McDonald's peace theory thing: the more ingrained into a capitalist infrastructure you are, the more damage you do to yourself by rocking the boat. It's why two nations that each have a McDonald's are rarely ever seen going at war with each other.

I think JFK was assassinated by the CIA but that's really the only one I think makes sense

As far as the original question (and not going off into what conspiracy theories are more realistic or not) I wouldn't know but Michael Moore came to mind

---

Maybe I should rephrase this

If you wanted to have an entertainment news show with the biggest lefty ho and the biggest righty ho on it... who would it be?

---

Muscles posted...

I think JFK was assassinated by the CIA but that's really the only one I think makes sense

to me it makes a lot more sense that a guy with a rifle decided he wanted to kill the president

---

Sure, not currently at a level to self-sustain,

then you have no argument, but bless your heart for trying because big bad Whiskey is mean.

---

You'd have to get somebody like the Twitch Deer Girl to match the same level of crazy.

---

JigsawTDC posted...

I'm not actually arguing that we try to make cities self-sustainable completely on urban agriculture, only illustrating that rural farmers, while certainly important, might not be as integral as Whiskey thinks. Farmers need this whole infrastructure to survive too anyway. It's kinda goes off that McDonald's peace theory thing: the more ingrained into a capitalist infrastructure you are, the more damage you do to yourself by rocking the boat. It's why two nations that each have a McDonald's are rarely ever seen going at war with each other.

Well, the issue is that, assuming a mass collapse, a farmer has access to most or all of the tools needed to sustain themselves and others. Meanwhile a city needs imports from other areas to survive. Even if there are gardening techniques which can help a city sustain itself it takes time for crops to grow so even under ideal circumstances it needs a massive amount of imports before it simply descends into anarchy because of the volume of starving civilians. While food can be shipped in assuming prior arrangements it's a very dangerous and expensive game and if the currently has any slippage it would likely spell doom.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Sure, not currently at a level to self-sustain,

then you have no argument, but bless your heart for trying because big bad Whiskey is mean.

Nowhere did I complain about you being mean, but if you want to play the victim card and blind yourself to the rest of my post with the tears in your eyes, be my guest.

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, the issue is that, assuming a mass collapse, a farmer has access to most or all of the tools needed to sustain themselves and others. Meanwhile a city needs imports from other areas to survive. Even if there are gardening techniques which can help a city sustain itself it takes time for crops to grow so even under ideal circumstances it needs a massive amount of imports before it simply descends into anarchy because of the volume of starving civilians. While food can be shipped in assuming prior arrangements it's a very dangerous and expensive game and if the currently has any slippage it would likely spell doom.

I was never denying the importance of farmers to mass society, but in a globalist capitalist world, imports would happen. They already do to a mass extreme! Most of our bananas come from Latin America. Ecuador supplies like nearly a third of the global banana supply. The infrastructure for imports is already there.

And again, this whole thing is "assuming mass collapse" in the first place, which is the silliest part of this to me. A mass collapse in the U.S. isn't going to happen because farmers rise up and decide to stop supplying the big evil leftist cities. A mass collapse is going to be economic in nature and farmers will be reliant on consumers to recover. If anything, they'll stand to gain a lot in a realistic mass collapse scenario. Hoarding mass amounts of rotting product just to starve political opponents in a system that's already collapsed is what Saturday morning cartoon villains do, not actual people thinking about their best interests.

I yelled at my roommate yesterday that Joe Rogan is 'Oprah for men' and that Jimmy Dore is 'Walmart Bill Maher'.

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

I yelled at my roommate yesterday that Joe Rogan is 'Oprah for men'

well shit

---

We always have a nice handshake after or 'I love you bro' or some banal weather talk. I used to be a rather quiet non-confrontational person. At least living with a conspiracy theorist who watches garbage TV all day has led me to be more assertive with what I feel. In arguments he repeats the same 3 sentences, so I usually bowl him over with real improvised sentences now.

---

TheNobleWoodApe posted...

Do you think the military has 9M MRE's x 3 meals a day x multiple days for infinity?

Do you think they're going to park the entire Eisenhower battle group in long island sound or the east river indefinitely? Do you think they can get another carrier battle group up to Chicago and Detroit to sustain them indefinitely? It took them a month to get a hospital ship up to NYC and NYC didn't even use the ship.

You seem to think that the military would be involved in a long campaign against the farmers and not marching in and demanding them to send food at gunpoint in like a day.

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

What conspiracies do you think have validity? I used to be pretty open-minded to a few, but after being immersed in living with someone who buys into most conspiracies and digging deep into most of them....they all seem to reek of crap.

Chomsky basically has proof of many conspiracies the government has been involved in.