hydroacetylene
No bio...
User ID: 128
plus mechanical reapers.
Well yes, this is a relevant factor in the late Victorian era. But the per farmer productivity gap opened very early.
Operation wetback enacted a meaningful amount of deportations in the fifties.
Life of Saint Louis by John of Joinville.
Yes. Subsistence farming hung on in America surprisingly late; LBJ famously grew up on a subsistence farm in the Texas hill country- some of the worst grain growing land of its climate anywhere. And of course the Deep South had lots of the population living as subsistence farmers until Jim Crow- my great-grandfather recounted them as a major presence after WWII.
I think it’s accurate to call into question how wealthy it’s possible to be and stay a subsistence farmer- Little House on the Prairie is about a family’s transition to commercial production to take advantage of greater access to markets before it becomes a romance novel, but it’s quite clear that the Ingallses are farming because the alternative to growing enough food is not eating in the early books, and later on after buying a mechanical reaper they eagerly take advantage of markets.
AIUI American homesteads starting in the late 19th century were the most prosperous example of subsistence farmer ever in the history of the world, and the gap in per farmer productivity vs the old country opened up very early.
Was this an artifact of social equality? Of more land per farmer? Of better access to markets due to settlement patterns?
I pick a side and agree with their claims.
Historians have flowerier justifications.
For 5, are we including South Africa? I can see opposition to continuing Central African immigration leading to a nativist governing majority much more easily than for other western-ish countries.
‘The death of the white American male’ or ‘the end of white manhood’ has been a grievance studies DEI goal for a while. It’s hard to tell how actual literal this goal is.
I can understand Muslim voters being mad enough at Kamala over Gaza to cast around and decide that they agree with Trump's agenda for other reasons. And it's not improbable seeming to me, either- AFAICT Dearborn has similar demographics to pre-9/11 Muslim-Americans, and the GOP did quite well among them back in the day.
Religious conservatives are a bit like black democrats, now: faithful to the party, but insufficient to deliver victories and so never given more than lip service.
Religious conservatives do get things out of our partnership with the GOP- notably, protection from cultural progressives, but we get at least half a loaf on abortion, and in red states we often get benefits about schools(based charters, for example).
https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-abortion-ban-medical-board-guidance/
https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/dl/1C5CBA1C-052B-403F-A0D1-FAF22ADD05CB
Red states are concerned and responsive to this issue already. Of course it's much more common for the media to scream about how malpractice cases, or the consequences of a woman's own bad decisions(Amber Nicole Thurman bled through one pad per hour for four days before seeking medical care), are caused by abortion bans.
There’s no designated bad guy and we’re not paying for either side. So like Sudan…
Capitalroom’s posts.
Except there’s three groupings of swing states by demographic- older and whiter(the blue wall), blacker and more religious(Georgia and NC), and secular urban with lots of Hispanics(Arizona and Nevada). We wouldn’t expect these three groups to be correlated with each other much at all.
the fact that Hispanics are Uber-Catholic
No they’re not. Latins retain a Catholic majority but the bright spots in the US Catholic Church are driven by white ethnics and Hispanic under-50 religiosity is heavily evangelical.
I mean, the damnYankees(one word) are the ethnic group everyone else is polarizing against. That’s been the story of the past decade or so in politics. Sometimes they’re joined by the blacks, but it’s pretty clearly a damnyankee driven phenomenon.
I knew about contract soldiers in Russia but Ukraine’s reticence to conscript adequately is new to me. I’d assumed that the unequal brigades weren’t being sent into the Donbas for reasons you describe but that they existed and that, like normal countries in existential conflicts, young Ukrainian men were in the military even if most of what they did there was make-work.
You can expect republicans to have an actual primary starting in late 2027, and a lot of things can happen by then.
I’d point to Youngkin, Abbott, and Hawley as clear major candidates in addition to those two anyways, although I expect whoever gets Trumps complete and total endorsement to drive the other four out.
If you’re female, haven’t eaten, aren’t white, and/or are on SSRI’s, yes you can. And none of those things would surprise me about Harris.
I think democrats will dial back on the race and gender stuff, because they’ll blame Harris’ loss on her being a bad candidate(and in fairness she was) and then blame that on her being a black woman.
I don’t expect this to be a stable equilibrium; the DNC’s calls for the race and gender stuff are coming from inside the house.
Zelensky is still resisting Western calls to conscript 18-25 year olds but there may be no other choice.
Uh, does he know he’s at war? Like I knew Ukraine needed to expand their draft but I didn’t know it was that bad.
Trump is likely to replace the two most conservative justices with ACB types.
Don’t get be wrong, ACB is legions better than a democrat pick. But moving the court to the right is a funny way to describe it.
Eh, people filling out their ballot wrong have it their own damn fault. I’ve no sympathy at all.
Uh, what’s the actual mechanism for giving non-federal employees a holiday?
Like heck yes I’m opposed to giving federal workers a paid day off on Election Day when I ain’t getting one.
No, the mood around me has been jubilant. Much hay about the large gains with Hispanics. Granted, I went from a rad trad election watching party to deer camp.
But, of course, that’s precisely the point. Opposite filter bubbles exist. The anti-trump machine is, I would suggest, now confined entirely to one of them. It needs to expand or die. And it is upon this machine that lies the fate of the democrats, barring fraud. Democrats have two possible economic platforms- quasi socialist economic illiteracy and unpopular Goldman Sachs technocracy. Fully embracing one of them on a national level means losing key voters they need to win. Their social policy is far left extremism that, at best, is slightly less unpopular than republicans’ far right extremism(and that’s only for abortion, on other social issues the GOP wins). And of course there’s the trust issue with big swaths of the electorate.
The dems’ best hope in ‘28 is for a rape victim to die from an ectopic pregnancy right before the election during an oil price spike. Structurally it’s difficult for democrats to make credible signals of moderating.
More options
Context Copy link