The Last Dragon

I thought we all agreed

Ron Howard:

Clearly, there was no consensus among respondents on how they define aging

Shoving is pretty normal in mainland China. It’s just how you get through crowds. I’ve heard it’s getting better.

I think you have it backwards. The national statistics are a result of what happens on the state level in aggregate.

I don’t see how.

43 states and one district didn’t matter this time.
Only seven states mattered.

So Descartes coined the term specifically as a dig because he didn’t see any geometric possibilty to the concept. The concept seems to have roots going back to ancient Egypt, but the modern inquiry goes to the Renaissance. I think Gauss wanted to call them laterals.

These are national statistics. They bear no direct relation to the outcome.

The first two columns is what percentage each party receive for that particular demographic. The third column is the percentage that demographic made up of the total votes.

So the each rows first two columns should add the 100%. The final column should add to 100%.

Subscribe to my OnlyFans for this and more!

Amazement and terror increases depending on which hole they use.

an entire world setting inspired by the tarot deck

This just makes me so happy!

Can you put the relevant comment link in the OP?

This isn’t a recent phenomena. Bernie’s statement calls out the Democrats behavior over the last 30 years which puts you right in the middle of the first term of Clinton. However, Clinton was the first Democratic executive that had a chance to really enact a strategic change in the Democratic party that was first formulated after the chaos and losses of 1968.

Before 1968, the democrat party was tightly knit with union interest and the selection of a presidential candidate was done behind closed doors by party bosses. This is how it was done in 1968 resulting in Hubert Humphrey. Hubert Humphrey was an establishment candidate and VP to a very unpopular president who decided not to run for a second term. Robert Kennedy was very popular, but assisted before the convention. There were other candidates, but Hubert Humphrey enters the race after the 12 primaries had closed, but before the convention. There were a lot of reasons for chaos at the Democratic Convention in 1968, but this was one. Humphrey was chosen in an undemocratic fashion by party bosses despite lacking wide support by the base. I’m not saying history repeated itself, but it sure rhymes.

So Humphrey loses. The next four years results in reflection buly the party, an internal document called the McGovern-Frasier report is created, the selection process becomes more democratic causing candidates to make a wider tent for an intra-party coalition resulting in the nomination of McGovern eho whose major focus was to get the US out of Vietnam. Major unions decide not to back him and, well, he gets his ass kicked.

More reflection and the Trilateral Commission conclude that “excessive democracy” had resulted in the erosion of economic and political stability. So unions are still important in America at this point, but there’s a growing shift from an industrial society to a professional services society starting to happen. The members of the Trilateral Commission see this and start to court this group. Meanwhile, colleges increase enrollment accepting non-traditional students to matriculate.

Jimmy Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission, is elected and enacts several neo liberal policies such as deregulating the airlines and creating natural gas markets. He fails a bid for a second term, but the tenor of what is yet to come has been sounded. Atari-democrats, young ambitious tech savvy, step to the fore and represented by someone like Gary Hart. He fails to get the nomination mainly because he had an affair and Mondale gets the nod. Mondale was an old school dem who supported labor and Carter’s VP. He loses worse than McGovern in 1972.

In 1988, Dukakis runs trying to bridge the old Dems and the new Dems. Like riding two horses, he fails. That’s four out five election losses. 1992, a young whipper snapper from Arkansas steps to the plate and wins with an outstanding 43% of the popular vote. Wait! How could be, you ask? You see, Nader isn’t the only spoiler candidate. One free wheeling Texas business man named Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote. I still remember is slide presentation on network television.

But I digress. This administration, knowing they just barely won, does what anyone who hasn’t won in a whole and makes radical changes. Good bye old guard and welcome the new way of ruling. One notable survivor of the purge was Joe Biden. They deregulate more industries and open more trade with NAFTA, CAFTA, China and help rebuilding a newly democratized Russia. Not all of this happened in the first term, but these were all important events. W campaigned on an isolationist strategy in response to much of this. From 1993 to 2013, we lived in the Clinton era. Biden isn’t really aligned with it deeply. He’s been the middle ground man and probably is more closely aligned to Mondale or Dukakis.

The stock market takes off during the first tech boom, but the vast majority of the spoils go to the professional class and the rich. The working class is doing better because everyone is doing better, but not keeping up. Meanwhile factories are closing and we aren’t investing in infrastrcuture. Also, if you want your kids to have a future, send them to college. Can’t afford it? No worries, here are some loans. It’s for your children. Good luck!

It’s during this time that you see them not resisting neocon war mongering. War mongering guts the working class. You see Obama not helping out the working class after the 2008 financial crisis. But who cares? The stock market is soaring! What do mean you don’t have any extra cash to invest. Good luck!

2016 had primaries, but everyone knew they’d regret it if they got in the way of Hillary. It was her turn and we deserved a woman president. Biden regrets sitting this out. I don’t know if he would have had a chance, but being VP, it would have been a fight of two different visions. Throw in Bernie and there’s a real decision to be made.

Well damn… This was far too long. Hopefully it was an interesting read. Yeah, there’s five examples in here, but the damage is far more subtle over the course of several decades. The working class, when unionized, were powerful. And politics were fucked up. Then we gutted them and an industrial base and shit’s fucked up in a new way. No easy answers. Just grinding.

I don’t know what works for you, but I do the following.

1. Feel your feelings. Base feelings for me are sadness, joy, anger, etc. the feeling is connected to an event, but not the same as the event.And I am not my feelings, I am just having a feeling. Feeling this feeling puts me in touch with something either vital or reframes my perspective.
2. Reorient your goals. This can be either shifting your sense of worth to something more important to you than your work or a recommitment to attaining what was lost. This doesn’t always happen on the first pass, but I’m able to lift my head up at this point and look around.
3. Make small tasks that build towards that goal. Or just connecting with the day and the people in my life.
4. Reconnect to your support structure. This is just as important to you as it is for them. They want to see you thrive and see the best in you re-emerge.
5. Rinse and repeat. Stumbling is normal. Successes happen. Feel those feelings again. And again.

I don’t know if this will work for you, but this has been a process that works for me.

I only saw one other comment talking about your son, so I’ll chime in.

Make sure to hear your son’s voice. This is his way of trying to make a connection with you and maybe more. Hear him out and don’t reflexively respond. Spend time making sure he feels heard and loved. And whatever you decide, he’ll know that his connection with you is strong. I don’t know what level of processing you’ve done with him, but I can imagine it getting a little back burnered as you work through the betrayal and grief.

Why not just ask this question in the OP?

They could eventually spin it up, but would take longer than the months you first mention. Technical and material issues exist between yellow cake and weapons grade fissile material that the Ukrainian may not have access to (heavy water or plutonium). Even if they do, transforming their current civilian system would take several years optimistically.

Ultimately, that’s my biggest issue is time. It’s not months but years.

I don’t know anything about the laws limiting transfer of fissile material and may violate issues with NATO membership. I’m not seeing the upside for Sweden to do any of this.

And from a quick search makes it sound like decommissioning of Ågestaverket began in 2020 and should be done in 2025. So the plant would need to be, essentially, rebuilt.

Next, the nuclear program was shut down in 1961 because they didn’t have any Pu-240 to refine into Pu-247. Finally, when the program did exist, they had to get their heavy water from Norway. Heavy water allows them to use yellow cake directly for fissile material, but they still use light water but need an enrichment program. So, technically it’s a long way still.

That was an interesting watch, but he doesn’t put a clear timeline on how long it would take. I found this article that notes that:

The Prydniprovsky Chemical Plant in the city of Kamianske in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast processed uranium ore for the Soviet nuclear program, preparing yellowcake, an intermediate step in the processing of uranium ore.

It goes on to interview a couple of engineer about what they could be expected to produce, by when, and with what level of discresion:

Robert Kelley, an engineer with over 35 years of experience in the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons complex, said that it would be possible for Ukraine to create a primitive uranium fission bomb within five years.

“It’s a fairly simple thing to do in the 21st century,” he told the Kyiv Independent.

It would be much more difficult for Ukraine to build a plutonium fission bomb, and it would be harder to hide, Kelley argued. It would take five to 10 years to build a plutonium reactor, he added.

In contrast with a fission bomb, a “hydrogen bomb would be incredibly complicated,” Kelley said. “No way in the world would (Ukraine) be able to create it,” he added.

Kelley also said that Ukraine might be able to create a crude nucleardevice without assistance from other countries. For a more complex nuclear weapon, it would have to buy technology abroad, he added.

A Russian nuclear expert and a Ukrainian nuclear expert both confirmed to the Kyiv Independent that Ukraine is capable of producing a nuclear bomb, adding that it would likely take years. The Russian expert was speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, and the Ukrainian expert was not authorized to talk to the press about the issue.

“Ukraine would certainly have the knowhow and resources to become a nuclear weapons state if it made the political decision to do so,” Lavikainen said. “The technology required is not out of reach for many countries, and certainly not for Ukraine since it housed crucial elements of the Soviet nuclear weapons complex when it was still part of the USSR.”

“Ukraine could develop both nuclear warheads and carrier vehicles since it possesses the necessary military industry, uranium deposits, and nuclearenergy sector,” Lavikainen continued.

Nikolai Sokov, a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, was more cautious, saying that creating a nuclear bomb “is not impossible” for Ukraine. But, it “will take years, a lot of money, and most likely external support, at least on the equipment side.”

“Ukraine does not have the industrial capacity to manufacture and maintain a nuclear arsenal; it does not have fissile materials, enrichment capacity, plutonium production, most of the elements that go into a nuclear weapon capability,” he added.

Liviu Horovitz, a nuclear deterrence specialist at theGerman Institute for International and Security Affairs, also said that Ukraine faces challenges if it decides to create a nuclear bomb.

“Ukraine surely has the scientific prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program,” but “acquiring the necessary fissile materials is neither cheap nor fast nor very easy to do in secret,” he added.

The nuclear weapons expert who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the most primitive nuclear bomb program focused on uranium centrifuges could cost around $100 million. A plutonium bomb program would cost around $1 billion, he added.