GeneralNathanJessup

GeneralNathanJessup t1_jaf3ojs wrote

You don't think Dems and GOP had a conference to agree to this, do you?

Of course not. It just happened. Because only one party can be racist at a time.

So before Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Dems were racist, after the Southern Strategy the GOP was racist. Nobody doubts this.

But it leads to some interesting conclusions, which I pointed out above.

Further anomalies are that George Wallace was both racist, and anti-racist, depending on the year. He was governor of Alabama until 1987.

−8

GeneralNathanJessup t1_jaehtca wrote

The Southern Strategy by Nixon in the 1970's forced the Democratic Party to give up on racism.

Sadly, this means FDR and Kennedy were racists, but we can't fight history.

Thankfully progressive Southern States like Alabama continued to have Democratic Governors as late as 2003, which means they only recently became racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Siegelman

And Arkansas only became racist in 2015 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Beebe

And Tennessee only became racist in 2011- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Bredesen

And Georgia only became racist in in 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Barnes

And Mississippi only became racist in 2004 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Musgrove

And Texas only became racist in 2006 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards

And Louisiana has been cured of racism it seems, because they have a Democratic governor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bel_Edwards

Florida turned to the dark side in 1999 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_MacKay

Kentucky has been cured of racism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Beshear

South Carolina became racist in 2003 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hodges

North Carolina is free of racism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cooper

Virginia waited until 2022 to become racist - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cooper

History is a stubborn thing, isn't it?

−13

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8lwphs wrote

Yes, anything over 51% gives the government of Norway control. But they still must pay dividends to the Hedge funds that own the other 33%.

And no, those dividends paid to hedge funds do not benefit the people of Norway at all, and that was my point.

Do you think it strange that private investors and hedge funds can invest in Norway's "socialist" oil company?

1

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j9nc7 wrote

I do understand that. That's why I told you that Venezuela's government was the sole shareholder of PDVSA, Venezuela's national oil company.

Not only did Venezuela nationalize all the oil, they nationalized the food, agriculture, electricity, telecommunications, mining, manufacturing, and finance sectors of the economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008

But you probably knew that.

2

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j8swk wrote

By 2012, Venezuela had nationalized the oil, gas, electricity, telecommunications, food, agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and finance sectors of the economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations/factbox-venezuelas-nationalizations-under-chavez-idUSBRE89701X20121008

Norway's Equinor is 33% owned by Hedge funds, like Black Rock. https://www.equinor.com/investors/our-shareholders

And Bolivia was able to Build a skyscraper for the President to live in with all that money from nationalizing the gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Grande_del_Pueblo#/media/File:Plaza_Murillo_.jpg

The largest tin producer in Malaysia is Malaysia Smelting Company, which has never been nationalized, and is owned by private investors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straits_Trading_Company

2

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j5nw7 wrote

>Imagine if everyone in the country benefitted from oil production instead of just a handful of oil executives and shareholders. That would be TERRIBLE

PDVSA, Venezuela's national oil company, only has one shareholder. The government of Venezuela owns PDVSA, all of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDVSA

I am sorry you had to find out this way.

3

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j59fp wrote

The economic sanctions against Venezuela were super sneaky!

The first economic sanctions occurred in Aug 2017 - https://www.wlrn.org/news/2017-08-25/u-s-imposes-first-economic-sanctions-against-venezuela

But these were no ordinary sanctions! These sanctions travelled back in time to 2011 to cause Venezuela to starve way back then! https://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/americas/venezuela-food-shortages/index.html

Even though oil prices were at some of the highest in recorded history, Venezuela was still starving, which is impossible! https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

Then The CIA hacked Venezuela's currency printer, increased their money supply by 1,000,000%, causing the world's highest hyperinflation. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/VENEZUELA-ECONOMY/010040800HY/index.html

How can real socialism^TM ever hope to succeed against CIA currency hackers and imperialist time machines?

3

GeneralNathanJessup t1_j8j4com wrote

Over 7 million Venezuelans have achieved Freedom, by leaving Venezuela. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/venezuela-emergency.html

Venezuela has very little strategic significance. The country is not "on the way" to anywhere. No vital sea lanes etc. Just a bunch of sour oil.

The Middle East is different. The Middle East sits at the crossroads to 3 continents, and is a vital chokepoint for the entire Eastern Hemisphere. Which is why great powers have been fighting over the area for thousands of years.

Also, the United States didn't steal a drop of Iraq's oil, unless the soldiers were sneaking it out in their canteens.

Exactly Zero US companies won any contracts when Iraq auctioned off their oil fields. https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

−1