Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
You are reading right-wing mischaracterizations of BLM. Read their own literature to see what they are about.
The White House is now releasing doctored videos as a pretext to banning reporters it doesn't like, which is amusingly Banana-Republic like, particularly as it's such an obvious and clumsy attempt at deception.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/08/white-house-shares-doctored-video-support-punishment-journalist-jim-acosta/
In the doctored version, it looks like the reporter karate-chops one of Trump's minions. In the real version said minion tries to wrestle his mic off him and he simply struggles to hold on to it. Welcome to the keystone cops' propaganda unit. :D
Paul Joseph Watson (info wars editor) grabbed a ".gif" file from a conservative website (Daily Wire) and applied a "zoom". In all likelihood the creator of the original .gif file (which was likely created for the conservative website) manipulated the video himself by duplicating/replacing frames during the "action" to make the movement appear to be more sudden. The frame by frame discrepancies only occur at the moment of action, making it unlikely it was a result of the conversion process Watson used.
It would be pretty brazen of him to knowingly tweet doctored video. The original editor was clever enough to make very minimal changes, and because of the effect of those changes (makes Acosta look borderline violent) it rabble roused well in conservative echo chambers.
Watson in this case was just as roused as he was a rouser, which was then unwittingly echoed again by the witless white-house.
It reveals one of the frightening weaknesses of segmented network/data-structure that the internet has us contend with. Bottom up information flow (such as a manipulated gif created by an anonymous person and uploaded to a website viewed mainly by conservatives) only tends to reach parts of the network where users already condone, support, or are massaged by the content in question. This means different sets of facts, records, and repositories can happily co-exist by never actually interacting with their contradictory counterparts. That this particular instance of disinformation managed to leak into the mainstream was a matter of chance, and as long as we all get our information from disparate and disconnected sources (with highly questionable incentives) we will continue to form ideologically disparate and disconnected groups.
Trump doesn't care a shit about what is effective in the real life. His supporters want the terrorists to be punished and he wants to look good for his supporters, so he is all for torture. If some "liberal" people are against it because it's "barbaric", they are weak on terrorism. Nevermind how many intelligence professionals say torture is counterproductive in an counterinsurgency, there's allways be the moronic talking head on Fox saying that torture works and that it has saved American lives.
Just remember how Trump said to policemen not to protect the head of a detained person when putting him into the policecar. These issues are just trademark Trump.
I think so yes.
Trump is basically a reality TV President focused on his appearance. The only policies he has pushed through are the tax cuts for the rich and also he has been successfull in choosing SCOTUS judges. That's basically all. And even those policies have been basically pushed by the GOP. Everything else has been more a public show. Yet in our age his supporters can be in their safe space echo chamber of Breitbart and Fox News and believe that Trump has done a lot. And that Trump basically won the midterms.
Those are his legislative accomplishments and judicial appointments, but he's done more via Executive Order, including ordering the relocation of the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and enacting a travel ban from particular Muslim-majority countries (though that demographic fact is purely coincidental...), which has been upheld by SCOTUS, and imposing tariffs on certain goods exported by our trading partners. (I only loosely describe these as "accomplishments.")
1. Support him in measures that both Republicans and Democrats can agree on; come on, there must be a few items there. Also, to provide loyal advice on alternatives to his policies and offer him support (that is, allowing to save his face before his voters and party, by renouncing to something and by "protesting" the measure instead of claiming victory).
2. To provide an alternative that is not entirely reliant on tribalism (identity politics), low IQ discourses and populism. Show some little loyalty to your country and responsibility for the future; and demand exactly that to new Dem leaders. Trump is there becouse Hillary was worse, so bad in fact that even Dems didn´t like her.
The only ones I can come up with that are truly bipartisan agendas for both parties are:
1) Keeping political power to themselves, hence preventing any possible third party to emerge as a realistic alternative to the two of them.
2) Staunch support for Israel.
Quoting DiegoT
Unfortunately the Dems don't get this as they have the Russian assistance that Trump got as a figleaf. The assistance is btw is totally evident, but still...
And yet she still won more votes than Trump. Guess the electorate really didn't like him, then.
And did I read you right that Democrats are leaning too heavily on populist politics? I can't begin to understand where you formed that impression. Trump and his ilk are the populists, not the Democrats. However, I agree that Democrats perhaps lean a bit too heavily on identity politics, but let's not confuse "Democrats" and "the American Left." Democrats aren't even all that Left these days.
Listen to what Mitt Romney had to say about Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpZGR_eTbAI
"the country would sink into prolonged recession."
Keep in mind how wrong people can be, because currently, the opposite appears to be happening..
Populist politics on the contrary is a must for both parties, for any leader in the world really, becouse that´s how you get a majority of voters; most voters are not clever enough to understand politics or anything too abstract, so populist measures are required to draw them to the ballot box. It doesn´t mean populism has to be your real guide for governance, becouse you need to have a more real agenda with what is really necessary for society in your view.
He is more like a tyrant, if you want to compare him with ancient Athenians.
He talks like a tyrant, acts like a tyrant, and gives speeches like a tyrant. At times he even reminds me of newsreels about Adolf.
At any rate that's from a philosophical viewpoint.
While I do agree with him on some things that are problems in the USA currently, such as job migration to Asia, and border insecurity, and high taxes on corporations, I do not agree with him on other issues such as more tax cuts for the rich, challenging N. Korea with inflammatory rhetoric, and separating illegal immigrants from their children.
Since the ACA repeal bill did not ever get to his desk we do not know whether he would have approved or vetoed it. ACA repeal was stillborn from the GOP. The late Senator John S. McCain the 3rd aborted it. In response, the American people in this past November 2018 election voted the GOP out of power in the U.S. House Of Reps. So that issue is a party issue not a Trump issue. And the GOP has now paid for it.
As a POTUS Mr. Trump seems to be using the bully pulpit like a tyrant. Sometimes he gets his way and other times he does not. Still he seems more like a tyrant than like a Pericles or a Socrates.
Um, who did Trump visit first when he got elected President? With Trump Saudi-Arabia got a far bigger friend than any Hillary administration ever would have been. They have played Trump's son-in-law like a fiddle. Actually Trump's other cabinet members tried to have the US to behave as it would have ordinarily done, but Trump sided with the Saudi's and created a bigger mess in the gulf.
And of course even they don't have such influence as Russia has over Trump.
I was responding to point #2 in your above post wherein you implored Democrats to provide an alternative which doesn't rely on tribalism/identity politics or populism. I took this to mean that you were claiming that Democrats promulgate populism.
Lol. Yeah, and there's a huge difference campaign donors and outright and evident corruption of the Trump administration. Once Qatar bailed out Jared Kushner's familys investments at 666 5th Ave, magically Trump went from supporting the Qatari blockade to the totally different stance of being against the Saudi lead blockade. Btw. his cabinet had been thinking of being a neutral mediator between the Saudi coalition and Qatar, but Trump (or Jared) surprised every including the secretary of stat with their different views. Oh, it's just a matter of over 1 billion dollars or so.
The fact is that the Trump administration is the most corrupt administration for a long time in the White House.
Well something appears to have worked in North Korea. They are for the first time demilitarising their border. It's impossible to say if Trump is responsible for the improvement, but his presidency and total change of POTUS policy towards North Korea coincides with that improvement.
In North Korea, Missile Bases Suggest a Great Deception
That's true. The unbuyable can be awesome or dreadful.
sigh
Quoting DiegoT
One certainly wonders whether it's necessary to move to Europe when Europe has had such an historical proclivity to move to us. :razz:
What sort of great measures would you say we quickly take action towards?
I hate the two-party dominance of our system, by the way, because I hate both of those parties.
Well, if the unprecedented 2018 midterm voter turnout is any indication, he's an effective trickster.
Perhaps California is a little bit different from Finland with things like the climate.
.................................................California...............Finland
Average mean temperature.....16,1 celsius...........5,5 celsius
Yearly precipitation rate...........544mm..................600-700mm (half of it as snow)
Of course what Trump is referring to is one popular critique cherished especially on the right. Forests in climates where they turn into tinderboxes because of the warm, dry climate, raking the forest floor is a sound procedure, just like having some distance between forests and urban areas. Yet this way you can blame the environmentalists about it, who obviously want everything to be left in intact in it's natural state, and hence are the culprits if wildfires become really bad.
Controlled burns are the tactic of choice here to eliminate the fuel on the ground. Environmentalists didnt block controlled burns. They blocked the creation of deforested corridors that would have limited wildfires. That's not a rightist meme. That actually happened.
That is hilarious! I live in Oregon a forest and timber state. I would love to see Trump sweeping our forest floor. I don't think Trump has a good understanding of how nature works but he is great for a good laugh. :lol:
I am old and do like the insinuation that being old is being stupid. Yesterday I bought postures to put my wall for my great-grandchildren and one reads...."Not to know is bad...But not to wish to know is worse." That is especially so when the person aspires to be the president of the US. I think only with humor can we find something good in our present situation, and laugh so we don't cry.
Ok, that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it like that.
Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. It's just that some unfortunate people loose their marbles with age. Though, I can't expressly say that it's the case with him.
:rofl: Our understanding is best when we have a good sense of humor.
I have been watching videos on how our brains work and the importance of exercising both our brains and our bodies. There are so many things we can do to improving our thinking- this is true for children in school and for the aged.
Politically speaking, it is how we prepare our young for thinking that concerns me most. I am convinced the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and replacing education for independent thinking with groupthink and leaving moral training to the church, is what lead to the election of Trump and that same education many years ago, in a different country, resulted in the election of someone Trump seems to be role modeling. The other country was also a Christian republic. What made the US republic different was classical philosophy and that was replaced with German philosophy when we adopted the German model of education for technology. Now we want a strong leader who will resolve our problems for us. :lol: Our bottom line is no longer what is moral but the dollar and our personal, short-term wants. Let our grandchildren pay for this and deal with the problem we leave to them. Technology can resolve all our problems and our economy is growing. Don't worry :zip:
Um, outside your home lawn I don't think Finns do that. Of course except for particular nature reserves, the forests are from time to time cut down and managed.
Quoting frankFrank, rightist (just as leftist) discussion points or memes can be fact based. Not everything is make believe. Best propaganda is based on facts: you just pick what facts you want to use.
I'm probably just out of the loop on rightist talking points. Help me out: what's a source for this comment of yours?
Quoting ssu
Yep. Here the ecological succession of a forest takes roughly about 100-200 years. And if you ever have been in a forest that has been left to it's natural state, it's extremely difficult to move in with all the fallen down trees.
Independent thinking without education is even more likely to lead to groupthink, and groupthink has been around since... before the last ice age, at least. A nicer word is "consensus". It isn't just Trump and the Republicans. It's the Democrats too. Both parties (in their varying manifestations) have had a tight lock on politics for a long time. The lock probably got tighter after the Civil War when conservative Democrats took over from liberal Republicans in the south (after reconstruction). There has been a lot of unquestioned groupthink in American politics.
I loathe Donald Trump, but I am not fond of the Clintons either. But remember: Trump didn't win by a landslide, and what made Trump possible is a media culture that has been developing since before the NDEA. It is difficult to disentangle actual, sociological facts on the ground from the various political, social, entertainment, and economic representations of the facts. Take HRC's use of the term "deplorables" aka, white trash. Working class whites--especially the least skilled, least educated, least wealthy, whites--have been white trash since before the English colonization of North America. They might actually be WASPS, but they still count as white trash.
The "deplorables" have, with good reason, developed a lot of resentment against the east coast establishment (whites, almost all) for giving them the shaft over the last 50 years (ever since the post WWII boom ended in the early 1970s). Trump is 100% part of that east coast establishment, just with a lot more crass than class. Clinton would have done no big favors for the white working class poor any more than Trump has.
There were good reasons why National Socialism found fertile soil in Germany. Germany lost WWI and had their defeat shoved down their throats. German resentment was deep. There are 19th century contributions for some of this, like resentments in France towards Germany after France last the Franco Prussian war of 1870. The post WWI period was particularly bad for Germans, and Hitler turned the key. You know, the USA had a strong right-wing reaction after WWI too--the Red Scare. Had we gone into a severe depression after WWI, politics in the US might have been a lot nastier.
But the situation in California is not the same as the east coast or Finland, for that matter. As you pointed out, it's the difference in rainfall, temperature, and climate. Most of California is fairly arid, except at higher elevations (which is where their snow falls, melts, and supplies them with water for irrigation, household, and industrial use.
There has been an extensive die-off of trees from a combination of insect infestations and drought. I don't know whether the age and species of the millions of dead trees would make them economically useful or not, and certainly it would be safer to remove them. But California is a large area, about 164,000 square miles. It isn't all forested, of course, (81,188 sq km, 31,34 square miles are forested) and brush and grasses, which covers a lot of the remaining area, can burn quite hot too, and spread to the built environment. In addition, thanks to plate tectonics, California is a very wrinkled up place, which makes forestry more difficult.
Ugh... I wouldn't want to make moral training the business of the state - any state. I have been on the receiving end of such "moral training" (enforced state ideology) and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's as "groupthink" as it can get. Of course, you will object that good training is not groupthink. But if things always worked out as well as we wish they did, we wouldn't even be having this conversation now. And history shows us that when the state takes moral training into its hands, it's rare that anything good comes out of it, whatever the intentions.
I have read that among the culprits of these megafires are... firefighters. They have been pretty good at putting out small fires over the last half-century or so, which has resulted in the accumulation of combustible material. But really, it's an unfortunate combination of several factors, all working toward the same end.
Groupthink is groupthink is groupthink, whether sponsored by the state, the corporation, the church, the school board, the editorial board of the New York Times, Fox News, or Pravda. Still, some types of group think are probably better than others. I'd like to think that the top Gestapo leaders might have achieved a worse groupthink than, say, the West Cupcake PTA. But... maybe not.
Well, yes -- suppressing all fire has had the consequence of fuel buildup. And drought has made even planned burned fires very dangerous; tricky, at the very least. Insect damage shouldn't be underestimated. Throughout western North America, various insects have been spreading diseases that kill conifers by the million. Global warming has resulted in less winter die-off of these insects.
Trump has a point on this score: if you include where people build homes and towns as part of forest management, then people have been putting themselves in harm's way. Building into canyons, ridges, and mountain sides covered with trees is attractive, if there is enough rain to keep everything nicely watered. Unfortunately, the long hot drought in CA has foiled that part of the plan.
Some people from Paradise, CA are hell-bent on rebuilding. Well, maybe it just isn't a good idea to rebuild in harms way.
Yep. Smoky the Bear fire suppression.
If so, it is possible that Trump will lose the primary and almost certain that he will run in spite.
Then the GOP vote will be split.
The DEM's are then likely to win the White House in 2020.
Truth is stranger than fiction. You simply cannot make a thicker plot than this up.
Trump has got nothing to do with it. He simply made the correct call -- at the worst diplomatic time again as usual. You're supposed to cry and pray for the victims on tv, and then later on make corrections.
Washington D.C., Sacramento, and the City Of Paradise are each and all responsible for their own disasters there.
They say that lightning doesn't strike the same spot twice, which is the opposite of true. An old wartime superstition says that a shell doesn't strike the same spot twice, which is not true either, but at least if you hide in a shell crater, you are better protected from nearby hits. But in this case maybe the thinking is good: all that built-up fuel has burned out and it will be a while before it has time to grow back and dry out. And they could be better prepared next time.
Trump's point was that climate change was not to blame (he is still in denial), and making that point was probably the only reason why he spoke out on the issue at all. He was not wrong (except when he foolishly compared California to Finland), but he was not right either.
Where did you get your information about education? :chin: I have studied the history of education and Germany because we adopted German Education. I am glad to provide references. But I don't think I should have brought up education and the ramifications of change in this thread. I apologize.
It appears the favorite subject of the OP is forest management, not Trump foolishness, and here is a science-based explanation of the problem and what can be done.
https://blog.nature.org/science/2016/08/02/maintaining-healthy-forests-takes-more-than-planting-trees/
According to the article, the problem is in part the result of replanting trees. It has been suggested goats be used, but don't deer live in the forest and don't we kill them? I wonder what good forest management would look like from the perspective the animals that live in the forest? Personally :hearts: I love the notion of living for the good of the earth.
Should I start a thread for discussing what education and the military-industrial complex (New World Order) has to do with being like the Germany we defeated in world wars. I regret bringing the subject up in this thread but think awareness of what happened is important. Closer to the topic, in a democracy, science should trump the Trump. China had a leader who caused great suffering because his good intentions were not supported by science. Mao and his poor advisers lead him to ordering seeds be planted very deep, and the result was famine. This can be likened to Trump's denial of global warming and all the decisions being made that contribute to global warming.
As I understand moral decisions, they are based on science and I regret that understanding of good moral judgment is not shared.
Sure. Correlate that to Jefferson's interest in education, though: dynamic tension between an assimilation agenda and democracy's need for educated voters.
Granted, I haven't taken any classes on comparative American/European education systems. As far as where I got such information I have... I suppose just being in the education system as student or worker for quite a few years was a source. Reading about education, of course. Discussions.
I will readily grant that the American education system (K-12, particularly) is aimed at several quite unofficial goals which dominate: training students to be compliant, adopt the mainline Corporate-American view (what you are calling groupthink), giving them minimal literacy skills, and so on. College is generally more demanding. But there are two educational systems: one for maybe 10-20% of the students who will become elite operatives, and another for the 80-90% who will be cogs in the system. Cogs -- if they are not too unlucky. The really unlucky ones won't even be cogs.
I started first grade in 1952; Things have changed quite a bit since then--like, gotten worse. When and where do people break out of the groupthink mold? Well, some do it in college to some degree; some fall in with radicals of various kinds who crack open the mold; some people are natural rebels; some people have horrible disillusioning experiences which break the mold. Had I not gone to college, had I not met some left wing radicals after college, and so on, I too would have been lost to groupthink. Well, us enlightened few just have a small set of group thinkers.
Quoting Athena
Yes, why don't you do this. I'm a little doubtful about the German nazi era being all that similar.
I don't think deer are a big factor in the California forest. A saw a figure of about 500,000 deer population in northern California. Minnesota's hunting harvest is about 300,000 -- never mind the population. Deer don't clear the forest; they don't eat small trees, bark, etc. unless there is nothing else. In southern Minnesota, especially, they have very refined tastes, preferring to eat ornamental plants and gardens in the summer, corn in the fall, and then... various stuff in the winter. A lot of people feed deer, or the deer join cattle that are fed outside. And people feed them, so they come around which people like to watch.
Goats would work, I suppose, but not during a severe drought when nothing much is growing. Goats also tend to eat down to the dirt -- which was a problem in the ancient world; where a lot of goats were raised, there tended to be severe soil erosion because the goats grazed too close to the ground.
There are limits to what can be done; many forested areas in the world are flat and working on the ground is relatively easy. California is very wrinkly (thanks to plate tectonics) and many of the hill/mountainsides are steep and high. The insects killing the trees (by spreading diseases) are very hard to control over the western-continent sized area of the western US and Canada. Global warming is going to aggravate drought and insect infestation.
"they have very refined tastes, preferring to eat ornamental plants and gardens in the summer, corn in the fall, and then... various stuff in the winter."
:lol: Yeah, I know. I once drove for meals on wheels. Several of my stops were up the side of a mountain and I learned the only flower these people could have is the rhododendron. The deer are very bold standing their ground with their young, munching on the nicely watered grass, and casually looking at people who drive up. Another problem these people on the mountain have is the trees planted when their homes were built, grew and now block their view of the valley. By law, they can not remove these trees. Sometimes, too much of a good thing isn't good. :rofl:
I love your explanation of the different animal gracing habits. I think that would mean smaller groups of goats moved frequently and maybe being selective in where they are used. Like I to daydream of having a few goats and spending my days watching them. But with this old body that may not be practical. However, for the young, living in the forest with the intention of keeping it healthy and going on a spiritual quest maybe ideal.
Our lives built on an industrial economy have advantages and disadvantages. What if some of us could be devoted to other things, like nature and our families? Wouldn't it be nice to experience living for something else rather than a paycheck and material things?
Okay, I see Deigo T also made a cultural statement that would be fun to chew on. I like Frank's suggestion of beginning with Jefferson's interest in education. :grin: I feel like a kid in a candy store and there is too much to choose from but it all is the same. At least we all are western civilization and this is different from the east. But Islam is more western than eastern. :chin:
It is done. Look for Education, Democracy, and Liberty in the political philosophy forum.
Berlusconi. Enough said.
Quoting DiegoT
It helps to be specific here. Which European countries are you talking about. The Netherlands has its problems but it's functionally a better democracy than the US. Is the overwhelming overrepresentation of certain US states per capita in the senate democratic? Is it democratic the person with a majority of votes loses an election? Etc.
You're offering up statements pretending they are facts.
Elections are important, but isolated they are meaningless. And they are only a minimum: together with paying taxes, it´s the least a citizen can do to satisfy his duties to the regime. Democracy properly understood in societies with masses of hundreds of millions of citizens, it´s a system that tries to afford as many personal differences as it can without jeopardizing the system, and implements channels for those differences to communicate with the system and contribute updates that in its turn influence the internal and external behaviour of a society.
It is comparable with our living bodies, as our trillions of cells, bacteria, viruses all have their say in the analysis of the state of the whole and its behaviour. Of course, some cells matter more than others, and neurons or bacteria in the gut have a greater influence in our thoughts and emotions than red cells or bacteria on our skin (unless there´s an illness). A system where everybody has the same weight in decisions is not democracy, is an indiferentiated expanse of plankton. That is why elections and taxes must be the bottom level of common participation, but then there are other paths a citizen can use to participate more if s/he is committed more.
In these other paths, the United States is traditionally stronger than Western Europe; freedom of speech, economic enterprise, judicial system...
What's meaningless is the above two paragraphs.
Quoting DiegoT
Again a statement based on nothing. What are you banging on about? Western Europe should introduce freedom of speech for corporations? Western Europe should do away with the social security it provides its citizens because it will improve GDP? Western Europe should appoint judges who lie on the record to their highest courts? Exactly what is your point? Or are you just disgruntled because of all the problems in Spain? Or perhaps specifically Catalonia?
Is it? At least the US is more corrupt than many European countries.
By the Corruption Perception Index, the least corrupt states are in order (with European countries in bold):
1. Denmark
1. New Zealand
3. Finland
4. Sweden
5. Switzerland
6. Norway
7. Singapore
8. Netherlands
9. Canada
10. Germany
10. Luxembourg
13. Australia
14. Iceland
.
.
.
18. the USA
Then there's the Democracy Index. That goes the following (again European countries in bold):
1. Norway
2. Iceland
3. Sweden
4. New Zealand
5. Denmark
6. Ireland
6. Canada
8. Australia
9. Finland
9. Switzerland
11. Netherlands
12. Luxembourg
.
.
.
21. the USA
Now what is 1st or 4th on that list doesn't actually matter much, but what countries are in single digits and what is 18th or 21st the differences do start to show. And do notice that it's the same countries on top of both charts as corruption simply means that the country isn't a democratic justice state. (The only exception here is Singapore: doesn't have much corruption, but cannot be said to be very democratic.)
Then you have a bi-party system. Is that truly democratic when you have the political parties that can be able to be in power one centrist-leftist leaning party and a far-right party (by European standards)? Is it real democracy that Americans don't even believe in third parties being able to make it to the Congress and act as a viable alternative as the two parties have made it so difficult? And how do you argue that freedom of speach is so different in the US from Western Europe?
The only reason they still get to 21 is because most of the corruption in the US is legal.
I agree.
Of course Trump has a history of attacking the justice system, yet Roberts argument of there not being "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges" does sound little bit funny especially after the last SCOTUS appointment. Unfortunately the faith of Americans in the independence of judicial branch has for long been eroding and not only because of Trump.
I just can't help adding seventeen and six and getting twenty-three on this one.
Trump the guy in tv shows and public soirees can be laughed at, but Trump the President, like any other American president, needs citizens that aren´t stupid all the time and whining all the time. Both Republicans and Democrats need to support him and his government, especially in difficult measures, and stop watching TV showmen and movie stars that for some reason think they know about how to run the country way better than the average citizen while their real lives are managed poorly.
Stop being so decadent. Save your country people. And for Dems in particular: if the next president is a Democrat, how will you like that Republican voters behaved with her like you behave with Trump? Would it be "okay" to call the next Dem president "Orangutan", "Nazi", "idiot"? Grow up for God´s sake.
Looks like Mueller's got a lot of evidence. And now, Manafort's cooperation, even if it wasn't a charade, would be moot.
It's normal to have policy disagreements. Surely you aren't expecting us to support his nasty rhetoric, like name calling, or his labelling unflattering news as "fake", or proclaiming the press the "enemy of the people." You can't expect us to support his disdain for the rule of law.
Respect the office? Sure. The office is bigger than the man. What else?
If Trump makes good reasonable decisions (rule of thumb: any political measure a Hollywood star doesn´t like/understand will probably qualify as such) he needs your explicit support. If he can do better, he needs to be told so politely and recommended an alternative path. A president with a very hostile opposition is be forced to "retrieve" to identitarian and populist measures and rethoric; a leader who can count with support from his antagonists now and then has more political margin to implement plans that are not "so safe". The real freedom of action of a president is always smaller than we think. And it has to be acted upon options only an elite can really see, because most of us simply do not have the real information. There´s so much intelligence, data management, hidden agendas, projection of scenarios that need to be taken into account, that I wonder how on Earth can we suppose that we know better just by half-reading a digital newspaper or watching the telly.
Politics is social Ethics. In real ethical practice, you do not have ideal dilemmas, where all imaginable options are available and their outcome is certain and clear. What you get is a very narrow set of real choices you have to ponder assuming many risks. In Politics too you have very very few real options, and you try all the time to minimize risks. Only real mad leaders, good or evil, take many chances. Most leaders, good or evil, are compelled to choose among paths they would not even consider in their previous lives.
A wild, rabid opposition like the one you are giving to Trump makes Trump´s mandate a lot worse, with less options available, and an increased political risk in all of them. That way, you are getting the worst Trump you can get, the version that can survive in such insane climate; always defensive, always suspicious, never confident that he can get any speck of support from anybody but his fan base that is always hungry for shocking statements. This is no good. It´s time to give the man a break and try to make the most of his years in office.
I´m neither conservative nor progressive, I quitted, really quitted for good this bidimensional political plane seven years ago. I´m not taking sides with Trump or with the Republican party; I just want the United States to continue in existence because Europe is falling and some part of the Western civilization needs to survive. If that loony Ocasio Cortez or another candidate became the next president, my position will remain the same. Precisely because the Office is bigger than the person and Society and its future bigger than the Office.
Trump makes no attempt to achieve consensus or compromise. He bullies, makes threats, and denigrates those who disagree with him daily. Much of his behavior is inexcusable, and what I think is absurd is that people defend his behavior just because they like his policies. Everyone should recognize bad behavior and call it out, even if that behavior results in policies they desire.
During the campaign, supporters extolled his willingness to be "politically incorrect." They didn't seem to realize that this guaranteed he would piss people off and they would react.
Two wrongs don't make a right. We should not respond to bad behavior with more bad behavior. But we should still call out that bad behavior.
I would be happy if Trump's policies have a positive impact, even if they are policies I disagree with. I'm doubtful, but I will give him his due if it works out. But it will never be OK to be a jerk.
If I voted in a Chimp for President, I would not defend his throwing his shit at people despite that being Chimp-normal. Trump supporters should not defend Trump's shit-throwing either, even though it is Trump-normal.
You know I´m not asking for inconditional support for any president; please read again.
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/11/28/growing-calls-for-guardian-editor-in-chief-to-resign-after-the-paper-publishes-massive-fake-news-story/
I'm holding my breath, and exploring possible worlds...
For what it's worth, I'm not pulling for Trump to fail. I related this in a post I made awhile back (here).
Think we could figure out a way to get that million bucks?
In fact, usually newspapers are rarely good sources of facts about the world; most they can do is to alert you that something is going on somewhere, so that you do your own investigation.
Translation: The Guardian writes stuff I disagree with.
Quoting DiegoT
Translation: In fact, most newspapers write stuff I disagree with and I only trust my own opinion any way.
I think there's a serious problem with The Canary if they trust Ray McGovern on the "forensics" of the Democractic hack. They say: More details here: Democratic party data was leaked not hacked
This has already been extensively discussed by Michael and me when arguing with Raza in this thread from page 67 onwards.
Well the Guardian is fairly reputable, and two sources is better than one, whereas the Canary is new and 'radical', and that article seemed to be sourced mainly in tweets. Still, the story is un-confirmed elsewhere, and the meetings denied by both parties. It would 'make sense' to Trump conspiracy theorists if it were true. And it would 'make sense' to Canary radicals if it was part of the Guardian's propaganda war on behalf of right-wing Blairite revisionists.
I'd imagine if there were meetings, there would be video images from security cameras, plane tickets, etc. I dare say such supporting evidence will be published or appear in a court-room if the story is true. In the meantime, it seems fair to put both links and let folks pick the one they prefer. Of course they are both 'socialist' so you may like just to laugh at the infighting of the fakers...
Personally, I think the Canary is well named. Every truth-miner needs a canary, and as long as the canary sings, all is well, it's when the canary dies that there is trouble down 'tpit. And meanwhile, one does not take much mining advice from the canary.
Yet the unfortunate fate of many nowdays is that they are totally complacent and happy to stay in their own echo chamber, which enforces their own views. They can do this and refer only to that the media "is biased". True Trump loyalists are the perfect example of this. Anything related to the Russia inquiry is dismissed as fake news, hence they don't have any reason to follow what is happening in the Mueller investigation. And with the "Trump is Hitler"-people the simply fact to be understood ought to be that one man doesn't make an administration.
Truth to that
murky and ambigous world.
All tongue in cheek of course. Couldn’t care less.
All though the bit about the canary calling cat is interesting.
Well the Guardian is fairly reputable, and two sources is better than one, whereas the Canary is new and 'radical', and that article seemed to be sourced mainly in tweets. Still, the story is un-confirmed elsewhere, and the meetings denied by both parties. "
The important thing is that we ahould not treat the claim of meetings as fact. Even if true, it will only be relevant if there is admissable evidence for it. We have to wait for Mueller's report to know what what facts can be established. In the meantime, we just have these little tidbits, that may or may not pan out.
I don't get how Trump, or Republicans, or anyone else, can think that the Republican plan is an improvement on, or would do more good than, Obamacare.
The Republican plan scraps mandates for having or offering health insurance and scraps penalties for non-adherents, it makes it possible for a state to waive mandatory coverage of certain health conditions, it makes it possible for a state to apply for waivers that allow them to drop coverage for maternity care, introduces changes which would see reduced government support for Medicaid and tax subsidies for individual's purchasing health insurance.
Why cut government support at a time when the US economy is doing well? Why expose more people to greater risk? Why transfer powers to determine policies on healthcare coverage from the government to individual states or employers, when that increases the risk of inadequate or exploitative policies? Why do they want less people covered or supported?
Government organized healthcare smacks of socialism. It conflicts with the conservative's small government/survival-of-the-fittest attitude.
Medicare is central to American healthcare. It will begin falling short financially in a few years, so change is on the horizon. Inteligent people would start planning decades in advance for the change. Not us. We'll just face-plant into it.
I love your relating democracy with biological function. Have you read John Dewey a past expert on education? He speaks of an organic democracy and the transition to a nuclear state. The US is experiencing an education problem that shifted its organic democracy to a nuclear Military Industrial Complex. So many people are writing about this now, but none of them have studied the history of education so they are not mentioning the most important part of the ramifications of replacing liberal education with education for technology and what military technology and corporate interest have to do with the transformation.
I am afraid Bill Gates is misled when he pushes for education for computer technology over education for being humans living in human communities. Surely computer technology can improve our lives, but not if we do not develop our independent humanness and sense of our responsibility for the present and future. Our trust in technology is no better than our trust in a God. We need to trust ourselves and each other.
What I want to know is, if a law saying we must have medical insurance is unconstitutional, is it also unconstitutional to have a law that requires us to have car insurance? I remember when having car insurance was only a good idea to be covered in case of being sued. It was not a law that we had to have the insurance.
In a democracy, perhaps we all want to own a hospital? Why have an insurance company instead of supporting the medical facility a community needs directly? I think our reasoning is as silly as not having a community paid water supply and sewage system and making water and sewage privately owned and controlling who gets water and sewage who does not, by the person's ability to pay for it. I know we pay for water and sewage but not the same way we pay for medical care. The internet and medical care and our education should have more of a utility mentality behind it, that a private capitalist mentality.
Why are our taxes supporting a Military Industrial Complex instead of our communities?
My goodness you say such interesting things!
Hitler and Trump are the result of education for technology for military and industrial purpose and Prussia bureaucratic order. It is both that made Germany the New World Order and made the US what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex and the Bush family bragged about the US being in control of the New World Order. This is what we defended our democracy against, now we are what we defended our democracy against and only when we realize, only when our democracy is defended in the classroom, will our democracy be strong again.
With the change in education, it is also very important we replace our autocratic industry with the democratic model. If we did both, return education to defending democracy in the classroom and replace autocratic industry with democratic industry, our democracy would be strong again.
Tell me about it! I wouldn't go as far as scrapping the former, but I would certainly makes changes to how that money is put to use in military matters, and I would divert a significant portion of the funds to support the healthcare system. It's awful to think that, to give just one recent example, some of those funds, in both the US and the UK (where I'm from), are being used to support the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen.
Comey also dismissed Republican criticisms of how the FBI handled its interview of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the agency and has been cooperating with federal prosecutors. “Oh come on,” Comey said with a laugh. “Think of what’s happening to the Republican party. They’re up here attacking the FBI’s investigation of a guy who pled guilty to lying to the FBI."
Source.
Comey was interviewed on Australian current affairs a few months back. Even acknowledging his hamfisted handling of the 'Clinton email issue' during the election campaign, he came across as entirely truthful, candid, modest and scrupulous. Completely unlike the man he's criticizing.
We are all biased, that´s why we need each other, but ask yourself if you´re just putting too much from you when you guess how I am; after all you don´t know me. It is possible that I´m not like you portrait me?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-agrees-to-shut-down-his-charity-amid-allegations-he-used-it-for-personal-and-political-benefit/2018/12/18/dd3f5030-021b-11e9-9122-82e98f91ee6f_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3daa67ea42c
$7 ! I think this shows the calibre of the man like nothing else - stealing a paltry sum from a charity that bears his own name. He has reached absolute zero.
I lost count on the number of oxymorons there.
By the laws of random chance wacky things are going to happen from time to time. The moment of decision will come in the next election. If he is elected again, then it's totally on us, and our reputation in the world will be permanently damaged.
Quoting LD Saunders
Yes, that's my worry for 2020. I'm not sure the Dems are up to the job of presenting a compelling alternative to Trump.
Here's an example of my concern. I'm not sure the Democratic Party really gets what a bad candidate Elizabeth Warren would be. I probably agree with many or most of her positions. But she projects this snotty, superior dance, moralizing, finger pointing style that is going to turn off masses of people, whatever their views.
Here's a better example. I loved Bernie Sanders. But he immediately turned off my wife, who may be even more liberal than me. The angry old white man always waving his finger at the audience. Good guy, bad candidate. Same for Hillary.
Yes, any of them would be better than Trump. But what the last election proved is it takes more than that to beat Trump.
Ronald Reagan was an example of a great candidate. I don't mean his positions, but his public image. You liked the guy, even if you disagreed with him. Reagan had the two important qualities of a winning candidate...
1) Big ideas
2) Charming personality
If the Dems can't find someone like that to run, we may be in big trouble.
Yea, that could definitely work, excellent point. Let's hope they can find someone like that.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/sealed-v-sealed-robert-mueller-mysterious-case-subpoena?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR1FGFD-VplVZ_ARG1At381qN2akFTa-EXI946zaaXSYJC5ylSYedvyn4Gk
Further frantic looking for reds under the bed led me to this:
https://hillreporter.com/fall-trump-power-rise-rosneft-deal-17323
It's a funny old world where 'commission' amounts to hundreds of millions, and can be just awarded to someone for 'no reason'...
Hey, General Mattis just bailed out of the Trump administration, leaving the Sec Of Def job. NPR has been doing some stories on him as a result and first impression he sounds like a reasonable guy. Maybe him?
I understand that sponsorship and philantropy in (still) English-speaking countries is important, with a religious justification, and opposed to giving all the money to politicians. But there is a better way, which is to allow citizens to decide what to do with the funds. Very often, much less money, but managed through democratic and professional filters is more efficient and useful than obscene quantities pushed into what the philantropist think it is best. Contrary to what religion teaches us, is not "intention" what counts, but the real outcome.
I learnt this in my youth, as a volunteer for a development NGO associated to the Catholic Church. I also taught in schools for a decade and we also had to manage a budget.
Fortunately, Bill Gates donates to so many things that he gets it right sometimes too, asking for strategies and projects worth funding, not letting his personality get in the way.
The problem with renouncing to a national and democratic vision and embracing tribalism, is that the Democratic Party can no longer produce rational candidates or candidates with light skin and Christian or post-Christian background. That is why Clinton did not win: she did not have the support of Democrat voters because her skin was too pale and she was too rational, despite her efforts to show otherwise that ended up taking a real toll on her mind. Her votes were really anti-Trump votes, they did not vote for her.
Democrats can only now produce tribal candidates, which is not the way to win a national election where you need to charm citizens of all colours and trades.
Yep.
Mattis just get fed up with Agent Trumpov. His resign letter tells it clearly: no "Thank You" for Trumpov, who obviously doesn't care about US allies. But Putin is happy; not only the US is withdrawing from Syria, but also diminishing troops in Afghanistan.
And perhaps now Trumpov can finally hold one of his campaign pledges, to reinstate torture, or "enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding and "worse than that". His supporters will surely like that. Whopee!
I predict that John Bolton will be the next secretary of defence.
Interesting. Hadn't thought of that.
Actually no. He said he was going to defeat ISIS and basically he is withdrawing well before that has been truly accomplished.
But guess who was naive? Naturally the stupid bullshitter decided otherwise.
Hence McGurk resigned.
Since October of this year, over 10,000 illegal immigrants have been released by ICE at the Grey Hound bus station with nothing but a bus pass, picked up by faith groups, cared for until they can contact a family member already in the USA or they can chose to leave and live on the streets of our state.
Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at.
Is there a community in the USA that we can direct some of those seeking political asylum?
They are not able to legally work in your community but the government will process their claim ASAP.
April 2016, Trump said, ""We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly, folks. It's gonna be fast. I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."
He did keep part of this promise: he was unpredictable.
In May 2017, he said that in 2 weeks, he would announce his plan. It never happened.
What I don't get is voting for celebrities. He's still "Elite".
He wants 0% interest rates. I think we should save money.
Haven't been keeping up on him much.
What's with his hair? He looks orange...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDTIEcvzXSDS3aDN95U4jPEdPHIL9OGJi
This has really helped put Trump in context for me. So much of Trump's perspective arises right out of the history of NYC. As example...
NYC was established by the world'd leading corporation at the time specifically for the purpose of making money. Profit has been the focus of NYC from the very beginning.
Also, note how the first elected office that Trump ran for was the very highest office. That's very much a NYC mindset, think big.
Also, immigration was an ongoing issue for NYC given that tidal waves of new arrivals from both within and beyond the U.S. continually threatened to swamp the city's ability to serve it's population. Thus, Trump's obsession with immigration does not arise from nothing, but a long history in NYC.
This is not to suggest that all New Yorkers are like Trump, only that Trump appears far less strange when put in to the context he has arisen in.
First, it's important for me to ask this crucial question...
Where is my $%^&%# latte!!!! :smile:
Of less importance is the obvious question which we never seem to get around to asking, let alone answering.
What is the appropriate population for America?
As example, the population of the United States has doubled in my life time. Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much?
The population of Florida where I live is now 4 times larger than it was in 1960, rising from around 5 million to around 20 million.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206109/resident-population-in-florida/
Is that good or bad, a problem or a solution? How much is enough, how much is too much etc?
I don't see how we get where ever it is we're trying to go population-wise if we have no idea what that is.
You mean, a bunch of people within the community cannot handle it psychologically, or...? Over here at least, the stats show that immigration results in a net contribution in terms of the economy and the NHS. Reduce immigration and you reduce the economic benefits and the benefits to healthcare as a consequence. Is it really so different across the pond?
Latinos are the largest minority in the US. We have a very long and happy tradition of absorbing Latinos. At present, Central America is disintegrating, especially in Honduras. This has been going on for about 4 years.
Ok, but what are the limits of this? Should the goal be that the U.S. or Great Britain have as many people as China? More is better, without limit?
Shouldn't we be aiming for some specific population goal which we hope strikes the best compromise between economic benefit and over crowding?
In the wise words of Kelly Osbourne, if you kick out all of the Latinos, then who is going to be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump? :lol:
That's one of those statements which is kind of right, but kind of wrong. Like: ooh, did you really just say that? And [I]right after[/I] Rosie Perez, herself a Latino, said that making racist comments does not help. :gasp:
I'm not sure, but that seems like a more distant concern. [I]Right now[/I], we could do with more nurses, wherever they happen to come from [I]and[/I] a better economy to make better pay and working conditions for nurses more achievable. I don't see how self-harm will help.
1 billion in 1870s, 2 billion 1920s, 3 billion 1960s, 4 billion 1970s, 5 billions 1980s, 6 billion 1999, 7 billions 2009, 7.7 billion 2018...
No one and everyone are individually responsible for global population and resource depletion. No individual American is responsible for our high rate of resource use, but we all are. Individually and collectively we are guilty of too much reproduction, too much resource consumption, and too much CO2. That's the problem: we make critical decisions individually and can't effectively deal with them collectively.
People individually decide to leave Mexico or Nigeria or Syria and walk or paddle, if need be, all the way to Los Angeles, Rome, or London. No one can blame people for wanting to leave shit holes and trying to find a better life somewhere else, but there are global consequences. 327 million Americans use up a hell of a lot of stuff, and 14% or 45 million of us are foreign born. Native-born Americans are fairly close to replacement rate reproduction, so most of our growth -- and increased resource demand -- is from immigration.
But some countries, like Italy, are at or below replacement levels. Good or Bad? For the planet, that's good. Over the long run (if there is a long run) we very much need to lower world population. A good deal fewer than 8 billion of us are more than enough. For individual countries, a shrinking population presents problems: too few young people to do the heavy lifting (production, agriculture, distribution, etc.) and to care for the elderly. Eventually a new equilibrium is established, though. In the meantime...
The northern half of the planet is growing more slowly (or the population is shrinking) than the southern half. As soon as you think of some way to get the southern half to stop breeding... let them know.
:lol: Not yet brewed. Waiting on the frost to melt with a little sunshine before I am venturing out into the desert which is sitting at 35*f.
Quoting Jake
That is an excellent question for the macro level thinkers but what I am speaking of is our ability, as a state which is a collective of communities, to deal with the influx of those in need. We are a giving community but we have our limits.
Quoting Jake
If you could entertain this idea for me, it might show representatively, what I believe is "too much".
If we think of a stable base of a community as a dried out sponge, we are capable of absorbing many, many drops of water without reaching the sponges capacity. Once the sponge has reached it's capacity to absorb even one more drop of water, when one droplet hits the sponge it sends off hundreds of little droplets in every direction of the saturated sponge. The only way for the sponge to absorb more water is to wring it out and then and only then, can the sponge begin the absorption process again.
So to answer your question, how much is too much for my community, my state? It is when one more droplet of water sends of thousands of little droplets out in ever direction with no plan on how to wring it out.
[url=https://postimg.cc/w3D3Pbdx]
Not psychologically and you can leave that notion in your head, from which it stems and stop trying to project it onto others. No matter how many times you try, the spaghetti is not going to stick to the wall. :roll:
What I mean is our resources to provide physical care, medical care, provide mental health care, education and to protect the influx of our Southern neighbors, in addition to the needs of our own citizens who are in their own dire straits has reached capacity.
We have citizens in need like the California community of Paradise, where 196 of their 200 high school athletes, were made homeless overnight. Where the teachers and senior citizens who have nothing and I do mean NOTHING and no time left in life to rebuild. Do they not deserve the financial help and attention that they paid into our society for their whole lives to keep them, the poor elderly off the streets?
This seems a bit out of sorts for you frank, is everything okay?
Send all the newcomers to Montana and Wyoming. There are only two persons per square kilometer in those states, hence a lot empty area for people to fit there. And basically there are so few people now in those states that their objections don't matter (as elections go). And the foreigners wanting to come to the US will think twice before coming to Montana and Wyoming (as New York and California are off limits). And if people Still want to come, well, the two states are in for an economic boom as they have to basically build new cities for the newcomers.
My country is filled with people as there are 16 persons per square kilometer, and Tiff's Arizona (right?) has a whopping 23 per square km. God, you have it so cramped with people there, Tiff.
[quote=Lisa Esposito, U.S. News]As the U.S. braces for a wave of aging patients, and an exodus of retiring nurses, foreign nurses are expected to be needed as much as ever.
"Nurses that migrate to this country have made a significant impact on helping to improve health outcomes, particularly for hospitals that tend to have challenges in terms of building their own nurse capacity," says Yolanda Ogbolu, a neonatal nurse practitioner and director of the University of Maryland School of Nursing Office of Global Health.
Foreign-born nurses make up about 15 percent of registered nurses in the U.S., according to a June 2016 report by the Institute for Immigration Research at George Mason University and the Immigrant Learning Center.[/quote]
From an article titled 'Immigrant Nurses: Filling the Next U.S. Shortage'.
What an odd question. The immigrants who speak English and are prepared to go to nursing school come in legally.
It's not an odd question at all, and your point is completely irrelevant. If you retrace the exchange, you can see that it leads back to, "Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at", which is an argument for fewer immigrants, and fewer immigrants means fewer nurses, and fewer nurses where there's a demand results in a worse healthcare system.
She thinks fewer homeless refugees in Arizona would be good. Immigrants from all over the world continue to be granted citizenship. Some of them become nurses, I suppose.
You aren't helping. She thinks that resources to provide healthcare have reached capacity, and that therefore the current rate of immigration is a problem. I know this because that's what she has said or suggested, and I've been reading her comments. And what she's saying or suggesting in that regard is mistaken, as my replies indicate.
Do you have anything intelligent to add? Are you done sticking your oar in with unhelpful and naive comments?
Well, I think anytime someone's home is inundated by hoards of people who have nothing to lose, it's best to be sympathetic. Maybe consider giving some money to an aid organization. Maybe ask her who that would be.
I wouldn't tell them to stop complaining because the desperate families could be put to work in an operating room.
Your advice is unsolicited. If I feel I need to consult with anyone here about donating to charity, and which charities they would recommend, then I will make that known.
I don't start with the assumption that the current level of immigration is a negative thing. Tiff presented an argument that it is a negative thing, and specifically addressed the healthcare system in her argument. I have shown the problem with that argument.
You haven't resolved that problem.
Simmer down, S. You sound like your head is about to explode.
35?? 35!! You lucky dog, it's over 80 here today. Here in Florida we have two seasons, summer, and Christmas Eve.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I hear you, and that illustrates the larger question I'm asking too. How many people is America able to serve, how many is she willing to serve? We should try to have some idea of that instead of just pushing blindly forward while more communities like yours get overwhelmed. I don't have the answer myself, I have no idea how many citizens is the right amount. All I've got is the question.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yes, how much water can the sponge hold? We should try to answer that question at some point before we find out through crisis.
You're reading way too much into what I said, and that's just another unhelpful comment from you. Goodbye.
I hope life is treating you better since I asked. :sparkle:
Depression isn't an excuse but it does explain the shift sometimes. :flower:
Huu? What? How?
ssu, my voice of reason in arm chair immigration debates. :razz:
I jokingly suggested when I was younger and many immigration waves ago, when our nations borders were patrolled by INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services) that we just give them Jersey while standing among those who hail from Jersey. I am not sure if you have met someone from New Jersey but they are much like me, hailing from Chicago, in that we take our home town very seriously and any reason to get puffed up chest about them and we will. :smirk:
We really did have this conversation but we arrived at the destination of Idaho. Idaho would temporarily make a great sanctuary state. There is plenty of room, no I didn't look at the population count (we were in a bar) and we were going off of well....Idaho.... :razz:
Okay, so we have an actual location for those people we can reasonably take into our society.
Now that we have a place, we need basic amenities of life: shelter, food, health care, education and respected religious beliefs.
Now what? We cannot expect those who arrive with nothing to know the language, know our customs or know our laws, can we?
The "economic boom" that Idaho would experience would be based on what? Need?
We have homeless citizens in Idaho that we already cannot provide for, if building them a city would help, we would have already built one. Building housing is a very short term solution if you have no money to build a city or a way to create an infrastructure to support the city then you cannot provide the basic needs of life for yourself and must be assisted.
How deep does that assistance go? Well if we are in living in a Utopian world, there would be no bottom of the well of assistance.
But we live in reality and a bottomless well of Utopia does not exist on my ranch and I don't know that it exists anywhere in the USA.
However my ranch, my Utopian desires to help all in need does not make my well any deeper or any more productive. In fact, the water well I have on my ranch, I share with my neighbor, it is both of our blessing and liability. Since we are out in the foothills of the mountains, further away from the city we are able to tap our property for water, which (thank goodness) is still wet.
However in the last 2 years there has been a housing boom in the city and the urban sprawl creeps closer and finally into our community. 30 years ago you couldn't purchase less than 40 acres of this desert at a time, which the original ranch owner did and was only able to sell them off at 7 acres at a time. When she first arrived 30 years ago, she had one well drilled for herself which now serves both of our ranches and the livestock we own.
The houses that have been going in the last two years have been zoned as one home per acre, two acres per private well. I am not sure how good you are at math but I can tell you that there is a lot more taps into our water we retrieve from the ground. How long will it take before I turn on the water hose and nothing comes out?
Will the HUGE undertaking of drilling a deeper well be covered under our home owners insurance policy? No Sir. Will the $5000 sitting in the "Water Well Account" be enough to cover the charges for a new well, IF they can find water?
Not a flippin chance since that estimate was given 15 years ago.
Now, some of the homes that were built on an acre or less are promoting "City Water! Luxury Lot!" which means that our community has already reached our well capacity.
It seems stable at the moment but ssu, the ranch up the street has decided to offer up stabling of others horses for a small monthly fee, $200 per horse. It is a screaming deal for those who are paying for hauled water or are paying for city water but for those of us on wells? It doesn't cost a cent for the extra water being consumed when you take a ranch of 4 horses and are now watering 25 horses! Woo Hoo! What a deal for those providing the service! Yipppieeee!!!...…
...wait.... :brow: What used to be a "fair draw" of water for your privately owned horses for 4 has now gone to 25? 25 horses on one well, to be shared by two ranches?
Confuzzled look as to what to do, who is responsible and what laws do we need to put in place to protect such loopholes from occurring with a resource as precious in the Southwestern desert as water?
Who do I go to when my well runs dry? Do I go to the ranch who has 25 horses on their little side business and inform them that THEY are partially responsible for my well going dry and I certainly hope they set aside enough of their little profit to handle the legal proceedings they are going to incur?
Even after my front door rant, even after my being taken away by the local Sheriff for not obeying orders to "pipe down", even after the po-po ride where I am able to make my case and the Sheriff AGREES with me because his ranch has gone dry too, I will still be left with no legal recourse.
Myself, my neighbor and the rest of us ranch owners will have to pay for city water as hauling it will become a novelty. Why? Because if you own horses or cattle you need well water. Not because they cannot consume city water but because no one can afford to maintain horses/cattle on bottled water. That doesn't include the water necessary to maintain the health of the animals, bathing, removing manure from human areas ect.
Now the ranchers that have been here know this, the newbies don't and there is always someone in the neighborhood that is willing to sell their soul to make a buck. When the ranchers well goes dry, he either thins the herd, sells the herd or keeps the herd and sells the farm to relocate further up out of the city.
What do you suppose is going to happen to the ranch up the street that has been stabling/supporting 25 horses on their well and it goes dry? My guess is there is going to be a rash of calls to the horse owners, to come get their horses, which they cannot stable on their acre property that now has a pool in the backyard. What is the horse owner going to do? Pay for the bottled water that they WOULD have been paying for if they had stabled on property? :rofl: Not a flippn chance because they have NO idea what it costs, for they have never had to go without water and frankly, what is happening at the "ranches" who have water wells really doesn't affect them because they have been paying for city water at their property the whole 2 years since they moved out here.
My forecast? When our wells go dry, as they likely will, regardless of the last 30 yrs of never having it lose pressure let alone go dry, those with older animals will likely pay for the bottled water, which they never budgeted for or relocate. The horse owners who were boarding their horses with no water charge will give up the hobby because of the expense and once again our desert will be disgraced with people who let their pets go into the wild to fend for themselves or another 'feeder farm' will appear and stain our animal loving community.
How deep does the well of assistance go?
Maybe Montana and Wyoming have a better idea of how to handle it for what we came up with is not sustainable.
You mean more than usual... ? What happened?
He was only given 1 scoop of ice cream.
{{{Wallows}}} The "shit" is always hitting someone's fan. The trick is to move out of the way of someone else's fallout or learn to run faster that your own shitfest! :smirk:
I promise you, we are all going to be okay. :strong:
Okay but let's think this through before we desire a specific outcome. :pray:
If Muller is able to provide evidence that will give cause to remove the President, as I said before, that would make Mike Pence President, which for me is a scary enough idea but now?
Now? That would make Mike Pence President and Nancy Pelosi Vice President. :scream:
Now that would make for one hell of a shitfest burning in the bottom of a trash trashcan. :fire:
Thanks for the reality check. Pence as president? wow...
Pence becoming President would not result in Pelosi becoming Vice President. She would briefly be the next in the line of succession - while remaining Speaker, but only until Pence appoints a new Vice President and s/he is confirmed.
I don't know how else to explain their complete trust in every "solution" he comes up with, despite there being no evidence of careful study and analysis. This is my main beef with his pushing of a wall. I have no a priori commitment against a barrier, at least in some places, if it will help - and it will not cause other problems (e.g. environmental or stealing personal property). But it has NOT been studied in full, with a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.
Hey Sis!
That would not make Nancy Pelosi VP.
In the event of a resignation or impeachment, the current VP Pence would become President and he would nominate his own VP.
Nancy would not be acting in the place of the VP at all. She'd only become President if Pence cannot do the role. Even during the time that ther is no VP in place, she still would not be VP, but would only be the next in line to be President if something would happen to Pence and there was no current VP.
In short, Pelosi would not become VP unless Pence nominates her to the position.
Here's how it works:
Presidential Succession:
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6, Constitution of the United States: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
In the case that the president can no longer serve, the vice president would serve as president.
If the vice president cannot serve, the line of succession falls to the speaker of the House, then to the Senate president pro tempore, then to Cabinet members.
The Cabinet line of succession is:
1. Secretary of State
2. Secretary of the Treasury
3. Secretary of Defense
4. Attorney General
5. Secretary of the Interior
6. Secretary of Agriculture
7. Secretary of Commerce
8. Secretary of Labor
9. Secretary of Health and Human Services
10. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
11. Secretary of Transportation
12. Secretary of Energy
13. Secretary of Education
14. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
15. Secretary of Homeland Security
The 25th Amendment allows the vice president to serve as acting president temporarily in the case that the president is ill or otherwise temporarily unable to fulfill his or her official duties.
This is the current line of sucession at the moment (things seems to change so quickly this could be out of date as I write this): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession#Current_order
btw... The office of VP was listed as vacant from October 10 – December 6, 1973 until Gerald Ford nominating Nelson Rockefeller as VP.
Meow!
G
Even if a bit off the topic, thanks for writing about reality about ranching in Arizona and the increasing urbanization. At least that ought to work wonders on the price of the land.
Well, I think having a ranch or farm is something that will shrink even further or become a hobby of the rich. Fewer ordinary people will have horse ranches I guess. Farms will change either to huge enterprises with a lot of robots or be tended by old people them who are barely making it. That's why I'm happy that at least I saw in my childhood at our summer place an active countryside with neighbours having cattle and people still living in the countryside. Our summer place, and old farm established by my great grandparents is an old two-story house built in 1914 with some fields and forest around it. Some forty years ago on the road where the summer place is located lived nine families all year around with three of them having cattle and even some horses. Now only two families live there, all the cattle has been sold in the 1990's, and all places kept or sold to be summer places, which is lucky as abandoned house left to be ruined don't look nice. One old farmer rents the fields of the village. You can see the slow death of the countryside, but it's a logical result since agriculture was basically based on substance farming in the 19th Century up until the 1960's. Unfortunately my children won't see it anymore as I did.
I bet in Arizone that's a huge deal for a family that has had a ranch to sell of the cattle and horses and become people just living on a former ranch.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, at least the Mexicans are North American. Their culture (and basically culture in Latin America) is a lot closer to American than European. Far easier to make a Mexican to be a gringo than someone from another continent.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Yep. Increase in population is the most natural reason for an economy to grow. One really has to ruin the economy or simply not have a functioning economy for population growth to be inherently a problem.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
If one thinks that people need help and assistance, then there indeed is no bottom.
Actually I've come to the conclusion that welfare especially focused on some ethnic people is a sort of evil counterinsurgency strategy to keep the people poor, apathetic and stigmatized. And no, I'm not in favour of the eradication of the welfare state in general, but I argue that the promotion of a free and healthy economy with functioning institutions (education, jurisdiction etc.) is the way to go. Unfortunately too many otherwise smart people think that some sort of planned economy is a better solution.
So, yeah, shit is hitting the fan for Trump.
For once, I'm glad we have the Patriot Act in the US.
Then this view shifted toward acknowledging that Trump was indeed talking about an actual wall, but that Mexico would pay for it. After Mexico basically told Trump in no uncertain terms that this wasn't going to happen, their view has shifted yet again to "let's build an actual wall, and we'll pay for it: no price is too high to secure America from the brown hordes threatening this great land."
They have quite a time following their extremely insecure leader. Have just few right wing talking heads saying that he "chickened out" and "gave everything away "to the democrats" and you have the debacle of a tragicomedy that is the shutdown.
The ineptness of Trump to handle anything is present here as other persons would have understood that these right-wing talking heads need far more his approval than the other way around. And that the whole issue isn't any kind of life or death for his supporters, some kind of "No new taxes" pledge that would haunt him.
Perfect example of this is Obama... and his promise to close GITMO. Nope, he didn't close the prison, but none of his supporters cared a damn. They were the first to blame the Republicans for keeping it open and were the first people coming forward to defend him that he tried and hence it's not his fault.
So would it be with this lunatic Wall-thing.
I'm not so sure about that. You should hear some of the Republican politicians grovel before Rush Limbaugh, for instance. Having right-wing media turn on you can likely damage your popularity among conservative voters.
It does not matter who you vote; your next president´s declared mission will be to defend the country and enforce law and order at any cost. It is important that this process gathers a great national consensus and it is done to protect individual rights of the citizens inside. Inside the wall there must be a haven, an oasis for individual consciousness amid the global chaos, and not a prison camp. That is what´s really at stake in North America, Europe, Australia, Japan...
Funny you should mention that, because Mike Pence was a guest on today's Rush Limbaugh show. Pence said: " Thank you, Rush. It’s always an honor. I just left the Oval Office — told the president I was headed to be on your program — and we couldn’t be more grateful for your voice on the airwaves of America every day. Everything we’ve accomplished over the last two years — rebuilding our military, reviving our economy, setting a record for conservatives appointed to our courts, America’s growing at home, we’re standing tall on the world stage — you’ve played a key role in that. And, Rush, we don’t thank you enough. But thank you for all that you’ve meant to this movement and to the progress that we’ve made in this country."
(source)
Ugh. It's even worse than I thought.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Just FYI:
[quote=BBC News]The proportion of immigrants living in the country without legal authorisation has fallen, following a sharp drop in net unauthorised immigration from about 500,000 per year in the early 2000s to roughly zero since 2009.
About 75% of unauthorised immigrants are thought to have lived in the US for more than 10 years.
Immigrants in the economy
Immigrants contribute directly to economic growth - boosting the population and increasing demand for goods and services.
Giving many unauthorised immigrants citizenship and allowing more immigration would raise annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth - the total value of goods and services produced - by 0.33 percentage points over the next decade, the US Congressional Budget Office has suggested. In contrast, removing unauthorised immigrants would lower growth by 0.27 percentage points a year.
This is significant when it comes to national economic growth. A 10-year $1.5 trillion infrastructure investment might boost GDP by 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points per year.
Immigrants also contribute to economic growth in a less direct way.
Although they account for only 18% of workers over the age of 25, immigrants account for 28% of high quality patents - a sign of underlying technological progress, linked to productivity and economic growth.
Output in the economy is higher and grows faster with more immigrants, as they increase the number of workers and productivity.
Immigrant workers accounted for 39% of the increase in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics jobs - rising to 29% of all workers in this sector - in 2010.
Nevertheless, they are most likely to be employed in service occupations, such as chefs, housekeepers and nursing aides.
Immigrants also tend to have a positive impact on US finances - paying more in taxes than they receive in government services, when compared with native-born workers.
It is particularly striking that among low-skilled workers, immigrants are more likely to be employed and less likely to receive government benefits than those born in the US.
Since its founding, immigrants have been an integral part of the fabric weaving together the US economy and society writ large.
Understanding who they are and what role they have in the US can help shape the debate around those who make it their home in years to come.[/quote]
Yet the right-wing media didn't at first like Trump. Rupert Murdoch didn't like Trump and in the first moments of the elections you could see this with Fox hardballing the candidate at first. But then he had to back down and the rest we know.
Normal republicans surely grovel at Limbaugh just like both parties grovel in front of AIPAC. Yet the difference with Trump voters, his base, is that they actually aren't loyalists of the Republican party at all, but people who genuinely thought of Trump being an anti-establishment candidate and would likely turn on everything seen as being part of the old Washington establishment. Add there into the populism the racism and or xenophobia and you have the hard core Trump supporters. The thing is that these idiots haven't run the Republican party and likely won't take full control of the party. Yet having the ability to offset the Republican party leadership, the Bush family and Murdoch does show that there would be the ability to control the talking heads like Limbaugh too.
What I've tried to say that if Trump would posses actual leadership abilities, he could mold the GOP into his own party. The (lucky?) thing is that he is so inept in leadership that he cannot do it. The two years of his administration has shown this totally clear. The party is a disaster just like the White House.
Wouldn't that be true for Europe and particularly for the UK which is leaving the EU in order to avoid having so many immigrants?
There are some downsides to immigration from Mexico -- a low wage area (even more so with countries further south in Central America: A) immigrants who are better off working at low wages in the US but which are higher than in Mexico put downward pressure on wages for unskilled and semiskilled work (possibly for more skilled work, too). B) falling wages are not a boost to the economy, they are a drag which hurts working class people. C) I will grant that immigrants from Mexico -- mostly not legal - do make contributions to the society. They start small retail businesses and restaurants -- a classic step in upward mobility. They tend to revitalize dead commercial areas because rent and property is cheaper in such areas.
A lot of the money Mexicans and Central Americans earn here is actually not cycled into the economy here; it is sent home, where it is a vital source of income for families (and communities).
There is a difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants in their ready integration in society. Vietnamese, Hmong (Cambodians and Laotians), and Somalis have integrated at various rates, much faster than illegal Mexicans. They have, for instance, begun participating actively in public life--running for office, setting up community organizations, and so on. Of course, illegals aren't eligible to run for office and vote, nor should they be.
Boosting the population in the US and Europe is actually bad for the world's future -- the more people living like Americans, the worse global warming.
The thing about GDP is that while it has been growing for the last 40 or 50 years, wages and wealth have been declining for most of the population. So I don't buy the idea that granting citizenship to 10 million illegals and having another 10 or 20 million come legally would actually help the average American. I think it would make things worse.
For example: you can not assume that all people coming to a country are a homogeneous group, where everybody contributes equally and in the same direction to society. Precisely the point of defending borders and expelling illegal immigrants, is to discriminate which people will have a positive impact and are worth taking in, from those that will be a burden or even a factor of instability and will increase crime, that we need to keep out at all costs. You can not put together a legal applicant from Spain who dreams of giving the U.S. another Nobel Prize like astrophysicist Ignacio Ugarte-Urra with, say, a man who comes illegally, doesn´t speak English and who has ten children and two wives and three goats in his country that he hopes to bring to the U.S when he´s legalized. Not discriminating and not selecting among the very different people who wants to come is unjust, unwise, and suicidal in the long term.
I
Translation: I disagree with what the BBC News reports. I don't know your background but it's becoming rather obvious you have a background that is significantly different than the typical BBC or Guardian reporter. What they report isn't fake news, it's a different view. If you want to be heard, you need to listen as well instead of dismissing what others say out of hand.
That said, you've finally written something worthwhile in the second paragraph about what sort of immigration a society should allow and what we should do to avoid influx of people who we don't want as immigrants and how to implement that.
Let's start with the obvious questions:
- fugitives from wars? In or out or depends?
- fugitives from natural disasters? In or out or depends?
- economic immigrants? In or out or depends?
Meanwhile, in the pursuit of economic growth and profit there certainly is an international system in place where production is outsourced at the expense of local low-schooled labour and generally also at the expense of the workers in those other countries in terms of health and safety regulation, work hours and the ability to collectively negotiate pay (and therefore shitty pay).
The West (e.g. Europe and the US) have a fair hand in various conflicts as well whether directly or through proxy wars. I think it is quite obvious such injustices and instability result in bigger immigration flows than would occur naturally.
Immigration policy cannot be disjoined from economic and foreign policy in my view as the alternative would be cracking down on immigration by turning society into a semi-police state.
The distrust a lot of people have towards their governments and the EU at the moment is because nobody is asking people other than the ruling elite (in NL that's white, male, educated, not openly religious, west-NL asking each other what they think and expect about immigration. And if regular people don't trust the government, they'll be susceptible to believing all sorts of falsities. An example in the Netherlands where a woman didn't want a refugee centre housing 600 people because they'd get a job within 4 months at the expense of her foster child who wants to work as well.
So here's a woman (in a wheelchair) who made one of the noblest sacrifices by raising a child that isn't hers yet she's refusing to help others (these were mostly Syrian war refugees) for what are actually rational grounds even if based on wrong facts (refugees don't just get jobs like that).
:roll:
It's consistently rated as number one in terms of accuracy and reliability out of UK news sources.
Quoting DiegoT
I'm curious, who do you think you're arguing against? Who do you think is treating all immigrants equally, irrespective of things like legal status?
I think backgrounds are important as to how to frame arguments and to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Some issues I will not automatically understand because I don't live the reality of being black, a minority, poor, uneducated etc. because of my background. So to me the Guardian and BBC News seem sensible because I share a lot of background with the typical reporter - but it's just a view among many. I read Breitbart as well, especially the comments. It never resonates with me but it gives me some idea of where people with whom it does resonate are coming from. The Democrats just want them to be idiots andracists and while most likely all stupid racists voted for Trump not every Trump-voter is a racist or stupid.
So in daily life I end up talking to a lot of people like me and that way I miss out on the type of thinking of that woman in a wheelchair from my previous post. I watched her on video yesterday with my colleagues and most everyone was laughing because they thought she was so stupid. So if most people with my background look down on people like her as if they don't know what they're talking about and that the "elite" should just educate her because we know better, we're missing out on her view. So we end up writing laws and regulations that benefit the elite as it only addresses elite problems as we're blind to problems other people have. The bureacracy is such that only the elite understands it because it wasn't written or designed for illiterates. So yeah, I think background matters a lot if we're supposed to have a real conversation.
Interesting, by the way, that you mention individual rights. That's a decidedly liberal idea and not typically left. I consider individual rights things that are granted and taken away in the liberal sense. In the "leftist" sense you take it because as people we have that power. And you take it from the government and from the monied elite and the big corporations.
Quoting DiegoT
I was like "that has to be fake news" and googled it. What the hell? How did that (probably) happen?
Lol! You're kidding yourself if you believe that. Your right wing views stand out like a sore thumb. And you seem much more like the UKIP type than the Tory type. More radical, outspoken, knee-jerk views, than moderate, tactful, considered. I [i]would[/I] say that that painting of invaders in one of your previous posts is right out of the Nigel Farage play book - [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=farage+immigration+poster&oq=farage+immigration+poster&aqs=chrome..69i57.8919j0j7&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8]he received a backlash against this one notorious, misleading, and scaremongering poster depicting a long line of immigrants[/URL] - but I think that even [i]he[/I] is a little more tactful than that.
As Albert Einstein once said “I weep for the future”
Anyway, what I'm saying is that a core nation culture puts the brakes on population growth by giving women education, jobs, birth control, etc.
Does thus automatically set the stage for a need for immigration?
Certainly having a fertility rate below the replacement level leaves you with the clear choice of either heading off a demographic cliff when your highest-spending, highest-earning, and highest-taxed age groups begin to decline and your fastest growing group becomes financially-draining retired folks (e.g. as in South Korea http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_business/696800.html ) or allowing your population to be replenished by new arrivals, particularly those from areas with higher fertility rates. The smart money is on the latter option. Relatively liberal immigration policies make a lot of long-term economic sense.
The US is headed in that direction. Medicare funds will start falling short sometime in the next decade, I think. It's mainly due to population growth issues.
Quoting Baden
I suppose if your long-term economic forecast is continued growth, then yes. The problem is that a bearish economy causes frustration. That frustration is looking for a scapegoat. I think it's a mistake to underestimate the potential volatility in it. Standing firm on a principle of pro-immigration (for whatever reason) at the cost of magnifying that frustration may cause more harm than good.
Quoting S
Sure. I don't want to clean out toilets either. But I would if I had to.
Quoting S
The unattractiveness of a given job can't be separated from the wage that will be paid. Supposedly, meat packers have to hire Mexicans to slaughter and pack cattle and hogs. "White people don't want to do that kind of work." One does not need to go back many years (about 40) when meatpacking was a good job that white people were quite happy to do. What changed? What changed was union busting, wage cutting, and conveyor belt speed up. That's when Mexicans started to do that kind of work.
Because of the prevailing low wage level of Mexico (or even more so, Central America) migrants can work at a low wage job here and still make more than they would in Mexico. It's a way of importing 3rd world wage levels into a first world country. (The other way is to move the factory to Vietnam or Bangladesh.)
So, Frank and Sap, what happens to the extra money that's left over? It is part of the flow into the wealth of the top 1%-5% of the world's population. What has happened in the US has happened elsewhere. Capital behaves pretty much the same all over.
Europe and North America are nowhere close to full employment. There are plenty of people capable of doing many kinds of work IF the reward is adequate. People don't like being viewed with contempt, and nothing says contempt like paying people a low wage for work that is dirty and unpleasant.
You would want to clean toilets if the wage and benefit package was excellent, and if the job was structured as dignified safety and health work, which it in fact is. Can we afford to elevate toilet-cleaning and adult-diaper changing?
Of course we can afford it. The money could, would, and should come from that small group of avaricious bastards who presently have among themselves more wealth than the rest of the population put together.
The richest people, let's be generous and say the richest 1000 people, have more wealth among themselves than about 4 billion other people. (According to Oxfam -- which is of course not an unbiased economic reporting service, the richest 8 people have more wealth than a third to half of the world's population.)
Oxfam's figures might be exaggerated, or maybe they are understated. I don't know. But at least in the developed world, it is established fact that the richest 1% (several million avaricious bastards) have the lion's share of the wealth.
If you ask the lions what their share is, the answer is "all of it".
I´m not sure about your background hypothesis. People arrive to the same idea or candidate from very different origins, sometimes with motives that are very personal or local, and the media representations of voters are very stereotypical and simple and only good for easy comedy. This said, what we all suffer are the infamous filter bubbles where different people end up thinking the same and recognizing the same (fictional) reality. A.I. and social media have multiplied this trend until make us all prisoners of our own minds. I do not have social media anymore; not even a messenger. Only emails and forums like this where you can still confront different views, and little by little I´m trying to make my own representation of the real world and cut the strings.
Lol! You're kidding yourself if you believe that. Your right wing views stand out like a sore thumb. And you seem much more like the UKIP type than the Tory type. More radical, outspoken, knee-jerk views, than moderate, tactful, considered.
It might seem the case for you, but it isn´t actually. It so happens that I have a very personal trait that saves me from what you fear might be happening to my political standpoint; let´s leave it at that. I do concede that I´m too outspoken and speak like a jerk sometimes.
It just seems like it would get boring eventually. I have a theory that human civilization is a side-effect of attention deficit disorder.
I was going to say that everything gets boring, but then I thought of sex (good or better), so that's an exception. Eating very good food when one is reasonably hungry also doesn't get boring. One shouldn't confuse "familiar" with "boring". Sex is familiar, even when exceptionally good. Beer is not boring. It's familiar and effective when used as directed. Sleeping well night after night is not boring.
On the other hand, sleeping poorly night after night is imminently boring.
Cleaning toilets? Chuck the church janitor's favorite expression is "same old shit in a new toilet bowl". Chuck badly needs a new job or early retirement. But cleaning toilets is probably no worse than 75% to 85% of all jobs. I've felt like "same old shit in new toilet bowls" about [s]most[/s] all of the jobs I've had, and several of them were good non-toilet-bowl-jobs. 7 years is the max time I've been able to stand any of them.
Imagine being an infectious disease specialist. A doctor! What could be boring about that? Well, one diseased, pus-filled-running-sore-pariah after another for 40 years? Oh yes, very much same-old-shit-in-a-new-toilet-bowl job. One would probably feel like flushing the patients.
When I was in college, we sometimes climbed up into the bluffs along the Mississippi. We found it amusing to roll large limestone rocks (which Gawd Almighty had provided for our amusement) down the steep hillsides. They would pick up a lot of speed and bounce quite high as they traveled down, sometime breaking into pieces which together kept on going. It was a great demonstration as to why a rolling stone gathers no moss. The problem (or the frisson) with this entertainment was that Highway 61 (the same one Bob Dylan sang about) was at the bottom of the hills.
Very exciting as the trajectory of rock and Chevrolet approached the same point. Fortunately they never quite met. But they could have.
We were almost the means by which some killing could have been done out on Highway 61. This was 1964 -- shortly before he wrote the song. Maybe he was in the Chevrolet and experienced a foretaste of his future lyric? Could be!
How do you tell in which bubble someone is in? What bubble you're in? How do you reach people in bubbles other than your own? I think that background is key.
Just how, really, is Trump a "proto-Hitler"?
I don't find anything similar with Hitler when looking at Trump. Has Trump had any kind of ideology and even written a book about it? No, and the art of the deal was written by a ghostwriter who isn't proud of it. War veteran? No. Somebody who has huge megalomaniac visions for his country? No.
Even to say that Trump is the American version of Berlusconi would be far more appropriate, yet Silvio actually came from a middle class family and didn't inherit his wealth.
This is just slapping a term used as a swearword on Trump without any thinking behind it. Just like people put the label "Marxist" on leftist politicians on the other side without any contemplation on what actually Marxism is about.
How do you know that Trump has no megalomaniac visions? This type of person keeps one's visions a secret. That's how deception works, by hiding one's intentions. Trump does it by throwing up a wall of confusion, casting the image that there are no specific goals underneath, that he's confused, will let others lead, and he'll just go with the flow. Don't let that fool you, the goals are there. He's done this all his life.
I hope this festering sore cult group of Trump supporters get a much needed reality check.
Oh, yeah, and the racism needs to be evacuated also.
Yeah, you have to also remember his joke on his supporters about shooting someone in broad daylight and them still glorifying and praising him even after the fact.
It really goes to show what a likeable and caring person he is.
I mean even Hitler helped Bloch and some other Jews he personally knew and liked.
All presidents have showed some sense of humour, and that´s something very commendable about the U.S.A. presidential institution.
Then you must simply not be looking hard enough. Hmm, what possible similarities could there be between a white, male, racist, xenophobic, authoritarian-style leader, with a penchant for hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric, and who calls the media the enemy of the people, and Hitler?
:roll:
Are you serious S? White is a colour, like the skin of albino types in Africa that are killed to perform traditional African rites. Trump´s skin is not exactly that colour. Perhaps you mean he looks European? Like Hitler, but also like Einstein or Erasmus of Rotterdam or Marion Cotillard or Rafa Nadal? Male is a sexual condition, that Trump shares with half of our species (and many other species). We must need males, or Mother Nature would not make that huge investment. Racist means nothing, like xenophobic. These are words that don´t describe reality, they are only a stone thrown at people. Authoritarian-style is one possible style of management, perfectly legal and acceptable so far as it is carried out under the law. As for hyperbole and inflammatory rhetoric; in comparison with whom? Who do you think, among the politicians and communicators criticizing Trump today, is moderate and conciliatory?
Hitler was vegetarian, had a taste for classical music, believed in protecting natural parks with laws, and like Walt Disney or myself, loved Bavaria. What do we say to people who share these interests with the ultimate evil dictator? Are they suspicious? S, please do not use reductio ad hitlerum. It´s not a rational argument.
And this is a huge issue here. You see, Trump started with the dream any President would have, a Congress that his party dominated, which itself was totally shellshocked from his candidacy and election victory and totally. Imagine what a authoritarian who wasn't as inept could have done.
Even the whole Russia debacle would have been confined to a scandal pondered among the intelligence circles and later historians would likely not have become an issue if moron Trump wouldn't have personally made it an unavoidable result with firing Comey and then personally admitting that he did because of the Russia investigation. The fact is that otherwise the FBI would have made a report that, Yep, Russia was active, and that would have been end of that and ended a year ago or so.
Hence the inability of Trump makes the Hitler reference, even if you talk about a Proto-Hitler, highly dubious in my view. Or simply just uninformative. Bush Jr came and went and got us the Patriot Act, but that didn't turn the US into the Anglo-version of the Third Reich. Basically Trump's narcissist egotism and ineptness makes it impossible for someone like Dick Cheney to operate behind the curtains.
Quoting tim wood
UUUuuuhhh.... that's a hard one, Tim.
A person with so little of agenda of his own (except his egotism and self promotion) is a hard one, especially if it's even so that "the Wall"-thing was basically made up by his staff to get him to remember to talk about border security. The ignorance of Trump can be seen from his suprise that the chant "Drain the swamp" gathered so much support for him. The thing is, this person is very clueless.
Anything positive? Basically when he got to power, the generals he took to his cabinet with the exception of Flynn weren't such a bad option. Typically a GOP President would have picked lobbyists and clueless neocon politicians to the positions (which actually fill the seats now), but Trump picked highly appreciated generals to the spots for some unknown reason. Kelly for the position of secretary for homeland security (and not the Chief-of-Staff-Nanny) wasn't actually a bad pick, because Kelly had prior been the commander of SOUTHCOM, hence he understood well the situation in Latin America. Mattis was a respected general and McMaster had actually written a book "Dereliction of Duty" how the Joint Chiefs of Staff went along with LBJ and McNamara to the Vietnam war. These generals were basically nonpolitical government employees, naturally favouring the "normal" geopolitics that the US armed forces is for.
Yes, are you? I can barely believe the lengths to which you're willing to drag your apologetics.
(By the way, you can quote someone by highlighting the text, then clicking the 'quote' button that pops up).
But what about all the other big mammals? Elephants, hippos, giraffes. And red isn't the only colour. There are other colours too. My favourite colour is blue. Also, whales aren't as pretty as flamingos.
We can do this experiment: ask an Artificial Intelligence program to guess what those words mean, without official definitions, only by how they are used in real contexts.
I think it is better to talk about what Trump does or doesn´t and explain why we think is wise or unwise to follow that path, and what we would do instead, and why is a better option.
Now given, for example, Trump's comments about Mexicans, and about African countries, I think that there's a basis for accusing him of racism. And given, for example, his sharing on social media of islamophobic propaganda videos by a far right British political party, I think that there's a basis for accusing him of islamophobia, and given...
You get the point, I think. Though I'm sure you'll be able to find a way to explain it all away. But I say there's no smoke without fire.
It is a risk to have such a person as president. I am wary of his judgement on important matters for these reasons and others.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/white-house-rejects-supremacist-label-no-one-has-done-more-than-trump-to-prove-white-people-are-not-superior?fbclid=IwAR0oSiDcy5OO8EYTWZkOjaCrbzWQ2uHK8RVK6ur58qsSeMGErp9V1XrOYVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVKpM6d3xow
https://www.deviantart.com/saint-tepes/art/Cannibalism-World-Map-284854822
No. This is an example of racism. It's a fitting word to use.
(Your link is dead, by the way).
Why is it racist to observe that in-group preferences exist?
Wrong question. The question would be: why was it racist to claim that the judge had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation, given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association (which Trump wrongfully casted as strongly pro-Mexican)? It was racist, because the evidence suggests that it was a judgement based on prejudice more than anything else. His Mexican heritage is irrelevant. It's not, in itself, by any means sufficient grounds for accusing the judge of not only having a conflict of interest, but an "absolute" conflict of interest. And his other excuse has been found to be a weak basis for that judgement.
And we shouldn't just take this in isolation. Look at what else he has said and done. Remember, "They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"? Remember, "shithole countries"? Remember his involvement in the birther conspiracy?
Do in-group preferences exist?
So, you think questioning loyalty in general, is racist?
Sure, because they give the Ellis Island Medal to racists.
Sure, because they give the Nobel Peace Prize to... wait... :chin:
Obama, a man who had no sex scandals, was never accused of sexual harassment, had two children with the same woman, couldn't crack 25% white evangelicals.[/quote]
Wait. People from certain countries don't want/believe/share democratic values, respect law, human rights and in top of that don't have abstract thinking skills? Which countries are those?
Evangelicals are cynical hypocrites, what's new?
At least the Mormons don't like Trump as much.
(Of course that may be thanks to one Mormon Republican politician being against Trump.)
Maybe it was Obama's other scandals, failures, debt, and wars that the *White* evangelicals disapproved of?
Quoting ssu
Perhaps when their children are brought back from war in Syria, they might like Trump more.
Welfare provision acts as a magnet for poorly educated, low IQ migrants, and if they are illegal immigrants, they by definition don't respect the law. USA has over 10 million illegal immigrants, which costs the country in the order of $100billion, though Trump may be right and the figure could be $250billion annually.
Please provide a source for this claim.
It's not a secret, and there are many sources. The number of illegals is 10 million:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
https://www.statista.com/topics/3454/illegal-immigration-in-the-united-states/
They are a huge burden on USA, costing $70,000 per illegal during their lifetime according to this:
https://cis.org/Camarota/Enforcing-Immigration-Law-Cost-Effective
An annual cost of $135billion according to this.
https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers
What part of "non-partisan" do they not understand?
Federation for American Immigration Reform? Gee, that sure sounds impartial. Oh, look what I found. What a surprise. :meh:
But a little thought reveals that most of the education budget goes to wages for teachers. Indeed most government expenditure is wages, and what is not spent on wages is spent on products of waged work.
But all these payments are billed in these estimates, not to the people who receive them, but to the people who 'should' pay for them. People who work for government are not the beneficiaries of government. Really?
The calculation of who is a net contributor or a net drain on society needs a little more care, and a lot less smug complacency on the part of the :- well are they the well off because they work so hard and contribute so much, or are they privileged beneficiaries?
Sure, everyone who wishes to promote illegal immigration will rely on their favourite fallacy, but the problem could be much bigger than official figures suggest.
https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/yale-study-finds-twice-as-many-undocumented-immigrants-as-previous-estimates
Now pull the genetic fallacy on Yale.
The figure is $18billion a year on healthcare for illegals.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2018/02/26/how-american-citizens-finance-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/
We've thus far been provided with a mixture of credible and highly questionable sources. How do I know that he's not just cherry picking? Is it really worth the bother of further investigation, when he has already given us good reason to be suspicious of what he's bringing to the table on this topic?
The problem is the exact opposite of what the official figures suggest, because the officials take care to make the figures show them in a good light, and load their own benefits onto the poor as cost that they, the poor, fail to make.
Imagine a wonderful country where all the poor are somehow disappeared. Plenty of tax-paying bankers, teachers, policemen, politicians, entrepreneurs, and so on, and none of the terrible drain on society of cleaners, fruit-pickers, packers, and so on. It wouldn't last two weeks. Who suffers when the government shuts down?Is it the illegal immigrants, losing all those benefits they are getting?
So if the number $100 billion is inaccurate, as you imply, why the arbitrary raising of it by $150 billion, instead of lowering it by that amount?
I provided a link to a study that the annual cost of illegals is £135 billion. There was a study in 2013 that put the cost at $54 billion. A lot will depend on what is included in the estimate. But if you accept the study which found that illegals cost $70,000 per head in their lifetime, excluding costs of their children, then a figure of $100 billion is of the right order of magnitude.
The cost of a wall is a drop in the ocean compared to these costs.
But notice that you repeatedly overlook the illegal part of illegal immigration and respond to just immigration. Why should we all be in favor of completely open borders the way you apparently are?
With all due respect and stuff.
This Wikipedia article [/url] provides a balanced analysis.
That's a complete straw man, and I shouldn't have to keep clarifying that I'm not of this extreme position that yourself and others are hastily confronting me with as though I'm responsible for defending it.
Here's a tip. Look at what I've actually said, as opposed to what you're imagining might be my position, and base your questions to me on the former instead of the latter.
Of course, within reason, and so as not to override other priorities higher up the list. Which obviously means that I'm not necessarily in favour of spending shit loads on a massive wall.
There's a glaring fault there. Would you trust this demon worshipper with the care of children with Down's syndrome? "No" should be your answer. So, should we trust Trump with the presidency?
Britain doesn't need a wall.
Very funny. But seriously though, have you seen the state of disrepair that Hadrian's Wall has been left in? It's a disgrace, I tell you. Let's make Britain great again.
How about let's not cast baseless smears just because we don't like secure borders?
Mexico has one, and no one is calling them racist for constructing it.
It's not baseless, but it's relatively unimportant whether or not Tump is a racist in his heart. What's important is that his rhetoric appeals to racists, and it repels those of us who are not:
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Before I answer, I neet to know what he wants to do with Down children
Let's not cast baseless smears? But aren't you defending Trump? :chin:
Or is it okay when he does it?
I don't know, you'd have to ask him. But bear in mind that you already know that he's the kind of person who thinks that it's acceptable to sacrifice Down children to Azazel, demon of the desert and all that's hot, in order to prevent climate change.
Even if he told you that he wouldn't sacrifice them, you'd believe him? That you'd even consider it speaks volumes.
Admit it. This was a silly rhetorical point that you didn't think through, and it has backfired. You don't [i]have[/I] to bite the bullet, you know?
My cat. She isn't very intelligent, she can't speak any English, she sleeps through much of the day, and she shits in a litter tray, but she would still make a better president than Donald Trump.
Well, there's John McA...ah, never mind.
Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, John Kasich, Will Hurd, Rex Tillerson, General Mttis, John Kelly -
more probably if I though more-
But the more important question to me is why aren't these - what I think are good men and women leading the charge against this disgrace we have as president of the US - We need strong and respected moral voices from the Republican party - but so far have very little.
You are being naughty...I did not say "countries", but individual people who can move around. It´s your ideological defense filters talking, because deep in your brain you know what I mean and you agree. The filters will prevent this realization (for now).
Your line of reasoning led you to that conclusion, so I don´t blame you
Yea, Palin sucks, but nobody's perfect. It doesn't mean that he was so debased, crass, and opportunistic that one ought not to consider him a "real American," or anything. For one thing, no matter Trump's efforts to smear him, McCain was a genuine war hero.
agree -
Well, re: Powell, there was the whole "making a case for Iraqi WMDs in front of the UN" thing.
McCain regretted picking Palin (see this). Admitting to a mistake is a sign of both intelligence and humility.
So, you're saying that the context in which you were discussing is irrelevant? Trump talks about "Mexicans" and you say it isn't racism but do agree with the underlying principle for his policy proposals, which is to keep out people from a specific country: Mexico. Again, which people from which countries have these problems or be clear about what you mean exactly which has the appearance of something I will probably disagree with but not because of any filters but because you so far suck at making a coherent argument even when I ask for a clarification.
If it's a negotiating tactic, then it's a bullshit negotiating tactic, like holding a gun to a person's head is a bullshit negotiating tactic.
It's xenophobia. But whatever. It's quite clear taking everything Trump has said and done that he is indeed a racist. You know, those people who don't accept the science that there aren't any subspecies.
But let's go back to what you thought was the underlying principle that people from certain countries (since you agreed Mexicans should be kept out) don't share certain characteristics to support civilisation. Which countries are those?
China for example. It doesn´t mean that individual Chinese people can´t be civilized; but their society is totally beyond that and it actually shows when you have friends that were actually brought up there. The pillar of civilization is citizenship, the institution based on people contributing individually to their society, from their own point of view, with their duties and rights. This essential separation has been destroyed in China; The citizen doesn´t exist, only small human incarnations of the super-structure. The individual is only valuable as a cell of the system, the use for the regime; you are Chinese, but you are not Pei or Lan. Not really. It´s not just the traditional collective spirit of Chinese people; is way beyond that. It´s a game of Sims, with cameras, digital controls, and constant reminders that you don´t matter as a person. If you research the origin of civilization (that is the culture adapted to living in urban environments) the really new, paramount institution is the citizen as a subject of rights and duties, as opposed to a mere part of a tribe or social group.
Chinese people who come to the civilized world, should undergo a de-programming stage, to help those people instead of importing the post-civilized system that is also appearing in other nations. When we notice that Chinese people work even when they should be having free time, we should not praise them, we should realize they have a psychological problem that needs to be mended. They are not happy. Their families aren´t either.
It's a real term. I'm not sure what a shut up word is.
Quoting DiegoT
This is all a matter of definitions which makes it less interesting. You seem to be suggesting people had no rights and duties in tribes, which simply isn't true.
Quoting DiegoT
The issue was Law, secularism, human rights and democracy. Not their perceived psychological problems arising from a different work ethic. I'm just going to ignore this as it's another tangent.
Please explain this list of Chinese people if they are the type of people we should build walls against :
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_democracy_activists
I don't think that is a good deal.
Permanent DACA and path to citizenship might be something to talk about for partial funding for some physical barriers?
It's not a bad PR strategy. But there are serious doubts about whether it can gain any traction.
Is that possible? I thought the standoff was precisely because Trump won't sign any funding bill unless it contains money specifically earmarked for his wall.
The wall will also never be built. Ever. Even if the Dems did give him 5.7B which is just to kick-start it (actual projections range from $10-$60B) the wall will never be built within Trump's Presidency, even if we assume he wins in 2020 and serves a full second term. Any Dem president will immediately scrap it.
That's true. Even if the money was allocated 5billion is just a fraction of the 20 billion or so estimated cost. Not to mention the majority of the border property in Texas is in private hands and would have to confiscated under eminent domain (likely to be many long and costly court cases). So even if he gets the 5 billion only fragments of a wall would be constructed. There are already many segments of wall in place in Arizona, New Mexico and California where the land is mostly government owned. So give him the money if you can get something substantial in return (DACA and TPS).
Drugs come across in legal crossings, through the mail from China or in shipping containers. Drug lords do not transport their wares in backpacks across the desert. At least half of illegal immigrants enter the country on planes with VISAs and overstay and terrorists (with any training or funding) don't hike across the desert either. I have trouble dealing with this crazy situation where reason and facts just don't seem to matter.
The dems need to show they are interested in border security (just not a wall). The wall is a fiction anyway, couldn't begin to get it done for that amount of money and in the time Trump likely has left. Public opinion is not based on facts or reason but on perception and border security is an issue that the left cannot afford to look weak about.
Trump: “DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me...You have these incredible kids, in many cases not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too...I have to deal with a lot of politicians—don’t forget—and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me as I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grand kids and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough. It’s rough, very very rough.”
So it appears Trump really wants to help Dreamers. So how can his offering to temporarily help Dreamers constitute a compromise? Compromise entails giving something you don't want, or giving up something you DO want.
We more or less did it to ourselves, but the majority of voters did not vote for Trump, as Clinton won the popular vote. Recall how Trump was fulminating about voter fraud and how quickly his baseless allegations were dropped. He lies so often, and pushes so many conspiracy theories, baseless assertions and half-truths, that each one in turn is so quickly forgotten, and then it's on the next piece of bullshit. That that we had a sitting American president asserting without evidence widespread voter fraud which tipped the balance of the popular vote - which would be a big deal if true, to put it mildly - would once have struck at the heart of our democracy, but is now a distant memory. It's a new normal, and the new normal isn't good.
There's a lot going on behind the scenes to counteract voter-fraud.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/california-and-los-angeles-county-to-remove-1-5-million-inactive-voters-from-voter-rolls-settle-judicial-watch-federal-lawsuit/
I'm all for cleaning up voter rolls, but this has little to do with voter fraud per se. These outdated, bloated rolls are mostly due to people having moved or died, not people inventing identifies in order to vote twice or whatever. In-person voter fraud is virtually a non-existent problem. Even more non-existent is evidence for the widespread voting irregularities which Trump said tipped the popular vote in Clinton's favor.
Sure, LA County has registration rate of 112%, and Broward County FL has more votes cast than registered voters, including the dead ones.
Nothing to see here.
No, there really isn't, actually. As your own Judicial Watch article indicates, most of the abnormally high registration is due to people having moved or died. Again, in-person voter fraud rarely ever happens, and is certainly not swaying any national elections.
As for your Broward County claim, it's just another false meme.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/broward-county-fraud-voters-votes/
Ironically, it seems that his bringing that up seems to be a means of sending out the message, "Stop talking about things like xenophobia!", "Don't look any deeper into it!", "Halt!", "Move along, there's nothing to see here!".
Ha! A fact checker website is like kryptonite for this not-so-super con artist.
Voter fraud is virtually non existent. Efforts at indirect voter suppression have only increased usually led by republican majorities in state houses. There are many ways to suppress voters (polling locations, polling hours, polling staffing, voter ID, no early voting, no same day registration, removal from voter rolls, and they have all been employed). It is a travesty in the modern world that there are no federal requirements or quidelines for conducting national elections (federal elections are run by the states and the situation in Georgia is indicative of just some of the problems).
If Trump were impeached, another permitted scapegoat would be taken, to receive all the vile that you don´t allow to utter even to yourselves; about other public figures and phenomena whose honest and rational analysis is prohibited by political correctness.
The joy is increased when somebody sides with the scapegoat Trump, and then you can also elaborate in your mind a stereotypical image of the member, that makes you feel better and smarter by comparison.
Thank the heavens above for apologists such as yourself, striding in on your white horse to attempt to defend the indefensible, and drag Trump from out of the sewers, where he's been lurching around rambling incoherently to himself - "Build a wall... rapists... emails... great again... a wall... big strong wall... lock her up..." - and frantically gesticulating all over the place, grabbing any passing sewer whores by their pussy and ejaculating prematurely all over his fat wrinkly self.
Lol. The true purpose of your post is trolling. Are you honest enough to admit it?
What does it mean to be a "rightest". I have some traditional conservative principles about smaller more efficient government, personal responsibility, economic or fiscal rationality, local decision making, free trade and promotion of representative elected governments in the world. The problem is the current Republican party and this president in particular represents none of these things.
Good question. Everyone needs a dedicated fact check site, like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?utm_term=.e0d278da29e2
These issues should be debated and shaped legislatively, in a comprehensive reform of immigration law.
Quoting frank
Fake news!
Hyperbolic truth.
Quoting frank
Quoting karl stone
Quoting frank
If you're Russian!
Who else read it in that voice? (If you didn't, you're either doing it now or you don't get the reference).
— karl stone
Quoting S
If he was giving the SoU, and his head split open and teeth and tentacles spewed out - Fox News would still be like:
'Great job Mr President!'
"According to DOD officials, advertising is one of several tools, which also includes recruiters, that the department uses to influence individuals to consider military service. DOD requested almost $575 million for fiscal year 2017 for its advertising programs."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/677062.pdf
The DoD solicits funds in multiyear packages, just as advertizing is paid for.
First line:
"The government has spent more than $16 billion over the last decade on outside advertising, marketing and public relations contractors"
So that's an average of $1.6billion per year for all departments including PR, making your claim impossible.
The DoD solicits funds in multiyear packages, just as advertising is paid for.
I don't want to bang on about it as it's not very important, but it's irrelevant how many years the funds are requested for. The budget is not $4 billion a year as you claimed. It's about a tenth of that.
Advertizing is ALSO PAID FOR PERIODS OF TIME
You think far too much of your own intellect.
It doesn't take a giant intellect to use Google and do basic math, so I don't feel like I'm exactly stretching my peacock feathers here. But OK. Let's move on.
Good idea. If the wall's there for 20 years, that's 5 billion divided by 20. You do the math yourself again.
My comment regarded the false figure of $4 billion a year you stated as the DOD ad budget. The wall ad fantasy bit doesn't interest me.
Tell a lie & I will sigh
Quoting frank
Geraldo?
Yes. I'm on location in Russia.
— karl stone
Quoting frank
Your talent for sycophancy should serve you well - or at least, keep you alive!
The father of the wife of a man who worked for him, and is going to jail because his records were seized.
New low.
I'm just trying to make a living here. Maybe I do a little brown-nosing. What have your principles gained you?
— karl stone
Quoting frank
What did Micheal Cohen's sycophantic adoration of President Evil get him? He got his records seized, hauled over the coals by the FBI, and while facing a long time in jail for crimes he committed on President Evil's behalf - his family were threatened, and his father in law was ratted out on live TV.
Just like 800,000 federal employees!
And their families. :sad:
And their pets! Think of the puppies!
No, but seriously - President Evil doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.
Roger Stone. Any relation to you?
Unfortunately that will happen only next fall as the Department of Defense is funded through September 30, 2019. But as you have the Greatest dealmaker ever as President of the US, it could be a possibility.
It would be great to see the response by Americans and in the media. Because as the Russians routinely check the response times of the USAF, if the aircraft remain grounded, the Russians will surely violate US airspace (just like they did with Sweden and Swedish airspace some time ago on a sunday, when the Swedish Air Force was incapable of launching aircraft to intercept them). A Tu-95 Bear doing victory laps over Washington DC might not happen, but you never know. That the government workers relying on food aid to feed their families would be the ones responsible of the nuclear arsenal gives a nice twist to the story. Would be like the end of the Soviet Union times!
How intense would be the accusations then by both sides would be a spectacle.
It's times like this that I wish Sarah Palin were back running the show in Alaska. It was only her steely resolve, diplomatic finesse, and deep knowledge of the intricacies of geopolitics which kept Russia at bay (did you know you can see Russia from Alaska? Really see it!).
How would I know? Isn't all life related on some level?
Yep.
But actually you touch an interesting point, that is namely the states or districts, below the national level, and their role in international relations. Many times, especially in the forgotten North where your stable genius isn't building a wall, the states and local actors that share the border with another country (like Canada) do have a genuine need and urge to establish relations with their neighbours at the local level. I remember here the governor of Lapland (female btw, as Sarah Palin, but there the similarities end) saying: "We have more connections and a need for more connections to Finnmark, Norway, than to the capital Helsinki" and continued that basically the Capital was a thorne in the side for Lapland in these issues.
With the government shutdown and with the debacle called the Trump administration, it might create and environment where US states might decide "Fuck this, we'll deal with our neighbours ourselves" and there might be similar aspirations on the other side.
True, however, the situation for one country doesn't necessarily smoothly translate to another. For one thing, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution grants Congress powers to regulate commerce between the US and foreign nations. The Treaty Clause also places the power of negotiating and ratifying treaties with foreign powers in the hands of the President and Congress, respectively.
If the states start doing something that the federal government doesn't like, the President and Congress have a certain amount of latitude in reigning them in. (California for instance, being an especially large state and large economy, has a lot of economic muscle to throw around, and has butted heads with the federal government on certain issues, e.g. emission standards for autos.)
Karl, I'm concerned that you might have become a zombie.
— karl stone
Quoting frank
Are you? Did you bite me?
Trump's die-hard supporters are so credulous they would likely believe that flowers were a wall. A columnist recently suggested that, since Trump lies incessantly anyway, and his supporters simply lap up the lies, in order to get out of the government shutdown stalemate prompted by Congress not funding his wall, Trump should simply lie and say the wall was funded, is being built, or even is already built. His supporters will believe it, Trump will save face, and the shutdown can end.
Declare victory and withdraw...I'd agree with that suggestion, except that then we'd have President Pence, which I fear would be worse. Trump is a largely incompetent blowhard who lurches from one ill-conceived idea to the next. Pence, on the other hand, is an experienced statesman who knows how to work the levers of power, and he is an extremist theocrat who would likely pursue that ideology legislatively.
Only because you have no braaaaains!
California is equivalent to something like Germany being the 5th biggest economy in the World (if counted separately). Hence if these state level actors would actively start creating their own relations because Washington DC isn't capable of doing it, that might make things interesting. As long as they get their agenda pushed through their people in Congress, everything works fine. But if for some reason it becomes even worse than now, states may opt being more independent. Yet the biggest obstacle for true secession is an ideological and truly important one: Californians relate to being Americans, not being separate as Californians. Even with the Texans, their brief stint with independence is more of a peculiar historical oddity now, not something that Texans truly relate to. Nothing compared for example to the Scots and their heritage of Scotland or how it is with Catalonia and Spain.
In fact, it seems to me that the rare discourse of state secession in the US is mostly a hypothetical one usually discussed by people who are not happy about the current state of the federation.
TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IPyv4KgTAA
MOVIE: https://www.netflix.com/title/80114666
LOTS MORE: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Get+Me+Roger+Stone
THE ARREST: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-arrested/index.html
Perhaps Putin and Pence have a joint custody agreement concerning their toddler.
I think you're stuck in the president's reality distortion field. Do you have any aluminum foil?
It takes vast amounts of energy to produce aluminium. It would probably be less environmentally damaging just to spray a whole can of hairspray on my head everyday - like President Evil does! Unless it were renewable energy - then it wouldn't matter so much if I had a tin foil hat! But it's not renewable energy, is it? So it's not me in the tin foil hat - it's anyone who thinks they can simply ignore reality - and use a can of hairspray everyday, and keep combing it over until there's nothing left.
There is a hair-care product better than aluminum foil or hair spray. I recommend SUAVE DAILY CLARIFYING SHAMPOO.
Daily Clarifying Shampoo is loaded with nanoparticles and neurotransmitters that burrow through the scull, right into that tangle of confused neurons and synapses. Daily Clarifying Suave dispels the fog of bad information, misapprehensions, mistaken notions, confusions, vague anxieties, unjustified biases, wrong ideology, and politically abhorrent memes. Through regular application of this fine product you may progress from being a complete idiot to a much sought-after guru. (Results will vary.)
Bring out the sparkle in whatever mind you have left! That's DAILY CLARIFYING shampoo.
It's fixes your head, if not your hair.
Those are some big claims for a shampoo. They copied that right off the label of "Lilly the Pink's medicinal compound" - but at least had the decency to add the disclaimer, 'results may vary' rather than the bogus claim to be 'efficacious in every case.' Pardon me if I don't buy it.
So how much energy does it take to produce aluminium? It's a lot, right! You could use renewable energy to create hydrogen fuel, and burn that to power these energy intensive industrial processes. I understand, the entire world's current energy demand could be met from a square of solar panels 450 miles to each side. That's over 200,000 square miles - but we cut down 170,000 square miles of rain-forest every year! And it wouldn't have to be one 450x450 mile square. The best place for such installations, I would argue - is at sea, because there's water that can be transformed into both hydrogen fuel and fresh water - piped inland, to burn in traditional power stations, and do things like irrigate wastelands for agriculture - rather than clear cutting and burning the forests.
You meanwhile go on and on about aluminum production costs while completely unprotected. You do the math.
Is that a threat? I understand the things I'm talking about are sensitive - but given the little I have to lose, and the possibly infinite opportunity cost for humankind, I cannot in good conscience concede to any such threat. I seek to fulfill what I see as a naturally occurring obligation, to take what has been built from sticks and stones by the struggles of all previous generations, to secure the future for humankind. It is technologically possible to support a large human population sustainably. The difficulties are ideological - and I'm trying to deal with those questions honestly and sensitively. On paper, the prognosis is good. We are actually very well placed to achieve sustainable markets, providing for high standards of human welfare, leveling off at around 11 billion people by 2100. But not if we stick our head in the sand.
:clap: :rofl:
How can you be an expert on something you can't even spell properly?
Without a global coalition to do it? Are you thinking that China will do it unilaterally? I mean, notice how vehemently Euros hate Americans and it's the same culture. How could a global coalition come into being?
You need more aluminum foil. On your head.
Maybe we would hate you a little less if you put a little more effort into saying "aluminium".
Have you seen the size of my head? You'd need to hire a crane.
First of all, I should probably empty it of all of Sir2u's awful comebacks.
I do not suggest a globalist approach. I suggest regionalism. Regional trade blocs are emerging all across the world, EU, AU, ASEAN, and so on. These do not suffer, to the same extent global government would suffer, from the problem of perceived legitimacy. Regional government has a natural interest in promoting internal markets - which promote human welfare, in turn necessary to slow the growth of human population. Further, because nations tend to trade most with their immediate and close neighbours - the cost of regulations applied across a region like the EU, with 28 countries, are mitigated, because a cost that applies equally to direct economic competitors is not a competitive disadvantage. So regional government can afford to have higher regulatory standards, and the market is too large to be threatened by big companies wanting a race to the bottom for profit.
Don't worry, there won't be 11 billion people by 2100.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-domestic-abuse-sexual-assault-definition-womens-rights-justice-department-a8744546.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2H9-vIcGBlNpXiRwldDSgoAY8GzGCo297rNrBPZQvj2LEIuact0_jdj-A#Echobox=1548350752
It's bad enough that Trump praises dictators (or quasi-dictators) such as Putin, Erdogan, Kim Jong Un, and Duterte, but he himself has already floated the idea of using FCC powers to revoke the broadcast licenses of media outlets which displease him, even, apparently, when this displeasure results from the time-honored tradition of an SNL impersonation, the rite of passage for each and every POTUS over the past 30 years or so. He has also invoked yet again his labeling of the press as "the enemy of the people," a page from the dictator textbook. What a thin-skinned, cruel, vain man-child.
That's what President Trump is alleged to have said in a discussion with U.S. intelligence regarding information he was given about North Korean intercontinental missiles and whether they could reach the United States.[/quote]
The bits of it I saw were a bit insane. What the hell has happened to the american democracy? Are these kinds of elected representatives the result of extreme gerrymandering? Or is there some sort of collective insanity going on?
Good question.
I really wonder what will happen after Trump. It brings to my mind questions like a) What damage has Trump done to the GOP? b) What is the counter-response to Trump when the political pendulum swings back? Above all, c) What happens to American political discourse? Is the discourse salvageable or does the discourse continue breaking apart to two different camps that basically don't talk to each other, stay in their own worlds and result in a situation where to reach normal political compromises, that a democracy needs to function, becomes impossible.
EDIT: How is it even relevant Manafort doesn't stand trial for collusion? That's like doing a search in a house because of an investigation in theft and finding drugs. It's not even remotely relevant to the sentence.
What would be interesting to see if Ellis has dealt with tax fraud before and whether he thought the guidelines were excessive then as well and that he reached very low sentences too.
This is a major failing of the justice system. Perhaps we need a corollary to the principle that one be tried before a jury of one's peers, that one should not be sentenced by one's peer. It would be possible to co-opt an appropriate panel of shop-workers and taxi drivers to deal with errant bankers, politicians, and lawyers.
We went from Obama to this. If the amplitude of the pendulum swing continues to escalate, we'll have Gandhi for president in 2020.
Here is what bothers me. I am a medical professional, and my colleagues are medical professionals. It is amazing that my co-workers can exhibit the type of logic necessary to save and/or maintain the safety of human life, yet value the ideas of Trump daily. It's almost like when discussing politics they warp in time and lose all sense of reality.
If you look at a color-coded electoral map of the U.S., it is a sea of red with a few small blue islands sprinkled in. This phenomenon, inter alia, allows Republican candidates to prevail in some national elections, even when they lose the popular vote.
You could add a whole load of stuff to complete that sentence. The U.S. needs a revolution.
Nevertheless, look what has happened. Clearly it has faults which warrant going back to the drawing board.
Not so easy considering that white nationalism is a growing problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47688187
You're stuck with either tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. I'll take the majority.
The issue is deeper. The fear is that a handful of populous states could, through an exercise of federal power, overrule issues states see as their job.
There is a designed tension between the federal government and the state governments. And on balance this is IMO a good thing.
Again, it's one of two options. There are no other choices. The less-populous states get their balance from the senate and congress.
What does anyone else think of this?
I like it!
But that figures.
Thanks for posting it here, OM. I did not realize there was a single place for these kinds of posts.
No problem! I had it formatted to green for you as well, but unfortunately when I copied and pasted it didn't stay green.
Thanks. (With a big smile on my face.)
You could ask the Russians.
Trump’s treachery goes way beyond Russia
The last time I tried to bring this topic up it was met with dismissal because my citations and sources were biased, Jay Sekulow ring a bell?
Please tell me something my fellow 'thinkers' what it is going to take before someone actually deals with the facts and tries not to continue to spread the bs that nothing is wrong and the problems my state is facing are a "manufactured crisis"?
And I ask this for obvious reasons but also because of a genuine question I asked at the old sandbox and the shocking answers I was met with. My question was: In the event of a civil war breaking out in the USA, who is going to offer to come and help us? If one side of the civil war is accusing the other side of deeply nefarious activities such as the use of chemical weapons or other war crimes, who, what country represented here on the boards would believe the American citizen enough to come into our country and help us?
The answer was a resounding no one. Not a single country, or forum member was willing to step up to help the Americans, for whatever their reason, it was a nope. The only country that was willing was suggested by (I want to say @ssu) was Canada and even then it wasn't that they would move troops in but rather Canada would be able to offer medical services, maybe?
The proverbial popcorn bucket that nations around the world have been sharing and enjoying as they watch the USA, at times sounding hopeful, that the USA would implode is empty. Empty like every churches coffer in Arizona who is dealing with an undeniable crisis, it is not over and it is getting hot. Not Springtime in Minnesota hot, not even the oppressive heat in Atlanta in the middle of July. No, the heat is on and Mother Nature can be wicked here in the desert. We are on set to have one of the worst fire seasons on record and we as a state are not at a breaking point but we are broken. Asylum seekers are being released on their "OR" and that stands for something @Hanover could better explain but it stands for your "Own Recognizance" and in practical terms, it means your signature is your promise to be released while you await your court date.
We cannot absorb what we are being met with, we are no longer treading water, we have slipped under the surface and are barely able to make it back for air.
We cannot absorb all those seeking asylum here in the USA, many passing through two countries that they could claim asylum in but they are here and what do we do now?
What is more inhumane? Closing down the border until we can retain some sense of order or is it more humane to shuttle thousands of people up to the Greyhound Bus Stop in Phoenix, dropping them off with no food, no money and no plan? The heat is coming folks and for those that make it into Phoenix, I am sorry to tell them that we are so overfilled that we are no longer able to care for our own let alone more.
Immoral?
Reality?
Or will I again be dismissed in my assertions because the presses "story" doesn't jive with what someone, many of you have known personally for over a decade, is saying?
(I normally would say that I am "sorry" for expressing something so bluntly but the lack of faith in my word by fellow members has impacted me ever so slightly)
The problem? The inability for the United States government to reform our immigration laws and the message that inability to compromise is sending to those who may wish to seek asylum in the USA. The message being conveyed is get in now before the border closes. We, in the state of Arizona have our own vulnerable population that is in need.
The solution? We have a saying out here on the ranch that might have made it to quality control before that explains how the solution I have and the one that we can achieve now are two very different things.
The saying is: "That horse has already left the barn." There is no way, NO WAY to go back to my suggested solutions.
You may hold the opinion that "the wall" is a "mis-guided solution" and you are absolutely entitled to it.
However, I said NOTHING about "the wall" in this discussion, you did.
So now I ask you:
What is the problem as you see it? And what is the solution?
And, since you decided to respond: how does the idea that not a single country represented would help the USA in the event of a civil war impact you?
Surely that response would restore your faith in humanity, right?
So one vote in that this is still an "apparent" crisis to only me.
unreal :broken:
What is it going to take to get the point across? For more people to die because we cannot accommodate them?
Jesus, God in Heaven....115* heat for more than 45 days at a time only dropping to 90* at night?
Maybe do a bit of fact finding about how people die in AZ in less than 12 hours of exposure and I am being VERY generous as to how long it takes.
I hope and pray it doesn't get to the point that you need bodies in the street, like in the Parishes in New Orleans to know that the levy actually did break.
Tell me where your check and balances are in logic please. They are not based in facts unless someone reports it or you see it for yourself? Come on down, I have friends in Yuma that you can stay with to get a first hand look at the reality playing out before our eyes.
Game? And if not, why?
We cannot handle this
heart breaking....absolutely heart breaking....
With all due respect praxis, our immigration system has been broken for many administrations.
I really don't give a flying fuck as to who is at the helm right now, the boat is sinking and I, a nurturer by nature, am running out of buckets to bail water with.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Selected_Unauthorized_Immigration_Statistics.png#mw-jump-to-license
An administration dedicated to immigration reform would stand a better chance of achieving reform, I would think.
Benkei, you are such a logical person did you follow a single link I provided with data as current as yesterday? How can you logic through 18,500 people being let into our community and not understand that we have a problem?
There are two logical ways for me to explain the massive influx at this time, during this administration but they are two very different explanations.
The first is that the message has been sent from President Trump that he plans on enforcing the border laws that are already on the books that past administrations have been guided by as well. And he is going to continue building the miles of barrier, various in nature, situational dependent, as past administrations have done. The difference? This President has attempted to follow through and do everything he can, in HIS power (Executive power), to secure our border.
The second explanation is: the corrupt civil wars in the countries south of the USA has gotten so bad that it's citizens are fleeing in fear of their lives. If that is true: then why would they not claim asylum in the very next country they enter?
I agree with that idea. I just don't know how we go about getting this back under control, to do anything other than try to make sure the people let into our communities survive.
I am desperately trying to sound the alarm bell that we are going under.
All I can do is ask you to read what I put up as I read what you do. At some point you might see the crisis.
What an insult to those who are on the front lines of this crisis. To suggest that they, government workers, CBP are not trying to do their jobs?
What an insight from the top of the ivory tower... :down:
From the article:
Thank you for at least reading what I am posting. I greatly appreciate it. The perception of a crisis is in the eye of those charged with handling the it. For me? The reported 18,500 people being supported by our churches and ngo are a slight indicator of how many are actually making it in. Even still, three months 18.5k people? At this rate, by years end, we will have absorbed an entire city.
Secondly, we are singularly an economic and civil beacon on a hill. Where else are dissatisfied people going to go--Venezuela?
Third, this is our Dress Rehearsal for far larger future population movements owing to global warming. The closer one is to the equator, the sooner and the worse it will be for heat, weather, crop failures, diseases, etc. Europe has had its dress rehearsal, as have a bunch of other places. Bangladesh is so pleased with the Rohingya flood, that they are thinking of moving them to a large sand bar in the Bay of Bengal where conditions will be even worse than where they are now.
NOBODY LIKES MASS POPULATION MOVEMENT!!! Certainly not the people who are forced by fascism, war, heat, drought, and starvation, and certainly not the relatively poor people a thousand miles up the highway who aren't that much better off.
I think that colouring text green in an attempt to idiot-proof sarcasm is a brilliant idea. What genius thought that one up? Someone ought to give him a medal.
Also, obviously, I'm very much against Trump and the conservatives regarding their opposition to the Special Olympics.
The I'll-see-what-I-can-get-away-with-and-if-I-can't-turn-it-into-a-win-anyway president.
That's barely more than 200 people a day. If the great, and wealthy USA does not have the resources available to process 200 immigrants a day, then perhaps that's where the problem lies. I'm sure the money's there, what's with the attitude?
You could ask Tiff and others like her. But I don't expect that many people here will share her alarmist way of reacting to matters such as this. I mean, really, who sees immigration and thinks, "Civil war!!!! Who will help us!?!?!?" :scream:
Legal or illegal?
Does that distinction matter to her, or doesn't it? And if so, for what reason? These are important related questions.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
As evidenced above, she has made a number of contradictory statements. Which does she stand by, if any? She can't have her cake and eat it.
And regarding her point about crime:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
What's your real issue with here, Tiff? I suspect that it is veiled under rationalisations. Your rationalisations have been countered each time. Whether you like it or not, you do not have the upper hand in this debate. Instead of taking everything so personally, why not absorb what is being said and use it to work on your critical thinking skills to either improve your arguments, or, better yet, reject them?
Is it an irrational fear? An irrational protectiveness? [I]"Won't somebody think of the children!?!?"[/I]. :scream:
I am trying to embrace the idea of where we have come from to where we are BC. I have spent the last year in school and am blown away by the civil wars that have taken place within my lifetime that I had no recognition of. I say this not because I am proud of my ignorance or naivety but now as I push forward into social work, patterns of societies evolutions appear, many of which we have had to follow in depth. Now, there is nothing that I can do about what I missed in the past but I can push forward now to make sure tragedies like these don't happen again. To just give two examples of what is driving me is studying two mass exodus of people: that of the Sudan war which caused the flee to Ethiopia and Colombian Holocaust.
Forgive me when I see acts such as this at my border: I see the beginnings of the Lost Boys of Sudan and I do not want any mislead by our politicians thinking that our desert between here and there is any less dangerous.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That is actually something I have pondered. If everyone is leaving Venezuela then maybe it would be easier for us to relocate to there and let them have the USA.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Because of the sheer mass of people, a year ago we were able to hold folks long enough AND the system was not overwhelmed we checked for diseases and criminal records of those wanting into the USA. Now? We have no idea what diseases were are dealing with nor what someone's criminal record is.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Bitter, I am becoming much more aware of the driving forces and the conditions people are fleeing and I am trying to move myself into the position of those who are in need. I am at a blending point, trying to find the in between of what can be done to help and when we have to admit that we are putting, everyone along this journey at such a risk when it comes to the summer here. I realize that before I was advocating policy from an administrations perspective only but now? I have seen what bs is spewed around the world to get people to move out of where they are to another land. I am moving to advocate for the asylum seekers but the logic of what I see is failing and before we have people dying from the heat, I move to do something now.
Here are some numbers for you to compress and tell me that America can handle it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover The coffers are empty, the well is dry, we cannot handle the sheer number regardless of costs.
Those who crossed our nations border illegally.
Benk, I am begging you to read this link.
Damn, I ran out of time.
That's alright. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I don't expect you'd be conscious of the real reasons. Some of us are just better at introspection and at reading people than others. I think it comes naturally to me. Obviously, not everyone is going to like it when I hold a mirror up to them. That's because it often differs from the idealised construct we've built of ourselves.
That's a big piece of the problem: No locality (city, county, state) can afford to absorb and assist millions of immigrants, asylum seekers, opportunists, and so forth. And what comes across the southern border is not the total of in-coming people. There are the effects that large numbers of non-English speaking immigrants without high-industrial skills have on wages, especially in the low-pay sector. The desperate people may not be criminals, but human smugglers are. Since they are illegal (and outside of the taxation and social welfare systems) they place a greater burden on schools, housing, emergency rooms and public clinics, and so on.
The other thing is social consent: if we didn't agree your coming here, why should we accept and assist you? Of course, the people coming here didn't agree to drug gangs, fascist execution squads, or deep poverty, either.
It's a conundrum to which I don't have an answer that satisfies my own ethical system.
Fact of the matter is illegal immigrants are a fraction of what it used to be as immigrants report to the authorities almost immediately in most cases. So you can hardly claim that is the issue with US immigration policy.
Get a sense of perspective, man! Kick Jonny Foreigner out and arm yourself to the teeth, like a polite and concerned citizen of the USA.
Then seems like a bad time for Trump to be cutting taxes, wouldn't you say?
And what about the children? Won't somebody think of the children?! At least share your cigarettes with them. Have you no conscience?
My interpretation of the article is that bottleneck in transportation creates the “perception” of a crisis and that those arriving will disperse throughout the country and not overtax the area of the bottleneck for long.
Incidentally, your posts on the subject have been brimming with emotion. If you’re just venting that’s cool, but you might express it in a way that others can more easily empathize. If it’s intentional and designed to be persuasive, probably not a good call for this audience.
In any case I’m sorry for your distress and I’m inspired to check with my representatives regarding immigration reform.
This is from Wikipedia:
[quote= Wikipedia: Immigration to the United States]Research suggests that immigration to the United States is beneficial to the U.S. economy. With few exceptions, the evidence suggests that on average, immigration has positive economic effects on the native population, but it is mixed as to whether low-skilled immigration adversely affects low-skilled natives. Studies also show that immigrants have lower crime rates than natives in the United States.[10][11][12] Research shows that the United States excels at assimilating first- and second-generation immigrants relative to many other Western countries. [/quote]
https://reliefweb.int/report/honduras/honduran-crisis-produces-new-caravan-0
The United States has been deeply involved, and holds a high degree of responsibility for the crisis in Central America, as Bitter Crank has already pointed out. This goes back to the anti-communist campaigns of the eighties. Back then, if they tried to leave they were bombed as rebels. It appears like the US has had success in its effort to keep Central America from going communist. But now there's no pretense for killing migrants.
Que?
Polls consistently show a preference among Americans for higher taxes on the rich. But somehow it never happens. What does happen is fiscally irresponsible tax breaks that drive national debt to unsustainable levels, and then that unsustainable debt is used as an excuse for cutting public services. And just in case anyone notices, induce distracting panic about immigrants, Muslims, PC, SJWs etc.
It's times like these that I miss 180 the most. As a fellow resident of AZ he might be able to verify or dismiss what I am saying.
All I can say is that I am trying. Believe it or not I am trying to change and it is not in carrying the adminstration talking points but to move to a place to help those in need.
There is no way for someone to change overnight but I am trying to move my focus. I guess I will see if Philosophy allows for evolution of perspectives.
It's just a giant distraction technique, isn't it? And so many of the mindless masses lap it up. It's classic divide and rule.
Yeah I definitely don't think 180 Proof would approve of the xenophobic propaganda expressed on Fox News, or by Trump or other right-wing groups and organizations.
Anyway, no one is asking you to change your views overnight, but we've had this conversation for about a year now.
When I spoke of 180 it was to at the very least to get another Phoenicians point of view and to verify or deny the actions in our state. But his position on this is not one I am willing to guess.
Quoting Maw
Maw, you have been very patient with me and with a couple others have allowed me to evolve my position on this and for that I am grateful and Thank you.
My perspective on this in the beginning is not where I stand today. I had been trying to understand how the government enforcing the laws on the books was "unethical" even if it meant the separation of children from their family or the adults they were traveling with which are not always one in the same.
I expressed that, shared words here in thread as well as private conversations about my perspective and I was moved. I shifted positions towards a more humane one.
True change takes time but I am moving, it might not be fast enough for some and others will never let me change.
All I can do is keep educating myself, remain flexible enough to shift positions and keep on moving towards a humane answer.
Thank you for your patience Maw
Can't be more reasonable than that. You would probably be the perfect person if you stopped watching Fox News. :smile:
To be frank I've heard this apologetic spiel from you before
Maw, there is no apology from me for who I have been. For without being where I was, there would be no movement to where I want to be.
There is no way for me to instill in you the faith necessary for me to grow. I can do it with or without you and others but I chose to try, listen and keep an open mind and heart.
Maw, you and I both know that you can stop responding to me at any point. I appreciate the time you have taken with me and hope you are a part of my future but only if you want to be. :flower:
But one thing to consider is that Trump purposefully delayed hiring the judges needed to process people legally. It's like he wanted a crisis of some sort. To some extent, the situation would improve if we had a different president.
I don't say that with any partisan spirit. I've had my fill of whiney liberals who can be counted upon to do exactly the same shit they criticize.
It's definitely a pattern. It's like your thinking changes with your mood, @ArguingWAristotleTiff. I much prefer the sympathetic Tiff to the angry ranting Tiff. I would actually love to see more of the angry ranting Tiff if it was directed at the right target. Like, oh, I don't know, [i]oil tycoons[/I], say.
What an offensive and idiotic thing to say. It was emotional whether she's a she or he. I'm not going to withhold that assessment just because she happens to be a woman or because people like you might jump to conclusions about that irrelevant fact.
I get very angry over false accusations regarding the things I care a lot about. I don't think I've ever resorted to such extreme flaming in my ten years as part of this forum and the old one, so congratulations.
I still don't quite understand why your head exploded there, but I think it's quite possible that you aren't sexist so much as unaware of some stereotypes. If you'd let me explain:
Quoting S
This touches on a pretty old stereotype that says women are weak by virtue of their tender emotions. They can't be relied upon to think straight. I've interacted with Tiff for a while now and haven't noticed that her heart is necessarily always in charge of her brain. In fact there are a number of males on the forum who do stand out as exhibiting that tendency, but not Tiff. That's why you come across as throwing out a sexist stereotype for the purpose of being a hurtful. As I said, I think it's quite possible that you didn't even know about that stereotype, but could you not be open minded enough to hear what I'm telling you?
Quoting S
Yes, so you did temper this with the next sentence, which said you wanted to see the ranting Tiff direct her ire at a better target. Nevertheless, you should understand that you hit the big red button with this one sentence. In the past, men were allowed to rant. It was seen as a sign of strength. As Adolph Hitler spat all the way across the audience with his fuming, no one thought of his behavior as inappropriate. If he'd been a woman, the screaming would have been a problem. The small amount of credibility a woman might have had would be reduced to zero by even a mild rant. This has held women back in a number of professions where expressions of aggression are part of the scene, such as in politics.
So for what it's worth: just be aware of the stereotypes you might be pinging with your statements.
The threat of placing tariffs on Mexican car imports, a year from now without compliance with his demands, is weird but maybe works for him? For his supporters, he gets to appear to be the tough guy who mussels Mexico into compliance, and they'll forget about it by next week. Unfortunately, the auto industry doesn't have the luxury to possess such a short memory. An industry like that requires long-range planning, investment, and so benefits from predictability.
And just like that he's going to renege on the trade agreement that he's been bragging about for months and hasn't even been ratified yet? A good deal maker should at least try to appear somewhat trustworthy.
A year from now? A year from now??? We don't have a big enough boat my friend. We are not going to make it a year at this rate without a preventable tragedy.
The right balance may have been to refocus CBP at the ports of entry and only allow commercial vehicles across the border, that way they can be properly inspected for the detection of drugs that are coming in and reduce the damage that will be done on the economic stability of both countries.
But he didn't do that.
~shaking my head~
This is unsustainable, heartbreaking and no one else is speaking up. :broken:
Okay, say that we all started subscribing to the WH rhetoric, built a giant impenetrable concrete and steel border wall from sea to shining sea, and somehow managed to block all illegal drugs, guns, and gang members from entering the country from Mexico. Drug problem solved? Gang problem solved? Gun problem solved? Crime solved?
It would have an effect of course but you must realize how politicized these issues are. If we really cared about American drug abuse, gang violence, gun control!?, and crime in general, is this really the best approach to effectively address it?
In my opinion that rhetoric you are speaking of above is only exacerbating the perception or in this case the misconception of the complexity at the border that we are really encountering. I, nor anyone who knows the geography of our Southern border would advocate for a "border wall from sea to shining sea" so please, I am trying my best not to feed into the rhetoric.
Quoting praxis
If you would be so kind to take an honest look at the link above, I think I might have a solution to the drug trap. I just ask, if you watch it to comment, if not then don't.
Both of the drugs coming across our border, Methamphetamine and Heroin (Opiate)are drugs I have been personally involved with and almost lost my life to both. There is a problem in our need/desire for the drugs and it no longer being able to be produced in backyard labs in the USA, as the crack down on the purchase of the ingredients was effective.
To your question of gang violence and guns? What little I do know is that if you are in the USA illegally, the chances of your reporting a crime are slim to none for you don't want a spotlight on your citizen status. When someone is here illegally, they cannot legally work. If you cannot find work and have no way to provide for your family here in the USA are you going to leave and head to Canada? How many will many have any choice other than to resort to crime out of desperation?
So inaccurate claims about the border situation exacerbate its complexity. Yeah, I can agree with that.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Sounds like it may be an effective approach.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I wouldn't say that diminished domestic production of illicit drugs was a problem. In a quick google search I couldn't find anything supporting the claim that illicit synthetic opioids or meth production is impossible or severely hampered in the US.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
From factcheck.org:
I apologise for the delay in fixing my link. Please try it again.
Sounds like it might be an effective approach to a difficult problem. I was able to watch it, btw, when I used a computer. I was away from home and using a phone when I tried it the first time.
I didn't care for the presentation, which is heavy with what is intended to be emotionally persuasive content and light on information about the actual proposed solution.
Saw this earlier, btw. Really sad to look at how Seattle has changed from my childhood in the early 1980's. It was a really nice city back then.
It tells how the US has a problem in basically doing the correct thing and how a liberal city can make things worse: first, the hysteria against any social programs that would intervene in the "freedoms" of the individual or any program depicted as socialist makes it extremely difficult to implement them. Secondly, the permissive "liberal" policies are then unable to handle crime that comes with a drug epidemic and simply turns into denial.
Funny that Rhode Island is quite blue.
The only joy I can extract from it is that of anticipating watching all the Democratic heads exploding.
The Dems are split on this. Sanders, Warren, and others have spoken up strongly whereas Pelosi and her ilk have melted like ice-cubes in a stream of dog piss.
Were they? Boomers are predominantly conservative and this affiliation has been consistent over time.
Not really. Leftist Baby Boomers were a minority. An extremely vocal one at times, but a minority all the same. There may be some evidence to suggest that as people get older they become more conservative, but the transformation is generally slight. Usually people retain the political affiliations and beliefs they develop in their twenties throughout their lives.
You may be right. Do you know what percentage of boomers were leftist in the first half of the 70s?
True. I will never forget this most glorious day:
Sounds about right for you
Well, it's clear now.
60s generation ? Boomers
What's clear?
Oh I agree, Maw. They were just the loudest.
Just like hmm...now.
What is silent is the moderate center.
It’s been bad since Day 1, of course. But in recent weeks, the lawlessness has gotten far more egregious and dangerous. What force can stop it?
Read the story here.
Quoting frank
BTW, the Russians now have a human-chimp hybrid. And no, I'm not going to tell you how I know that. Look it up for yourself.
Yeah, that's pretty hard to forget about.
The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney).
(Add. I think something happened during the Obama days that neutered the left.)
I think that graph is showing data from 2015. We would need another graph from the 1970s to determine what happened to Baby Boomer views over time.
With Bush, I got more of an impression that he was dumb, but kind of naive.
With Trump, I get more of an impression that he's dumb, but in a much worse kind of way. Like he doesn't mean well. Like he knows he's doing harm, but tries to justify it. And often justify it with a bunch of lies and spin.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
How did opposition to Bush manifest itself, and why was it "hardcore", and what is the opposition to Trump and why is it "lame"?
I think it’s more that Trump-Fox effectively deployed shamelessness and mendacity to undermine any prospect of reasoned opposition. After all, if an opponent recognizes no such thing as ‘fact’ then how in a democratic system can they be opposed? There’s no system of accountability that can ever work. That is why Trump poses such a mortal threat.
It's only an opinion, I've seen no poles on the historical trajectory of hardcore political opposition. It seemed like the left possessed greater spirit of doing it ourselves during the Bush era. Today, the left seems to have a strong desire to have things done for them.
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to Trump. It's just that I'm equally opposed to his opposition.
Perfect.
I saw the left scrambling for solutions during Bush.
Now it seems like the left is just screaming about its problems. Perhaps it the only way left, a last desperate attempt to oppose a system that keeps promising everything and delivering nothing.
Couldn't find a graphic but it looks like Democrats were about 46% to Republican 21% in the mid 70s. That changed to 35% & 31% by the mid 80s. Maybe it took that long for the acid to wear-off.
What a coincidence, that's my middle name.
Well the Dems didn't gain seats in the 2004 House elections, and gained 31 seats in 2006. They gained 41 seats in the house in 2018, which was the highest Dem gain since 1974, so that doesn't seem to indicate that they "want things done for them". As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Bernie Sanders is far and away the leading contender for the democratic nomination, and is doing an excellent job articulating solutions to major problems that the Left is focused on, such as Medicare for All, Green New Deal in fighting climate change, and the growing inequality of wealth. Elizabeth Warren has also been second to none in detailing policy solutions to curb Capitalism's excesses. They have both been able to do largely while treating Trump himself as a peripheral issue, while not considering Mueller as some sort of savior as other liberal types have done.
But they have done little to stop the onslaught of either the war machine, or the surveillance state.
Bernie Sanders wins the next election. Problem solved. There's little else, realistically, that can be done, except to wait it out.
Too bad the Democrats sabotaged Sanders last election
Yeah, there has been a similar situation this side of the pond, where the Parliamentary Labour Party actively sought to undermine their leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
Bunch of wankers.
Yeah that requires political power transformed into political action, and it's only been two years since Trump was elected. What were the Dems doing that was "hardcore" to stop the surveillance state and war machine during the Bush years? Clearly nothing. It should also be pointed out that Sanders recently lead an effort to stop the war in Yemen, along with Mike Lee (a Republican no less), which managed to pass through a GOP controlled Senate (Trump of course vetoed it).
During the Obama era the war machine and surveillance state took no pause in its advance
(Add. In fact, at the the end of the Bush era, they were nothing compared to when Trump took over.)
I have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office
I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
The elected personnel of government are a small minority; granted, they are a powerful small minority. But the "Permanent Government" is huge, and by reason of its size and control of government work, is also very powerful. Everything from the CIA to the GSA (General Services Administration), the military to the National Endowment for the Arts is a piece of the Permanent Government which grinds away in the secluded cellars, tunnels, and halls beneath the bright marbled and gilded Plaza where the Body Politic dances with Policy Wonks and lobbyists in crocodile shoes, schmooze, and rub up against each other to taste the pheromones of power and influence.
The political clusterfuck is on display above ground. The permanent government cleverly avoids publicity by staying below ground and out of sight.
The only thing they have to do with each other is that they are my opinions.
And the first sentence assumes that those who are in elected positions actually represent us. From my perspective, I see very few elected officials representing the interest of the electorate.
Speak on my brotha
I strongly supported Bernie over Hillary, and while the Democratic establishment clearly favored Clinton it shouldn't be discounted that Hillary received over 3 million more votes (+28% more votes) than Bernie. There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change.
Are you factoring in the superdelegate scam?
https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/amp/
Until they sabotage the next candidate.
Is this a trick? You make a valid point, but if my choice is democrats or Trump? Doesn't seem too difficult. But don't worry, I won't give the democrats any money (if that is what you mean by support).
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Well if they end up running anyone who is not a black woman, then Trump will win anyway (unless we get lucky and he gets bored with this whole thing and does not run). The democrats have too many factions that strongly disagree on different issues. A black woman who is accepting of certain democratic-socialist policies and environmentalism seems to be the only chance of uniting them. I would like to think that hating trump is enough for unification, but it didn't work last time.
No, I'm baffled. To undermine your base in the way they did, is about the most shady rat-bastard thing a political party could do. I don't see how they can be trusted with my vote.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
That's too bad. Race and gender are two of the worst criterion I can think of for supporting a candidate. Not that this hasn't been the case the whole time. I'm just saying.
I think the contention is the vote count would have been different without the democratic establishment heavily supporting Hillary (in particular friends in media, counting the super-delegates as already "for Hillary", not renouncing the super delegate system when it came under scrutiny). Also, even if Hillary would have won anyways, I believe the followup contention is the various unfair ruses lowered Bernie supporters and general voters enthusiasm for the democratic party.
That apologists for the Democrat strategy vis-a-vis Bernie (that they don't like him and wanted him to lose so of course they made things unfair) and vis-a-vis Trump (that losing to Trump is somehow not their fault) has no viable arguments -- which I don't think is what you're saying, but that Hillary got more votes without the super delegates doesn't directly relate to what people's issues are with the DNC of 2016.
However, I agree with your view that Democrats is still a better choice than Trump whatever the candidate, and I also agree that it's unfortunate that Trumps words and behaviour and policies is not enough for a strong uniting of the clans.
It's not quite a fair comparison, considering Obama won the popular vote by a good margin and Trump lost by a good margin.
But I agree that what you point out is how Trump was able to compete, and what Hillary and the DNC completely miscalculated (especially with things like the bank speeches, and other completely avoidable "look at me, I'm establishment" self-branding).
And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.
Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.
It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties.
The evidence that it's corrupt is found in the fact that they won't allow 3rd parties in the debate unless they have a certain amount of support. But they are unable to generate that support simply because they are not permitted into the debate.
Its obvious the rules are set up this way to prevent 3rd party candidates from ripping up the Republican and Democratic positions, and exposing them for the frauds they are
A white male (sorry Pete, straight) war veteran appeals to Trump's base more I'd think. Additionally no #metoo references is a bonus.
pound me too
What do you mean?
:scream:
That's not thinking pragmatically. Think of the consequences! I know that what they did is self-harm, but you guys can't afford lost votes, as that will strengthen the opposition.
Who are you guys, I don't give two shits about them, I'm just making a point concerning self respect
The American electorate who are opposed to Trump. I am not a member of that group, opposed to Trump as I am, so I don't have a vote that I could waste.
Then it seems we are similar.
My vote is a boycott against the system. That's why I refuse to vote for a president.
There a mountain of difficulties made for 3rd parties to engage the political system, but the biggest obstacle is the view of the people. Voting a 3rd party means "that the other side wins automatically". That you "throw away your vote". This idea is the problem.
Another problem is this fixation on the President. As if a 3rd party presidential candidate would really get anything done with Capitol Hill in the hands of the Democrats and the Republicans. How a 3rd party ought to start is from the ground level up, with people in the communal and city elections and then continuing on to the state level. And when there is a will, there is a way.
But it won't do anything except weaken the chances of the better alternative.
What better alternative, Hilldawg? Romney?McCain? Kerry? Gore?
The Democrat candidate. I would've voted for Hillary if I could've.
Indeed...
You are probably right that a third party needs to gain prominence, beginning at the local level. But I think that is just as likely to occurr as as people, en masse, deciding to vote third party, and getting it elected to president.
Would've? Why no vote?
(Add. You would have been wrong. But you also would have been wrong to vote for Trump.)
Brown’s Cow.
Hillary actually had some good proposals. Not just better than Trump's: good. They would have been of benefit to the working class. And assessments of her economic plan were rosier.
Trump=the people fucked over
Clinton=the people fucked over
:lol:
No, seriously. I provided quite a bit of info about that here on the forum around the time of the election. You could probably find them by searching through my posts for "Hillary" by using the advanced search function.
How would they have fucked people over, except those who could do with a bit of fucking over, i.e. the wealthiest?
Obama made a bunch of idealistic promises too, and delivered nothing. Hilldawg is way more entrenched in the establishment, probably deeper than Obama has ever been. Did you really believe her?
I didn't have complete trust in her, no. Far from it. But she said all that stuff in public, so anything she would've u-turned on could be used against her.
She likely would have followed through on enough of it, or some comprise near enough to it, to make it worth the vote.
Most of what they promise is set up for the sole purpose of u-turning, they don't represent the electorate
[I]Some[/I] cynicism is justified. I'd say that that's [i]too[/I] cynical.
"You know what Hillary says, 'suck my clit and balls.'" ~Eric Cartman, South Park.
To be fair, Diogenes is one of my greatest influences.
I'm practicing inscrutability. I've found that the best course is to do things that truly make no sense.
Or either party breaks up in two.
Imagine how that would look like either with Republicans or Democrats.
Now, assuming "the people" is smart, assuming they meant exactly what they said at the last election, and that they expect the democrats to learn some lessons, who you gonna put forward? Of whom I've seen from across the pond, Warren stands out as sensibly radical, and - dare I say in all naivety? - honest.
Pfft.
Also, from your link:
That's why I said "I think." But anyway, he should give it a try and see what happens.
You should do less of that and more campaigning for Obama.
Why do you play with that absurd fantasy? And why would they be so smart in clinging on to the two party system in the first place?
I think that smartness comes from the realization that in a democracy people have different ideas and uphold different values. Hence the smart thing is to seek a consensus that the vast majority can live with.
Interesting. That thought never occurred to me. But now that I think about all the discord in the two parties, it's becoming more and more of a possibility.
Well because it is the foundational fantasy of democracy and I am an inveterate optimist. But I understand you are an elitist, so you don't have to play.
I'll do it because you've told me to, but I think I probably should wait until he declares his candidacy for VP. Usually the presidential candidate picks his VP, but I guess this is a different sort of election.
Quoting ssu
Not denying that a movement towards a third party isn't possible or isn't desirable. It's just not viable at this current time and you're naive to think otherwise. The 2018 midterm election alone has enabled national conversation around progressive ideas thanks to notable progressives winning primaries against establishment Democrats. If progressive want to enact immediate political change, and shift the overton window leftward, the most practical way of doing so is through the established organon of the Democratic Party. There is also the danger of fragmenting the liberal/Left voting bloc, and enabling a united Right voting bloc to win elections.
During the primaries, it was evident to me that Sanders had a better chance against Trump. Perhaps the majority of Democrats are gullible, and instead of going with the stronger candidate, went with who they were told to. Remember how Sanders ragdolled Clinton in their debates.
Imagine what he would've done to Trump.
We're on a philosophy site. I assume everyone here is aware that the vast majority (very near all) of politicians are just narcissistic people, who, like the rest of us, just view their jobs as some thing they have to do before they can enjoy the weekend (or in congress' case, a few weeks off). Of course, they view themselves and their work as superior to the rest of us and our endeavors, but that doesn't mean they are willing to actually inconvenience themselves for the sake of improving society.
So, my vote is based on what the party/candidate SAYS they represent. Yes, I am aware they are mostly full of sh*t, but what are my choices? At least casting my vote in favor of what they SUPPOSEDLY stand for, shows what I want. And, by the time November rolled around in 2016 the one thing I wanted more than anything (politically) was NOT trump.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
And I agree. you are talking ideally. I am working with the garbage the world gives me. I am not supporting them BECAUSE they are a women and black. However, many people will support them for those reasons alone, and some that are supporting them for other reasons might feel more inspired to actually go vote if the candidate appeals to them in other ways. It would be problematic not to consider that truth.
Why would a trump supporter vote democrat? Democrats want a multicultural society. Democrats support more open borders. Democrats see benefits in socialism (general meaning, not arguing whether what they call socialism is actually socialism). Democrats generally do not see the U.S. as really great (it has done great things, but also terrible things).
Forget all 4 of those things, any 1 and trump supporters are out.
I feel sympathy towards those who have the genuine urge to take action (by voting) in order to make things better. It is unfortunate that we're left with the choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. In the end, I think voting is futile and can effect no real systemic change.
Yeah, you're right. The left has shifted further to the left, and Sanders, Corbyn, Mélenchon, and Haddad are examples of this. They're in a battle against a right that has shifted further to the right, exampled by Trump, Johnson, Rhys-Mogg, Le Pen, and Bolsonaro. Any leftist wasting their vote in this battle really isn't helping.
I see the left and right drifting apart at an exponential rate. Before we know it, it will be too late, and they will be radically charged. And that's a dangerous prospect, especially given the tyranny of the deep state.
It's only a dangerous prospect because of the risk of the more radical right gaining power. The more radical left would make changes that would be of benefit to people like us and our interests. And, as has been rightly pointed out, as things stand, the only realistic chance of getting closer to your actual interests, now, and in the foreseeable future, is not to waste your vote, but to vote for the leftist party which has the best chance of gaining power.
Basically, if Clinton wasn't left enough for you, and Sanders was knocked out, then tough shit. Clinton would've been better than Trump, and no, that's [i]nothing like[/I] a choice between Stalin and Hitler.
You seem to be the whiny complaining sort that you objected to earlier. You haven't actually made a single criticism of any of Clinton's proposals. You've just expressed cynicism, in the modern sense, to an unreasonable excess. Instead of doing something sensible about it, you just whine and demonise and make hyperbolic remarks.
Tell that to the survivors of the Soviet g.u.l.a.g.
Another hyperbolic remark. Funnily enough, by "more radical left", I didn't mean so extremely radical that Gulags are back on the table.
I really don't give two shits about what happens to the world or to me. And I like getting you slaves to the status quo, you talking sticks, worked up like this. That is bona fide, classic Diogenesean cynicism.
But that is what happens when either the right or left drift to their extremes
I don't predict Gulags on the horizon.
Well, Stalin gets my vote over Hitler. He has a better moustache.
You should create a pole, that would be awesome.
:gasp:
I understand this sentiment completely. I am largely in the same boat. I just barely make the minimal effort of voting (and that is more because I have had too many arguments dismissed with "well you don't even vote" - terrible ad hom, but I got sick of dealing with it). That is why even though I spend a good deal of time studying history, politics, etc, voting is quick and easy.
Quoting Benkei
You are right about the popularity contest. And I might even agree that very few people care to delve into the issues. But that does NOT mean that people don't THINK they care about the issues. They also will often strongly identify with certain causes or issues. I think of the issues more hazily as a type of emotional identification, for example - socialism has become an emotional identification that means "help the poor" to the left and "destroy the middle class" to the right.
Notice the 4 issues I mentioned (repeated below) are so vague and general that they would not even count as an "issue" in a debate. And yet, they highlight obvious differences. Despite the campaigns avoiding detailed discussion of the issues, surely EVERYONE (who cares) knows that democrats support the issues below while Trump has a strong view in the opposite direction, right? What am I missing? Are you saying democrats DO NOT want a multicultural society? Are you saying Trump has not said things that strongly imply {or directly state} he is against the democrats vision of a multicultural society?
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Don't be discourage by ad hom, it is likely an indication that your on the right track. In this case, again, it is a group morality, they can't accept you as a sovereign individual, they need you to belong to the system to which they subscribe. And the fact is that most, if not all, evangelistic voters don't even want you to vote (i.e. choose for yourself), but only to demonstrate that you think like them by voting for their pick. That's not a prescription, just the way I approach evangelistic voters.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Then you have the key systemic change: improving yourself.
Krugman
I think Krugman misses one important point.
That is that this debacle, which is a culminating triumph for the Russian intelligence services, is simply a huge embarrasment for the US. The US government looks like naive fools. The US government doesn't want to look like this, so there is an urge to go forward and forget the whole thing.
I genuinely think that if it wouldn't be for Mr. Inept Trainwreck, there naturally wouldn't have been any Mueller report and then the official FBI report done under Comey's supervision, would have just stated that "yes, the Russians interfered in the US elections". Period. Nothing else. Move on folks, nothing to see.
Yet Agent Trumpov, the agent that simply could not keep his mouth shut when it was the only thing he had to do, gave us this farce by firing Comey and did the utmost to damage his Presidency by his open panic about the inquiry. Just how pathetic is it that in this report it clearly states that Agent Trumpov wanted to obstruct justice, but his staff simply would not follow his orders.
Ugh, I hear that. But my experience suggests many others operate similarly. My parents are republican and from the day I was born have never cast a single non-republican vote. I think this is common. I have friends who are democrats that take politics and sociology quite seriously, but they never actually THINK about anything (they have zero desire to actually engage with me in debate, and I am mostly on their side - it could be my jerk-ish personality, but they seem happy being my friend otherwise :grin: ). They just vote democrat then ONLY read material that is obviously pro-democrat, then get mad at everyone who votes differently.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Can't argue with that. But now I will have that Michael Jackson song stuck in my head :groan:
I don't understand.
Any distraction from the Brexit debacle will do?
But didn't they get an extension? I have to admit that I haven't been paying attention.
Until you get your democrat in power? I think the Presidency will manage on Trump.
On the fact that Trump is suing to prevent Congress gaining access to his financial records and testimony of his ex-staffers:
Read more here.
Oh don't be so modest.
Even his absolutely terrible own administration and the hateful backstabbing people in it simply didn't implement his whackiest orders. The true Russophiles were whisked away within days of the start of the administration leaving only Trump to show his adamant devotion to Putin (in places like Helsinki). Russia did actually prone what kind of capitulations they could milk from Trump and didn't get much. Trump didn't withdraw American troops from NATO countries as 'an a friendly gesture'. Trump didn't openly acknowledge Crimea being part of Russia. And Trump's idea of a Russo-American organization to fight cyber attacks was simply passed as a gaffe.
But of course in the next elections this is unimportant. What is important is only the absolute hate that pro-Trump and anti-Trump people have for each other. Oh how these groups loathe the repugnant other side. And that's Trump's shtick: hope that the outrage and hatred of the Democrats erupts in a similar moment as with Hillary when she called Trump supporters "The Deplorables". The was the highpoint of the Trump train in 2016.
Did you mean caravan?
Oh? :gasp:
My Heavens, to what are you referring to? :monkey:
A month ago:
[quote="ArguingWAristotleTiff]]I ask once again, is anyone here willing to believe me that we have an issue at my States Southern border?[/quote]
Beware of the alt-dark side, Tiff.
ssu Thank you for the warning, I shall put it up against what is actually happening here in my backyard. I am not here to convince anyone anymore because I am summerialy dismissed, too often by people who I respect. There may come a time thinkers can believe without witnessing a situation themselves.
I am barely aware of the reality that my ebrother, Mayor, experienced in handling a surge of people wanting to move through Austria not too long ago. But what I can say and have ABSOLUTELY no control over is Mother Nature and the wicked heat that is on.
People who have walked through two countries to get to the USA are not strong enough to survive the elements. Hell most of us cannot handle the heat. At what point is what I am saying believable? When CNN says we have a problem at our border?
Or is it with broken heart that I ask if it is going to take proof of bodies from Katrina before the "right" people believe that the levy failed?
All I can say is when the reality and the gravity of what is actually happening in my back yard is acknowledged here, I hope it is not too late to recover.
That patient with the bleeding wound is at our doorstep waiting to be seen and we don't have the resources and they don't have a plan.
Everything cannot be Priority 1 and at this point I believe the human life is more important than finger pointing.
Many have suggestions, some nothing but criticism but I need solutions.
Agreed we need immigration reform for the long term toothache but tell me what you Triage strategy is because if we do nothing the results in my opinion will be tragic.
This is one situational I am not okay with "time will tell, it always does".
In a more perfect world, one with more statesmanship and less politics, a bipartisan group would be convened to identify the problems and their causes, and then develop fact-based policy recommendations that could be implemented while being monitored for efficacy. I'm skeptical that can happen here.
The lessons that you speak of that can be learned from the Trump administration's failed tactics are?
Please be specific and as I try to remain as objective as I possibly can. Please speak on a community level rather than a national level because right now? The community, the meso level of society is who is being impacted by this influx. Nothing from the national level will solve the people who are now being essentially abandoned at Phoenix Greyhound bus station, Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, wherever there is a hope of transportation. If our ngo can come up with it, they take in the refugees off the street, treat their many times severe medical conditions and then purchase tickets for them to move further into the country to a 'family' member or a sponsor. If the ngo is unable to help or if the refugee decides on their own accord to depart until their court date which is currently 3 year out, where do they go? Our communities cannot nor should they be put in the position to have their lives overrun simply because our elected officials, ALL OF THEM, can get their heads out of the sand and recognize that we cannot handle it.
Quoting Relativist
To which I say, we are not privileged to live in the "perfect world" that you speak of and circle back to the fact that we are in an "all hands on deck" position and we cannot maintain it forever. Something is going to have to give and I really find it hard to comprehend that I am the only one that can foresee the exacerbation that it is putting on my community.
Trump has claimed he "wouldn't be surprised" if George Soros was funding the "invading" immigrant caravan which was the manufactured story leading up to the mid-term election, and has been leveraged by right wing pundits such as Fox News, to argue that these immigrants will be replacing white Americans. As a result, we have white nationalists shooting up synagogues in Pittsburgh and, most recently, San Diego. The idea of a white demographic replacement was also the inspiration behind the Christchurch mosque shootings, which left 50 Muslims dead.
The idea that non-whites are "replacing" whites is a key component of white nationalism ideology.
Consider the zero tolerance policy that led to separating parents from children. Trump thought this would be a deterrent and ignored the morality (and associated public backlash) and the stress this would place on the immigration courts. Lessons learned: morality should be considered and given priority; consider the consequences of planned actions and plan for dealing with those consequences.
Consider Trump's rhetoric and the possibility that this contributed to a rush to the anticipated soon-to-be-closed border. Lesson learned: words can have consequences, and may even exacerbate the problem you're complaining about.
Trump preached that the wall would solve all important problems, ignoring credible criticism. Lesson: take criticism seriously, rather than dismissing it. Identify all the problems, by soliciting input and analysis from across both parties and a variety of backgrounds and expertise. Identify potential solutions and anticipate benefits, costs, and negative consequences to each. Anticipate that course corrections will be needed. The focus should be on problem solving, rather than "winning".
Trump has threatened to cut off aid to the Central American Countries to punish them for failing to prevent their residents from coming to the US. Experts have noted that this is likely to result in MORE migrations, not fewer. Even if one is skeptical of this, one should consider the possibility the critics are right. Perhaps MORE aid would help. Perhaps more control of the way the aid is spent should be sought - I don't know, but it can certainly be considered and studied.
Trump has frequently complained about our immigration laws. Lesson learned: at best this is ineffective; at worst it is divisive. Why hasn't he asked for a bi-partisan commission to revise the laws (accepting reasonable compromise) to make them more workable?
And speaking of compromise: Trump and the Republicans have failed to reach out to Democrats on any major policies (not just immigration). They treat "compromise" as a bad word, an anathema to be avoided at all costs. Lesson learned: bipartisanship is a good thing. Compromise should not be considered a loss, or caving in - rather it is a way to progress.
Looking at it that way, I'm the ultimate white supremacist because I'm not afraid of losing my identity or being oppressed by foreigners or minorities.
But in all seriousness I think it is symptomatic of a lot of underlying fear. Being one hospital visit away from poverty, realising the American dream is dead for most, being hard working and seeing it doesn't pay off, the lack of dignity of low-skilled work, the idea you'll have to compete for jobs with these immigrants (which in some cases is real), etc. etc.
Quoting Maw Also, I kind of shrug my shoulders whenever Trump claims anything but the fact there was a program and that other US senators and media take it seriously, that's more of a "wtf"-moment to me.
I watched it happen, supported the law being enforced and since listened and heard from many here on the forum and agree that it's consequences were inhumane.
Quoting Relativist
With all due respect, I am not "complaining" about anything. I am asking for there to be a shred of belief in what I am saying, what I am witnessing in my community IS happening and not being summarily dismissed because I am someone who voted for President Trump.
Having said that: yes words have consequences and as you suggested in the separation of children from their parents; actions have consequences but a lack of action has consequences as well. The lack of action is what I am attempting to address and true to form, the first step to addressing a problem is admitting that we have one, which you can see is tenuous at best.
Quoting Relativist
No Sir. President Trump did not preach that the wall would solve all important problems. His suggestion of repairing the existing wall and extending it is not something that is novel to President Trump. The difference between his administration and past administrations is that this administration means what they say and say what they mean, for better or for worse. President Trump ran on enforcing the immigration laws and updating them and that is not something I am against. I am not in lock step with his approach, his suggestions, his administrations actions but I can say that he is trying to do something.
Quoting Relativist
Living in a border state I am well aware of how much the CBP have been consulted and to suggest that they are not experts is erroneous. Additionally I have friends who live in the immediate communities that refuges are being released into in addition to those being bused up to Phoenix.
Quoting Relativist
Whatever. If we are going to fall back on hyperbole then we are probably not making much progress here.
Quoting Relativist
Yes, I agree that more control over the way the aid is spent should be sought is an absolute. It is one of the reasons the President is cutting off financial support, because the money is not making it to the people as a result of the government corruption. The aid is not being cut off to punish any refugees.
Quoting Relativist
Maybe he has? I know that right now there are enough people in denial that this humanitarian crisis even exists that I understand the frustration he is feeling.
Quoting Relativist
Compromise is a good thing when done in good faith. Honesty is just as necessary as compromise and we don't have a united front on honesty yet and until we do, anything we try is doomed to fail.
I read a headline yesterday that Trump has reached ten thousand lies since being elected. And let’s not forget “alternative facts” and “the truth is not the truth.” Also, is it a wall or a fence? Mexico isn’t paying either way. And does Trumps wall need to be finished or begun?
Now, imagine if, when those Russians reached out to Donnie, if they'd reported it straightaway to the FBI. Imagine if when they got wind that Wikileaks had access to all the DNC hacks, they reported that as well, instead of playing along. Then there would have been nothing to hide! No need for any enquiry or Special Prosecutor! But that is NOT what happened. There was, if not "collusion" - a meaningless term - at least some conniving with Russians, and plenty of lying about it. That is as clear as day, black and white, beyond dispute. But - he's gotten away with it.
Again.
No.
Understand how this goes, Tiff.
First and foremost, if ANYTHING you say can be interpreted as giving credibility to Trump, people are going to dismiss you... because you are basically supporting then what they hate, Trump. You see Americans simply cannot escape the bipolar political discourse in the country. I would argue that this may be becoming reality in other countries too, but still for example here it's not present as the political parties have to create coalition governments, which tones down the rhetoric immensely. Yet the American media has every intention to uphold this bipolarization. Since the presidential elections are coming, this mass psychosis will get hold of many Americans and rightly the time is called the silly season. The two-party state depends on Americans believing that the other party is inherently bad and the only thing to do is to vote for the other one.
Just look at how Relativist answered to you: Quoting Relativist
So basically Relativist agree's that there are problems at the border, but then comes the Freudian slip: Trump's border wall doesn't work, Trump's rhetoric is bad. Now I didn't notice you saying that Trump's idea of a wall is great and that you support Trump's rhetoric. In fact you were not talking about Trump at all. In my view you haven't been a staunch defender of Trump or the Republicans any way. And so this shows how people approach these issues: nothing is an objective discussion about the situation, everything is a political statement that supports your political side.
Yep. And Trump loves conspiracy theories.
Yet the vast majority of people thinking that borders shouldn't be totally open aren't white nationalists.
Regarding the Border Wall: let’s remember the H.L. Mencken saying - ‘for every complex problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong.’
Definately a must read. And those who won't read it, the most important part:
Now that's the kind testimony the US needs.
Quoting Wayfarer
:up:
Remember, it was about thirty years ago when DT first started meeting with Russians, and he threw out into the media the possibility that he might run for president some time, not long after that. At this point he probably thought it was all pie in the sky, even a joke, so the FBI, at that point in time, probably would have taken it as a joke too. But if the Russians groomed him for the position, when does it change from a joke to a crime?
If you're going to criticize what I said, you should read me more carefully. What I said is that a border wall does not solve *all* important problems (e.g. it does not reduce asylum seeking), and I also said that his rhetoric MIGHT have contributed to the current influx of asylum seekers ("better come now before the wall goes up or the border is closed"). I'm not claiming to know this for a fact, but it is certainly a possibility.
Personally, I think there probably are places that border barriers would probably be helpful - but it address only a subset of the problems, and doesn't even actually completely solve that subset (shut off one mode of entry will likely result in pursuing others). If I had my way, I'd leave it on the table, but I wouldn't make it the prime objective. Most importantly, I don't claim to be an expert - and I think the complex nature of the situation screams out for analysis BY experts to identify the problem and propose remedies.
Thanks for the link - it's a very interesting read, even though it's extremely depressing.
Trump said in December:
" Our request will add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need. It will have an unbelievable impact. If we build a powerful and fully-designed see-through steel barrier on our southern border, the crime rate and drug problem in our country would be quickly and greatly reduced. Some say it could be cut in half because these criminals, drug smugglers, gangs and traffickers do not stop at our border. They permeate throughout our country, and they end up in some places where you’d least expect they go all over our country. A steel barrier will help us stop illegal immigration while safely directing commerce to our lawful ports of entry."
No, that is not directly saying that a will "solve all important problems" - but he claimed it would have an "unbelievable impact" on the problems that he's been bringing up since the campaign. He obviously considered it important enough to shut down the government and to declare a national emergency, so I can't see how you could deny that he considers these to be the most important problems.
ok
I accept there is a border and immigration crisis in the US, but I don't understand why anyone would think that this most inept and mendacious of presidents is the one to fix it. To me it seems his sole motivation is to exploit it for political ends.
Well, I don't think anyone expects this most inept and mendacious of presidents to solve the problem. On the other hand, the presumably less inept and mendacious presidents that preceded this one, and their party leaders in the House and Senate, didn't do anything about the problem either.
It's a complicated problem. We have a very long border. There are a lot of people who would like to live here rather than in some shithole further south. So, they walk right in. It isn't that they are bad people (most of them are not bad people), but the fact is it isn't up to the restless people around the world to decide the immigration policies for everybody else.
Sovereign Nations, in one of which everyone on this board lives, have the responsibility of defining how to manage population and resources. No nation has to accept all comers. No nation has to believe that everyone who shows up on their doorstep is oppressed and is entitled to asylum. What every nation has to decide is how many people does it want to have? Which age? Which skill level? Which ethnicity? Which x, y, and z. Maybe it determines that the need for low skilled Central Americans, is simply not very high, and they can't come in. Or maybe they decide that average true Scotsman is likely to have chronic health problems and bad teeth. So no to them, too. (Ok, so Andrew Carnegie was an exception.)
Maybe they will decide that very clever, young, healthy, educated Chinese are what we need many more of. Or more French. I'd vote for that. We need more French people in the United States, especially French good at le fine cuisine. More French, more Finns, and more Fuji Islanders.
Unfortunately, inept governments in Washington have not evaluated the problem of resources and population very carefully, if at all.
What I was criticizing was that Tiff wasn't talking about Trump's wall, she was talking about what was happening in Arizona. It's actually a good thing sometimes to put these things into some kind of context. Sure, Trump uses scare tactics as often as he can and in the way only Trump can. Yet immigration is an issue, especially when you look at this from the perspective of US policy and take into account the near history with the Obama and Bush administrations. Deportations increased in each of the first four years President Obama was in office, topping 400,000 in fiscal year 2012. Obama oversaw more deportations than George W. Bush did, just as Bush oversaw more than Bill Clinton did. Just for comparison, Trump deported last year 256 000 people.
The situation obviously isn't good in Central America and is very bad with the situation in Venezuela. Mexico still is muddling through, but if it would go downhill from the present, the situation would be very bad quite easily.
Quoting Relativist
Well, I think we had the similar idea/meme going viral in Europe in 2015-2016 that the borders would be closed without any rhetoric similar to Trump, and indeed that did happen. The EU did tighten it's border security and the mass migration at the scale that we saw earlier did end.
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/07/gabor-mate-russiagate-interview-transcript/
FWIW: Anyone who "expected" Mueller to develop a prosecutable case for criminal conspiracy by Trump was misguided. On the other hand:
- anyone who suggests there was a "Russian Hoax" is ignoring the facts; there was a great deal of suspicious behavior that showed an investigation was warranted:
-- numerous interactions between members of the campaign and Russians
-- Trump's lying to the public about his (and his campaign's) interactions with Russia
-- Trump's instructing subordinates to mislead, lie and fabricate evidence
-- Trump's activities that (per Mueller) may have constituted obstruction
- Trump tried to impede the investigation and have MAY have actually succeeded in this (read about his dangling of a pardon to Manafort, who subsequently lied and may have continued to not be forthcoming).
- It is reasonable to consider whether or not Trump's behavior constitutes criminal obstruction of justice. This is not "moving the goalposts" (as Trump apologists assert) because there were no goals regarding "getting Trump on criminal conspiracy with Russia" (regardless of whether or not there were individuals who hoped for, or expected that). It is absurd to suggest that an investigator of possible criminality should ignore other criminal behavior that is uncovered during the course of the investigation.
What about the multiple secretive meetings between Trump and Putin over the last few years? They certainly weren't a projection of my supposed trauma.
Don't understand what the big deal is.
The argument isn't that Trump is alright really, it's that nearly half of Americans are so fucked up that they think he might be, and most of the rest are so fucked up they think he is literally destroying everything.
We certainly agree on this, Relativist!
In some years it's reported that Trump lost more money than any other tax payer.
This is several days after it was reported that member of a border militia who were stopping and rounding up immigrants asked a fellow militia member, "why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them?" and that "We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber."
It's interesting to put this in a historic context. We've been issuing passports since about 1912 (taking the Brits) and the rest of Europe a bit later. We didn't really start enforcing immigration control until after WWII. The whole idea of closing borders for people is rather new.
And a lot of it, other people's money.
Also remember the NYT expose last Sept that he was given, not one million by his father, but more than 400 million.
I think official documents equivalent to passports have been used since Ancient Egypt. The Chinese used them extensively. Passports have been used here since the time of Finland being the Grand Dutchy of Russia and Finns traveling to Russia and Russians traveling to Finland needed a passport starting from 1819. During that year a bureau for Passports was established in St. Petersburg for Finland.
A French passport from 1602:
My impression is that he's referring to the "Steele dossier," but what's the actual crime? Conspiracy? Whatever the crime is supposed to have been, what evidence establishes (or is suggestive of) guilt - and which individuals are implicated?
Random noise.
I'm hoping I'm overlooking something, because otherwise - it's a sad indication of the quality of rational, critical thinking among the population of this country.
I wanted to ask you about how the 2020 presidential election will impact Roe-v-Wade. Multiple states (now including Alabama) are spoiling for a Supreme Court challenge to it while Ginsburg is expected to retire soon.
Is this issue big enough to give conservative women pause? How do you look at it?
If this would be a conversation best had by PM instead of here, let me know.
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?!"
EDIT: Whatever. We all know the economy is humming along nicely and Trump will get re-elected. Meanwhile, the Democrats still don't know whether they want to be somewhat socialist or not and without a coherent message their bid for the presidency is doomed to fail. They need to stop pandering to special interests and tap into the overarching issues of justice, such as tax evasion/exemption of the rich and corporations, job security, health care.
It's not right that many people are one hospital bill away from poverty. It's not right people need to work 2 full-time jobs to just make ends meet. It's not right you're forced to wear a diaper because you can't take a break from your assembly line work. It's not right you have to sleep in your car even though you have a job. It's not right the American Dream has become just that... just a dream instead of reality people can aspire to even with the lowest paid job. If society cannot afford basic dignity for low wage labour then it's simply barbaric.
A corporate Dem like Biden could win. All he needs is Pennsylvania and Florida. Bernie could potentially win too but it'd be harder.
The unemployment rate is down, so there is an aggregate benefit. Perhaps some of the people who had been unemployed would vote for him.
There is also an economic theory that low unemployment results in demand for labor exceeding supply, and that this drives up wages. I don't know if this has ever been confirmed, but it's not an implausible theory. Even if true, no individual is likely to notice it, so I don't see how this would get him any votes.
That said, my problem with Trump-onomics is that the only thing he's actually done is to decrease taxes for the rich and for corporations. This has resulted in increased deficits, and in fact -- they are on an unsustainable path: unsustainable because we're on an unsustainable path: eventually, interest on the national debt will dominate the budget. This is the same unsustainable path Ronald Reagan put us on in the 80s. Within the next few years, there will be no choice but to increase taxes to get deficits down. That will result in economic contraction. Whoever is President will be blamed.
Then while you're driving, try to have the response that's logically appropriate to the events unfolding. Why have a head explosion over something you knew beforehand was likely?
Would people benefit from this kind of approach to political events? Probably not. It's all about catharsis. It's all Passion Play. Explode away. Totally convince yourself that what you're really angry about is that pundit's attempts at spin or a presidential twitter.
The numbers so far say otherwise. And he'll be strong in the right places. Barring some accident, he has the edge. The downside is he's Biden.
The downside is that whoever runs with even a small chance of success will be a professional politician. "Professional politicians" are not all liars , thieves, knaves, and scoundrels but a lot of them are. Some that are not outright LTKorS are beholden (aka in hock) to powerful interests such as the petroleum industry, the defense industry, or something of that sort. Most politicians are not intellectuals with broad interests and long-term perspectives (they'd go nuts if they were). Then there is the political system which is in charge of delivering the kind of results we tend to get, which are the results the political system wishes to get.
Voters are almost not part of the political system. The individual's single participation in the system (voting) is practically irrelevant. It's irrelevant not because the other candidate won; it's irrelevant because all of the candidates were losers, to use a favorite term of the current Loser in Chief, Donald Trump.
Is Senator Sanders something other than the rest? He might be something other than the rest; so might Mayor Buttigieg. Maybe Elizabeth Warren is the real McCoy. But in any case--gay mayor, socialist senator, or progressive hero--the political system is what it always is, and whoever wins will be unsuccessful in conducting a revolution from the white house. Presidents are successful because their actions conform to the range of options provided by the political system.
What you wanted to say and almost did was "Demand for labor which can not be met by reserves of unemployed workers tends to drive up wages."
It's sound theory, but it's not a law of nature. Over the last few years (during the recovery from the last deep recession) unemployment was dropping, employment was rising, and wages were stagnant for quite some time--in violation of the theory. Now, they finally have started to rise.
People don't notice these increases in wages? Bullshit! Of course individuals notice, whether their wages rise or fall. Most workers are living paycheck to paycheck, and changes in their take-home pay whether from a tax change or a wage change has immediate consequences. I've lived paycheck to paycheck, and believe me, a $10 difference in the check is noticeable (even if it doesn't allow one to change one's lifestyle. It just feels good to see a little more.)
No, the qualification doesn't belong there. The idea is that when there's demand for labor, workers are enticed to move to better paying jobs.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I imagine there's something to it, but you're right - it's not a law of nature. I expect it's a general trend, although I expect it would be a slow process.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I didn't mean pay increases aren't noticed, I'm just suggesting that no one will open their pay envelope, see a raise, and exclaim "cool - the supply/demand for labor thing is paying off."
I'm sure some people are thinking about how big the concentration camps, gas chambers, crematoria, and ash pits will need to be, and where they should be located. Though, the rage of the dominant US demographic doesn't seem to work that way these days. Separating children from parents at the border and then losing the connection between x child and x parent is more like the current regime. There are ways (...ve have vays...) of keeping undesirable groups fairly wretched without actually running them through an extermination center.
Look at blacks. The majority of them have been kept out of the economic horn of plenty for 150+ years. Enough have made it to deprive the rest an excuse for not succeeding. We could make life a lot less convenient for illegal immigrants without resorting to hydrogen cyanide in the showers. The unpleasant bureaucratic resources of the State have not been fully unleashed upon illegal immigrants. The hounds have not been released, yet.
Remember, the Nazi's were successful in encouraging a lot of Jews, communists, and decadent intellectuals to get the hell out of Germany without the gas chambers (that came later). Late night visits to the local police station, limitations on work, residence, travel, benefits, etc.-- people got the message and left if they could. Eventually the Nazis took over the countries where many of the unwanted fled -- like Holland and France. We'd have to take over Mexico and Central America to effect a final solution to the problem, which would be really bad PR. It was bad PR for Germany too, but they were on a roll at that point and war had already commenced, so not too much was made of it.
Right. People don't operate that way. Even professional economists who get raises don't say that. What they say is, "Finally my brilliance has been noticed, however slightly they are rewarding it."
There is still a problem in the wage/unemployment/employment relationship. Some regional chiefs in the Federal Reserves are against an increase in the interest rate, because they believe the reserve of unemployed is still too large. For some reason (apparently not clear to them) structural problems are keeping workers out of the job market. They may not have any of the demanded skills; they may have criminal records which are effective bars to employment; they may be sufficiently out of the loop to even know how to get into the job market. They may not be able to get to jobs. (Transportation between areas with higher than average unemployment and areas with unfilled jobs is often non-existent. If you don't have a reliable car (and most long-term unemployed people don't) getting to a job that is 15 miles away is impossible.
Quoting Relativist
OK. Yes. True. And wages have to be high enough. I wouldn't cross the street for a job that paid $3 an hour. That's the problem with "Americans just don't want to work" or "just won't do that job." Slaughter house jobs, for instance, are too dangerous for Americans to work in for anything less than a competitive wage. Meatpackers can hire illegal immigrants at very low wages because the wages they are competing with are in Mexico or Guatemala, not Iowa, Missouri, or Minnesota. And yes, the immigrants get seriously injured working on the meatpacking disassembly lines.
I just rolled a die. The laws of probability told me there was an over 80% likelihood that a 6 wouldn't show up. But it did. So, excuse me for not taking the laws of probability too seriously.
See the problem.
As it happens, the average of polls panned out within the margin of error. And Clinton won the popular vote as expected. What the polls didn't correctly predict was the electoral college win because she won in the wrong places. Less chance of that with Biden and if the RCP national average still has him up by 8% (outside the margin of error) on election night, he wins and wins big, or I eat my die.
The question is will he get there (win the primary) and maintain that advantage. It's a long campaign.
Yes, an over reliance on probability to predict the future.
I'll buy you a beer when Trump loses.
As long as it's not Heineken. :vomit: :wink:
I'm not quite sure that's true. In basic economic terms, the goal is to impose a deadweight loss cost on products originating from China, supposedly bolstering the competitiveness of American products. That was the intention of imposing tariffs.
However, given the example of steel, China has an absolute advantage due to being the sole country that has such cheap labor and the capacity to satisfy world demand. So, as you say, the deadweight loss is actually hurting US interests from my perspective.
Supposedly, we can compensate by importing goods from Canada and South America; but, China is pretty hard to beat in the commodities market.
China does not pay the tariffs - the receiving country pays them.
All that said, I have read the Dems are in support of tariffs and reining China in. So I'm not taking issue with the principle, simply making the observation that as so often the case, Trump seems not to understand fundamental principles of governance.
No, this isn't entirely true. It hurts China by decreasing demand for its products within the US. This is like econ 101, so I think you understand the point, along with my previous post.
It is entirely true, Wallows. It might indeed 'hurt China', it might do what tariffs are supposed to do, it might even be a desirable thing, but China does not pay the tariffs. That is the point of the post I made, so please don't obfuscate.
No, nobody is forcing US consumers to buy Chinese products, despite their products perhaps being cheaper than US products or European products. I mean, when you go to the grocery store or buy an appliance, are you always going to choose the cheapest product, or even appealing to your patriotic sensibilities of the sticker "Made in the USA"? That the whole schtick with nativist tendencies of any previous or future president of any country.
And, claiming that Trump is dumb or stupid or inept, really does the discussion no good.
It never hurts to state the obvious when the stakes are so high.
Here's an example of Trumpian logic. All professional politicians are liars. I'm not a professional politician. Therefore I'm not a liar.
The sad part ... many of his supporters seem to think it's valid logic.
That may be true, but it's beside the point.
I'm not sure whether that happened and I'm not sure that that's what Trump meant in his tweets but I'm also not sure what to make of his tweet otherwise.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1127965567359574016?s=20[/tweet]
Edit: also, those comments under his posts are depressing. Communication is really breaking down in social media. It's just opinions, opinions, hate or unswerving loyalty.
Don't assume that people would be so logical. Trump was saying that 'Mexico will pay for the wall', yet when the reality is that 'The wall will be funded from the US Defence Budget, especially from fighting the war in Afghanistan and also counter-narcotics funding', nobody cares.
You do the same about me as a pansy leftist and we can happily talk past each other while your buddies confirm what stupid dimwits those leftists are. Meanwhile, I'll be once again reinforced in my belief that to be conservative requires you to be as ignorant today as you were yesterday.
*Cue world collapsing because we can't get shit done*
1. Alabama Lawmakers Vote to Effectively Ban Abortion in the State
2. White House Reviews Military Plans Against Iran, in Echoes of Iraq War
3. Trump Opposes Federal LGBTQ Nondiscrimination Bill
Of course, to the base, it doesn't matter. We all know the GOP hates and would never approve raising taxes. But the President has done it, so it must be alright.
IMO, Trump is the apotheosis of narcissism. He wants to "win", and will cheat to do so. This alone doesn't imply he will harm the U.S. The bigger danger is that he's uninformed, lazy, and always things his uninformed opinions are right.
This is just vindictive. No abortion even in case of invest and rape.
Here's my take from my plebian perspective. Trump is trying to imitate Reagan through adherence to neo-conservative economic thought. There's also a lot of libertarian sentiment in his philosophy of governance. Also, he has a lot of humanity in him, which other people don't really notice or are biased about him being on team red. He hasn't started any new wars, wants us to direly go back to the moon. Is very concerned about the American public, although some might say in a misguided manner. Psychologically he displays traits of an antisocial personality with a tinge of paranoia... He trusts Russians more than his own advisors, which is worrying to say the least. He has a very short attention span and is obsessed with the media, which is where he derives most of his "stable genius" insights.
The fundamental mistake about Trump is that he thinks that the American government should be run like a business, which is his area of expertise. But, the simple fact is that he is quite inept and unqualified for the job. You're going to hate me for saying this; but, if it comes down to a decision between Biden or Trump, I would pick Trump. As others have said Biden is Hillary with a penis.
This is the new normal. This guy is so bad and lousy he actually cannot do much, but the other guys are going to be even worse.
Perhaps inability to do anything should be viewed as a positive trait?
That was me, glad you liked the analogy. :lol:
Well that's just stupid, because Hillary was a better candidate than Trump, so Hillary with a penis would be a better candidate than Trump. Why would you pick the worse candidate? Not voting at all would be better than that. And voting for the best candidate would be the best course of action.
:love:
Yeah, define best... Go figure.
So why is Hillary (or Biden with a vagina) worse than Trump?
Trump comes off to me as a human being, although with flaws, just like anyone else. Clinton and Biden have their prerogatives and frankly I'll come off as a loon but their are deeply entrenched in special interests and the "deep state".
*Goes and takes his meds*
Maybe you'll feel differently after the meds kick-in.
Yeah, and here I take my bow and leave with some semblance of dignity.
:lol: That is just too funny - believing Trump has a philosophy, or expertise.
Quoting tim wood
'Malevolence foiled by incompetence'.
Trump has a natural instinct for Science... a natural instinct for life.... he is an instinctual autodidact, a self-educated man who never read a book but relied on his ethereal instinct.
Quoting Wallows
The cleaver of ChimpPig gets no dignity....
Quoting Wayfarer
But this is why he is such a great jobs president.
.............
In all honesty the only logical reason you would vote for Trump is that you hate humanity and either want to see the death of the species, destruction of all civilization or fall of the United States and you are just voting for Trump to expedite the process and so you can point and laugh all the while.
Trump is an abortion all grown up.
Yeah pretty I'm fucking angry today.
This was passed for one reason: to make its way to the Supreme Court, to give them an opportunity to strike down Roe v Wade.
Pat Robertson thinks this is not the best approach, because it goes SO far, it's easy to strike down without having to wrestle with the nuances. Even so, if it's struck down - it will show the current SCOTUS supports SOME abortion rights. We'll see.
Quoting Relativist
And some support for limitations on it.
At least we know Kavanaugh will be in favour of abortion in case of rape because presumably a rapist like him doesn't want illegitimate children to walk around as proof.
Not at all. Striking down Roe v Wade does not outlaw abortion, it just permits individual states to do so. Trump and Kavanaugh can fly their Alabama girlfriends to New York to destroy the evidence of their indiscretions.
As if the Trump administration weren't already chaotic and ineffective, as documented by Michael Wolff and Bob Woodward last year, it has now reached the point where the White House and the Democratic Party can't even sit in the same room.
Trump really does seem to believe that the Mueller Report really did exonerate him, and that the investigation is a phoney witch hunt, as he keeps saying. I don't think this is at all true - but how can you run the country, with this issue still ticking along under every headline?
I mean, regardless of whether Trump should be impeached or not - I think he definitely should - it's simply going to be impossible for the Government of the United States to function when the presidency and the houses are operating at daggers drawn. There is going to have to be a boilover of some kind.
But the point remains - politics in the US is nearing total paralysis due to a combination of Trump's ineptitude and unfitness for office, and the ongoing consequences of the Mueller report. I mean, just what is not redacted in that report, is far, far worse than anything Richard Nixon was accused of doing, and he resigned before impeachment proceedings even began. But then, compared to the incumbent, Richard Nixon was an honest man.
So, since there was no point in having a meeting, Trump decided to make a show of it. Sounds Trumpian.
https://wapo.st/2wg2j8S
Then what are they associated with?
Yeah, no thanks. I don't need to be told that we have a pseudo-godfather as a president.
Good mission statement.
Yes, anarchists.
The stable genius is at best of average intelligence but he has a knack for promoting his own self-interests. To this end he has aligned himself with Fundamentalist Evangelical leaders, big business capitalists, and anti-government idealists (many of whom are Evangelicals or billionaire capitalists or both). Although they have some common interests, I do not think there is a mastermind.
Someone hand me some Prozac and wine...
Why, oh why, do people keep standing by this guy when it routinely betrays them? The only two people in the world that Trump is unreservedly positive about are Putin and Kim. What is it going to take for the charade to be punctured?
I do not know the extent of Trump's involvement. What is clear is that he believes that problems can and should be resolved by a show of force. This is the same strategy he uses when it comes to foreign relations. He seems to have little concern for details. Let someone else do the dirty work.
As to whether or not someone could be that stupid and immoral, it was done. How much was callous and deliberate and how much was negligence and incompetence I don't know. I think Trump believed that this or some other tactic of fear, pain, and intimidation, together would his wall, would put an end to the immigration problem. He prefers acting to thinking, and has surrounded himself with people who will act first and ask no questions. If there is a master plan, this is the extent of it.
Quoting tim wood
The problem is how to end his presidency without causing irreparable damage to the office itself.
Quoting tim wood
Unfortunately, he has appointed two Supreme Court justices and a significant number of federal judges. Although some will oppose him, he has managed to hijack the Republican Party and has closely aligned himself with conservatism; and so, they may be more willing to overlook his abuses then rule against him. In addition, the playbook of both Trump and conservative activists is to appeal everything they can to the Supreme Court. One would think there must be a tipping point, but with each step Trump takes that point recedes further away. If the courts do rule against him he will do everything he can to destroy them.
The problem is, whatever doesn't kill the Trump presidency just makes it stronger. Like, each new outrage, each new low, each instance of Trump doing or saying something which would forever torpedo anyone else, somehow gets a pass from Fox and Friends, freeing him up to go even lower. It's a shame that it's not just funny. But it isn't.
Quoting Fooloso4
His occupancy of it is far more damaging than anything leading to his vacating it could be. He's practically destroying the office in plain sight.
He has destroyed it, or at least caused irreparable damage. It was the will of the people - so it seems.
Quoting Wayfarer
Remember, Trump's run for presidency started out as a big joke, pure entertainment. But the American people value bad entertainment far higher than good governance. There's a slow, slow train coming, up around the bend.
"Mastermind"?? Forgive me, but the irony is almost unbearable - as if there's some actual master strategy or over-riding vision in the fiasco of Trump's presidency. It's all instinct, mendacity, cupidity (now there's a word I don't get to use often) and chaos, which various unscrupulous interests have conspired to game.
Anyway - nobody masterminds Trump. It's all straight from the Trump Id.
No it's unbearable.
North Korea Envoy Executed Over Trump-Kim Summit, Chosun Reports
LOL. Already debunked. The "Philosophy forum" is a hotbed of fake news when you are around. Just how gullible are you, anyway?
North Korea execution reports - why we should be cautious
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48477248
The BBC article states that "we should be cautious" and that "the report is plausible". I would hardly call that "debunked".
What did they do to earn 82 million?
Served with duty their country honorably and very successfully.
What else? :smile:
It's almost all from their private businesses which they never sold off. Currently Kushner and Ivanka are on vacation in England.
A State Visit is not a Vacation.
Can you take him away please?
Currently, I can hear Kushner remarking how proud he is that Acting Defense Minister Shanahan flew B52 nuclear bombs over countries he is managing, and someone gently correcting him that the Baltics are not the Balkans like his father-in-law claims.
https://nyti.ms/2ICaC4y
Thereby demonstrating his total incomprehension of what the Mueller probe was about, what 'probity in office' comprises.... and so many other factors, that again, it beggars belief that this man is allowed to stay in office or that there aren't massive demonstrations by Republicans calling for his immediate resignation.
Oh, and the other bit of news is that the congressional watchdog has written to Trump saying that KellyAnne Conway, his alleged 'counsellor', has been repeatedly and clearly in violation of The Hatch Act and should be sacked immediately. The response from the White House is that the office has been 'corrupted by the liberal media' and is 'acting outside its scope'.
So, basically, there is a criminal regime in the White House now.
Didn't Hillary pay for oppo research written by a former member of British intelligence who got his (fictitious) information from Russian sources?
I watched the Trump clip. He said that if a rep of a foreign government told him something, he'd listen; and if he thought there was a problem, he'd talk to the FBI. That sounds perfectly reasonable. What is the president of the US supposed to do when a foreigner talks to him in private? That's the president's job, to listen to what a lot of people have to say about a lot of things.
Now, do I wish Trump had for once in his life transcended his worst tendencies and just put a sock in in? Yes. I wish Trump hadn't thrown all this red meat to his haters. Trump loves to throw gasoline on fires. I wish he'd dial it back.
And frankly, why did Trump let George Stephanopoulos, a loyal Clintonista, ask him anything at all? Hard to know. Also the optics of Stephanopoulos standing over him. The prez should have advisors looking out for things like that.
But I see the same people who hated Trump's guts yesterday, finding yet one more thing to get hysterical about so they can hate him some more today. Nobody's opinion of Trump was changed by this news item. Meanwhile someone's taking pot shots at oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. I'm a lot more concerned about that than I am about the latest leftist hysteria about whatever impolitic remark Trump made.
A minor victory in Trump's war against a free press - Trump should not allow Stephanopoulos to ask him anything at all because Stephanopoulos supported the Clintons. Did Stephanopoulos's questions betray a partisan bias? Should all interviewers be subject to review by the Trump administration as to their political affiliations before being allowed to ask questions? Who should be allowed to ask questions? Only declared Republicans? Only Republicans who swear an oath of loyalty to Trump?
It seems likely to me that Trump agreed to an interview because he wants to reach voters who do not watch Fox News, and thinks he can persuade them by hook or by crook.
Quoting fishfry
First of all, it is not an either/or problem. Second, Russian propaganda is war by other means, and Trump, rather than doing what he can to prevent it, willingly promotes it. It is not simply that the information is false, it is designed to destabilize democracy not just in the United States but elsewhere as well. Third, dismissing it as the latest leftist hysteria shows a remarkable ignorance of both history and the concerns of the intelligence community.
I don't think people really "fall for it". Rather, people who have existing views that are in some way not acceptable to current society (be it not scientifically supported or not socially accepted in many circles) use Trump to shield their existing views from criticism. Trump becomes one more way to compartmentalize the world into the people that are right because they agree with me and the people who are just haters/shills or work for the evil agenda of government/banks/mass media/the Jews.
This is also why Trump seems immune to scandals and fact-checking. He isn't really relevant as a person.
Yes, in a way that is how Trump (and by now his entire administration) operates. To his followers though, truth is still important, they just feel that their deeply held truths and their protection is more important than anything else Trump lies about.
The constant lies have two purposes: to reassure his supporters that Trump will never ever admit to being wrong, thereby offering unwavering protection against reality, and to keep his opposition distracted from the last scandal with a new one every week.
Quoting Erik
I don't think it's all that strange. Trump is just narcissistic and not very smart. He will tell the most outrageous lies to protect his ego, but he often isn't smart enough to realize what he should and shouldn't say.
What does that say about the US electorate? Or maybe even about democracy?
It says "Plato was right".
Didn’t Machiavelli suggest that when an opponent makes an egregious blunder it’s prudent to assume they’re laying a trap? I don’t know enough to speak on the topic of Trump’s intelligence/strategy with any confidence, but I thought it was an interesting counter-intuitive point.
Damn straight he was right.
The mob rules. And democracy is the multi-headed monster.
No better friend for Israel.
This post so perfectly exemplifies the point I'm making that I have nothing at all to add. Except that claiming I characterized "anyone critical about Trump as 'haters'" is as disingenuous as can be.
The United States is stepping up digital incursions into Russia’s electric power grid in a warning to President Vladimir V. Putin and a demonstration of how the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively, current and former government officials said.
But Trump is being kept out of the loop:
Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html?module=inline
Is it that Trump cannot be trusted because he cannot keep his mouth shut, or because he thinks it is in his interest to trade secrets? One thing that is clear: the nonpartisan adults tasked with protecting the country must protect it from him, and thus treat him as the child he is.
Perhaps what really happened is that he was forced to back down and now wanting to appear weak he did what he is best at, lie.
How many times has the man been divorced? I am pretty sure he learned it from that experience. :razz:
He thought someone said ‘deliberation.’ He never does that. ;-)
From a lawyer maybe. Hope you're doing well!
I think even Nigel Farage would have more class than that. That is more on the level of pond scum like Tommy Robinson.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-smirked-as-he-surrendered-western-values-to-putin-at-the-g20-in-osaka?ref=home3
I wonder what this will look like from the perspective of time and distance - an aberration that was limited and corrected or something that had more widespread and lost lasting consequences.
I wonder whether a few decades from now, the post-war Western liberal democratic order will come to be seen as an aberration, or yet another passing phase at best, rather than "the end of history," as many saw it at the end of the last century.
I agree to a point but I would not say that it is just this. Trump after all is in a position of power and capable of doing a great deal of harm.
With regard to society, the question is: How widespread is the infection? Will the patient recover?
Do you mean the United Nations or the New Deal or something else? What do you think the norm is against which the aberration is measured?
Do you mean Fukuyama's end of history? While there are many who hold to some notion of progress, they do not buy into the notion of the culmination of political philosophy or ideology. They hold to a more pragmatic, situated evaluation of the alternatives.
It may be that Trump and others will be successful in dismantling the "administrative state" and that government will be limited to the protection of rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but many who push in this direction do so because of rather than contrary to some notion of Liberalism.
But some go further and reject the principle of equal rights for all and the protection of those rights. They see equal rights as an aberration.
It is possible that either vision of making America great again will prevail, and in that case it will have widespread and lost lasting consequences.
Added:
With regard to international relations, Trump thinks he is the guy with the biggest dick and can call the shots around the world. While he veers wildly with regard war and diplomacy, when it comes to trade he thinks you will either get behind us and support us or you will be punished. Alliances have an expiration date that occurs whenever he thinks there is a better deal to be had. He seems to have no concept of common interest, only self-interest. And while his rhetoric of self-interest is inclusive of the United States, he has repeatedly demonstrated that it is limited to his own self-interest.
...By taking to Fox News to kiss up to Trump, he became national security adviser, a job that no other president would have ever given to a discredited warmonger. His reward is that, after devoting his life to the expansion of American power globally, he’s a hapless party to its contraction. For a person to sell out his putative ideals for such a hollow victory would be like a Greek drama, if the Greeks had written dramas about such small men.
...It’s nightmarish to live in a country where our foreign policy has been reduced to an intramural battle between Fox News reactionaries. And there’s still a danger that Bolton could outmaneuver the isolationists. But right now there is a thin, bitter consolation in knowing that he, like so many others who’ve worked for Trump, sacrificed his principles for power and will likely end up with neither.[/quote]
https://nyti.ms/2FMBvlL
However, I felt this article worth sharing, even if I disagree. I don't think that we fail to see what Trump is all about. He wants to be a dictator. The problem is what can be done about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/donald-trump-dictator-not-enough-laugh
'Perhaps it’s the jokes and memes that Donald Trump generates in abundance, the gift that keeps on giving, that blinds us to a chilling fact that we’d rather not face. Put simply, the leader of the world’s most powerful nation is behaving like an authoritarian dictator, one who threatens democracy in his own country and far beyond.
Here’s the latest example of how the comedy can distract. On Thursday Donald Trump marked the Fourth of July by praising the US military, invoking the heroism of an army that defeated the British in the 18th century in part because “it took over the airports”. Lol: behold, the ignoramus president. Cue more chuckles as Trump delivered that speech during a downpour, the Almighty himself apparently deciding to rain on Trump’s parade.'
I agree with Freedland that it is not enough just to laugh at him, but there are benefits to laughing at him. On the one hand it is cathartic, on the other it deeply wounds him. He desperately wants to be taken seriously. He always has. Early on he was shunned by the rich and famous, the "beautiful people". He has spent his life, his father's fortune, and money he borrowed and stole in order to accepted into their exclusive society. Nothing could be worse than to be laughed at for his efforts. But the scorn did not dissuade him, it only made him try all the harder.
Having stumbled into the presidency, he now wants to be a world historical figure. The mocking and ridicule feeds his insecurity, but again he doubles down. The Fourth of July military spectacle did not accomplish what he hoped it would, it did not bring him the kind of admiration he seeks to legitimize himself. It is not enough that his followers adore him, the numbers are too low, no matter how much he might inflate them. We should not take too much comfort in this, however. It will only spur him on.
But not too low so that he can't become [s]president[/s] dictator at the next election.
With a little help from his friends.
So, what is being done to stop this eventuality ?
It provided him with powerful images to be used in the re-election campaign.
As did the UK Royals. Shame.
Sure, but I do not know how beneficial or harmful it is with those who have not already decided to vote for him. But then again, we do love spectacle.
Reading of a teleprompter is so difficult. How could we assume the President of the United States to be able to clearly read out from a teleprompter a prepared speech. :razz:
Anyway, where ever Trump stumbles on any issues or speeches doesn't matter. What gives energy to Trump supporters is a) the condescending way Trump seems to be attacked in the media (or portrayed to be attacked) and b) their utter hatred of the Democrats. The more progressive the Democrat candidates seem to be and the more they play for the woke Twitter crowd, the better for Trump.
Again. This quote thing. It is not mine. It is from the Freedland interview.
I actually have no idea of what Trump said in his speech. I didn't watch the show.
Quoting ssu
It seems that Trump gets away with anything.
But it still needs to be called out.
I agree about the balance required by opponents. It is a pity there doesn't seem to be an effective political, legal or moral strategy to deflate this ever increasing hysteria and fanaticism, fuelled by hatred.
However, there are careful, intelligent and interested listeners out there who can be reasoned with. Hopefully.
The only thing would be if he would appease the Democrats and that would create perhaps a backbone for opposition of Trump in the GOP. What is really lacking is any kind of opposition to Trump in the Republican party.
Good that Trump isn't as able and cunning as Putin. The thing is that Trump simply is unable to mold the political system into what he would like it to be. (And of course, I doubt that he has really true ideas or agendas what he would like other than to be praised on Fox.)
I don't intend to continue discussing Trump or politics. However, I think that this is an important point you make. What does it take for members to oppose leaders or presidents of their own party.
It takes moral courage and a willingness to be removed from the party and the power it currently enjoys.
There are a few who take a stance.
I begin to see encouraging signs in our own political system ( U.K. ) where all seems chaotic, confusing and self-serving with Brexit being the most divisive issue.
Other parties appear to be joining forces in a cooperative manner to oppose the extreme elements in the Conservative party ( I think roughly the equivalent to your Republican ? ).
Anyway, that's all I got. I am no expert. I watch and listen and vote as best I can.
In fairness, Trump is capable of reading a teleprompter. In this case, we're told the teleprompter stopped working, so he had to rely on his personal knowledge of history.
Kind of like when a newborn's diapers fail and they have to rely on their personal knowledge of hygiene.
:grin:
So funny and clever and so one of my favourite non-gittish, humourfool philosophers of all times.
Seriously :100:
:grin:
Well, bloopers are funny. Just like this one from Older Bush admitting he had sex with President Ronald Reagan.
I've been following this Epstein story. First, Trump needs to fire Alex Acosta first thing in the morning. Acosta arranged Epstein's plea deal a few years ago. It was a corrupt deal to shield a very evil guy. Turns out that when they made the deal they failed to notify the victims as required by law. It's possible that the original case could be reopened. Either way there's going to be a lot of ugly stuff coming out about people in high places. Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are two names that will come up. Nancy Pelosi's daughter tweeted that "some of our faves" are going to be involved.
There's no evidence that Trump had sexual contact with underage girls. It's not his style. He likes beauty queens, showgirls, glamour girls. Look at his wives. I don't believe he directly did anything.
If he did, I will personally lead the impeachment parade. Whether it was last week or twenty years ago. He will not get a pass for acts committed before he took office. Nobody in the country will be able to defend him.
Short of that, if there is no credible evidence of Trump personally doing anything, he needs to get out in front of this and fire Acosta. If he doesn't the left will go wild. And I will not say a word in Trump's defense on this one.
Very ugly story, Epstein's crimes, convicted and alleged, along with the official corruption that enabled him, are beyond awful. I read an article that included the phrase, "hundreds of victims." Everyone involved needs to go down regardless of party affiliation. Let the chips fall where they may.
Here's a good backgrounder. Trigger warning this will turn your stomach. Both the sex crimes and the official corruption.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/07/fresh-demands-labor-secretary-alex-acostas-resignation-mount-after-jeffrey-epstein
The fact that he choose to give a history lesson on the fourth of July was initially viewed by myself as some grandiose act of stoking one's ego; but, in fact was a show of confidence to expose one's self with a lack of knowledge on a subject.
Yet, there was no authoritarian parade of tanks, ICBM's painted red, or some such stuff.
Gasp, am I getting used to Trump?
Apparently he likes the beauty queens who compete in Miss Teen USA. In his own words:
Some of these "incredible looking women" were as young as 14 and none older than 19.
There is a big difference between Trump's trophy wives and females he grabs by the pussy or allegedly rapes.
With regard to Epstein Trump told New York Magazine in 2002:
One might take this to mean that Epstein likes them on the younger side, but given Trump's behavior at Miss Teen USA, he does too.
None of this is evidence of Trump having sexual contact with underage girls, but then there is the story from 1994 of the 13 year old girl who filed suit against Trump for raping her in Epstein's apartment. From Newsweek, 11/16/17:
So rape is fine as long as it's not with minors? Or grabbing them by the pussy doesn't count as such?
Ah, the Epstein thing!
Wonder when that would pop up to the surface like a ballooned rotting corpse that the gangsters failed to put into cement and which the tides have brought back to the beach from the ocean. This carcass won't go away.
As correctly quoted, the real gem is the New York Magazine article from 2002, which then was totally innocent with Trump eagerly telling the Magazine what a close friend he is to Epstein. I urge anyone that hasn't read it, but is interested in this strange thing to read it: Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery. It has everything, even Kevin Spacey!
Actually was it VICE NEWS in 2016 that quite correctly forcasted that this was so filthy to both sides it wouldn't be an issue. See The Salacious Ammo Even Donald Trump Won’t Use in a Fight Against Hillary Clinton.
Quoting Benkei
I'm just thinking how terrible the books about Trump will be after some time has gone. I mean if some authors portray the Kennedy's with a shady brush, just how shady will it be with Trump.
Quoting Fooloso4
Actually, didn't Trump settle with this rape victim? I remember it happening just before the election.
Quoting Maw
I remember something similar. After all, one of the victims was working in Mar-a-Lago
Anyway, this is far more interesting and far less loony than Pizzagate or the Seth Rich conspiracy.
According to Newsweek he lawyer claimed the suit was dropped because of "numerous threats" against her. It seems likely there was also money changing hands. It's a familiar pattern with Trump - deny, deny, and deny and if necessary intimidate and pay them off.
Both criminality and government have been subsumed by capitalism: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qdzby
One thing I find interesting is the support of the "west coast Straussians", academic political philosophers, conservatives and followers of the late Leo Strauss who frequently teach and write about Aristotle. They may give lip service to issues of character and human excellence and yet seem to turn a blind eye when it comes to Trump. Despite their extensive learning with all their learning they seem to have not learned some very basic things about demagogues and tyrants.
Trump responds to leaked private communications between a foreign government and their ambassador by publicly insulting the ambassador and publicly insulting the Prime Minister. So much for diplomacy.
I wonder if any one here knows anything about this. Conspiracy theory, political smear, or something more?
I gather this Epstein bloke is notorious already and being indicted with new charges, meanwhile this Trump related story is also coming back, and Acosta is still working for Trump?
Here's Snopes from the previous 2016 story: https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
Edit. And now this...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/09/labor-secretary-alexander-acosta-sex-trafficking-budget-cut?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0QNjmRS4Wb1gy6wBS3UzyKOerM3JRq-dOKg8MoPitOOTsFEMH0EA3C-D4#Echobox=1562770204
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/aoc-cry-mother-migrant-baby-death-mariee-yazmin-juarez-trump-border-ice-a9000161.html
When will this nightmare end? CHILDREN being put through inhumane and life threatening treatment?! Made to sleep on floors, eat spoiled food, have been assaulted, isolated and rumours of sexual abuse! These concentration Camps need to fucking stop! 2020 can't fucking come soon enough!
We can do a better job of caring for people, especially children, who are detained at the border. Doing a better job doesn't mean just waiving and waving them through the border and on to where ever they want to go. The borders between countries are there for a reason.
The parents of these children are also responsible.
I don't know what the Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor party was so hot to put her on the ballot. Or Ellison either, though he seems to be doing a good job as Attorney General for MN. We'll see whether she gets re-elected.
More about this here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/15/donald-trump-immigrant-failed-integrate
Quoting Richard Wolffe
The parents of these children are also responsible." I never said we should be waving them through, also a lot of these people are legal asylum seekers who are being refused a legal right to asylum to escape prejudice. The parents may be causally responsible for coming here but they are not morally responsible for what happens to their children and the mere suggestion that these parents want their children to be assaulted, raped, starved or killed is disgusting. If you think these parents are morally responsible then do you also think that the parents of jews in Germany were responsible for what happened to them?
This is an absolutely ridiculous statement and it is the same argument the trump administration is using to justify their mistreatment of these people. Laws are being fucking broken, human rights arent being respected. It isnt the parents doing it, they are just trying to bring their children to a better life away from extreme hardship. Also the Mother is still in the USA so evidently her being detained in a detention centre wasn't needed even to the people that took her and her child there in the first place.
If I hear one more pathetic "Oh the parents are to blame" argument instead of actually identifying those morally responsible (TRUMP, ICE and this SHITTY ALT RIGHT GOVERNMENT) I'm gonna lose my shit. How dare you ever make this argument. Do not reply to me if you are going to keep this up because it is absolutely a disgusting argument to make and you should frankly be ashamed of yourself for having made it. They are children for gods sake, who's parents are trying to do the extremely difficult right thing for them to give them a better future. Seriously if this is how you feel on the matter then you are using your own apathy as a form of prejudice. Which ethical view do you subscribe to? Clearly you are caught up in the new wave of moral apathy. That's okay, you'll just be part of the entire generation of philosophers that future philosophers will judge as the single most lazy and cowardly generation of philosophers. How does it feel to know that right now you are exactly like all the people in Germany who sat around and did nothing while Jews were burned?
Funny.
[quote=BBC News]Mr Trump has been accused of racism before in connection with different incidents.
For years, he made false claims that former President Barack Obama was not born in the US - propagating the racist "birther" conspiracy. He has also made numerous slurs against Central American migrants, calling them criminals and rapists. In 2018, he faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans after reports said that during a meeting at the White House he called African nations "shitholes".
When white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia, resulting in the death of 32-year-old counter protester Heather Heyer, the president said there were "good people on both sides".
Mr Trump and his father Fred Trump were sued by the Department of Justice in 1973 for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices. They settled the case without admitting guilt in 1975 but were accused again by the justice department in 1978 of an "underlying pattern of discrimination" against black tenants.[/quote]
This man is clearly racist, and all the Republicans keeping quiet about his latest remarks should be ashamed of themselves. Very ashamed.
Man of the people.
His children all have ridiculous posh names too. Lara Lettuce Johnson, Theodore Apollo Johnson, Cassia Peaches Johnson...
Yeah.
A bit of a mouthful, huh - and what comes out of his is...
'Spasms of incorrectitude' to say the least
:rage:
'Spasms of incorrectitude': Johnson's own words on lust, racism and the EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/spasms-of-incorrectitude-extracts-boris-johnson-writing
--------------
Quoting S
Indeed. It is disgusting but not surprising.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/15/donald-trump-congresswomen-republicans-ocasio-cortez-tlaib-pressley-omar
Now that I didn't know :smile:
And that's only the kids we know about...
When you throw crap at Trump, he just eats it and shits roses.
In fact, this place is entirely a product of his colon.
Don't soil your Depends on my account. I wasn't suggesting that parents were responsible for what happens in US border control facilities. What parents are responsible for is crossing borders illegally with children or taking large risks--like swimming across the Rio Grande with one's very young daughter. What follows after that decision (being detained in poorly managed facilities) is--as you said--the fault of "TRUMP, ICE and this SHITTY ALT RIGHT GOVERNMENT".
As I understand refugee status, the bar set by the international system is fairly high. A large portion of claimants will not meet the conditions required for refugee status. Desiring better economic opportunities, the desire to live in a less chaotic country, and so forth do not meet the standard. So, most of the people arriving at, or crossing the border illegally, are economic migrants, not refugees. Any nations obligations to economic migrants is minimal.
I loathe Donald Trump as an incompetent executive, narcissistic personality, and capitalist pig, but Trump or not, controlling borders is the legitimate responsibility of all governments, and no nation is obligated to take all comers. Nations exist for the citizens who support them, not for all the people who just decide that X nation is a better place than Y nation.
[i]Who Will Be Admitted[/I] is going to be a major issue around the globe as more and more people In an over-crowded world with insufficient resources and a deteriorating climate (and everything that entails) seek tolerable living conditions. The numbers of people on the move will rise into the hundreds of millions. They can not all go to Europe or North America, or New Zealand, Argentina, or wherever.
The tragedy of global warming and the concomitant environmental and economic disasters is that a lot of people are going to lose the competition for survival. I don't like that, but because the global community (that's everyone) has done very little to prepare for the climate and economic crisis, that's the way it is going to turn out.
In the short term, a better policy for the US would be assistance to the Central American countries to rebuild their economies and civil societies. In the long run (say, 2099) much of Central America might be too hot to live in. What we will all do in 2099 is... anybody's guess.
So we might have to give up growth and switch to alternative clean energy? So we are asking the scientific community for Terraforming countermeasures. These things are possible, with the universe out there, the solutions do exist.
Obviously, illegal immigrants from India, Ireland, or Indonesia are not swimming their way to the US.
The technical means to keep track of illegals who settle in the US and work exist, but it requires that US employers perform their legal requirements. IF they don't, then the various technical systems work poorly.
I'm not offended. The climate crisis is eating away at a lot of us. I expect the richest 1%, wherever and whoever they are, will ride out climate change in comfort. The rest of us...
Quoting Mark Dennis
Global warming is an unmitigated tragedy. The "survival of the fittest" won't be based on genetics, it will be based on geography. Various places on earth will be more severely affected and some places less so, and that includes the first world.
Just take for example the "bread basket" states of the USA. This area has been under cultivation for a short period of time, relative to climate change or world history. We have been fortunate in having pretty stable climate during this time. The soil was rich and the weather was very good most of the time.
Bread basket areas tend to be flat. Flat land doesn't drain very well. Nothing more dramatic than unseasonably heavy rains can wipe out a crop. A lot of land in the upper midwest is heading for a poor crop this year because of unseasonable wet weather, with water standing in the fields, or the soil being too wet to cultivate.
If the weather is too hot, too wet, too cool, or too dry, too many insects ... poor crop yields result. The same is true in Russia, Australia, and numerous other "bread basket areas". As the climate becomes more chaotic and hotter, crop yields (certainly in grains and soy) are going to decline. That means less food for everybody, around the world.
Alternative energy is here. Wind and solar with batteries (of various kinds) are now cheaper than coal in many places. That's one good thing. But coal is still being mined and burned, and the oil business is doing just fine. Transportation has become the leading emitter of greenhouse gases in the US (Europe and Asia aren't doing that much to lower emissions either), and we are doing very, very little to move to quality mass transit.
The fact is, nobody on earth has any experience with the gravity or magnitude of the unfolding crisis. A big rock might as well be heading our way for all the strategic responses we are collectively making.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wk6rswxQro No type of increased barrier will work to stop immigration. If parents have to make a choice between their child definitely dying in their home country between maybe being caught crossing a border illegally then I'd say those parents are making the right choice in regards to the interests of their child. A caught illegal immigrant can be turned away without abusing them or their children and their children are still blameless.
Besides we aren't arguing about the pros and cons of immigration policies we are talking about this current administrations policies which are clear human rights violations and when things like that are going in it is neither the time nor place to talk about whether or not an anti-immigration stance is right.
"Global warming is an unmitigated tragedy. The "survival of the fittest" won't be based on genetics, it will be based on geography. Various places on earth will be more severely affected and some places less so, and that includes the first world." So whomever has the best cards geographically/financially is going to get to decide the fate of the rest of humanity? Do you believe they are under no obligation to provide safe haven for our species during what is to come? Would the war trying to keep the rest of the world out of these potential safe zones when they get desperate and when their children are burning/starving on their doorstep bring about the absolute destruction of the human race? Trying to keep everyone out might be a very demanding and altogether unethical task if it will require the mass slaughter of all who try to gain entry. Survival of the fittest won't be based on geography either if this stance is taken, it will revert back to who can take it by force and I know I personally will not be on the side that is going to make the mistake of saying "no" to everyone else when people start to panic.
Why will moving 6 billion people into Canada and Siberia not work??
Because, as the zone of tolerable temperature moves north (in the Northern Hemisphere), the thawing and warming soils in much of Canada and Siberia will be wholly unsuitable for agriculture. That soil has been in a deep freeze for eons and has not turned into even poor soil, and it takes thousands of years for good soil to form. Also, as "the zone" moves north, more and more areas south of the zone (prime agricultural land now) will become unsuitable for intensive, extensive agriculture.
Global warming is a long term problem. The turn-around in climate may not occur for the proverbial ten thousand years, or as far as our species is concerned, ever.
What I am saying is this: The unfolding crisis will be implacable. It will be like the Black Plague was for medieval people: Equal opportunity doom.
Quoting Mark Dennis
That is the way contingency works in this world. The fleas on the infected rats didn't have any preferential options for one group or another. Those that were bitten by the plague-carrying fleas tended to get sick and die. Some people were able to survive the infection. A few were able to actually resist the infection. The descendants of those lucky people were lucky again several hundred years later when it turned out that that the same gene that resisted the plague also resisted HIV. Most people in the world are susceptible to HIV, regardless of their race, religious affiliation, portfolio, or degree of virtue.
Anyway, not to get too far afield, Yes: Whoever has the best cards geographically and/or financially MAY get to decIde the fate of the rest of humanity. To what degree depends on two things: how organized the rest of humanity is, and how determined those with the best cards are. People with great cards sometimes lose.
A highly organized association of 6 billion people determined not to do the slow burn in India, Africa, Indochina, the Middle East, and much of the Western Hemisphere can probably dictate who will go where. The likelihood of 6 billion people being well enough organized to decide ANYTHING seems quite remote. Not only must they decide, they have to figure out how. Don't expect a swift or effective solution.
The 2 billion people retreating to the cooler, not very fertile northern reaches of Canada, Alaska, Europe, and Siberia will not be home free. They will have plenty of problems providing for themselves, let alone 6 billion more.
The upshot? A major die off, and human beings will not have to organize it. We are already on the outskirts of the planet's carrying capacity for our species, and Mother Nature has proven and reliable methods of reducing populations.
Mother's methods are so hard.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red
Mother has no favorites.
By the luck of the dealers card
Mother Nature selects the dead
from White, Yellow, Black, and Red
Mother has no favorites.” This is poignant as fuck, yours or someone else’s? I’d search but I like to get information the old fashioned way, by asking someone who knows. Not all the time but if I have the opportunity. I accept that what you have laid out seems like one of the outcomes with the highest probability of being what actually happens.
I’m going to start a new thread tomorrow on climate change and I’d very much like you to contribute. However, it will also be a documentary discussion of two I have in mind. I’d be very interested to see how they might alter your outlook somewhat.
I think one of the best ways to go about futurology (For that is what we will also be entering into and what you have just done with your prediction.) is to determine a number of logically probable potential outcomes in order to cover as many bases as possible and to determine how much Hope there may or may not be depending on where you are. I have been thinking about this for awhile and I think if we can really get to the meat of the matter, we can at least figure out the courses of action individuals should take when they become more cognisant of the threat and the panic starts to set in. We could maybe both write essays and cite each other in the very least.
Would any of this be of interest to you?
I started with the Sunday school ditty, "Jesus loves the little children..." and tried to subvert the loving message. "All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little Children of the world."
There is an environmentalist saying that "Mother Nature always bats last." In other words, nature, like it or not, has the last say. Then there was your "So whomever has the best cards" and the idea fell into place. As a quatrain, I'd rate it as mediocre. The rhythm of iambic tetrameter doesn't work very well.
But... it's OK. "Poignant as fuck" is perfectly acceptable praise. It's about as good as I get.
I'm pretty pessimistic about our collective future; how fast the plot will unfold, I don't know. What I have read suggests that time is running out for effective action to have time to work, and beside that, not much effective action is actually happening. Consciousness of the crisis is higher than it used to be; good results for installation of wind and solar is being achieved here and there. Etc.
The bad news for us is that the degree of change we need to achieve, if achieved, will be shocking; very difficult to adjust to; very consequential. It means, basically, backing up to before the Industrial revolution. Another problem that looms up, along with global warming or climate change, is the depletion of affordable petroleum supplies. We've passed "peak oil" so are on the downside of the production curve. The good news is the curve is quite long, so we won't run out next week. But oil will become harder to get in the long run (with less than a century of diminishing economically obtainable oil left).
The end of oil, even if there were no global warming, will be a catastrophic change event, and is why we end up going back to before the industrial revolution. We can't lower CO2 and methane, and operate a heavy industrial society without oil. Our whole industrial existence has been predicated on cheap petroleum and coal. Oil is part of just about everything.
I've been influenced by John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler (they think alike and both use three names), but what they say squares pretty will with other authorities on energy, environment, oil, climate, and so forth.
As Kunstler says, we've been relying on magical thinking to ease our justifiable worries about the future.
It's interesting to ponder what drives some people to be so aggressive about an issue they don't really know much about.
Is it like racism where anger becomes displaced?
But why can't we applaud someone for the important things while ignoring everything else? I mean we all applaud Hitler for reducing joblessness, don't we? ... Don't we?
:lol:
So, Trump achieved more jobs by borrowing money during a boom created by his predecessor and handing all the loot to corporations and the rich. His grand economic plan is to borrow when you already have money, splurge it to make stupid people happy then have no money when you need it and blame it on poor people scrounging welfare so you can take what little they have from them to give to rich people during the next boom. Of course, this is totally unsustainable, but who cares? A country can just go bankrupt and then start again, right? ... Right?
Trump and the Trump machine are just representatives of human variation.
Double yawn.
The average unemployment rate under Obama for minorities, especially women, was %18 at its lowest (best) level. During the bulk of his reign, it averaged in the 20s. No “boon” existed. Regrets.
Trump inherited a growing economy. And yet, in typical fashion, he took credit even before he was sworn in.
The unemployment numbers do not tell the whole story. First because there is a significant number of people who have given up looking for work. Many jobs are part-time. Many are low paying requiring someone to work two, three, or four jobs. Many live paycheck to paycheck without sufficient funds to cover an emergency.
Meanwhile the national debt is at a record high and rising, while at the same time Trump has given a tax break to the wealthy. His tariffs, threatened tariffs, and trade wars disproportionately burden the middle class, leave businesses troubled and uncertain, and have an adverse affect on the global economy.
Whether these things are seen as underlying flaws or opportunities to be exploited depends on where you stand on the role of government.
Trump has made clear his intent to dismantle the administrative state. This is a large part of his appeal for some. He cannot simply do away with government agencies so instead he renders them ineffectual by putting people in charge of them who are fundamentally opposed to what these agencies were designed to do. It is not an underlying flaw but deliberate action intended to serve the interests of the plutocrats who, under the banner of freedom, benefit from deregulation.
And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities? The fact is that those rates have been falling long before Trump took office. Just another example of Trump taking credit for something he did not have anything to do with.
I don’t know what drives others to anger about the issue, speaking personally though to my own I’m generally angry when I’m on this thread, the amount of knowledge I have on it is making me panic, I’m panicking because I’m a parent, lack of awareness of said solutions aggravates me and I have a bias toward defeatism. However I am employing humes ethics of emotion in this as I’m following cohens observation that language isn’t just the written word as academics and bookish people tend to fall prey to thinking. It is our body language, intonation and sometimes our emotions. There is a interesting story that goes along with this: A brash arrogant philosophy student who is enamoured with a feeling of pride for an extremely complex, long and creative essay. He goes to read it to his professor, five minutes in and the professor is asleep. The student is annoyed but carries on. He finishes and makes to leave just as the professor wakes up. The student says “I’m sorry I didn’t get to hear your criticisms” to which the professor replies “Is falling asleep not a criticism?”.
Venting my anger on here is constructive to me though and I can reread my own comments when I’m calmer as part of some self reflection.
Will be good to have you in the global warming discussion though. Will be posting it before the end of the week.
Why do you say it's about role? I was talking about endurance.
Quoting Fooloso4
He wanted to turn back the clock. He thinks the US of the 60s and 70s can be revived. His animosity toward China comes from his sense that China is what the US used to be.
One of the reasons American heavy industry declined was that administrative bodies were equipped with the power to regulate and punish a wide range of employers. Trump thinks: China doesn't punish its industries that way. We should stop.
Whatever you think of him, there is an actual point of view in there. Obama talked about it.
It's true that he may have actually shifted the direction of the American domestic policy. We'll see.
:up:
Of course not. Few accomplishments arrive sans the shoulders and genius of others before them. I’m not debating Trump’s road-to-unemployment successes. His success isn’t unilateral, to be sure, but that hardly forecloses on its merit.
“And what specifically has Trump done to improve the unemployment rate for minorities?”
He’s induced businesses to hire them at a significant rate. The instruments behind the inducement range from de-regulation to tax breaks to favorable trade deals.
The two are related. Those who think that minimal government is optimal then if much of the government as it stands today no longer endured, so much the better because all that should endure is the minimum of government. Rather than seeing this as the end of government they see it as a correction, a return what the government should be. MAGA.
Quoting frank
I think he wants to turn back the clock even further. There are many conservatives who want to return to a time before Roosevelt's New Deal. They see the only legitimate role of government to be to protect the rights of the individual understood in the narrow sense of non-interference.
Quoting frank
The first question is whether there should be any regulation. If the answer is yes, then how much? The solution to regulatory overreach, in my opinion, is not to do away with regulation and regulatory agencies. Which is preferable - allowing coal companies to pollute the streams that are a source of drinking water, causing serious illness and death, or to protect the environment and the people who rely on it? Protect the jobs or the people? I don't think it is quite so simple though. For one, Trump's pro-coal stance benefits the owners of the coal companies in a way that is greatly disproportionate to the relatively few who benefit from having a coal job. Second, jobs and regulation need not be in opposition. There is, for example, far more job opportunity in solar power than coal.
According to this:
Here you can see the unemployment rate for minorities (and whites). It was in a steep rise for a year (for all groups) before he became President which continued for a year and then dropped sharply. Trump's unemployment rate is following the trend much like the rise in stock prices. It's really misleading to tout this as some triumph. It's a fact of life that barring significant upheavals like depressions, recessions, and dot-com bubbles, the economy improves over time.
What you should be looking at is policies implemented by Presidents that change their contemporary trajectory, e.g. Obama inheriting the fallout of a global financial crisis and managing to turn it around.
Precisely where is his success? What has he done?
Quoting Reshuffle
In a growing economy there is a growing need for employees (or at least that is still the case for now). That benefits all who seek employment. He has done nothing specifically targeted to help minorities.
The consequences of deregulation may in the long run disproportionately harm the poor, but the effects are seen long term. There is little or no evidence that his tax break did anything to increase employment.
As far as trade deals, he has created an environment of global uncertainty.
The fundamental problem here is that the short term picture of the economy, whether looked at in terms of what has happened since Trump took office or in terms of the long term consequences of what is happening now, can never give us the whole picture. One thing seems certain - as long as the economy does well Trump will take credit and if it doesn't he will blame someone or everyone else.
Trump isn't an anarchist, though. The core system is still in place. Regulatory bodies can be restarted downstream.
Quoting Fooloso4
I agree, although it wouldn't surprise me if Trump doesn't know who FDR is. He probably doesn't.
Quoting Fooloso4
All true, and all well said. I think the regulatory bodies we have now came from a liberal wave in the 1970s. We might have to wait for another one to restore them.
The question is, what is the core system? If he or others had their way and dismantled the administrative state what would be left? Could the government still function?
Quoting frank
It was the leftist liberal Richard Nixon who signed the EPA into law.
There was a short lived TV series on Amazon "Alpha House" created by Garry Trudeau. In one episode there is a Republican retreat. The entertainment includes an impersonator doing Reagan. Everything he says are things the Reagan actually said. They are outraged. Their conservative hero and spiritual father could not have said such things.
Constitution. Three branches. The usual. It's ok if some people are anarchists. We aren't going to lock them up and harvest their organs for transplants as China is apparently still doing after declaring that they'd stopped. Need a kidney?
I agree with most everything you say, BTW. I'm just looking downstream.
I'd like to make two points on this. First with regard to Article V of the Constitution which allows for both an amendment process and perhaps more importantly a provision for a constitutional convention:
The reason why this is so important is that big money interests backed by the Koch Brothers and others are pushing for a Constitutional convention under the guise of a balanced budget amendment. But they are not intent on doing this in the way that amendments have always been passed. If two thirds of the states demand it there must be a Constitutional convention. Once the convention is convened the possibility of radical change to the Constitution is possible.
The second has to do with Jefferson's view. In a letter to James Madison he writes:
Enjoy it while it lasts.
This assumes that there will be anyone around to remember. And this is not too far off topic since Trump's indifference to the environment may be an existential threat.
Nice doomful comeback. But you're making him into a much more powerful demon than he actually is.
China.
What underwrites that issue underwrites many. The general public tends to think in the terms served to them... That's a big problem when those who determine the terms do not have the best interest of the public in mind... but rather their own and that interest conflicts with the common everyday citizen's.
Trump gained power - in large part - due to a largely marginalized segment of the American population, not all of whom have racist attitudes. Those people who did not and/or could not attend college, although some did. These people used to be able to just follow the rules, work hard, and still be able to buy a house and live comfortably with some sort of retirement(pension or what have you).
That's the American Dream for many people, and it's realization was happening for generations. That's what "Make America Great Again" meant to some people who believed Trump when he said things like he wanted to put America and American's first, and talked about trade wars, manufacturing, and building trades jobs. Those people have been marginalized. Not all of them are racist.
For a long list of reasons(different legislation spanning the last fifty years or so) that's just not the cae anymore, and that change is the result - the inevitable consequence - of the government's own doing, along with the unwitting willingness of the general public to consume important topics in whatever terms they are fed.
So...
Here, just like most elsewhere, the understanding of Trump and the conditions allowing Trump to happen, is based upon inadequate understanding. After all this is over, the issues that gave rise to Trump, will be even harder to address, because too many legitimate and valid points have been subsumed by Trump in his speech acts(although he does not always speak sincerely or even know what he's talking about) and anyone afterwards who attempts to raise these issues will be judged by association to Trump, and quite mistakenly.
To be clear, I loathe that man. I'm not defending him in the least.
That's a part of it. Unfortunately, as I've already mentioned above, it's just not enough of the whole story.
There are a very large portion of United States citizens who no longer think/believe that the government is acting in their best interest, and justifiably so. Some of those people were/are white people with no college education who used to be able to live comfortably by following the rules, working hard, and saving their money. They could realize the American Dream just by doing that.<-----That is no longer the case.<------------That is the problem.
This describes - roughly and generally - the conditions that led up to Trump. Trump is not the problem. Racists are not the problem. The legislation passed over the last fifty or so years has pulled the rug out from underneath of far too many Americans. This legislation is not exclusive to either party. Both parties, and nearly every president since Jimmy Carter has had such bills passed during their administrations. Those pieces of legislature caused demonstrable, quantifiable unnecessary harm to everyday ordinary average people, not all of whom are either white or racist, but all of whom used to be able to follow the rules, work hard, and be successful by their own standards. They used to be able to realize their American Dream.
Disagree all you like. There's nothing illegal about being wrong.
That's a bigger problem than Trump, who is not the problem, but rather a symptom.
Her eyes must've been closed for a long time.
That's not the problem. If you do not agree that the things you just mentioned paved the way for Trump by virtue of securing enough non racist votes for him to squeak by, then there's not much more I can say. Everyone is entitled to their own belief.
In this case, only if it can be substantiated.
We could do it in the debate forum. It deserves that kind of attention, in my mind. This site hasn't has one yet. And... as a bonus, the debate forum has better rules of engagement. We could come to agreement about the debate topic/statement, who will argue in the affirmative/negative, and the other terms.
Interested?
Too bad. With that comment about substantiated opinions and all, I figured you meant it.
That sort of rhetoric won't cut it. We can let the readers decide. What's the topic statement?
Lobbyists write American law.
Lobbyists work on behalf of corporate interests.
Lobbyists are not elected.
I've heard the argument given that the reason lobbyists and other unelected individuals are allowed to write(or help write) American legislation is due to the highly specialized knowledge and/or background of any particular subject matter that the law has purview over(jurisprudence).
In other words...
Some law involves deep considerations/knowledge involving highly specialized subject matters such as global economic and/or environmental impacts. Those are the most serious sorts of consideration, and we ought approach such concerns using the most knowledgable, honourable, admirable, and reasonable minds available.
Those are excellent reasons to seek counsel and character standards to satisfy, but...
I would argue against the forwarding of all positions bearing any significant resemblance. I mean, such a position does not constitute adequate justificatory ground for allowing an unelected individual to write the laws that our elected officials are supposed to write. The need to seek counsel does not justify seeking just any counsel, especially one who advocates on behalf of those whose best interests are in direct opposition to the overwhelming majority of the general American public.
That's a real problem that reflects others.
The elected official has the sole responsibility of representing those who elected him/her. That is to partake in exactly that promise:To act on their behalf. Acting on their behalf is acting in their best interest. When an elected official is seeking counsel who's deliberately and intentionally acting on behalf of conflicting interests we have another very real problem.
What were you saying earlier Maw?
Indeed they could...
:wink:
It could also be the case that 48 or 49 of the 50 United States have enacted laws that force an individual private citizen to sign away his/her own intellectual property rights as an agreement of future employment.
Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom.
He can be both. And more besides. So many nouns and adjectives. Either way, he is a dangerous preacher of hate and division. This latest is an atrocious development.
Quoting Tom McCarthy
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/17/trump-rally-send-her-back-ilhan-omar
Like dying being a symptom of a terminal illness....
Evil is winning in America; the bad guy is winning. The sheriff has been run out of town, or bribed to remain silent, while the mob cheers. You're watching the office of the Presidency being destroyed, live, in real time, on 24 hours per day news coverage.
Every so often I paste this Wiki definition here so we all remain clear what we dealing with:
I agree with the first part of this but not the second. I do not know what the best strategy is to defeat Trump, but I don't think ignoring what he says is the answer. Drawing attention to them may embolden some section of his followers but surely there are others who are upset by them, and, in addition, there are others who are undecided that may be sickened by what is happening and decide that they must vote for someone who opposes him.
The problem is complicated, however, by the fact that the term 'racist' is thrown around indiscriminately. When, for example, Ocasio-Cortez accuses Pelosi of “persistent[ly] singling out ... newly elected women of color” she does damage to the causes she is promoting. Pelosi does not disagree with them because they are women of color, but that is what Ocasio -Cortez makes it about even though she later said that Pelosi is not a racist, thus further muddying the waters.
The United States is great because of people like those women, who are changing what needs changed from the inside, because they love our country. Wanting change does not equate to hating one's country.
Trump is an idiot. (in my opinion, these people hate our country)
Rabble-rousers... oh how definitions and values can change.
Trump is not.
Thomas Paine was. John Hancock was. Paul Revere was. Crispus Attucks was not. Jefferson was. Washington was. Hamilton was.
Have we learned anything new about Trump since being elected? Does anything he's done as President reveal anything about his character that wasn't already well known?
On top of that, we have a good economy, and a lot of people (bizarrely) think that Presidents control the economy.
So here's how to ensure Trump will be reelected: let him (and the Republicans), frame the debate in terms of protecting the country from socialism/communism. Show that the Republicans are right to assert Democrats want open borders, want to do away with private health insurance, want to raise individual's taxes, and are ready to start writing those reparations checks.
If you don't want Trump reelected, push for a centrist Democrat that will appeal to the working class and will not fit the Republican's caricature.
Maybe. One problem with this is that there is some percentage of voters who voted for Obama who voted for Trump because they wanted change. Until they believe the Democratic candidate will bring change they may either stick with Trump or not vote. Another problem is that the center is a moving scale. Since the Tea Party the Republican party moved to the right of Reagan and with Trump even further. So where is the center?
This is so fucking funny because the Democrats nominated Clinton who was a centrist and she nevertheless lost, but sure let's just try again for a banal centrist Democrat with no actual ideas other than being anti-Trump. Two of the top polling Democratic candidates are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and many of the other candidates have had to mimic their Leftist politics to gain traction because that's exactly where the conversation within the Democratic party has been going towards, and needs to lean into.
The GOP will call literally anyone in the Democratic party a socialist. They will say that the Democratic nominee is calling for open borders regardless of the person's actually border proposals. They will say whatever the fuck they want about the Democratic candidate's policies around healthcare and taxation regardless of the actual content of their proposals. Where have you been in the last ten year? The GOP will lie and lie and lie in order to appeal and rally a segment of voters. Literally a decade ago they said that Obama's ACA would lead to "death panels". So are you kidding me? Who the fuck cares about GOP/Trump supporters and what they think? This sort of hand-wringing is what has helped lead to GOP political power despite being an essentially defeated party back in 2008.
The way to win is to animate the Democratic base is with actual progressive policy proposals on issues people actually care about, such as Climate Change, Income Inequality, Healthcare, and Gun Control (and what's interesting is how different the 2018 voter issues are compared with the 2014 issues here....Climate Change and Healthcare have become top concerns now).
Further, Independents need to be inspired. They weren't inspired by Clinton. Only 42% of Independent voters voted for Clinton vs. 46% who voted Trump. Compare this with Obama's inspirational and progressive campaign in 2008 when he won 52% of the Independent vote vs. McCain's 44%.
What's also funny (read: absurd, tragic, rip my eyeballs out) is that NO ONE is telling the GOP be more moderate in order to appeal to more voters. Trump's strategy in the past two years has been to double down in appealing to the voting bloc that elected him to office, at the expense of alienating his more skeptic voters. Attendants at his rally yesterday yelled "Send Her Back" towards an elected congresswoman who is an American citizen for fuck's sake. This is the only president since national polling came about, who has never achieved over 50% approval. We also just had a HUGE rebuke of Trumpism in the form of the Midterms where Democrats won the biggest seat turnover in Congress since the early 70s.
Clinton was also....Clinton. who suffered from years of demonization. Lots of people voted against her, or didn't vote. Consider how low Trump's margin of victory was in key states - remove the anti-Hillary factor and you get a win.
And seriously, do you really think those issues I mentioned could pass? Is it worth taking a chance on them?
The lack of coverage for Bernie was unacceptable in a purported republic with democratic traditions. Shameful. Points back to the real problem, including but not limited to...
...legitimized bribery.
Yeah, Bernie probably will lose out to Warren; but, I'm fine with that and I suspect he is too.
Anyone except another old white guy...
Shame.
Odd to say the least.
Too much feminist thought(anyone except another white guy) clouding one's judgment? Perhaps.
Clinton was and continues to be demonized,sure, but you can't exclude her lackluster campaign and banal centrist policy proposals as a factor for her underwhelming performance.
Quoting Relativist
When Trump ran on building a wall and demonizing immigrants did anyone ask this? Maybe, but yet he won despite a large majority opposing the wall and a majority of Americans believing that immigrants strengthen the nation. The GOP also passed major tax cuts despite more Americans disapproving than approving.
Most polls show that Medicare For All enjoys majority approval. No Democratic candidate is supporting an open border policy so I have no idea why you mention that. Reparations is more of a tertiary proposal rather than a focal one, but it's nevertheless has a split approval rating among Democrats, and notably has increased in popularity since 2014, even among Republicans.
Weird because he's viewed favorably by the Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. More so than Whites, in fact.
Weird but very true. They all have lots of letters after their names too... if that matters to you.
That popularity thing is good know. A glimmer of hope? I've been out of the political news loop - intentionally - for quite a while.
The quality of the material being read matters too... right? :wink:
Right, I said it shows
What have I missed that matters?
Lots of things, but I'm not your private recapper
OK, maybe not 'ignored' but not given such hysterical and massive coverage. A big part of Trump's arsenal is to create outrage and then leverage it for coverage. It's disgusting, of course, but everything about Trump is disgusting, so the way that all the media outlets pile on simply helps him monopolise the headlines and grab more attention - usually about something quite irrelevant to the actual office of the Presidency.
Quoting Relativist
Hey I agree with you. I'm not an American (although I have near relatives in the US) but from where I sit, this internecine squabbling between the Democrats is a complete distraction. They need to pick a centrist candidate and all get behind him/her, and pronto.
This is basically Biden's strategy. And, it didn't work in 2016, so why would it now?
It would literally be a repeat of 2016 just Clinton with a penis.
If you mean that Biden is only more popular given his exposure to the media, then yeah he is more of a household name. But, Trump wouldn't have to think up much given the festering hatered for anything 'Obama' that has possessed the GOP.
well that's utterly ridiculous.
More rhetoric...
Meh.
I'll clarify my point. Those progressive policies will never be implemented no matter who is elected but people will vote against a candidate espousing them. This is like voting for Nader in 2000, which resulted in W being elected. Re:Trump, some people probably voted against him for his xenophobic positions, but obviously it didn't dissuade enough people. The "socialist" bugaboo may very well turn off swing voters- and that is exactly the strategy the Republicans are already using.
Quoting MawIt will never get the needed 60 votes in the Senate, and some independents will be afraid to support a "socialist" candidate.
[Quote]No Democratic candidate is supporting an open border policy so I have no idea why you mention that. [/quote]What candidate is talking about stemming illegal immigration? If they do NOT, their position will be defined by Republicans as being for open borders. (Free health care for the folks at the border? When many Americans lack health care? )
[Quote]Reparations is more of a tertiary proposal rather than a focal one, but it's nevertheless has a split approval rating among Democrats, and notably has increased in popularity since 2014, even among Republicans.[/quote]
A candidate supporting it it will lose more votes than he gains. This is irrespective of whether it ought to be considered.
Biden is not Hillary. Lots of people hated Hillary, but everyone likes Joe. Joe is much more popular among blue collar voters than Hillary. There's also mucho lessons learned from the 2016 campaign - in particular, take nothing for granted.
Yeah, but my main point is that hotelling's law doesn't apply to Trump, and hence you need something like a progressive or democratic socialist candidate to stir interest in the (predominantly) college educated electorate that have been sitting at home watching from the sidelines.
We can continue this conversation here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6273/hotellings-law-in-us-politics
Indeed.
Quoting Kate Connolly reports
Trump was elected because he was famous and he spoke truths people wanted to hear about criminal immigrants, lost glory and he does a fair impression of an alpha male.
The Democrats won seats because enough people were actually disgusted with Trump. If you want to win from Trump in an election, you need to not be Trump in some very obvious way. I'm not convinced the US is ready for a female leader though.
If you can get a white, straight, former military man who actually speaks the truth and is an actual alpha male instead of someone faking it, the dissonance will become immediately apparent and it will be an automatic win regardless of his policies, left out centrist, or lack thereof.
They care about policies indirectly: they care about themselves, so they are attracted to policies they perceive will benefit themselves. That means that "liberal" policies that help others don't attract voters (other than a core group of liberals like me), and will actually repel voters because of the perceived cost in taxes or deficits (or even opportunity cost - spending on someone else means you aren't spending for me)
Regarding "speaking truth" - I assume you're referring to subjective truth. Trump appeals to subjective truths all the time: the subjective "truths" of racists.
The assumption of considering people rational continues to astound me. Why do you believe this? Because you believe you're rational and therefore others must be too? If that were even remotely true advertisement wouldn't exist. Practically identical products wouldn't be priced wildly differently just because one of them has the right brand. Stores wouldn't try to differentiate on their "experience" for their customers. And the US presidential elections wouldn't be the nearly two year, billion dollar shit show it is now because, well, we'd only need facts and policies to decide.