Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
A big, hot, steaming cup of Joe...
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
Comments (2641)
When did they contract Covid? Who was President then?
Ridiculous comment.
It’s a joke, idiot. Keep your panties dry.
Does it not worry you that it was indistinguishable from your nominally serious comments?
Smart move.
Terrible move. America’s downfall is occurring at a frightening pace.
Not a bad start. Ezra Klein had a decent article today in the NY Times about the Democrats. If they want to win, they should enact legislation that effects peoples lives directly. Unlike the early days of the Obama administration, they should be much bolder. In order to do that, they'd have to destroy the filibuster -- and that probably won't happen, mainly because of Joe Manchin. So we'll have to see what they can do through reconciliation.
If they haven't learned anything, and lay down, then there's no chance for this country or for their chances in 2022.
lol. What a shocker that the guy up Trump's ass would say this.
Nos's demeanor has gone to shit.
It has nothing to do with Trump.
Health mandates are left to the states for a reason.
Frank’s snivelling has only increased.
Let me be as unambiguous as I can: I look at you with utter contempt. Your "opinions" are completely worthless. You made your choice a long time ago.
Thus, having you come out strongly against something furthers my confidence that it's the right move. For example, I was on the fence about a national mandate -- now I know it's the correct move. So thank you.
That figures.
I think you're traumatized by Trump's departure. This video will help with your PTSD:
I think that for a long time more people have died than on 9/11. Wasn't that number reached in the end of last year or so?
Sleepy Bill.
Looks partly like a "third" Obama administration (as basically his administration is largely made up of Obama administration veterans):
- Halting of the construction of the border wall by terminating the national emergency declaration used to fund it was a sure bet. But I guess Trump got 5 miles of totally new wall built somewhere where there hadn't been anything.
- Lifting the Trump travel ban was obvious. Yet you have the pandemic and all the restrictions with that, so...
- Undoes Trump's expansion of immigration enforcement within the United States.
- Joining the Paris climate accord was obvious too. Cooperation is good on this subject.
- Rescinds the Trump administration's 1776 Commission, directs agencies to review their actions to ensure racial equity. (1619 Project wins! The US was built on and for slavery, or something through those lines. Oh those evil founding fathers.)
- Requires executive branch appointees to sign an ethics pledge barring them from acting in personal interest and requiring them to uphold the independence of the Department of Justice. That surely will solve all problems.
- Directs OMB director to develop recommendations to modernize regulatory review and undoes Trump's regulatory approval process. (Did Trump have a process?)
- Halting the Keystone pipeline, so I guess that rail transport of oil is a winner then.
Well, Biden started actually like Trump: reversing on day one his predecessor's decisions. But unlike Trump, I guess Biden got a lot more reversed on the first day that Donald did.
That's the healing from the first day! :joke:
The soldiers were first subjected to ideological purity tests, some sent home for “inappropriate texts” and “ties to far-right militia groups”. Then the soldiers were virtually discarded after Pelosi’s fantasies were proven stupid.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/22/national-guard-troops-moved-to-a-cramped-parking-garage-complain-of-ingratitude-after-being-ordered-to-bug-out-of-capitol-building-they-came-to-protect/
A sign of things to come.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-mask-mandate-lincoln-memorial-1563657
Can Someone Please Open the Door?
No wonder it’s readers believe the way they do.
Actually not.
To have soldiers filling inside the halls of the Capitol was a deliberate photo op to show response after the security had been breached so disastrously. Notice that all the fiercest pictures of heightened security are shown after something has already happened (just like the photo of the troops at the Lincoln memorial). Once the photo-op had been done, then soldier can be moved a far normal area where soldiers are stationed in an urban environment. That they could run quickly into the building from the parking garage (or something) doesn't matter at all.
The staging of soldiers (not the two definitions of staging here) inside the Capitol is similar window dressing as putting an armed guard or tank at a busy intersection or next to a tourist attraction. The major reason is to show people that "security has been raised".
Why do you think it's awesome?
Seems you're happy that riots are now the ordinary thing in Weimar US.
Oh, I forgot, you live in Canada.
No, it’s awesome because the Democrats spent a lot of time dismissing their activity and feigned outrage whenever it was suggested to bring in the national guard.
Maybe you missed that way over there in Wherever, Europe.
“Optics”. A return to the public relations politics of Bush and Obama, where a politician can get away with anything so long as he utters nonsense about “unity” and “healing”. I doubt it will work this time around.
No. I didn't.
What you think is awesome is just the clear evidence of the simple partisanship on this issue, just as in anything else. If you think that this obvious "partisanship" is awesome, that the moral outrage is only saved for the supporters or so-called supporters of the other side, I don't understand you.
I noticed it when Obama came into power and when he continued the "War on Terror" just as Bush and immediately the critics of the Bush administration fell silent and started to 'understand' the new administrations continued actions (with even enlarging the drone strike program). It's evident on both sides and this is why this cancer isn't going to go away. The simple reason is the partisanship. If you have moral outrage when one side does it and find reasons to defend exactly similar action when done by "your" side, you simply lack morals altogether.
Where was this sentiment years ago? A little too late, in my opinion.
As for me I have never once denounced partisanship, a fundamental feature of democracy, especially when it has finally become convenient to do so. I’d much rather participate in politics instead of avoid it. This is the world they created and I admit it’s satisfying watching them stew in it.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/executive-orders-equity-joe-biden/index.html
But, from of the mouths of those who are unable to remove discredited and superstitious taxonomies from their thinking, looking for disparities between them becomes a motivating factor in this “whole of government approach”.
Partisanship is not a fundamental feature of democracy; it is the fundamental corruption of democracy: suspending your own right to vote in your interest by instead subscribing wholesale to the views of someone else.
Without parties we get the single-party politics of fascism and communism. In democratic countries, at least one can choose to assemble with others of like mind and influence politics. He can also, like myself, remain independent of any single party.
Credit where credit's due, this is very very good. Federal prisons still only constitute 6% of the US prison population, so still only a relatively minor change.
This is the real problem: extremists think in extremes. The options you see are: single-party authoritarianism or everyone in the country picking one of two sides. But those are not the only options available. One could still have political parties without people acting like mindless idiots with no ability to consider their position on a case-by-case basis.
It is racism. Racist societies have routinely set the state machinery to favor this or that racial group for no other reason than that they share the same shade of skin color. Your paternalism doesn’t absolve you of its stain.
It is wrong because race, as fuzzy as it is superstitious, is no proxy for genetic susceptibility and actual biology. The use of racial discrimination in medicine is certainly no argument for it, especially given the history, the Tuskegee experiments for example.
Why we're discriminating matters. It's why I don't drink bleach but do drink scotch, because I have a discriminating taste. It's also why I try to keep talking to you to a bare minimum.
Skin colour (and not "race", but a telling leap of logic there from you mr "colour blind") is most definitely a proxy for melanoma risk by the way. But yeah, I suppose the study of integrative genetics is total bullshit. :yawn:
I never said there is anything wrong with discrimination, so your point about bleach is a stupid one.
My point is that we shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of race, whether you choose to do so by looking at skin-color or some sort of one-drop rule.
Your advocacy of race-based medicine and diagnosis is utter bullshit, not a repudiation but a continuation of racism, and a mindset that has led to some of the worst atrocities in the history of medicine.
I have always been speaking about race, race-based discrimination and its institutional variations, and here you provide a study about the colors of skin and melanoma in an effort to prove the discrimination on the basis of skin-color is a good thing. I think it is you equating the two, racist.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting Benkei
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
You've been talking race, in response to a point I made about discriminating based on skin colour while simultaneously accepting there is nothing really wrong with discrimination. You, sir, are simply confused.
Clearly I was talking about race and race-based policy and medicine. I mistakenly thought you were as well, but I guess your entire argument was a red herring.
Quoting NOS4A2
Clearly you're an idiot who doesn't speak English.
Is skin-color not used as a marker of race? It is, as are other biological factors.
Let’s get this out of the way, then. Do you believe people should be discriminated against on the basis of race?
Bernie Sanders' inauguration memes help raise $1.8 million for charity
"We're glad we can use my internet fame to help Vermonters in need," Sanders said. "But even this amount of money is no substitute for action by Congress."
Jan. 27, 2021, 6:08 PM EST / Source: Associated Press
By The Associated Press
About those wooly mittens that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wore to the presidential inauguration, sparking endless quirky memes across social media? They've helped to raise $1.8 million in the last five days for charitable organizations in Sanders' home state of Vermont, the independent senator announced Wednesday.
The sum comes from the sale of merchandise with the Jan. 20 image of him sitting with his arms and legs crossed, clad in his brown parka and recycled wool mittens.
Sanders put the first of the so-called "Chairman Sanders" merchandise, including T-shirts, sweatshirts and stickers, on his website Thursday night and the first run sold out in less than 30 minutes, he said. More merchandise was added over the weekend and sold out by Monday morning, he said.
"Jane and I were amazed by all the creativity shown by so many people over the last week, and we're glad we can use my internet fame to help Vermonters in need," Sanders said in a written statement. "But even this amount of money is no substitute for action by Congress, and I will be doing everything I can in Washington to make sure working people in Vermont and across the country get the relief they need in the middle of the worst crisis we've faced since the Great Depression."
Sanders' mittens were made by Jen Ellis, a Vermont elementary school teacher who has a side business making mittens out of recycled wool. His inauguration look, also featuring the winter jacket made by Burton Snowboards, sparked countless memes from the photo taken by Agence France-Presse: The former presidential candidate could be found on social media timelines taking a seat on the subway, the moon and the couch with the cast of "Friends," among other creative locales. ....
The groups that will benefit from the proceeds of the "Chairman Sanders" items include area agencies on aging to fund Meals on Wheels throughout Vermont, Vermont community action agencies, Feeding Chittenden, Vermont Parent Child Network, The Chill Foundation, senior centers in Vermont and Bistate Primary Care for dental care improvements in the state, Sanders' office said.
Sanders' attire has also sparked other charitable endeavors. A crocheted doll of Sanders in his garb was auctioned off online and Burton Snowboards donated 50 jackets to the Burlington Department for Children and Families in Sanders' name, his office said.
Getty Images will donate its proceeds as part of the licensing agreement to put the photo on T-shirts, sweatshirts and stickers to Meals on Wheels of America, Sanders' office said.
Why do you think them incompetent?
That's awesome.
In the scheme of things, it's nice to know that some politicians are actually doing something right down to hungry children on the street.
Child poverty is an awful problem (as far as I'm concerned), but often dismissed by tax-phobic politicians.
To be fair to me, why would I think that Trump's initial appointees were political choices rather than based on competence? What norms should I use?
America barely weathered a lethal threat to its constitutional structure, a danger that continues to loom.
If I were Biden, I would want to make an impact urgently in the first 100 days. To do that, leaders of proven competence and accomplishment are needed now, regardless of affiliation. Pleasing my political loyalists and allies can wait. Else the rosy days of victory will quickly fade into disappointment about lack of achievements and empty rhetoric.
It's your claim. It's not on others to explain it to you.
Quoting magritte
You still haven't given a hint of a clue that he hasn't.
Biden has signed 30 executive orders in his first week, which to me is dictator status. Compare that to Trump’s 6 and Obama’s 5. Whatever he’s doing he’s doing it fast and with an iron fist.
But it’s nice to have a press secretary who understands the details.
Not all claims require proof by the claimant. If I claim Biden can't swim is the proof on me? Perhaps positive claims require proof but negative claims need only a single counterexample? Or perhaps I need only appeal to explicit idealistic motivations from the inaugural address as proof for misplaced intentions in naming people to key administration posts?
Ideals and speeches are wonderful for the masses of followers, but putting those ideals into practice as a social experiment on a grand scale as a bet on our future as a nation should be questionable and be questioned.
As he should. No?
Claims of fact do demand evidence. Otherwise "fact" and "making shit up" become the same thing: the post-truth philosophy.
Anyway, proof not required here, just any indication that what you're saying is remotely true.
Quoting magritte
Oh, I get it. Him saying that racism is bad suggests that black people aren't qualified to do their jobs kind of thing.
A neutral surveys of the breakdown of Biden's appointments might be helpful.
CNN
PPS
Brookings
What is noteworthy is the delay in the Senate on confirmations of appointees which, to me, only signals the entrenched trumpism of the Republicans. One should hope that exceptionally qualified appointees should receive relatively higher degree of support from both sides.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No, you don't get it. You are taking a neutral questioning remark to be racist. Perhaps I am operating in one of your blind spots?
Quoting Biden's Inauguration speech
I take it that you actually believe this statement of Biden's and that now Biden intends for 'equality' to become not just an American ideal but an American fact.
What in your view is 'equality' and how does that apply to a group or to an individual? Is Black Lives Matter the same as Black Power? If not, which one should we be talking about?
NYmag, 'Equality'
I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. Seems like the usual array of backgrounds in industry, law, politics and the military.
Quoting magritte
Well, I don't know you and hope to be surprised but yes when people start claiming that women or ethnic minorities only got their jobs through positive discrimination then outright refuse to justify why the people in question weren't in fact qualified... it doesn't look promising. Or neutral.
Quoting magritte
Are you against equality as a fact?
Quoting magritte
We're talking about Biden's appointments, a topic you raised. It's still unclear to me why you think they were appointed because of their gender, skin colour, sexuality, etc. rather than regardless of their gender, skin colour, sexuality, etc.
Yes. In nature, as opposed to math or logic, no two things are ever identical or equal in every way. They may be equivalent in certain respects but not equal. All electrons may be interchangeable meaning equivalent in fact, but no two are ever physically identical in every way. Scaling up, it becomes ever more the case.
1. Gender, race, etc. are categories of people that are more or less applicable to an individual.
2. Individual competence is an independent factor and is strongly related to the appointee's background and demonstrated effectiveness matching the job requirements in the exact circumstances.
3. An appointment is a position of social and economic power dependent on an appointee's ability to wield that power.
Biden's nominees attempt to tip the balance of power (3) in favor of representatives of various historically disadvantages groups with the implication that this power will be further delegated down the line. Ideally, that responds to the demands of minorities and other liberal allies such as Sanders followers.
The problem is that 1. and 2. are independent of each other, and if you would dare to research this, then first you would not be funded, second, you would not be published, and this before you ever did the research. That's because past research has already corroborated the inequality between groups of people, and the research caused a scandal, an uproar, and pretty much finished he careers of the scientists who did it. And no, I will not give the references. This does not mean that person X regardless of sex, race, etc. cannot be the best at what they do, simply, that statistical science will doubt it on statistical grounds. The reasons were much debated when I was in graduate school with the discussions being strongly steered away from the findings. In summary, the greatest person can be any genius, but inequity persists due to genetic selection (dare I say it?) as well as socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values.
The point is that if the world (or my much-needed brain transplant surgery) is at stake, I want the genius to do the job and not a well-respected minority representative.
Let me stop you there. Equality in this context is not about an Arkansas inbred being given the same job and pay as a prodigious scientific genius. Equality is about precisely one's individual merits being the _only_ criteria for the limits of their success.
Biden referred to racism as a bad thing. One aspect of racism is to systematically disadvantage people of colour _despite_ their individual merits. What would be odd is if he then insisted in his appointments that only white men have the merits to be in office when, on paper, the non-white men and women you're complaining about seem par for the course for that level of public office, that is: they seem as qualified as the white male appointees you have no problem with.
Quoting magritte
That would be a good argument for demanding higher prerequisites of all appointees but a poor one for arguing against equally qualified non-white or female appointees. Since you haven't explained why the non-white men and women appointed are less qualified than the white men appointed but you particularly single them out as usurping roles meant for geniuses... well, that's not good.
Lots here, (though almost none of it addressed by my post).
Sure, many substitute skin pigmentation for race and base discrimination on it, that is (somewhat inaccurately) referred to as "racism". It is a small subset of the larger topic of "discrimination".
Many discriminate based on race (among many other things), that is not necessarily negative. However, you stipulated: "… discriminated AGAINST...", which, of course is negative by definition, so I am against that.
There are many examples of racial discrimination that are not negative (and I am not against those).
There is little difference between so-called positive and negative racial discrimination, in my view. In each case, one adopts a perverted racial taxonomy, a race hierarchy, and applies it to actual people. To give preference to one racial group is to do so at the expense of other racial groups, with little care for the actual flesh and blood individuals involved. Positive racial discrimination is not contrary to racism. It is the continued application of racism.
You are referring to favoring one race vs favoring a different one and calling that positive and negative. I agree with you that in the moment both are negative. However, Real Life is more nuanced. One issue is taking into account longer periods of time than just this moment. Another is that most racism that takes place is neither positive nor negative, it takes into account the fact that on average, there are differences between groups. Not necessarily among individuals.
Is it logical or illogical to take into account a real statistical difference between groups when dealing with an individual in that group? Not to stick with this difference when updated with individual information, but to start off in the absence of individual data/experience?
It depends on the group. I think it is illogical to take account of statistical differences between groups if the existence of those groups can be easily questioned. Take the idea of reparations, for instance. I think there is a solid argument for reparations, and I do think the United States should compensate the victims of slavery. But should someone like Kamala Harris get reparations on the basis of her “race”, even though she is (according to her father) the descendant of a slaver?
How do you think that should be addressed?
Defunding the ruling class (through expropriation and public ownership of their wealth) would allow for the kind of economic redistribution that could help.
Even if there were a revolution and the ruling class were economically neutered, there are huge cultural problems to over come, and I am confident that we do not know how to do that.
I would be for defunding people and institutions who are guilty of those crimes against humanity, but I could not in good conscience lay blame and seek punishment upon an entire class of people without knowledge that each and every individual composing that class were guilty of said crimes.
I would not be opposed to defunding the government, though.
:100:
Also, if we just help people in proportion to their need, disproportionately needy demographics (e.g. black people) will receive a disproportionate amount of help automatically, to exactly the extent that they are disproportionately needy, and only for so long as that is the case.
Refilling? Oh you think that someone drained the swamp? Lol.
So you don't want to punish the whole class at once? That's fine; we can try and punish them one at a time, if that makes you happier. We'll start with the richest capitalists and most powerful members of the ruling class first, then work our way down to the bottom of the top 1%. Better? After that, we'll deal with your unfortunate case. Don't leave town.
There aren't any slave owners left.
Interesting. I mean it's interesting that when replying to my post about updating initial discriminatory practices (based on group knowledge) when updated with individual information, you used an example using individual information.
As to your specific query, why bend over backwards to use an example that has little to chance of happening in the best case, then use as your specific example a case that is by your admission, the opposite of the best case?
So I would answer thusly: as a thought experiment, I see your Vice President Harris point, but as policy, it is commonplace for criteria to inclusionary rather than exclusionary.
I would call myself a liberal in the classical sense.
No, I do not approve. This sort of stuff leads to the killing fields. I think your ideas are unjust and I fear for the countries where such mindsets achieve power.
I wasn't proposing that we sentence even one of them to a firing squad. I would divest them of their ill-gotten wealth. After that, they would have to get a job and work like everybody else does -- work appropriate to their skills, but not involving re-accumulation of their wealth.
I think losing their wealth and having to live like ordinary people do would be quite severe punishment.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/migrant-children-facility-immigration/index.html
That’s exactly what the Trump administration did.
“Our number one goal is to unify them with their sponsor and while that’s happening we’re providing them with a quality education”
- Mark Weber, US Dept. of Human Services, Trump administration.
It must have slipped your mind.
Quoting Benkei
From the article you linked, the secondary point:
"Former president Donald Trump’s new legal team got off to a shaky start in a legal brief on Tuesday, addressing their arguments to the “Unites States Senate” instead of the United States Senate, the body that will try Mr Trump on 9 February on allegations he incited the 6 January attack on the Capitol."
Everything he touches turns to moron.
Executive actions taken during the first 12 days. Executive orders (red), Presidential Memos(blue), Proclamations(grey):
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/03/963380189/with-28-executive-orders-signed-president-biden-is-off-to-a-record-start
But who cares? At least he doesn’t make mean tweets.
So, yawn for now.
If the problem isn’t Biden why didn’t others do it? No, the problem is Biden.
28 executive orders in 2 weeks. Benkei: “For creating a task force?”
The point was made and you desperately searched for some way to dismiss it, but did a poor job of doing so, convincing no one but yourself. Thanks anyways.
According to Biden’s own fuzzy principles, ruling by EO is something dictators do.
Do you believe policy should be reached through a process of debate and deliberation, or by presidential order?
Quoting Benkei
In relation to your reply to
Don’t bother. I don’t require bits and pieces of CNN articles to tell me what I should think.
Anti-Trumpism is still the reigning principle, it seems. I cannot wait to see what other behavior you’ll forgive on such grounds.
Speaking of making shit up as we go along, you couldn’t even get the citation right.
I read every executive order and proclamation, and have done so for the last few years. I doubt you have, but I don’t mind if you quote a line or two from a “CNN” article in lieu of that.
The point is this:
“ In his first two weeks, President Biden has signed more executive orders than most recent presidents did in their first month. He has signed nearly as many executive orders as Franklin Roosevelt did in his record-breaking first month.”
I would prefer to know what you think about that than be given some red-herring about “task forces”.
Your method of cleaning toilets is to drop a big coiler in the center of the bowl and smear it about.
Right, it’s not Biden it’s the system. Yet it’s Biden abusing the system. The discussion ended when you went into something something task forces.
Yes it is evidence of abuse.
The speed and amount of executive orders is where the abuse lies.
But if Trump did this, NOS would complain too. He is unbiased and speaking from the heart about an injustice...
:rofl:
It looks like Joe’s military inauguration and subsequent military occupation of Washington is costing big, tax-payer bucks.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-4b27fdcda664a919e3eeaa1691c9c785
Is it getting to you? That Biden won?
I don’t like Biden at all.
Does he remind you of your dad?
My father doesn’t sniff little girls.
Ooh. You're so touchy!
He's actually fighting the baby eaters. Q said so.
I’m touchy? You’re the one who interjected because I criticized Biden.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/seamushughes/status/1357459933818720263?s=21[/tweet]
Yea, you weren't so acidic when Trump was in power.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/TyTalbot7115/status/1357809313969016835?s=20[/tweet]
The image is in the original document.
https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Brian%20McCreary%20Statement%20of%20Facts.pdf
So I guess you'll believe anything if it fits your worldview and disbelieve it when it doesn't?
That's the fact, they can't then include the original image because that would be lying.
We also know the only reason you shared that tweet was to suggest there was some buffoonery from Biden to fit whatever warped worldview you're trying to maintain.
Sanders' capacity to piss off people will never cease to amaze me. A Frisco teacher -- Ms Ingrid Seyer-Ochi -- has written an OpEd about how his mittens at the inauguration were a symbol of "subtle white privilege".... Very subtle indeed.
We need a word for all those folks who hate Bernie with a passion. There's a few words for his supporters already: the Bernites, the Bernie bros; but how do we call those who suffer from the opposite condition? The Bernophobics? The Anti-Socialo? The Truth-Haters?
it seems like Trump supporters continue to hold Republican politicians hostage. Is this a permanent thing? Or will it fade in the next few years?
What? The? Hell?
First off, how can a judge order the executive branch to continue to deport people based on a statute that hasn't been used for decades? But even then, doesn't the executive branch have discretion how and when it can exercise its powers, including not doing anything? It's not as if every crime is investigated and prosecuted either.
How pravda -- The ying-yang gods of america, saint Bernie and the teflon Don
Doesn't the vote about Liz Cheney's position show that Republicans vote differently when it's a secret vote?
Trump enabled a further rightward shift (for some, into the 'crazy' zone). We'll see what happens next. I expect that the Republican Party will not move toward more liberal social policy. As far as fiscal policy goes, they have shown zero fiscal responsibility.
That makes sense. Public votes keep the ruled in a relationship with the rulers. So the politicians I've been thinking of as 'held hostage' are just showing us what the will of the people really looks like. I hadn't thought of that.
Quoting Bitter Crank
They lowered taxes on the wealthy. That made no sense.
Very true, and they greatly increased the deficit by continuing larger discretionary expenses and decreasing income. Of course the Covid-19 stimulus packages contributed to the deficit, but there are two or three trillion dollars above and beyond that. Republicans used to be committed to balanced budgets and debt reduction. For that matter, many Democrats did too.
Problem is, we can't keep cutting taxes on the wealthy without cutting spending -- if you want a balanced budget and debt reduction. A lot of discretionary spending (apart from mandated expenses) Is in the military area; the wealthy who own military supply firms (like Martin Marietta, Raytheon, etc.) are the prime beneficiaries (assuming that the average American is not actually benefitted in any significant way from increased military spending). Certainly Americans are not actually that much safer for all the money spent.
As Biden’s son-in-law invests in COVID-19 response, questions of family and ethics could resurface
But he’s lucky the press will handle each and every conflict with kid gloves.
True to form. The Obama administration was the most censorial administration in recent memory, so it’s no wonder the Biden administration is little different.
I expect a whole bunch of outrage over such attacks on the free press, but don’t hold your breath.
:heart:
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/28/politics/jamal-khashoggi-intelligence-report-three-names-removed/index.html
Actually might be just the always irritating realpolitik of the Saudi-US alliance, that still is important. Or would it be better that the relations went the way of one former US ally, Pakistan? Or like with another one, once heralded as the other "Twin-Pillars" ally of the US, Iran? Americans would so much love to hate the Saudis.
(Above an actual re-enactment of the old meeting, done in February 2020 by US and Saudi officials)
You have to have a negative COVID 19 test in order to fly into the USA but not if you walk across our border.
It's not okay.
I call it tomato, you call it whatever you call it in Finland. :wink: Don't disagree but the hypocrisy of the Dems pisses me off.
Saudi-US alliance is something like if United States and Russia would be allies: would make strategic sense (nobody would dare to oppose that superior tag-team on the World stage), yet the alliance would create constant bitching the US backing non-democratic Russia and Russians getting irritated of US involvement. Both countries would likely be annoyed by the "unholy" alliance, even if it would make strategic sense...if such alliance could have been created after the Cold War (a possibility, but would have needed larger than life politicians to do that).
In similar fashion the US-Saudi relationship gives the US a huge position in the Middle East, especially when Iraq and Syria have collapsed and Egypt is in turmoil. If the relations goes sour and Saudi Arabia seeks security guarantees from China and Russia, then the trainwreck that is called US Middle East policy would be final. And then the final ally left would be Israel.
But that's how US alliances end: they end either with a revolution (example: Iran) or with just a souring of the relations with finally both sides not bothering to think about the relationship anymore (Pakistan).
What keeps you there when stuff like that happens regularly in Georgia?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BMarchetich/status/1371944111779942401[/tweet]
I don't think I've issued a fuck Joe Biden proclamation in a while.
In which case, fuck Joe Biden.
If there wasn't a once-in-a-century global virus, it's undeniable that Trump would have won. Even intra-pandemic decisions such as passing a larger stimulus prior to the election could have changed the outcome of the election, as pointed out. It's an exercise to precisely recollect - a year plus after the fact and given the year we've have - how absolutely fucked Biden's campaign seemed to be until Super Tuesday when still viable candidates suddenly dropped out and Biden became the de facto nominee despite how close the delegate count was. There was even some ad hoc Presidential support for Andrew Cuomo
Biden administration says 14,000 migrant children in its custody as it refuses to call border situation a 'crisis'
It was caused by US exploitation of South America. President blaming is a sideshow.
I don’t think so. They bring children to the border in order to exploit the asylum system.
They wouldn't need asylum if the US hadnt neoliberalised their societies.
Isn’t President Obrador a socialist?
So is Biden according to Republicans.
I love this idea. Leaders should settle their disputes with a good old debate, or absent that, a duel. I wager Biden wouldn’t do too well in either, however.
You say “separate families”, without mentioning the fact that many of them weren’t families at all, but child traffickers and the children they used to get across the border. You effectively promote keeping trafficked children with their traffickers, and have zero care for that crime and the children it exploits.
That’s a lie. The DHS had no blanket separation policy. The only reasons the DHS would separate children from the adults is 1) when DHS is unable to determine the familial relationship, 2) when DHS determines that a child may be at risk with the parent or legal guardian, or 3) when the parent or legal guardian is referred for criminal prosecution. You would see that they are kept with their abusers, or otherwise jailed with their parents.
Why do you bother with this imbecile? Let the thread die and just let him talk into the online ether.
But he posed with a rainbow flag or some shit so liberals are all too happy to heap excuses on that peice of shit.
Obama-era officials return to White House worth millions
My point is that your good men use their positions of power to enrich themselves, not the people they have vowed to serve.
That’s my point. Now they’re back in power.
They are power and money-grubbing corporate elites who have deemed themselves fit enough to manage the public purse.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879
And if this was the Trump family, you'd be telling us this was just 'gossip'. :yawn:
(And fucking hell if this is the best the muckrakers can come up with re Biden, give me the job. I've got a healthy imagination and zero qualms about taking out the rich and powerful on either side. This is bloody pathetic).
It's a psychological malady but it sells advertising space on Breitbart, so someone's making mint at least.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Russian disinfo.
If you're working for Putin, you probably better check your underwear, mate, because this ain't up to scratch.
Seeing that the excitement of having the new administration has worn off.
That took, uh... two months. I'll think the anti-Trump crowd will be on the streets demonstrating against this administration in two months or so. For some reason that is bound to happen. (Of course the protests in places like Portland never stopped, but who in the media cares about that.)
In spring it's warmer and nicer to protest.
Perhaps it is a case of self-censorship, where forum members feel that they might get into trouble if
they expressed their honest opinions on this thread.
But as Mary Midgley wrote - "Is philosophy like plumbing? I have made this comparison a number of
times when I have wanted to stress that philosophising is not just grand and elegant and difficult, but is also needed. It is not optional".
Plenty of critique possible with respect to the US corporate-governmental apparatus but I don't think Biden plays an exceptional role in that.
Ya think?
Yea, they want a dictatorship. I guess the left-side of American liberalism has been accepting a judiciary that was probably too strong. Gotta expect a reaction, fueled by economic erosion.
Next crisis could bring it on.
Though as Harry S. Truman said at his Commencement Address at Howard University 1952 :
"It is no service to the country to turn away from the hard problems--to ignore injustice and human suffering. It is simply not the American way of doing things. Of course, there are always a lot of people whose motto is "Don't rock the boat." They are so afraid of rocking the boat, that they stop rowing. We can never get ahead that way. We can only drift with the current and finally go over the falls into oblivion with nothing accomplished."
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1405943810648117255[/tweet]
Maybe we could stand back a bit. Imho...
A key problem is that pretty much all the cable news networks, liberal and conservative, are owned by major corporations whose bottom line focus is not news, but profit. This is why corporations exist, to make money, as much as possible.
So, how do you make money in the "news" business? You sell ads. Ad prices are based on audience size. So how do you get a large audience? By catering to the lowest common denominator. Who's that? That's us! :-)
Seriously, all the cable news shows really care about is stimulating viewers by any means necessary to keep us glued to the screen as long as possible. That's the business they're in. Like Facebook for example, carefully designed to feed us anything that will keep our attention.
Point being, the cable news corporations are injecting as much conflict in to the population as they possibly can in order to boost profits. It's not a crime, it's legal, but we should be more aware that we're being played.
Conflict addiction - it's real - check it out:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11211/conflict-addiction
I'm not plugged into the counter terrorism world the way I was back when I worked in it, but I believe this stems from the mobilization of previously largely online anarchist groups during the 2020 riots, a similar phenomenon to the Boogaloo Boys.
Some of these individuals were involved in arson, producing fire bombs to use on police, etc. Setting a building with people in it on fire fits the bill pretty well IMO. There were also explosives used on a police station in Seattle although the damage was not extensive.
Probably also a political hedge. You know, "we're getting all sides." But also people don't want to fall into the mistakes of the 2010s again. We ignored far right terrorism because it produced very few fatalities, and was generally low level arson. Then we started having mass casualty attacks. You don't want to wait until you're on your 5th mass shooting to start infiltration and CVE efforts like we did with the radical Right.
Anthony Blinkin even had the temerity to refer to them as 'self-defense'. Fuckers.
The essential qualifier of that document is "Domestic violent extremists are US-based actors who conduct or threaten activities that are dangerous to human life...", and it even says "[m]ere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute violent extremism, and may be constitutionally protected."
It's just a way of categorising different kinds of domestic violent extremists according to their political goals.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Now for something completely different...
Well... to be honest my only valued take away from this epic ordeal of change in leadership in the USA is this:
The nightly news in the country I live in (Austria) no longer has to dedicate 4 to 5 minutes of valuable time to the daily topic of:
"What new vitriolic brain fart did that Orange Julius Caesar Asshat Trump spew forth today..."
My personal 'happy part' of this transition is that finally I don't have to hear about the USA every fucking day of my life, in spite of the fact I choose to no longer live there.
I can finally have the focus of news put back onto things that actually concern my life in Austria and Europe, instead of the constant and tedious reminders of what I already know and what I've tried my best to leave behind me... that being:
Yes Greg... you do come from the stupid country.
Sánchez puts Spain ‘on the radar’ of US investors
That's fairly comforting, but I'm still not entirely convinced that, as an Anarcho-Pacifist, I won't be considered as a domestic terrorist threat.
Upon having this rather revolting thought myself, which has led me to discover what really happens behind the scenes in American politics, what do you think think the chances of Joe Biden getting reelected are now, given the political fallout of the situation in Afghanistan, and, if they are slim to none, what kind of person do you think that we should prepare ourselves for four years from now?
The democrats recently rolled over on letting Republicans basically pick their voters, so they will lose the senate next year. After which the dems will be useless not by choice but by necessity. After which the Republicans will win again, and the US will continue down the shitter that the election of Joe Biden more or less guaranteed.
They've been fixing gerrymandering through the courts.
Obviously Biden will be smeared as much as possible by all of his critics.
Fortunately another potential Benghazi didn't happen. :eyes:
Hope so. Not over yet.
State should have war-roomed this scenario, had some very strong advocates for the worst-case scenario that has just materialised. ‘What will it look like if you’re evacuating embassy personnel off the roof in Blackhawks? If all those translators and their families are killed in the streets?’ They should have challenged his optimism, the naive faith that it would all be OK. The US still could still have left, but not left a disaster.
I was so hoping that the Biden administration would be successful and this disaster has diminished that hope. The problem is, a Biden failure will not open the door to someone better. Things being as they are, it will open the door to a lot of people who are a whole lot worse, by every conceivable measure. There’s a lot riding on the hope that somebody, anybody, who is not aligned with the criminal Trump and his malevolent cronies will carry the day, in the end. And if they don’t, we’re all going to be the worse off for it.
I did this, too, but I think that it's sort of telling that we begin to consider the next election results during a time of crisis such as this.
I was leafing through posts on Twitter on the situation there and found for a lot of them to either pass the blame, on the part of Biden supporters, or exploit the crisis by offering obvious criticism of Biden's response, on the part of right-wingers in the United States.
People in this country really have no sense of priorities. There's a crisis there and we should be thinking about how it is that we should respond and how we expect for our elected officials to.
For anyone who is curious, I supported the withdraw and still do. I think that this would have happened whether we withdrew in 2002, 2012, or 2034. It just isn't possible to have faith in what you're fighting for as an invading army, and one with only limited warrant at that. These claims that Donald Trump paved the way for Joe Biden's failed evacuation or inane and quite often conspiratorial insults levelled at Joe Biden, however, are really quite inapt. As soon as the American news media publishes videos of the Taliban announcing the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, thereby ending the fascination that the general populace has with the ground truth there, something which we should applaud the associated press for bringing to us in what ways it can, we're going to hear nothing but accusations and excuses and be made subject to an endless stream of spin control.
This isn't a publicity crisis. It's a real crisis with real people with real lives. We should cope with adequately.
Your post doesn't really bother me too much. This is just something that I've been thinking about as of late. The Taliban could begin a series of massacres by executing people on the tarmac en masse and the president and defense minister could finally flip the nuclear switch and you would still have politicians, on both sides of the isle, who were primarily concerned with the number of votes that they were going to get in the next election.
What did you expect from Joe Biden’s government? It is quite impossible to repair something that is already broken and in a mess. I think in such complex situations like this one, is The president’s responsibility protect and take all the Americans to USA.
They'll almost do that much. Clearly, they should've had the foresight to have had an exit strategy, but, given their lack of one now, we can only cope with the situation at hand. The airport is in chaos right now. I don't know what people are doing on the runway. The quicker the flights can leave, the quicker people can be evacuated. They're all so desperate to leave and I hope that we don't abandon them.
Understandable. I even think that we should search more authorities. For example, What is going on with Russia or Putin? Why they do not make any decision? They were responsible for the mess occurred back between 1979 and 1989. I guess Russia can be an important authority in this context.
It’s too late for that. That is what has just played out.
What does all this have to do with philosopy?
Thanks, in part, I guess.
I am very sure that most animal rights activists aren't terrorists.
Many years ago we talked about the US behavior in Afghanistan. We talked about proportionality.
You taught me about how the vision was obscure and short sighted.
Today, I don't know that we have much to talk about, other than for me to say, you were right.
:broken:
The Animal Liberation Front does engage in direct action, namely the freeing of animals from facilities that do animal testing, which you could consider as sabotage, and, so, there's an odd, and wholly unjustified, in my opinion, pretext for treating them as such, as per a legal positivist interpretation of espionage, wherein it can just simply refer to that a person either advocates or carries out an act more or less just simply in violation of any law whatsoever, which I think has somehow carried over from the days of the First and Second Red Scare to the developing environmental and animal rights activism that began in the early 1970s.
I do completely agree that most, if not all, animal rights activists are just simply not terrorists, though.
It sounds somewhat incredulous at first, but I'm sure that there's an activist defense lawyer who, with considerable effort, will, and determination, could explain to you as to how what once, within the context of treating just simply being a so-called "radical" as a form of criminality, "espionage" later became "terrorism".
They're amoral, misanthropic, dangerous lunatics. American ones are anyway.
That's only within the distorted form of recuperation that is born in response to the American discourse on such issues. Most animal rights activists are amicable enough people with whom you could have a cup of tea with and engage in debate on the philosophy of Peter Singer.
American ones are crazy. Like actually crazy.
Eh, whatever.
The former Maoist allies of the mujahideen are singing "Algeria, Algeria" and, for all that I play-act with my still beating and bleeding heart, so as to counteract near complete and total proliferation of false consciousness within a nation that, like fair Atlantis, lost what became the longest war in its history, I want to join them.
I think that we should have a toast to the decline of the American empire and offer an expression of solidarity to both the Afghans who want to flee and those who can't help but remain to participate within the new regime.
Salutations!
- to both the United States and the soon to be declared Islamic Emigrate of Afghanistan
Many people who are amoral, misanthropic and dangerous lunatics aren't yet terrorists.
Luckily another Benghazi didn't happen which would have legitimized house investigations, testimony, and pander from republicans. Yada yada
I have previously stated on this form that I did not vote for Joe Biden due to a lack of confidence. I will vote in the next election, however. Not that what I do really matters, but I would like to put on the record that it will be a vote of no confidence should he not adequately deal with the refugee crisis there.
Ummm....really?
You think a terrorist attack on one Embassy compound legitimized house investigations.... but not a catastrophic collapse of a 20-year commitment where about trillion dollars were spent, 2400 Americans and about 200 000+ people died isn't worth a house investigation?
To be honest, the kind of colossal failures that Trump-Biden did now DO NEED some debate in Congress. This was a botched decision making. Heck, even the Soviets did a better, nicer withdrawal and the Najibullah regime fell only sometime later. Only the British had it even worse, but that was the 19th Century.
The Soviet version:
The US version:
The Benghazi issue was this political theatre like Hillary's emails. I think we will have a large literature on why the US failed Afghanistan and could the withdrawal been handled better?
I suppose you don't live in the US or watch CNN and Fox News...
Benghazi was all you could hear during 2013 from Fox News and even CNN. Then there were the investigations and testimonies, and reports. Etc.
Oh I do know them. Insane theatre, that continued then as Hillary's missing emails. It started as Benghazi hearings.
But this was the way Republicans had gotten their supporters worked up all the time with the Clintons. With continuing and continuing scandals and probes into these scandals. Starting with Whitewater. Then ending up with Bill's denial about his sperm on a intern's dress. The Clinton impeachment, remember? Ghasp! He lied about an extramarital blowjob under oath.
Use the same form with Hillary as she was the secretary of state.
Yet somehow I think things like the fall of Kabul is worth really an investigation. Problem is that it won't be looked as even Liz Cheney admitted it, as a failure in the making from both Trump and Biden.
So, the question is, who's to blame?
Well, here are the facts as far as I can tell:
1. Trump signed a deal with the Taliban.
2. Biden upheld it.
3. Evacuations were ongoing.
4. Taliban decide on taking over the country.
Whatever 5 or 5.1 or 6 are, we don't really know, but the justifications from the US will be that it was in the hands of the Afghan military (whatever that is) and a feeble and weak president of Afghanistan that both simply gave up and ran away.
A lousy deal (as usual for Trump, just like the deal with North Korea), which was followed with a lousy continuation of a bad deal.
First of all, Trump signed a deal without caring shit about a) it's allies and b) the Afghan government. Yes, partly those idiots didn't see the writing on the wall, but the real thing is to have the Afghan government and Taleban making the deal. That would have been were US foreign policy and diplomacy would have had to work. But who cares of those morons, just go a deal with the Taliban yourself and get some positive media light.
It's like Trump negotiating with North Korea and totally forgetting that there is a South Korea.
Let's just remember: a participant in a war will choose a peace deal ONLY if that peace deal is a better bargain than continuing war. This is a simple fact.
Here the obvious happened: US signed a peace deal without the Taliban not having to do much and also undermining the Afghan government with it.
Then comes Biden into office. And he doesn't understand that there must be a reason for the Taleban to opt for a peace deal, a stick. But no, Joe was worried that it would look bad if he wouldn't go with the military troop withdrawal and simply kept course. Then the Taleban just started a summer offensive because, why not?
And the Taleban didn't attack the US bases. They still haven't shot any bullets towards those helicopters and aircraft even now. But they sure didn't keep their promise. Why should they have? There was no stick, just all carrots for them.
Probably.
I think the Taliban is like organized crime. They control the traffic of heroine and meth, right?
There's no meth in Afghanistan; but, plenty of poppy and weed.
I read they expanded to meth.
On Vice? Link please.
So, the Taliban are going to be involved in meth trafficking apart from opium and weed. :death:
:eyes:
The Taliban involvement in the meth trade, though I am sure that it will some rather drastic socio-political consequences, may not turn out as poorly as you might expect. When the Neo-Fascist bikers who tend to run methamphetamines adopt a Trotskyite-inspired "critical, but unconditional support" for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan ostensibly justified through some sort of primitivist appeal to "tribalism", many on the far-Right may become willing to tone down its anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric, thereby eliminating much of the justification for their projected "racial holy war", and finally dissolve unto the now largely entryist, a problem that we anarchists both can and will cope, which is to say score drugs off of without collaborating, with, national-anarchism. They'll basically just want to fire rounds with tracers into kerosene tanks in some desolated part of the Pacific Northwest like any self-respecting gun owning Libertarian.
From there, they'll be smoking hash and spinning the Dead Skeleton's "Dead Mantra" in no time.
OK this was so hilarious.
Because of Catalonia riots or Catalan politicians pardons? :scream:
Madrid protests: Thousands rally against Catalan pardons
Holy shit, it's about to get real in Spain.
Knowing nothing about the circumstances surrounding or motivations for doing so other than that George Orwell once authored a text called Homage to Catalonia, I supported Catalan independence. I also supported Scottish independence because of that I thought that the "scene that celebrates itself" was too good for the United Kingdom. All that they did was put forth a referendum, though. It seems an injustice to have jailed them.
Cool. I wanted them out of Spain too because they do not stop wasting Spanish resources and economy. It is interesting that they say they can live from us but at the same time they are always asking to Pedro Sanchez a loooot of competencies and money.
I don't know what the future holds for Catalonia but I wish it did not affect us for bad like a civil war or something related
I do not remember the exact nature of our talk anymore :) Maybe I was right on that one. I have been wrong about a host of other things. History is easy to reconstruct after it has taken its course but difficult when one is in it. The Afghan war is really sad, I think one of the saddest episodes in recent history. It will be a black eye for Joe Biden too, especially because of his unfounded optimism regarding the Afghan military. I was heavily annoyed with the Dutch politicians who kept harping on what good things they did. In tandem we see a reconstruction of the Taliban as a much less harmful and perhaps even benevolent force. It is simply psychology writ large, the psychological necessity to downplay failure. It is heart breaking for the people who live there and who has worked for the respective governments. Dutch politicians reacted very slowly and now cannot even protect its own personnel there.
Why would you support Catalan independence without knowing anything about it?
Biden did not have 'optimism' regarding the Afghan military. He simply lied, outright.
Which to be fair is nothing new considering they have been lying since day 1.
Eh, any time there are any people who can be characterized as "anarchists" rioting anywhere, some commentator or another, as well as some anarchists, warn of an impending civil war, but I wouldn't be too worried about it.
Well, my Shoegaze motivated decision to support Scottish independence was considerably less informed. That decision was purely based off of My Bloody Valentine and the film, Trainspotting. It's just a notable absurdity to what some people consider for political choice. I don't know. You can't follow everything that happens in the world.
Alas, though, I will be off, and, so, this debate will have to continue without me. ??!
I am not worried about it but it pisses me off because they are so hell stubborn. I think Spain is losing a lot of time and resources due to this issue.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/568228-biden-yet-to-speak-with-world-leaders-after-fall-of-kabul
Trump proved you could lie about things right in front of everyone's face and have most of the country swallow it there and then. Presidents lie routinely. Biden is simply following a grand tradition. Accountability is simply lacking.
You could say that's how America felt about going it alone with Afghanistan after everyone pulled out.
The Sunday Times
The US military leadership abandoned Bagram Airforce Base, like cowards, in the middle of the night without telling their Afghan allies.
The US military launched a drone strike at an alleged suicide bomber, but killed 10 civilians, most of whom were children.
No one has resigned; no one has been impeached; no one has been held accountable.
Technically it was the Pentagon; but, everyone blames the President.
"The buck stops with me", says POTATUS, the commander-in-chief.
Sure, it seems to me that that's an oversimplification.
You don't think Biden bears any responsibility?
I think the answer to that question is in the realm of the military and intelligence services as to why the Afghan military quickly surrendered with all the American equipment.
A "no" would have sufficed.
It would suffice for a simple person, incapable of appreciating nuance. Just because a real man, with broad shoulders, steps up and assumes responsibility for the actions of the weak and stupid does not mean he is responsible for those actions:
“I started the process. All the troops are coming home. They (Biden) couldn’t stop the process. 21 years is enough. They (Biden) couldn’t stop the process, they (Biden) wanted to but couldn’t stop the process.”
- Trump (Republican), June 26 2021
Trump (Republican) parlayed with the enemy, surrendered to them, without even giving our Afghan allies a seat at the table, had 5,000 enemy released, including Isis K members and the Taliban turd who is now their leader. He drew down to 2.5k troops and then dumped this steaming pile of shit on Biden's lap. Now all his pussy sheep line up to blame Biden. That is par for the course with Republicans: They ruin the U.S., turn it over to the Democrats to fix (blaming them for all the problems) and then come on back in and trash it again. Rinse, repeat. So, Biden excepting responsibility is just what men like him do.
Republicans, on the other hand:
"I don't accept responsibility at all." Trump (Republican) regarding Covid.
Republicans rebuked Trump’s efforts to withdraw. It's true he made a deal with the Taliban, but the "intra-afghan dialogue", the "Doha agreement", prove the Afghan government did have a seat at the table. The deal was endorsed by NATO and the UN Security Council.
So what happens when the other party break the conditions of the Doha agreement? A competent human being might go back to the agreement and note that the other parties did not abide, and declare the rest null and void. A competent person would not have given the other parties what they wanted. Except Biden did not enforce the agreement or negotiate a new one, and abandoned Afghanistan and our allies despite the lack of Afghan/Talbian negotiations, which was a condition of the agreement. In any case, it's impossible to blame Trump for what Biden had done.
I the famous words of NOS4A2 "A [true] would have sufficed."
Quoting NOS4A2
Watch me. I learned from the Republicans on how you can always blame the other side. All this shit is George Bush's and Trump's fault, all of it. Obama and Biden have no responsibility for anything bad that happened over there. None. They may assume it, but it's not there's. R's were beholden to the MIC. I talked to a guy who was training up the As and he basically said the private contractors were just there for the $ and there was no surprise in the lack of resistance.
You can shuck and jive all you want, but it was Trump's fault, the Republican's fault. All of it.
There is not a single R that could have done better than Biden and they all would have done worse. They are Monday Morning Quarterbacks, nit-picking shit they put into play and would fuck up totally if left in charge of it. R's could not find a single person within their ranks with the honor, honesty or courage of Joe.
Biden did not enforce the agreement or negotiate a new one, and abandoned Afghanistan and our allies despite the lack of Afghan/Taliban negotiations, which was a condition of the agreement. He then blamed the Afghans for all of it.
Of course I expect you to blame others for the failings of your guy.
I don't know how familiar you are with international agreements, but you generally lost credibility when you come in and do what Trump did with international trade agreements. Foreigners can't rely on a new dummy every four years coming in and undoing what the last dummy did. Like private contract, you generally try to do what the last guy committed the United States of America to. There's a little thing called "your word." But Trump wouldn't know about that. He just know Joe would abide America's word.
My guy didn't fail. As I taught you, with Trump's OWN WORDS, it's his fault. And by your defense of him, it is your fault. Besides, if Trump was the bee's knees, why didn't he do it all? He had four years. Fact is, he's a dishonorable coward and a liar and he set all this shit up for Biden to fail. Trump is a traitor to the U.S. He shit on all the protocols for A exit papers, buried shit and made this all what it was, of his own work (well, him and his henchmen like Popous). The who thing is a Trump failure. All of it. And no R on the face of the Earth could have done a better job than Joe just did.
He didn’t commit to it. To commit to the agreement would be to enforce the conditions. The conditions of the agreement were not met by the other parties, but he went through with it anyways. Why would you abide by the same agreement if other parties didn’t? Only because you’re an idiot or a coward, or both. That’s what Xiden is.
As for the MIC, Bush and Obama military brass excoriated Trump and endorsed Biden for president. Look at them now.
“Sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SAID TRUMP DEFEATED ISIS demanding that we deploy more troops to Afghanistan to kill ISIS.” Angry Staffer
:up: Some are mine, but I did steal some from people on the Iron Snowflake. I provided attribution for those. :grin:
Trump losers don't like us drinking cups of conservative tears and not giving a fuck about their feelings. Go figure. Karma. One of my favorite quotes, paraphrased: "When Michelle says when they go low, we go high. I can't do that. Maybe half way. How's that?" :lol: Can't remember who said it.
The thing is though that its only words.
"
I assume you refer to the situation in Afghanistan. Who sold Osama bin Laden rockets? To be fired at commies? Indeed America. The seeds were laid. Mujahedin---Talibanned---AlQuaeda/IS...
Now the US has gone. After the longest war ever raged. 20 000 died in the fight agaist a terrorism for which they themselves laid the base.
Was it worthwhile?"
:lol:
And the Biden-approved talking points have run out. I wager that noise you hear is a sucking one.
Four years. Four long years. Nothing. Nothing but bluster. Putin's bitch. Trump is a stain on America that . . . well, never mind.
Biden got over 100,000 people out in one of the largest air lifts in history, in the middle of a fucking war zone, after Trump set a table full of shit, capitulated to the enemy, surrendered, and drew down our presence to 2.5k.. I think all Americans can agree it's a good thing to be gone, but in typical Trump style, he made it happen the way a coward would make it happen: do the easy thing, make it hard for your successor, and then, like a little pussy, leave. Why didn't he exit? Because he's a pussy. I mean, can you just imagine the knot your panties would be in right now if Biden had reversed Trump, gone back on our word, surged and started up the war again? Or, forget that, just added one troop. You'd be apoplectic, hair on fire, screaming like a little bitch. LOL!
How his sheep don't see him as the antithesis of everything they pretend to look up to and admire speaks volumes about them. And it's not good. It is a good thing, however, that their Jesus is a pacifist. Otherwise he'd come down here and kick the living shit out of all of them. Must be nice to know you can get away with anything simply because you are forgiven. In that case you can even act like Trump.
At least Biden doesn't say the stupidest thing anybody could possibly say. That's nice.
I'd say Trump & Biden are a toxic mix of US unilateralism and bad policy.
Of course, Biden upheld the surrender deal that Trump did with the Taliban. And naturally we go on from here to drone strikes. As obviously that unilateral counterterrorism works so well without any feet on the ground. Everything can be interpreted from a drone flying high above, as we know. :roll:
And the marvelous Leon Panetta said it all:
Ah yes.
I think the ex-national security advisor H.R. McMaster said it well. The US didn't fight a long 20-year war in Afghanistan, the US fought a one year war twenty times over in Afghanistan. And now Biden IS BACK TO THE GEORGE BUSH TALKING POINT: The US will only to fight the terrorists (and only with drones or so) and the US isn't going to "nation build".
Yeah, that worked wonders. But if it works in Hollywood movies, it has to work in real life!!!
So how many American citizens were left to Afghanistan?
There aren't any soldiers. I keep on hearing about some US citizens there that didn't get out. Strange.
I know right? The argument reeks of *if only more was done or at least in another way!!!*
I'm not sure, but if you read all the St Dept. warnings, like 15, ramping up in intensity for many months, the thing that comes to mind is the guy in the bed, about to go on vent, begging for the vax. I'd go look it up but it's open source and easy to find. Any one who wanted out could have gotten out, when they were told, pleaded with, begged, months ago.
Why is that the condition of (its) existence?
Unfortunately a kidnapped US citizen is a "threat to US interests".
That's why the question as obviously guys like ISIS-K are looking for them.
Quoting Shawn
Well, the truth is that the Trump-Biden way to handle Afghanistan is a disaster. To argue that "any withdrawal would have been similar" is simply not true. This was immensely badly conducted. It's obvious from what Biden and his administration stated earlier this summer.
Even the Soviets withdrew in a far better way. Their proxy, the Najibullah regime, collapsed only as the Soviet Union collapsed. Even the Obama withdrawal, that after ISIS actually didn't happen, was itself planned better.
And there are a lot of consequences.
As Kit MacLellan notes:
I don't think that the World will be safer with present American unilateralism and disengagement. Biden is just following in his peculiar way Trump's foreign policy.
I think Afghanistan has been on the official "do-not-go, try-to-avoid"-list for years now.
That is true. But what I'm talking about is the last few months in anticipation of what happened:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/30/how-evacuation-americans-is-going/
I'm not sure how we should categorize $85 billion of war assets that the US seems to have "left behind". They have more Blackhawk helicopters than 85% of non-US nations around the world. Imagine if Sweden got all of that, we could be much more efficient as a baltic sea blockage against Russian interests. Now, Talibans have great war assets and might be in bed with China. This entire war has been so successful... I mean, no one in the world has criticized this since Bush let his mental health problems dictate what to do with 9/11. And now, US has done it again, put weapons in the hands of terrorists. Great job! It's not really Biden's fault, this is both side's fault, it's US fault. If it weren't so tragic I would laugh my ass off at this incompetent handling of middle eastern politics the last 20 years.
Prishon say Tesla sir can start his own big war. Tesla man enough money have to make big war. Prishon say: "misser Tesla for predisent! Beat crap out bat men!"Prisho sa....PRISHON! STAY PUT!
The assets, the cash, the strategic air bases—all of this looks intentional, and it's difficult to avoid conspiracy theorizing on the issue.
A proper pull-out, I believe, would have happened in a different order: evacuate Americans and allies, evacuate assets, destroy base, pull out of Afghanistan. But for whatever reason they tried it other way about.
I don't think they tried anything. The Talibans were in Kabul before they even had the ability to say that they might come to Kabul. So whatever they couldn't blow up or shred were left behind just to avoid the shitstorm of killed soldiers. The attack on the airport didn't help the schedule, I think that attack made them panic and just left everything. Hopefully, they left outdated manuals for the Black Hawks and planes so the Taliban crash them instead of mastering combat with them.
I'm just stunned about the number of advanced war assets they have, it's fucking crazy. Seeing them in night-vision goggles and M4s is a whole other thing than white robes and old Russian AKs fired into the air. With some modern training, the Taliban forces could be trained to be special forces that could become a real nightmare in the middle east. Fubar clusterfuck.
And one could argue similarly that it was a success that only 13 US servicemen died and about 100 or so Afghans also. Plus those who died falling after clinging on to the undercarriages of C-17s (which has a cruising speed of 906 km/h).
Yet I think the real thanks for that above goes for the Taliban honoring the Trump [s]surrend[/s] peace deal. Unlike some commentators argue, the Emirate didn't brake any terms of the Doha agreement (yet). Because with my reading of the short 3,5 page deal (link here), there was absolutely no part where the Taliban would have been made to stop to fight the Afghan administration. Only that it would engage with discussion with the government in talks. Well, I think they sat until in Doha with the Afghans...not doing anything.
So, should we similarly thank the Taliban for the minimum casualties for overtaking the country?
No, no, no, I agree they are part of the Biden Administration.
Quoting ssu
I think we kind of did. We left them with a metric shit ton of kit.
In an ideal world, we tell them "Yeah, we went about this all wrong. But you have to admit you suffered WAY more than we did. But that was not our intent, either. We promise that if any non-state actors launch an assault on us from your borders in the future, we will not respond the way we did. As the shining example of state sovereignty that you are, we will just expect you to track them down and unconditionally turn them over to the U.N. Of course, if you don't want to do that, then you don't have to. And don't worry, we won't respond in the same way we responded last time. It will be different. Anyway, all the best in your future effort at adulting. Let us know if your kids won't mind. We'll give you some parenting tips. But please, try to keep them in your yard."
Exclusive: Before Afghan collapse, Biden pressed Ghani to ‘change perception’
The odd thing about it is Biden's demand for a shift in "global perception", proving once and for all why America is one of the world's largest public relations firm, and why no one should trust a word this man says.
His Joint Chiefs of Staff also focused on "narrative".
None of it worked, of course, and we get to watch as they pick up the pieces of their "narrative".
So officially saying one thing and anticipating another. But that anticipation didn't go deep enough and hence the withdrawal was chaotic. It's telling that military people or retired military people have as independent citizens tried to arrange for the evacuation of Afghans that they worked with. So marvelously was this evacuation anticipated by the administration.
Well, everything is about perception and nothing is about reality. Because who cares about reality? Besides, there really was no effort at all from Biden here. For Joe Biden the Afghan war had been a lost cause for years now. It's telling that the last call was made in the middle of the July. And when the collapse happened, Biden didn't even bother calling his allies. Who cares if there were more of their troops in total than US troops on the ground?
What we now should forget, according to this administration:
I don't know about the "officially saying one thing and anticipating another." If the Biden Administration had been officially telling Americans to pop smoke since when, March, May (? one of the M months?) then that is on those Americans who didn't leave. Those military men are trying to evac Afghans, not Americans. If they were trying to evac Americans, then they are Americans that didn't abide the official word.
As to Afghans, maybe those military folks new something the Administration didn't know: Like the fact that the contractors had not spun up a force that would stand. That's the danger of contracting military jobs. Just my uninformed opinion based on what I was told by some uniforms.
Regardless, the couple of weeks of getting out the way and when we did was the best Presidential leadership in Afghanistan in 20 years.
Joe Biden was pretty sure that the Afghan government would not collapse. Events like in Saigon wouldn't happen. They happened. For starters.
Quoting James Riley
I assume then not going to Afghanistan would have been the best Presidential leadership decision. I agree.
If you would have given the Emirate of Afghanistan the Doha terms right back in September 2001, I guess they would have happily agreed. And even given OBL with it. And the 20-year war wouldn't have happened.
And then there would not have been this "global war on terror". Which is now likely to continue for at least a decade.
Only thing you would have had then are furious Americans hell bent on getting rid of the chicken-livered weasel of the President who was such a weak dick that didn't bomb the goddam terrorists that killed 3000 Americans, but only negotiated with them. What injustice!!!
Saigon in Afghanistan never happened. No embassy in Afghanistan was under siege. I don't know why you keep on repeating that as if it was factual...?
He was wrong. Saying that "officially saying one thing and anticipating another" makes it sound like there was an intent to deceive. This was going to be a shit show no matter what. Pick a leader you think would do better and guess what? We'd still be there.
Quoting ssu
:100:
Quoting ssu
:100:
Within 45 minutes of watching the second plane go in the second tower, live, I knew what was going to happen (including Iraq). It did. I talked then, as did others. But to no avail. For the reasons you state. To do what I and others recommended would have taken real leadership. Not Dick and Donny and the MIC. I tried to dig up some of the analysis but I find it strangely lacking in open source. Hmmm. I'd wax on but I have to run to town. I assume if you care, you'll ask and I'll get to it.
Yeah, unlike with the case of South Vietnam, you still had US ground troops in Afghanistan. Not so when in the pictures of the Saigon embassy. Then it was only the marines in the embassy. And note, the collapse happened before the planned September 11th withdrawal date. (How conveniently that is forgotten, actually.)
So yes, neither the withdrawal of US troops from South Vietnam and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan happened so hastily, in such chaotic manner as now. In fact, this war crumbled far quicker that the Vietnam war. Or the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Far more orderly event in 1973:
Just compare to this image. No lights, a picture taken with night vision. I bet the commander of the 82nd Airborne, major general Chris Donahue in the photo, had a full magazine of live rounds in his rifle. Just in case. It's really telling what a debacle this was as the enemy was just waiting few meters away to take the airport and would be in minutes looking at the US aircraft left in the hangars:
And compare the image above to the last Russian general leaving Afghanistan back to the Soviet Union, when Boris Gromov walked over the bridge (at the newsclip below).
Sure. A dismal future ahead then too for Afghanistan. Yet the Najibullah goverment actually survived until Soviet Union itself collapsed. Not something that the ex-Afghan president (that made his career in Western universitie, think tanks and the World Bank) did before general Donahue left Kabul. Ghani had already fled away with over 100 million dollars in cash. Here's a news report from February 1989. (Do note the interview of Zalmay Khalilhad, the Mazar-i-Sharif born US diplomat and Charley Wilson in the 1989 report)
What is obvious that the Islamic fighters will surely say that they beat both of the Superpowers. You just leaving for them is a victory in war.
Yes, this is so true, James. :up:
Only a Houdini-level mastermind of a politician would have pulled it off in some other fashion. Falling Afghans that have climb to a jet (not understanding what the wind will be at 900 km/h) is one thing. But American leaping off to their death from a burning skyscraper is another. Try then as a leader to start with a police inquiry when everybody already know that an international terrorist organization is behind this!!!
Still, I will be optimistic. I think that the US can still learn from it's mistakes. Those in Foreign Policy establishment and those in the military. There should be that genuine American soul-searching. That makes you better!
Actually, the Taliban were cooperating with the US by making promises to allow evacuations until the 31, which they even assisted in transporting and allowing US citizens to the airport. Yeah...
I don't really know what your getting at here. Like I said, if helicopters flying near embassies in Afghanistan makes you think it's Saigon, then I don't know how that makes any sense.
The actual date was September 11th. But the Taliban conquered the country far more rapidly. So actually the US had to change it's timetable. Which I guess was OK for the Taliban.
Have you actually read the Trump Doha peace agreement?
Who wouldn't be in favor of such terms if you would be fighting the US?
Quoting Shawn
YOU don't see any similarity???
Sorry, but this was an even a more uncoordinated and a far more hasty withdrawal.
Yes, that did happen. Yet, what's this got to do with the US' failure. The facts elude me as to when the US decided to cooperate with the Taliban. Do you know how else the US would have dealt with the situation especially under a republican tenure for a peace deal?
Uncoordinated with whom? You keep on asserting these wishful thoughts about the whole war. If I'm not mistaken from the moment the Taliban started taking over Afghanistan to the point where the US made it's departure was 2-3 weeks. In that time they evacuated 120,000 people from Afghanistan. Only the US military could accomplish that without RPG's shooting at landing planes or grounded planes or guided missiles shooting at planes taking off.
Isn't that a success?
:snicker:
Quoting Shawn
Good question, glad you asked it.
Ummm...how about like, uh Iraq?
You left, but didn't. Is it catastrophic that you have 2500 US troops, similar amount actually that you had in Afghanistan? Is it intolerable that the US is in Iraq? And then how about forgetting that strategic narcissism, and face the reality.
The US for a time, actually, defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq, but then snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and in the end you had ISIS. Do notice just how this was done. But I guess making an ally of part of your enemy is far too incomprehensible for the US. To find the political solution.
And let's start with the facts: You have been at war basically with Pakistan for all the time when it comes to the Taliban. But somehow you have not face this reality. So start at least from there.
I'm not sure just what year was it, but for a long time the Taliban was winning this war, not losing. If I remember correctly, someone put it to 2014. From that year or so, the US was losing. But the US was fighting an one-year war twenty times over.
Quoting Shawn
13 American soldiers killed in action is not much. But then it's more than the crew of three in a C-17.
I don't think the US still funds Pakistan. Does it?
Anyone interested in a discussion would look at this with a raised eyebrow? What does that even mean that the Taliban were winning the war in Afghanistan?
Of course.
From the US embassy in Pakistan internet page:
Yep! I'm not making up that above. Constructive role. See https://pk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/us-assistance-to-pakistan/
The US trying to bribe Pakistan didn't work. What is utterly crazy is that Pakistan's strategy did work!
Quoting Shawn
The usual. Gaining territory, holding cities, gaining the initiative in military operations.
Making their enemies (the US) to choose to withdraw without any concessions from the Taliban side.
That is meant by the Taliban winning the war.
And here we are. Biden, the POTATUS, stumbling over the words on his teleprompter, just gave license to corporate America to enforce his pro-pharma agenda.
That's what happens when you are a petulant, obstinate, disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish child. I taught you long ago, NOS, that no law, regulation, rule, or policy ever came about in a vacuum, simply as a power grab. They were all the result of people who refused to respect the rights of others. They are taught manners but when they don't learn, the hammer comes down and they whine like little bitches. GO JOE!
https://www.dailyposter.com/does-not-present-sufficient-cause/
"The Biden administration just declared that the IPCC climate change report "does not present sufficient cause" to halt its plan to vastly expand offshore drilling, according to federal documents reviewed".
Except that's not true at all and Biden has broken most of his campaign promises. Although I'll give him credit for pulling out of Afghanistan. And we're talking about someone who has been eyeing the presidency for decades. This man is nothing if not a power hungry vampire.
Logically you should give credit for Trump too, a peace deal that Biden just implemented. :snicker:
Quoting The Guardian - the Aukus defence pact - taking on China
Comments BTL interesting...
The US and China are destined to settle into a calm opposition that benefits both. The US is the declining partner, more than happy to see China take up a roll in keeping the globe from descending in chaos. The US provides a relatively sane world for China to grow up in.
When Biden says the US needs to work on infrastructure to compete with China, he's echoing stuff from the Cold War (which I assume he remembers well) where the US needed to fund science and education to compete with the USSR. For some reason the reason has to be tied to national security.
And today's China is actually a lot more sane than the USSR ever was, so good for everyone.
In this boring moment of sanity, there's an opportunity to do a little something about climate change, though I personally think it's too late to do much.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-military-says-10-civilians-killed-kabul-drone-strike-last-month-2021-09-17/
No one was fired or resigned or court-martialed for the murder, gross stupidity, and lies to the public.
14 Oct. 2021
And why would they be? The US was fighting a fucking war in Afghanistan. Collateral damage happens when the only things you have is remote footage from a drone. Try yourself to interpret what is put into a car from an aerial footage.
Besides, knowing you, you wouldn't raise any questions if it would have been the Trump administration in charge. The political party in charge decides what is murder and gross stupidity and what is collateral damage and unfortunate events for you. (And it should be noted, for many American political commentators)
Just as those servicemen that got killed before, that was something that in the chaos was not preventable.
No NOS, this fiasco is genuinely made both by the Trump administration (that agreed to withdraw from Afghanistan without a cessation of hostilities) and by the Biden adminstration. It started right at the moment Bush declared going after the Taliban. And then past adminstrations declaring that they will go home as soon as possible. With that message well drummed up for everybody, no surprise that the Pakistanis then thought "OK, the Yanks are going home, so in that case let's support our guys then again".
And what do you know? The Taliban re-emerged.
It’s not surprising, ssu, that you would attempt to shift blame back to Trump. I would expect nothing else. But it wasn’t Trump who abandoned Americans and Afghan allies while sneaking away in the night. It wasn’t Trump who left billions of dollars of equipment in the hands of the Taliban.
The drone strike was significant because, for the Americans, it was the last act of war in that 20 year campaign. The fake news immediately spread the government line that the drone strike was in retaliation for an “ISIS-k” attack. General Mark Milley said it was a “righteous strike”. These lies only served, however briefly, to distract from Biden’s withdrawal disaster. It was a fitting end to the whole charade.
And now they’ve all moved on. No accountability. Nothing. No protests. We live in a world where a president can be impeached twice for utter nonsense, while at the same time the predecessor and his officials can get away with lies and murder and gross incompetence.
:up:
Sorry, actually it was. Trump abandoned the Afghan allies by making a peace deal with the Taliban without any thought given to the Afghan government. Fuck them! That was the message from Trump.
Of course, you haven't the slightest interest at informing yourself how lousy the Doha peace deal was really like. No, if Trump is criticized, you turn automatically to defense mode. I would not expect nothing else from you.
The Doha peace-deal. What the hell of a "peace" is that? It's nothing else than surrender or simply encouragement for the Taliban to push harder, it's all for their taking. Likely with the Pakistani ISI helped them make their brilliant summer offensive.
Imagine if during the Korean War the armstice would have been done with US and North Korea (and China), but not with South Korea. So, just if North Koreans wouldn't attack Americans they still would be free to attack South Koreans and take ground from the south. Oh yes, they would have to have talks while at the same time be totally free hands to fight them. Imagine what wonders that agreement would have done for the fledgling South Korean army? Hence if it would have collapsed, I guess the people would say "See, they couldn't handle it, they didn't fight!"
(Back then, armstice meant cessation of hostilities. Not same with Trump's "peace-deal")
Nope, both of the two tired old men, Trump and Biden, simply wanted not to hear anymore about Afghanistan, as it was a nuisance. They didn't care shit about it. Hence it was peace at any cost! Both wanted the brownie points for ending the "forever war". Hell with your former allies, just fuck them, they had gotten enough. So I do blame both Trump and Biden.
I read the Doha agreement. It was the one good thing to come out of the Afghan war in decades. What you don’t mention is how it was backed by NATO and the UN Security Council, our allies. You don’t mention the intra-Afghan talks, anything about the process, and Biden’s failure to live up to and enforce the agreements. You don’t mention any of it because you’re crippled by anti-Trumpism.
Biden didn’t care about the agreement. He violated it.
What else could the allies do when the US decides on behalf of them? They could only scramble some troops to assist the US with the debacle. Even my puny country sent some soldiers to assist with the evacuation.
Quoting NOS4A2
Just as Trump failed to enforce before him as there was nearly one year of Trump presidency still after the peace deal. And just what is this failure? Remember, it's just to hold talks. Nothing, absolutely nothing else. In fact, the Taliban kept their part of the deal: they did hold talks with the Afghan government. As late as July 18th this year Aljazeera could report:
(see here)
Committed to talk....and the other side was also comitted to gain a military victory. But they surely didn't attack US troops! Just the Afghan military and others. So where actually Biden was wrong as he dutifully followed Trump's agreement?
And really, don't you think that if you would sign a peace deal, that would have to mean the cessation of hostilities? Trump, the brilliant deal maker, didn't think so. He was so desperate to get the deal.
I too lament the lack of accountability. We should drag all of the military leaders before Congress (more than the sideshow already held), strip them of all of their medals, and fire them all with no pensions. The military strung us along in Vietnam and shame on us for not learning our lessons and letting them have their fun in Afghanistan.
How about following the stupidity?
The US can in it's foreign and security policy follow illogical, contradictory and unrealistic policies and create it's own alternate reality from the reality on the ground.... because a) it has an armed forces of a Superpower, b) the means to finance the large military operations with perpetual debt financing, c) a system where the foreign policy in these matters is left to the whims of a sitting president, who basically is interested on what will make him look in the next domestic elections, d) a large uninformed public who doesn't care much if the body count of servicemen is low and the most obvious reason d) the US has no counterbalance on the World stage, which would make them think twice.
Because of all the above, the US can find itself in a place like it was with Afghanistan.
The "war is a racket" argument goes just so far, because the military is also a deterrent, hence one can argue also that "peace is a racket" as arms buildup can happen without any actual conflicts. And usually those military arms races are far more lucrative for the military industrial complex. Just look at the starting arms race with China.
You just followed the money. The MIC is all about $. That's why Joe Manchin will support a $7t bill for the MIC but not a $3.5t bill for the people.
Also, as to the media:
Quoting ssu
Nope, they ain't stupid...but they're rich, and getting richer (and I'm envious).
Oh god.
Bidenomics in full effect.
Yes, these are true concerns. I almost expect to hear a daily cry of, "(Big)Daddy(government)'s home!", and I almost want to say that everybody should go on out and buy their 800 pound safe right now... Our government appears implacable in it's desire to know everything about us, and to live our lives for us. I would have thought that the Snowden (heroic fellow) affair would have softened the appetite for domestic espionage.
How sweet, the capital strike has turned into an excuse to reintroduce child labour in the US. Biden's America, going along swimmingly.
I guess going after children was the next logical step after going after women's uteruses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Times
Welcome to the echo chamber!
"They say: we guarantee that he won’t be held in a maximum security facility and he will not be subjected to Special Administrative Measures and he will get healthcare. But if he does something that we don’t like, we reserve the right to not guarantee him, we reserve the right to put him in a maximum security facility, we reserve the right to offer him Special Administrative Measures. Those are not assurances at all. It is not that difficult to look at those assurances and say: these are inherently unreliable, it promises to do something and then reserves the right to break the promise."
So the prosecution's legal argument here is essentially "We promise we won't treat Assange as cruelly as we treat our other prisoners, unless we decide we really want to."
This is not just a reflection on the weakness of the extradition appeal, it's a reflection on the savagery of all the so-called free democracies that have involved themselves in this case."
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-assange-persecution-is-western
Is Biden well enough to change his mind?
Why would he change his mind? Biden is the head of American Empire. It's literally his job to ensure the US can get away with murders it commits.
But who is going to hold the US accountable anyhow? We don't respect the international criminal court.
It would be a good start to undermine any legitimacy it has and for it to be universally ackowledged as the most destructive country on the planet.
It's not separate from the rest of the world in that way. It's all one interconnected complex.
I doubt that it's nearly as terrible as you describe it. No country is perfect.
I don't hear those countries complaining.
I'm sure you've listened to 80 countries complaining.
And a giant nuclear arsenal. The 20th Century caused that.
I guess I'm stupid. And a bootlicker!
Lol
It's better than being a whiner and a grouch.
Hmm. I need coffee to wash down the dust. :up:
You're suggesting that other people don't grieve.
Look at the world mechanically from time to time. See how it got this way and where it's headed.
smh
He's nuts.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Washington-Bullets-History-Coups-Assassinations/dp/1583679065
https://www.amazon.com.au/Jakarta-Method-Washingtons-Anticommunist-Crusade/dp/1541742400
Or maybe learn how the US is in fact the most destructive piece of shit country on Earth that has consistently ended democratic movements and consistently crushed the freedoms of billions around the world. And continues to.
But I know what it's like to go around with an invisible red bandana waiting for the revolution.
One day I noticed that the world doesn't really need one more angry man. There's billions of them.
It's not. It comes in behind China, Russia, Germany, and the British.
Chump change, really.
Sure, if you guzzle US propaganda.
Oh good grief.
Talk is cheap.
Quoting frank
I can't afford to buy all those books. I'm just an ignorant peasant. :cry:
I was just reading about medieval peasant food. They actually had a pretty healthy diet.
Thanks to the Sugar Association we don't (for real, it's a whole thing). You have to live like a medieval peasant to get healthy.
That's American capitalist propaganda.
I know, right? The Sugar Association says:
"Find Out How Sugar Plays an Important Role in Nutritious, Balanced, & Enjoyable Diets!"
And that's just wrong.
That's fluff.
Like marshmallows?
Like meaningless.
Well that's what I was aiming for.
So, this is not where I come to say "Well what about Trump? He did etc etc."?
No whatabouts. This thread is a platform to complain about Biden. :naughty:
Gotcha! I had thought whataboutism was a uniquely American stupidity, but when I complained about Trump on the Trump thread, I was treated to a bunch of stupidity about Biden. Naturally I had to ask. I thought maybe I'd missed something. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Glad to know that whataboutism hasn't gained traction everywhere.
We can't have that. It's crucial that we keep the complaints and grievances separate.Only then we end US tyranny around the globe. We shall complain on the streets and sidewalks, we shall complain with growing confidence and growing strength on cable news, we shall defend our US adversaries, whatever the cost may be.
Gotta love Winston! :grin:
Biden wants to settle a giant chunk of change on the American people. Europe does austerity. America does Cash Hemorrhages. The conservatives like to Hemorrhage toward various military ventures. Liberals prefer to Hemorrhage toward social welfare.
Biden is from the era when a politician might support both kinds of Hemorrhagic activity. And why not?
Trickle down is a proven failure. Trickle up is proven to work. The only issue is this: When you redistribute wealth to those who will actually spend it, those at the top will actually have to work to get some of it. We can't have that! After all, if you work, you pay taxes and that's verboten.
There's another problem, though. Have you heard about the Great Resignation? It includes me. I left my job for a nice juicy role somewhere else. In my exit interview, I realized my ex-boss is either headed toward, or in a critical labor shortage. This is happening everywhere
BTW, this also happened after the Great Plague. Power came to the labor class not through solidarity, but through fucking disaster.
What does that tell you?
It tells me I was right. It's just one of the lessons we can take out of the pandemic. .gov wasn't bailing out the banks/industry like it usually does; it was putting money in the pockets of labor; i.e. those who will spend it on something besides yachts and emerging markets. Even banks and industry knew where there bread was buttered when the shit hit the fan.
No need for Marxism then!
I don't think there's ever been a need for Marxism.
No need to divide the world into opressed and oppressor?
Is that what Marxism does? Well, yes, we need that.
Yeah, but not all the time. It's also not a very practical theory.
All I know is that it predicted a global proletariat revolution and that never happened and isn't likely to now.
The liberals ground Marxism into the dirt and pooped on it.
I'm not too crazy about liberalism either. :meh:
I admire them in a Nietschean sort of way. They're winners.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bandwagon
Nietzsche
Don't care.
Oh, you think that Americans could talk about the Democrats and Republicans together as an entity? Hah! Hard for others too.
You underestimate how successful the two parties have been in establishing a partisan divide between them.
Yeah gee it's not like I talk about it all the time yeah real underestimating.
Right now I think the most lovely thing to watch is liberals get mad about Sinema and Manchin. As if they are not playing the roles dictated to them by the democratic party apparatus to a tee. Biden probably couldn't be happier. Meanwhile liberal rags will churn out article after article about their 'obstructionism'. The democratics will likely be utterly relieved when they get wiped out in the mid-terms. They can go back to blaming Republicans for things and not their own totally-in-agreement agenda.
Is it as bad your country?
You do have more parties than the US with labor party and even a green party.
What do you mean?
Marx isn't consistent on that at all actually. Like many things he did evolve his thinking and didn't think a revolution would be likely or necessary.
Marxism ground Marxism into dirt, not to the mention the millions of people buried beneath it’s rubble. If the bourgeois, unclean, and philandering Marx was able to foresee the disasters performed in his name, I wager he would have written otherwise.
There hardly was any liberalism. The only thing liberal about what we have now is perhaps the rhetoric used to goad people into accepting increasing paternalistic statism and compulsory cooperation. The self-styled Liberal is taken at the face value of his pretensions, and policies which are put forth as Liberal are accepted in the same unreflecting way. See any Liberal party in the commonwealth.
At any rate, Biden is none of those. He, like other state careerists, is but a figurehead for a cabal of effete busybodies who want nothing more than to advance the state’s, and thus their own, interests.
Somewhere around 60 million between China and Russia.
Their lives and the reasons for their deaths should be recognized, like all victims.
He's a politician.
I would love to give the Libertarian everything on their dream-sheet for one year. But no tweaking their way back to socialism during that year, as reality began to set in. Once their bed is made, they have to sleep in it for a year. :rofl:
Communism does that. Marxism is just a philosophical doctrine that many authoritarian governments have historically incorporated into their ideology. There's nothing inherently wrong with Marxism.
Quoting NOS4A2
We know about classical liberalism. You are not stating anything new or interesting here.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's a very cynical view. It's easy to go with the popular trope that X politician is evil and dishonest or selfish. All politicians now are subject to constant vilification by some "news" agency or partisan hacks. Again, nothing interesting here. Go join the echo chamber. I'm sure there's a Reddit page just for you.
Biden cruised around Europe with his 85-car convoy and then lectured the proles about climate change.
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-11-01/napping-at-cop26-and-85-car-convoy-the-optic-challenge-of-bidens-climate-image
I've taught you, several times, why that is an illogical and fundamentally stupid argument. I guess it comes with being you.
Defending a politician’s hypocrisy should be beneath you, but you can’t help it. One of these days the dissonance will overwhelm you.
Again, I taught you why that is the false and lazy charge of hypocrisy. The only thing up for debate is whether you know this, and only use it because you know it is effective with stupid people, or if you actually believe it yourself because you are stupid. Can you shed some light on that?
Says the guy who defended Trump for four years. :rofl:
You haven’t taught me anything. Your first mistake was believing you had wisdom to depart with. If you want to defend Biden’s actions just do it.
Uh oh someone all of a sudden doesn’t care about the environment when Biden’s involved.
Correction: I have taught you repeatedly. But you have not learned. So you answered my question: you actually believe this. When I think about it, it makes sense. After all, there is no one here for you to persuade with the argument. It's not like you are Tucker Carlson who got the vax and persuaded the stupid people not to. There are no stupid people here hanging on your every word. Thus, it must be you. Got it, thanks for clearing that up: You haven't learned anything that I've taught you.
Quoting NOS4A2
My first mistake was thinking you could be taught. I guess they are right when they say "You can't fix stupid."
Quoting NOS4A2
His actions, unlike Trump's, don't need defending. Like I said, I already taught you about how illogical and fundamentally stupid your false and lazy charge of hypocrisy is. Funny you don't see that. Hmmm.
You haven’t taught me anything. My eyes get heavy about two clauses into you self-concerned drivel, so I may have long stopped paying attention by the time you made your argument.
So here is your chance: what is wrong with what I believe?
Okay, for the umpteenth time: If I save a gallon of gas, I increase the supply, lowering the price, stimulating demand, so NOS can roll-coal for another mile with his muscle truck. I've defeated my purpose.
So it's illogical and a stupid argument to claim that I am a hypocrite for driving to a convention designed to deprive NOS of his right to roll coal and to take away his truck and force him to quit polluting. If I were to swim to Scotland, it wouldn't work out so well and NOS would continue to pollute, whilst laughing.
The other example I use is the Iraq war. All those 'Muricans who wrapped themselves in the flag, and charged opponents who "question a POTUS in time of war" of being traitors who failed to support the troops were not so fundamentally stupid as to get daddy's '06 out of the closet and fly to Bagdahd to try and kill Saddam themselves. And I was not so fundamentally stupid as to call them hypocrites for failing to do so. They, like Biden, were smart. They knew there are certain problems in life that you would be stupid to try and tackle on your own.
Now, since I've been over this with you, unrebutted, many times, please book mark it so the next time you "forget" the lesson that I have taught you, I can remind you, you can come back here and go "Oh, yeah, now I remember."
With folks like you around, it wouldn't matter if he did.
Are you flying an 85-car entourage across the Atlantic, driving around Europe in it before going to a climate change conference, only to lecture whomever is listening before dozing off in a septuagenerian stupor? Couldn’t you lecture others by other means, without the hypocrisy?
Your argument is a stupid one, James, a lesson in sophistry and obsequiousness.
Let me try this: It is not hypocrisy to do that which it would require all others to stop doing to be effective; especially when one is working to get everyone to stop.
I don't call you a hypocrite for using all that stuff made under a communist regime. But you do. Are you a hypocrite for doing that, NOS? If you think so, then you don't understand how capitalism works. :grin:
Quoting NOS4A2
A stupid argument would be calling "hypocrisy" on one who fails to swim to Scotland from America. No less stupid would be the nit-picking of "Well, he doesn't have to swim, but he could use less gas while driving around, if he only used a Prius."
I don’t see anyone else driving around in an 85-car entourage. To do so is both ineffective and hypocritical. No one else could do it, let alone stop doing it. It’s a stupid argument, James. Find a better angle.
Says the guy who defended Trump for fours years, and is a vehement climate denier. :up:
But you aren't familiar with what it takes to move a national leader around. Your lack of familiarity stems from your living in your fantasy world of "every man for himself."
Quoting NOS4A2
It is effective so long as people who don't understand what hypocrisy is stop pretending to engage on things that are over their head. It's kind of like all the new epidemiologists in the Republican Party. The real epidemiologists would have whipped Covid by now if it weren't for all the stupid people. But smart people know that part of their burden is to drag all the stupid people along behind them. That's why it takes an entourage. If there were fewer stupid people, Biden wouldn't even have to go in the first place.
Those of us with experience in the real world know that a General simply cannot hump around with a haversack, along with the PFCs, just because it might endear himself to the troops. Sometimes he has a war to fight and that involves more than a haversack.
Quoting NOS4A2
You are correct. No one else could. Well, unless they were elected POTUS and had to press the flesh instead of Zoom, all while dragging the stupid people, kicking and screaming, into the future. But you wouldn't know about such things.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's an un-rebutted argument. The angle just flies over your head.
P.S. By the way, you never answered my question about your support of Communism. Crickets.
Biden flies an 85-car entourage to Europe and you bellyaching scolds hang on his every word looking for climate actions
“…b-b-but Trump”
Not only that, but he supports Communist China. I think he's a commie.
Biden flies! Oh no!!
Climate change is a hoax.
The person you choose to bring stupid people into the future is an idiot, a hypocrite, and an inborn liar. You, and others like you, obediently await your dear leaders for change. How has that worked out for you?
“Politicians will save us!”
While all politicians might be dishonorable cowards and liars. Only one has set the bar in the basement. and it was not Biden.
Quoting NOS4A2
It would work out fine if it weren't for all the stupid people on our backs, kicking, screaming and whining like petulant, obstinate little children. Maybe you are right. Maybe it's time we do again what we did in the Civil War and WWII. Only this time, finish the job.
Oh, and answer the question, commie.
No, Donald Trump will -- because he's not a politician, he says things like it is.
November 2nd, baby!
Donald Trump will save us. The government isn't the solution, it's the problem. We need smaller government. The solution to our problem is a free market -- no government interference. It's all about freedom.
And climate change is a liberal/Chinese hoax.
Thank God (the Christian God, of course). I thought we were doomed but Herr Trump will come to the rescue! Quick, let me find my brown shirt.
The problem is you guys are the stupid people. You believe you can see the future and know how to fix it. Your answers to these problems, and the solutions, lie somewhere in the brains of careerists and bureaucrats, and nowhere in your own ideas and actions.
How many months has Trump been out of office now?
Says the commie Trumpster.
Again, son, our answers would work, if the obstinate, petulant people would stand down for a nano-second. Indeed, look at the history of your people ruining America (if the not the world - 2008) and our people rescuing it and getting it back on course, only to have your people ruin it again. And we do all of that over your kicking and screaming to slow our roll when we have the wheel.
It reminds me of my unit in the Marine Corps. The upper echelon would move us around to the different shit-hole barracks on base because we'd clean them up to live in. Then they'd move us to the next one.
How long since FDR? Carter? Clinton, Obama, Clinton? And the right still has their panties in a wad.
Never. Because he never lost, and will soon be reinstated.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes! Anyone who listens to 99% of experts in any field, rather than using his own brain to figure things out from his bedroom, is stupid indeed. I've always felt atomic theory was way off the mark, for example. Evolution too -- I mean, come on. Obviously we were designed by God. I don't need careerists telling me what to think. That's why I don't go to the doctor.
Your fantasies do not apply to me, unfortunately. I despise the uniparty and am a registered independent; I find your lot indistinguishable from the other; and the group think and silo mentality do not apply.
Ah, but they do apply to you, whether you want them to or not. You are a hypocrite and a communist because you said so. It is my fantasy that you be what you say you are. It is my fantasy that you are exempt from the arguments you sling at others.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then why, pray tell, do you support Communist China?
Quoting NOS4A2
I agree that you are not capable of nuance. Like most commies, it's your way or the highway.
I am a communist and a hypocrite because…why exactly?
Same reason Biden is a hypocrite. He wants to curb emissions, yet drives. You don't like big government but support the Chinese Communist government.
I didn’t say Biden drives. I said he flew an 85-car entourage across the ocean and road around Europe in it.
How do I support the Chinese government?
Okay. Same difference. Biden wants to reduce emissions and yet he flew an 85-car entourage across the ocean and road around Europe in it. Yet he wants to reduce emissions. In your mind, that makes him a hypocrite.
Quoting NOS4A2
You buy lots of shit made in China by commies. In your mind, that makes you a hypocrite.
I don’t lecture others how they should live. I don’t seek control over others’ lives. I don’t seek to impose rules on others I myself refuse to follow. I don’t stand in front of the world and preach the end of days while I contribute to it.
I shop local.
That's because you are a hypocrite.
Quoting NOS4A2
No you don't. No one shops local. You shop China, Mexico and everywhere else your local shit is sourced. No, wait . . . that computer and key board you just pounded your lies out on were built in your home town. :roll:
I’ve never bought anything from the CCP, nor have I sent them any money or lip service. Besides, you wouldn’t know where my money goes in any case, so I think all you can do is imply that if I own something made in China, I must have some specious connection with the CCP bilking wealth from their serfs, all to “bring them into the future”, no doubt. But that sounds like something right up your alley, not mine.
You are either a bald-faced liar, you are woefully ignorant about global markets, or you live in a cave. Guess what? You are on the internet so you don't live in a cave.
Quoting NOS4A2
See above.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't imply shit. I know it for a fact. See above.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not specious. It's communist global capitalism.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not their serfs. You're the serf. We are all the serfs. There might be a few hippies off grid somewhere, but you ain't one, and they aren't on the internet or using tech like you.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, it's you in the future, dude. You are supporting commies. Hypocrite.
Yes the CCP steals labor and money from its people, like all Communist parties. I don’t. You don’t know where my money goes, where your money goes, simply because you haven’t followed it. You couldn’t know if your tax dollars go to ratheon contracts or into Joe Biden’s hair plugs. Until then you can only imagine things.
Anyways, what’s more interesting is your idea of someone dragging us proles into the future, and Joe Biden is the one to do it. I’d love to hear it.
Yes, you do. You own shit made in China. You steal labor and money from people. You are a communist aider and abetter.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, I do. Because I'm smarter than you. I know global economies and how they work. You may have a mother board assembled in Taiwan or the U.S. but some of the parts were made in China. But I'll go further than that and say that, if you are a man of honor, you will root through your house and car and come back on line here and tell us about all the commie stuff you have.
Quoting NOS4A2
Nice dodge, son. But let's get back to your hipocracy and your support for communism. What's a guy like you who spouts all that libertarian shit doing supporting communism?
"Republican Glenn Youngkin has been elected as Virginia's next governor in a major upset, according to US media projections. He was 2.1 points ahead of Democrat Terry McAuliffe, with 99% of votes counted. Mr McAuliffe, who served as governor from 2014-18, saw his opinion poll lead vanish in recent weeks. The ballot has been widely seen as a referendum on Joe Biden's presidency, and defeat will unnerve the Democrats. Mr Biden won by 10 points in Virginia in the presidential election just a year ago".
What is the objective role of the democratic party? To stop the left at all costs, and then lubricate the way for Republican victories. Republican lighter fluid for Republican immolation. If, in the meantime, they can funnel taxpayer money to corporations while doing so, then all the better.
Democratic supporters are Republican supporters with extra steps.
Very cute to see two Trump supporters going at it up top.
Roger that.
I should have just said "Let he without hypocracy cast the first allegation of hypocracy" and let it go. I doubt it would have been understood, but I doubt the long way around was understood either.
Anyway, thanks for the reminder.
My plan is the same as it always has been: to direct my own activities in a way that will not hurt the environment.
The only thing that exists is the individual. Anything else is communism.
The individual seeking their interests— that’s it. No such thing as society. Thus, we need a government only for courts and police. Everything else should be based on private property and the opportunity to succeed in an unregulated, free market. That will solve all problems.
Got it. I was wondering how we would direct our activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. We should copyright/patent this idea, go on Shark Tank and . . . make some money.
What about friends and family? I was part of a soccer team growing up, and it was a lot of fun. We were always taught to play as a team and not just as individuals. I think there could be a balance there between the two maybe.
Your friends, your family, your team, and your community are composed of individuals. No balance is required.
That was all satire buddy.
It’s true. Individuals cooperate quite well. But if individuals in a team sacrifice one of their members for the team, they refute themselves, and go against both the individual and the team.
I suppose it is established by tastes, learning and experience. One can develop a conscience and through it direct his actions in a manner that suits it.
And nobody ever disagrees? How do you resolve disagreements?
Quoting NOS4A2
Is "he" the polluting neighbour? What do you mean with "direct"? Ask nicely? He asks you if you own the air or the water. "No? Then fuck off."
Describe to me what should happen moving from today to whatever target you think should be met with respect to global warming and how that would presumably come about.
Since you asked how I propose it is established which activities hurt the environment, I answered that it is established by tastes, learning and experience. One can develop a conscience and through it direct his actions in a manner that suits it. In English, the pronoun "one" is supposed to serve as indication that I am speaking of no one in particular, including the "polluting neighbor". So I was speaking generally.
Discussion? More like inquisition. You were unable to provide anything but snarky questions, in a thread about Joe Biden, no less.
THE ANTI-URBAN DICTIONARY MANIFESTO
Ah, Wheatley! Wheatley, Wheatley, Wheatley... I would advise you not to cite this (um...garbage) "Urban Dictionary" in your posts. I know that as an intelligent fellow, you are above this. I have, upon occasion, received websearch "hits" of urban dictionary entries, and the inanity that I have always found there has ever left my head a-wagging. This site is only good for informing about how people in the ghetto, as well as "ghetto" people who live elsewhere than in the ghetto (following the cogent distinction originally forwarded by 'Malcolm X'), define the terms of their existence. Now, before anybody "gets their back up" about this, let me state overtly that these are not intended as remarks with any 'racial' connotations whatsoever, there being many 'caucasian' people who are subsumed within the group heretofore defined. This post is serious in nature, and intended to indicate a real folly.
Many most, of the entries in the U.D. are (a) both semantically and/or grammatically incorrect, (b) vulgar, and (c) exhibiting a degenerative mental orientation towards what I might call a "typically American 'ghetto' mythos". I mean, who writes this shit, "Cita" from "Cita's World"? The instant definition of "bandwagon" is illustrative of one of these inherent problems, particularly of "(a)" above, within the "Urban Dictionary". The Urban Dictionary entry for "bandwagon" states:
bandwagon
Taking interest in something just to fit in with the crowd.
"Walker started watching Hockey because the Bruins where in the playoffs and everyone else was watching it. Walker is a major bandwagon."
...wherein the definition is faultily rendered in the sense of a deverbal adjective, to wit, a participle ("bandwagon" is a noun, not a verb or a verbal participle), and the usage example is given in an improperly nominative sense, that is, in the sense of a noun, but still incorrectly for being the wrong type of noun...that is, not as the specific type of derived noun (perhaps "bandwagoner", or "bandwagoneer" would be more correct?) which should be used within the example.
Please guys, let us refrain from ever citing the Urban Dictionary for any reason, as so doing would seem to have the power to reflect negatively upon the level of discourse here on TPF. If you need a lexicographic citation, the just use Wiktionary. At least then, you have definitions generally written by pro lexicographers or others interested in good lexicography. Any appearance of the U.D. on this site just reflects badly...
If I recall, his BBB was trying to get at this global warming issue.
Anyway, there is this thing called "the common good." The tussle is over who gets to decide what that is, how to achieve it, or if it even exists.
Some just don't like the word "common", and can't even seem to get past that to the word "good." Others don't have any input on it at all. It is perfectly understandable that those who are concerned with the common good seek the input of others. That's what communities do.
At the end of the day, you can lead, follow, get out of the way, or actively resist. When it comes to global warming, what do you suggest?
:lol: :lol: :rofl:
Communist! Don’t you understand there IS no community, only individuals pursuing their own interests. So sayeth Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
Markets will solve all problems, provided government doesn’t step in to ruin everything.
:rofl: Somebody latched onto "Atlas Shrugged", it confirmed a bias, and no effort has been made to read or understand the critiques. Just a bunch of commies like me. :wink:
“The common good” is a phrase collectivists and utilitarians break out now and again to justify their schemes. You pretend to know it is, how to attain it, and then stack bodies to reach it.
I don’t suggest anything when it comes to global warming. Never have, never will. I’ll let you lot stress out about that.
Is there another phrase you might use that is less offensive to you, but which gets at the same idea? Or are you just disputing that there is such a thing in the first place?
(By the way, you are right about the stacking of bodies to reach it. I'm a champion of the stacking of fascist, imperialist, communist, racist, slave-supporting bodies. You can never kill enough of them. In fact, our restraint in the past has them raising their ugly heads even to this day.)
Quoting NOS4A2
I thought you had a secret way to do no harm. My bust. I must have misunderstood when you said:
Quoting NOS4A2
I’m sure there are more words you can think of. Look how easy it was to list off the words you’ll affix to others as you murder them.
You did misunderstand. I don’t suggest anything. I don’t have advice. I don’t have words of encouragement. You’re asking the wrong guy.
Oh, I'm satisfied with "common good." I was asking what you could think of. Apparently nothing?
Quoting NOS4A2
Okay, so you don't have a plan to direct your activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. Got it.
I don’t think in those terms.
I plan to act as I always have. In other words, no plan at all. No suggestions, no advice, no plan, no secret way. Got it now?
Right, I just said "Okay, so you don't have a plan to direct your activities in a way that will not hurt the environment. Got it."
I think it's pretty clear I got it.
So you were wrong when you said I misunderstood you. Got it.
:rofl:
No thoughts, no ideas, no principles. Just an affinity for slavery and authoritarianism. Oops, I mean "freedom."
:lol: :up:
Then for the ugly side of the poll:
So, Trump against somebody in 2024... oh what a rosy picture I can make in my mind about that! The US happily coming together again to decide an honorable leader for their country.
(Likely they won't name the campaign this, but it's likely how it would feel to the supporters:)
I heard some old guy say he didn't like Trump. That's my research.
Joe Biden will be almost 83 by the time the next election rolls around. It's not unreasonable that his party wants someone else. He wasn't an overwhelmingly popular pick for the position. He was chosen because the center of the party needed someone to coalesce around to defeat Sanders. It's entirely possible that his success was largely due to his staking out a position that he would refuse to drop out of the race, thus tanking the Democrats chances of winning the election (in the minds of centerists at least) unless other candidates dropped out to endorse him. Basically, he won by playing chicken. Now in office, he has little of the charisma and energy the crisis moment calls for and can't even get his own party to pass his agenda.
I mean, it seems highly probable that any of the several other centerists candidates would be President right now if they had been given similar support. What makes Biden the one?
On the upside for the Dems, a sizeable minority of Republicans hate Trump. He really tanked in the suburbs last time around. Picking shit fights with D list celebrities on Twitter at 2 AM on a work night only plays well with a certain crowd. A meaningful minority of the party thinks Trump lost the election fair and square, and then tried to subvert the democratic process to stay in power. Seeing as how he seems unable to move on from the defeat, he is now in the position of having to run on a claim that a around a fifth to a third of his party thinks is an abject lie. It's a terrible idea.
But then again, the Dems seem intent on continuing to push education reforms like getting rid of gifted programs that have extremely low support, so they have their own issues. That they are losing, not gaining support with minorities through the era of Trump, also seems to undermine some of their core claims about society.
Nonsense. :down:
Randians. :roll:
[sub]• Common good (Wikipedia)
• The Common Good (SEP)
• What Is the Common Good in Political Science? Definition and Examples (Robert Longley)
[/sub]
More likely he'll die from a heart attack because of his fast food diet.
Well, a lot can happen in American politics by 2024. Yet again, some people even now seem to live in the 2016 elections.
Quoting Wheatley
If you pin your hopes on that...
Let's not forget that the nausea in US politics isn't only because of Trump.
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
This news is circulating the internet probably to point out how world leaders don't give a sh* about climate change issues. (COP 26)
Since this thread is about Joe Biden, I though it would cool to post it here.
I don't mind being critical about Biden but this is just bullshit.
Ah OK, I didn't think of this that way, sorry.
"The common good before the individual good. (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)"
"The Nazi 25-point Programme," Hitler's speech on party's program (February 24, 1920) in Munich, Germany. Nazi Ideology Before 1933: A Documentation, Barbara Miller Lane, ?Leila J. Rupp, introduction and translation, Manchester University Press (1978) p. 43.
That’s hilarious. Apparently Camilla couldn’t stop talking about it.
Camilla Parker Bowles can’t stop talking about Joe Biden’s ‘long fart’
House of Windsor meets the house of wind.
The best we can do is allow the state to monopolize the “common good”. I guess it’s not as common or as good as we make it out to be.
Yep.
Quoting NOS4A2
But the best we can do. The best we've ever done.
Beats Squatter Sovereignty and any smaller constructions.
I’m not so sure about that.
“You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!”
- Benito Mussolini
I am.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, but he was a fascist, so there's that. The original conservative "whataboutism." :rofl:
I don't look to fascists for my read on things.
That’s why you don’t know what fascism is. Mussolini loved the New Deal and Keynesianism. Not-so-odd bedfellows, then.
I do know what it is, which is precisely why I don't look to fascists for my cute little one liners. You know, like a fascist would do.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, that's why FDR kicked his ass, along with Mussoline's bedfellow, Hitler. :rofl:
Yet you aggrandize the state at the expense of your own freedom, just like a fascist would do. Funny stuff.
Ah, but you are wrong when you say I "aggrandize" the state and do it at the "expense" of my own freedom, just like a fascist would say. :razz: The state is just a simple tool I use to enhance my freedom at your expense.
:rofl:
The common good = Hitler. Got it. Another air-tight argument.
He likes citing fascists. "Very fine people on both sides."
“Freedom therefore is due to the citizen and to classes on condition that they exercise it in the interest of society as a whole and within the limits set by social exigencies, liberty being, like any other individual right, a concession of the state.”
- The Doctrine of Fascism
So he loved the policies and programs that dominated the "Golden Age of Capitalism"? Greatest growth in the 20th century. Etc.
Compare to the last 40 years of neoliberal Reaganite policies. You'll find the real fascism there.
Fascists hated liberalism. Another swing and a miss.
Emphasis added.
Yet they liked the New Deal and Keynes -- all liberal policies. Neoliberalism isn't "liberal."
Talk about swing and a miss...no substance whatsoever, only slogans and quotations. Per usual.
In the interests of society as a whole. It’s the best you can do and the best you have done, isn’t that so?
Not the fascist state you keep citing for your authority. You know, the one with the "social exigencies." Heil!
This guy hasn't a clue about fascism. He thought neoliberalism was "liberal." Better just to satirize and laugh.
Maybe adding another emoji will help you out.
Oh ok, so just what you think are in the best interests of society as a whole, then.
He reminds me of the Limbaughs who point out that "Nazi" has "socialist" in the name, so they must be socialist. You know, like the PDRK must be the people's, and democratic, and a republic. Because they say so. Mussolini said something, ergo it must be true. :lol:
DPRK, not PDRK.
Neoliberalism real fascism? That's too thick. (And how Reaganite were Clinton and Obama?)
Fascism is just a meaningless derogatory adjective then. There with communism (for some).
And neoliberalism.
Well, that's easy. In the U.S., just don't give personhood to money, follow the state and federal election and voting procedures, and the end result will be the interests of society as a whole.
In fact, any word that few know but that sounds sassy and clever.
Spelling Nazi! True to form. Thanks. :razz:
Clinton and Obama were neoliberals as well, yes.
Quoting ssu
Pretty much. Fascism, socialism, communism (and capitalism) get thrown around all the time by those who don't have a clue about what they mean.
Don't forget socialism.
"[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is, “Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means."
HTruman
Except neoliberalism is a socioeconomic program that we've been living with for 40 years and that isn't restricted to one party. The policies are de-regulation, cutting taxes, privatization. Nothing sassy or clever about it.
Yes, he (and Trump) are old. But then again, Americans just love old people as their leaders. For some unknown reason.
I think the main thing is that when we know that Biden won't be running again (and let's remember, this is his FIRST year), he will automatically get to be the lame duck. People simply will be looking past him for the next candidate making Biden a somewhat semi-lame duck.
:100:
Imagine this came from Truman. That communist.
More precise would be to talk of Democrats trying to adapt to a neoliberal global economy.
But are they really Reaganites? Did they have the same discourse? Rosy small government speak?
Quoting James Riley
Harry S. Truman, October 10th 1952.
HA! That's perfect, @James Riley, absolutely perfect.
It’s a regretful quote. “Socialism” fits better than “progress”.
Calling basically globalization a socioeconomic program isn't the way I would put it. But of course some want to see it as this "specific program" instigated by (whoever they don't like) to the entire globe. Anyone will do to be neoliberal, just if they are in power and the economy policy hasn't been the one in Venezuela.
On the contrary. A Democrat with balls saying the truth. And of course, why wouldn't Truman be for the New Deal? Odd if he would be against it. Tells actually also a lot about the Democrats, in fact.
Speaking of progress, as I remember it, the lilly-livered left ran from the honorable term "liberal" when Newt, Limbaugh, and crew spit it out like a dirty word. Rather than punch those fucks in the face and wrap themselves in "liberal" like a Republican in a flag, they scurried around and scrounged up the word "progressive" as their new self-identifier. Whatever. Only a fascist would consider "socialism" better than "progress." "Liberal is the proper word. Indeed, all the good progress that man has ever made was brought to us by liberals, over the kicking and screaming of contemporary conservatives. Then, when conservatives realized they were wrong, and grew to love the new thing, they now hold on tight to it when liberals bring on the best new thing. Rinse, repeat.
That's because neoliberalism is not the same as globalization. Neoliberalism is a program involving deregulating industry, cutting taxes, and increasing privatization.
You're just making this up as you go. :lol:
This country leans conservative, beyond a doubt. It's our puritanical heritage. NOS is just confused because neoliberalism contains the word "liberal." Yet he's a neoliberal himself, being in favor of the deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts that it involves -- all under the guise of shrinking "big government," of course.
It's a great trick. Lewis Powell goes over the plan pretty well.
You'll figure it out eventually. Read the Harvey book.
You first.
And what do you think has been the engine for globalization, for companies going off to other countries at ease other than the deregulation of industry, cutting taxes, making the trade barriers go away? Sorry, but having more trade has also made the World more prosperous.
Besides, a change that has happened all over the World isn't because one specific program (by Reagan and Thatcher). The changes have happened in China (that is still controlled by the CCP) and India, various countries lead by social democrats etc. It's a myth that there's this "neoliberal program" just like it is a myth that Universities have been taken over a program of the Frankfurt School: a broad loose change thought to be implemented by a small cabal that fits a specific narrative.
:up:
Globalization allowed liberalism to be disembedded. It was a tool for undermining labor.
That's because they're all based on the same flaw: the use of government as a tool to impose subjective views on others. Whether they are views of ultranationailsm, egalitarianism, collectivism, philanthropy - it doesn't matter. It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others.
"I have views and I want the rest of the world to act in accordance with them." It's simple will to power, sometimes with a pretense, like socialism, to soothe the conscience.
All of these systems rely on big governments, because they're all trying the same thing: to make the world act in accordance with their subjective views - something which can only be achieved through the copious use of force, until eventually reality catches up with it (not to mention the more powerful a government is, the quicker it shall fall prey to corruption).
I hope this is his rationale for saying he will run again at 83. I do wish he had picked a more charismatic heir apparent.
Okay, assuming that is correct, I don't think being aware of the subjectiveness of ones will to power to automatically qualifies one's views as being suitable to be imposed on others. To paraphrase Genghis Khan, the greatest happiness is scatter your enemies and drive them before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes and his loved ones shrouded in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.
So, what's the alternative? No government at all? How would that be enforced when confronting a will to power?
It would seem a pretense, like socialism, would be better than anything else we've come up with. Unless we could make a religion out of worshipping the Earth. Even then, there are going to be issues.
So, one more time, what is the alternative?
It’s not that globalization doesn’t exist. Globalization in itself is not neoliberalism.
The national engine was the financialization of the economy. It’s the most mobile of industries.
Quoting ssu
What they call “trade,” for example in NAFTA, is a complete disaster for the economy.
What’s made the world more “prosperous” is the millions of people that have come out of poverty in China and within the Asian tigers. Odd that we’d attribute that to neoliberal capitalism. Looks like it involved massive state intervention to me.
Quoting ssu
It’s not a myth, it’s a very real set of policies systematically implemented over 40 years. It begins with Pinochet, Reagan, and Thatcher — that doesn’t mean there’s a “cabal” out there. This isn’t a conspiracy theory.
The biggest and most deadly being capitalism, of course — with better propaganda; propaganda that tells people (like you) that the government should be small and that this means freedom. Small for the population, that is— not for business. The state should be a corporate welfare state— and that’s what we have. Vehemently defended by Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman “free market” capitalists like you, naturally. All why decrying “socialism” and “big government.” It’s always quite a sight.
I thought that was Conan the Barbarian. :lol:
The alternative is to not impose one's views on others.
If one comes to the conclusion that is incompatible with politics, then don't partake in politics.
One's alternative is not to associate with, defend or support a system that is fundamentally flawed.
But if your question is, what alternative is there for man should he be hellbent on maintaining a system that is fundamentally flawed, then the entire state apparatus should be drenched in the awareness of the very thin moral line it is treading between being a necessary evil and a birthplace of tyranny. The United States was, and certain European countries were, but where there is power there is corruption, and even countries built upon the right principles will eventually fall, as the US and Europe have. Corruption - another fatal flaw of power structures.
You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it.
Quoting Xtrix
I think that is demonstrably untrue, by a very large margin. But no system is perfect, and no system that relies on the use of force to obtain compliance ever will be.
Quoting Xtrix
Me, a capitalist?
You must not know me very well. :chin:
Probably should have lead with that, but thanks. Sounds like Street. A list of alternatives that are not alternatives.
At least you gave a tip 'o the hat what the U.S. used to be. The aspirational stuff in the organic documents is still there, as a template for the people, if they ever decide to take their country back from the Plutocracy.
But if it's irreparably broke, and everyone just distances themselves from it, we'll just have rinse-repeat with no progress. I say give the kids a chance. After all, that arc keep bending, albeit slowly.
Not looking for a fight this morning. Just wonder what all the critics have in mind.
They stole it from the original. 1210, if I recollect correct. Not that I was there, but I saw it on t-shirt attributed to the Khan. :grin:
P.S. Just found this: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5272307.Genghis_Khan
For those with eyes closed, I guess.
I believe that power can be justified and legitimate. Some forms of social organization is important -- not necessarily a nation-state, but some kind of organization. The way US society is organized now is that there is very limited representative democracy for our political system and a neo-feudal, wage-slavery economic system where there is no democracy allowed.
Libertarians want to shift power away from "big government," and endlessly yap about how big government limits our "freedom," and are completely silent about the economic system. It's striking.
He was equating a massive transfer of wealth and power with “every advance the people have made in the last 20 years”. As is common, he confuses the state’s aggrandizement with that of their subjects. Insofar as socialism routinely pretends that state ownership is social ownership, his critics are not far off the mark.
The New Deal was supposed to push the economy out of depression so someone could actually accumulate wealth. It wasn't socialism.
Sure, it arrived at a time when people were nervous about having to pay the just penalty of their collective ignorance and greed. There is no better way to absolve man of his failings than to devise a state program to cover for him.
This comment suggests you have some ideas about what caused the Great Depression. What dastardly deeds were done?
Quoting NOS4A2
What was the failing? I know what Marx would have said. I'm just wondering how your story differs.
"People" did indeed pay a penalty for the greed and stupidity of the capitalist class who caused the depression, yes.
It's a weird thing. The two wings of the Republican Party obviously hate each other much more on a personal level. By all accounts, Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump absolutely despise each other and aren't on speaking terms. However, because Trump never really cared about policy, they never had these big fights on policy. The closest they came to this sort of crisis was on the ACA immigration, and ultimately they were fine doing nothing in both cases. Certainly it was sort of spitting in the eye of their base. You run on immigration as an apocalyptic crisis of national Identity, you get the House, Senate, White House, and Court, and then proceed to hold not a single vote on migration, not even token legislation about deporting rapists or something. However, it never blew up for them.
The old GOP and Trumpists are way further apart on policy than the progressive and center Dems, right? I mean, in their own words, Trumpist policy basically sounds like fascism. State intervention in markets is fine, neoliberal policy, a pillar of the GOP for a century, is the enemy. But because the Trumpists are so beholden to what Trump focuses on, and what he focuses on is generally not legislation, they avoid blowups.
Meanwhile, the Democrats really aren't that far apart except on the importance of deficits and the need for government action in social change (e.g. federal curricula based on the 1618 Project, that sort of thing). However, they can't seem to get along.
I think it comes down to the charismatic leader. Biden just seems empty. Him coming down on one side of an issue doesn't hold weight for AOC or Manchin. I think this is showing his weakness.
As much as Obama wasted a lot of his super majority time trying to be a both sides of the aisle guy, I think he'd be a lot more able to sway his own party now. Not to mention that without term limits we'd almost certainly have seen Trump lose almost every swing state in 2016, and might be seeing a more seasoned negotiator Obama in his fourth term now. Term limits certainly seem like a mistake now, especially as we gave an octogenarian rematch for 2024.
As I read Obama's book, it just hurts. I can certainly see him winning in 2016, Trump had razor thin margins, and maybe again in 2020 depending on what happened. We'd have the American Solon we really need, the level headed reformer who idealized liberal democracy and doesn't rely on simplistic ideology to appeal for support.
My guess is no one. He's part of an "old left" with an ideology based mostly on class. Not totally sure what to call it, maybe "classical socialism." The new left has somewhat similar policy aims, but identity plays a core role in ideology. Since that side is ascendant, I think the "new Bernie," as in leader of the far-left in the US, will come from that outlook.
In terms of their success though, that might not be a good thing, because what research there is on identity framing, it makes people less likely to support a policy, even if they benefit from it. That could always change though with a culture shift though, it just hasn't been electorally appealing so far.
AOC would be the front runner now IMHO. Best name recognition, charismatic, young. Maybe Ilhan Omar, although she's had some missteps with part of the base over comments on Israel. AOC also seems better with the Twitter zingers, which is now a key asset for leaders, lol. It also seems like she is getting groomed more, which might just come down to personality and networking. And there is Rashida Talib, but I'm less sure of her. I might be biased by one segment of C-SPAN of her trying to grill staff for the Federal Reserve that revealed she really had no idea how central banks work and hadn't taken the time to find out before going for a grand stand.
Sure there is. We don't need a state program to put up a blue wall, a green wall, or any other kind of wall. Groups of people can do great good, and great bad, but It is natural for people to look the other way when a comrade does wrong. That guy who just saved your life gets a pass, even if he is a racist POS who beats his wife or is otherwise an asshole. People want to fit in and don't want to be seen as a rat.
Take one of the most socialist institutions in the world: The U.S. military. When it comes down to it, you aren't fighting for ideals, country, etc.: you are fighting for the person on your left and your right. The state is irrelevant.
Human beings are engaged in one huge open conspiracy to fuck the planet and do whatever is in their own best interest regardless of the form of government that exercises power over them. Only the benefit of objectivity from 10k feet can pretend to look at the long game, and again, the long game can be good or bad; individual or group. But that is where you try to temper greed with enlightened self interest. You regulate, you legislate, you impose collective will on the individual.
Screw VA and NJ. Burn the house down. Vote against the BBB, against the infrastructure bill, against raising the debt limit in December. Teach the Democrats a lesson. Manchin and Sinema and the conservative (no, they are not "moderate") Democrats don't hold the Trump cards they think they do. Everyone is starting to play a zero sum game so the left needs to play by those rules. They will, eventually, win. They just need to be prepared to not only tax, but to claw back, and prevent the rats from taking their shit when they jump the ship. Let the rats go into those cold international waters without the life jacket paid for by Americans.
Which adds absolutely nothing to the conversation or the analogy I was making. Another opportunity for you to try and get your stupid and irrelevant argument in. It's like the girl you wish you wouldn't have started a conversation with on SNL.
Agreed. I just see her like Mr. Smith goes to Washington and question her (or anyone's) ability to remain pure after getting kicked around by the conniving professionals like McConnel, Pelosi, etc. Not everyone can be a Bernie. Hopefully AOC can get better with age.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes. Where a house divided against itself cannot stand, we're going to have to start picking sides. I'll identify with her before I'd give the time of day to her opposition.
It's just another irony in America. Kind of like bootstrapping, personal responsibility and other myths. Our military is exalted beyond all measure by the right, but it's fundamental nature is the ass-opposite of everything the right stands for. Talk about big government, cooperative, communal, etc.
But the right knows it's hypocrisy and that is why it has been trying to do to the military what it did to the U.S. Post Office: start privatizing it; and I mean way more than the traditional gun boat service to big oil.
Trump had no policies and no ideology. He was happy to go along with whatever McConnell, Ryan, and the others wanted to do -- reshape the courts for a generation, give massive tax cuts, and repeal the ACA without anything to replace it. 2/3 -- a huge success for them. (You could argue 3/3, since the ACA was weakened -- and was never great to begin with.)
:100: Not even the evangelical Christian right was so stupid as to think Trump actually gave a rat's ass about fetuses. They just sold their soul (and their vote) to a devil who promised to execute in their favor. A devil who cheats on his wife, grabs pussy, cusses and generally carries on in away that would have once set these people's hair on fire with righteous fury. But they will roll with the devil if he plays their game. And he takes them for a ride.
It's fundamental nature is killing poor people for American profits. I'd say it stands for exactly what the right does. And so too what passes for 'the left' in America too frankly.
That's because you are incapable of understanding the truth of the matter asserted (the reason for which the argument was made) and are hell-bent on seeing everything through your ignorant anti-American lens. If you understood socialism, and how the U.S. military fits four-square within that assessment, then you would see that it isnot inconsistent with your view of how that military is used abroad. Let me dumb it down for you: What you say is true. That has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with what I said.
:roll: I thought of another analogy: I am talking about how the gun is manufactured and how it is operated. Then you come in with your irrelevant agenda and complain about what the gun is being used for. For all you know, others may be in total agreement with you on the misuse of the gun. But you always shoot yourself in your foot when you shoot off your mouth, not knowing that no one was talking about shooting.
These aren't problems, they are nice to haves. Give me whatever big asshole is available to keep the welfare state viable in the Netherlands, instead of austerity, and I'll vote for him.
Exactly.
Opening the barriers for money and financial capital to move around freely and then have competition with labor costs basically undermined the previous system where labor regulation and wages were done at the nation level. To have global labor laws etc. simply wasn't as easy as opening the trade barriers or banking. And who would have an incentive to push through such a thing?
My point is that since you have such a multitude of different actors in this, it simply isn't so that all actors adhered to one "socioeconomic program" of neoliberalism. I doubt that the Chinese or Vietnamese leaders were preaching the same mantra as people in the US, but they were keen to have a growing export sector. But people usually just look at the issue from their own perspective or that of the "West". And of course it's the typical narrative of telling large scale events happening all because of one certain program of a few people.
No one has actually pushed the US to default on its debts when they had the votes to do so, and the logic there is clearly that sparking a financial panic is not going to make voters like you more. Nor does it make sense to plunge the country into chaos if your goal is to improve people's lives.
Second, progressives sorely lack the support for those sort of antics. The Republican Party is fairly unified, at least when it comes to voters showing up to the polls and voting for their candidates. Obvious exceptions abound, Trump saw a huge swing down in his share.of the White male vote in 2020, largely on educated voters getting tired of his antics specifically. At least that's how I'd interpret the fact that Trump's support among White men plunged, almost all driven by those with degrees, but that those same voters hewed much more Republican down ballot.
But Trump had a surge elsewhere, particularly with Hispanic voters without degrees, outperforming any recent Republican with Hispanic voters by a wide margin with 38% of the vote despite Democratic prognostications about a Blue Wave driven by Hispanic voters.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/30/new-trump-poll-women-hispanic-voters-497199
This is important as regards Progressives claims because they often like to speak as if they represent the overwhelming popular will of anyone who isn't White. In fact, more Hispanics vote Trump than identify as progressive, a margin of 38-25, and more identify as conservative (35) than progressive. Nor is the gap particularly large for Black voters, (25% conservative, 28% progressive).
https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx
And whereas dyed in the wool Trumpists might have similar margins of public support, they can count on a unified voter bloc to come along with them.
Progressives are stuck with 20-25% support, and not even majority support in the Democratic party (obviously not in seats and positions, but not even in popularity either). How do you play hardball with a quarter of the vote, when half your party is willing to defect or not show up if you go to far on ideology? Progressives claim they are the "people's will," but the people they claim to represent speak with a different voice at the polls (I'm sure the rhetorical answer is that this is "internalized oppression...")
Not to mention, the primary system, particularly closed primary states, give a massive outsized advantage to radical voices on both ends of the spectrum. If the US primary system wasn't such an antiquated mess, it seems unlikely that Trump could have won the nomination, but similar changes to make it more representative of the general public would also make Sanders a non-contender. Fact is, progressives already benefit from systemic overrepresentation of their priorities, to the detriment of Democrats actually winning elections.
2020 ,with the huge expansion of mail in voting, ease of access to the polls, and absolutely historic sky high turn out, should be a major warning sign to Democrats in general. They got every election reform they could dream of to go their way outside district maps, and a noxious opponent on top of the GOP ballot, and preformed underwhelmingly given that big advantage. Democrats have plenty to hope for in how much the win the young vote (70% of Millennial women, Bush II took 50% of the 18-24 vote in 2000, Trump took just 36% in 2020, Trump lost voters under 55 by 9 and 11 points in each year respectively, landslide margins). But support in people polled =\= votes, and if you can't get proportional turn out in a year where everyone gets mailed an early ballot and can drop them off by drive through, you're never going to get it. Enthusiasm just isn't as high.
Or basically, you can't play hardball when you're the least popular faction in government, which progressives are in polling, in votes, and in seats.
I think similar assessments were had for the Tea Party. But I'm no expert on these things. I'm on the outside looking in, thinking that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The husband is a wife beater and the wife is subordinate, even if she brings home a larger check. The teen daughter is flexing while the teen son is playing video games.
Anyway, I'd like to see Liz Cheney run and split the ticket. I can just see the debates where Trumps asks why she's running if she voted with him 97% of the time. And she just says "Because I actually believe that stuff and you are a dishonorable coward and a liar."
Then I woke up.
As long as you don't pretend to be against that stuff like a good little Christian evangelical, then yeah, go for it. But he could, literally, shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, even one of his own, and his base would not care. He could pay for abortions and wipe his ass with a bible and his base would make some Q story up for him. He's a god. They worship him.
And so labor, which had become very effective and powerful in the UK and the US was left with nothing.
Quoting ssu
Biebricher spends a chapter explaining the complications associated with the use of "neoliberal" in The Political Theory of Neoliberalism, one of which is that no one claims that title with a straight face.
I think it's more that success bred success. A certain anti-egalitarian model became popular simply because it worked so well, though the first experiments with it were forced on developing nations.
The Chinese and Vietnamese rejected neoliberalism. So the example makes little sense. There’s good scholarship on this — Ha Joon Chang is one.
For some reason you’re insisting on thinking about neoliberalism as a religion with card-carrying followers. It’s a set of policies enacted over roughly 40 years. The name is given to this shift of policy. Deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, etc. The push came out of the corporate sector, who rallied together in the 70s very openly. The Powell memo is partly the catalyst.
You’re arguing against a straw man.
Speaking of neoliberalism, the debt-ridden, big government policies that led to it are now occurring once again. Stagflation?
Inflation jumped 6.2% in October, biggest monthly rise in 30 years
Keynesian economics dominated economic theory and policy after World War II until the 1970s, when many advanced economies suffered both inflation and slow growth, a condition dubbed “stagflation.” Keynesian theory’s popularity waned then because it had no appropriate policy response for stagflation. (IMF)
17 Nobel Prize–winning economists back Biden’s $3.5 trillion Build Back Better plan
I would bet money that most of those laureates are Neo-Keynesians. :nerd:
Yeah, $7 trillion/ten-year defense budges will do that to you. Anyway, no matter how high inflation gets, do you think we will ever pay true cost for anything? Wouldn't that be nice.
I think most of that spending was an attempt to keep financial institutions from imploding. Big fat imploders.
There is so much government intervention in the way that no one could ever know.
Who knows? It’s out of control. It’s amazing how fast an institution can spend other people’s money.
Neoliberalism put those institutions at the center of the world's economy.
Hey, you didn't explain what caused the Great Depression.
Did you move to the Arctic Circle yet?
That government intervention is done at the behest of the 1%, the corporations, the MIC, and the capitalists who use it to limit competition and line their pockets. If they would only pay true cost like a real capitalist would, then we'd at least have a handle on it. But they've convinced their sheep that they did it all in spite of government, instead of through the ownership thereof.
I’m not an economist. I have no theory as to what caused the Great Depression.
Not fast enough, apparently. Musk made some $36 billion in one day. Only a sap would think it was "his" money and that the markets and invisible hand really exist.
Same thing that caused the tank in the 1890s.
I don’t care who it’s for. It’s done because others have given them the power to do it.
Wait, you signified otherwise before, about people paying prices for their sins.
Gyp!
For it to be stagflation GDP growth needs to be flat with inflation. But GDP growth is the highest in decades, 6.7%. Plus, a good deal of that inflation is rebound inflation. Recall oil having a negative price back in 2020? The year over year % increase is misleading because the year you're comparing to had huge deflationary pressures. Same for GDP growth. We only have China levels of growth because the economy contracted last year. It'd basically two years of growth and inflation at once. Averaging from 2019, things look much less extreme.
Real wages, so controlling for inflation, are rising for the bottom 50% faster than any time since the 1990s. Median checking account balances are up a whopping 50% since 2019. Inflation going into a spiral is a very, very real risk, but the initial bump has more to do with supply chain shocks (e.g. used cars up 40% on chip shortages for new cars, gas going from super low to 2019 levels). We had Great Depression level unemployment as the entire service sector dumped its staff and now they are all trying to hire back at once. Is it any wonder they have trouble filling spots? But if employee leverage causes wage increases that increase prices, a spiral can still start from the initial shock.
Defense spending to GDP has fallen by almost a third since 2010. 3.5% of GDP is not particularly high. Comparisons to Europe are somewhat unfair because they benefit from US protection, but even there the gap has shrunk. In the 1950s, when economic equality and growth was way better, defense spending was 11.5% of GDP. It was over 5% as recently as the 1980s.
Deficits are being driven by repeated cuts to revenue and transfer payments to seniors. That's where all the huge shifts are. Three rafts of large tax cuts since Reagan are probably the key issue.
Transfers to seniors (SS and universal healthcare through Medicare) are 38% of the budget. Interest on the debt, also a transfer to seniors since it's stuff they got in earlier years that younger generations will pay for, is another 8%, so 46% goes to seniors. The next largest group is transfers to low income people. 8% for non health welfare, 10.2% is healthcare for low income folks.
Defense is 11% and falling. Almost 15% of defense spending is on services and transfers for veterans, which could fall under pensions and health sliced another way.
The idea that America can fund things like universal healthcare out of the defense budget just doesn't make sense. Our super high medical spending/GDP from the private system does way more harm to deficits than defense spending.
Comparisons to other countries are also spurious because of unique ways in which the US operates. Healthcare is private so defense, and everything else, grows as a share of the budget since healthcare isn't a national expense. Most of the day to day stuff the government does is done by state and local government, roads, K-12 education, etc. Those expenses almost equal Federal ones (pre-stimulus).
So comparisons of the Department of Education and DoD budget is disingenuous as a talking point. States run colleges, counties or cities rub K-12, and they spend far more than the DoD.
But I wonder how much of that is bureaucracy and paying CEOs. I think the whole thing needs to be overhauled.
Can you explain the stagflation of the 1970s?
Thanks for the explanation.
Yeah, let's just tax more, like the 90% marginal rate I heard we had when the U.S. was in it's prime. Of course there was a raft of exemptions but it doesn't help when we reduce the rate and leave the exemptions. Also, one question I've always had is this: If defense spending can be defended because it creates jobs, doesn't welfare spending create jobs too? I mean, either way we are giving money away. But bombs disappear, whereas welfare spending gets spent, and also pays the wages of all those who dole it out. Kind of a trickle up idea, instead of a trickle down. That way those at the top actually have to work to get some of it.
But in the end, I hear deficit spending doesn't mean shit so long as the petrodollar/dollar is the world's currency. Sure, if the world switched to a PetroEuro or Wan or whatever, we'd be a third world country over night. But we still have the bombs, right?
Or they took it. Maybe even paid money for it. Hmmm. Wonder where they got the money. Must have "created wealth." :rofl:
If anyone other than the government acted like the government, took wealth as they did, they’d be rightfully called a criminall. That’s why it’s difficult to distinguish the government from any other criminal class.
You are right. And those who aren't deluded DO call them criminals. And it is hard to distinguish. That's part of the plan. Let me tell you how it works:
Like many a person I've argued with before, there is a fundamental failure to distinguish between the government and those who wield it. Let me try and help you: Government is not the living, breathing, sentient, conscious, evil monster that some deluded people think it is. Sure, if you are telling stories around the campfire, to gullible little kids, that works.
But government is really just a tool. Like a hammer, or a gun. It does not hurt you or steal from you or make you it's bitch. It is the people behind the government that do that. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Government does not take wealth as a criminal. Criminals take wealth as criminals. When you hold a hammer, the whole looks like a nail. When you hold lots of money, those who hold little look like chumps. So you take even more and the chumps line up to help you. The chumps love to hear the stories about money and they go to bed at night with visions of money dancing in their sweet little heads.
So, now all you have to do is follow the money. Guess what? The trail emphatically does lead back to the people who you think "created" wealth with brawn or brains, bootstrapping themselves up with risk-taking daring-do and personal responsibility. Those who have you thinking they came by it honestly are the very thieves you are looking for.
Now I'm not so stupid as to think what I just said didn't fall on deaf ears. I know it did. But I can speak truth anyway. Futile though it may be. Those who can't distinguish don't distinguish. They listen to the fairy tales and believe them.
[edited to delete the NOT]
A lot had been written about that. Appears to be a combination of things. First, the demand side. Part of that was too much government spending going up too quickly due to the Great Society and Vietnam War. That was new demand that couldn't be met by new supply quick enough. Also an increase in consumption as Baby Boomers started to hit adulthood and buy their own cars, homes, etc.
The supply side was probably a bigger issue. Immigration reform had been passed but was slow to start and illegal immigration was nothing like the 1990s to today, with a metropolis worth of mostly working age people entering the labor force each year (and at a large disadvantage in negotiating wages, which keeps wages low). Women were joining the workforce but the peak of the transition hadn't hit yet. So the supply of labor to meet new demand wasn't elastic enough to avoid price increases. And since labor is a major component in almost all goods, change in labor costs often result in changes in prices (although people drastically misunderstand when they think the correlation is 1:1, that only holds if demand is perfectly elastic with price, which is basically never is, hence $15 minimum wages don't drive the price of Big Macs up much).
You can see this in how productivity gains and wages used to go up together in lock step. Since 1979 wages have flatlined, going down for the lower income (along with life expectancy), while the gains flow to the owners of capital. Women entering the workforce and mass migration was a seismic and sustained expansion in the labor pool that probably helped keep inflation so moderate from the 90s on.
Obviously the gas supply shock was another major cause. Gas is used to transport goods and rub machinery so it is an input in the price for everything, so the 1973 shock had huge ramifications. Today the US is a net petroleum exporter, but back then we were way more sensitive to oil price shocks. Absolute supply mattered because vehicles had nowhere near the fuel efficiency of today. A modern heavy truck gets more miles per gallon than a 1970 passenger car (passenger cars averaged 13.75 MPG at the start of the shock, trucks today sit around 24 MPG and cars are up around 33 MPG). Obviously new production methods also help with supply shocks since domestic production exceeds demand even with Americans all driving SUVs and light trucks as commuter vehicles (of course that leads to other, larger problems than inflation).
Then the solutions, Nixon era price and wage mandates, just distorted the economy more. Taking the currency of the gold standard, while clearly the right thing to do long term (fiat has proved far more stable than gold backed currency for developed nations), probably also hurt simply because it hurt consumer perceptions of the risk of future inflation. Hell, even after 30+ years of well controlled inflation there are still goldbugs raving about how all our fiat money will be worth nothing any day now, but when it was a new shift the fear effected behavior far more.
But the thing with inflation is, it doesn't necissarily stop when the thing that started it stops. So current inflation is obviously due to the Pandemic and supply shocks, but the wage/price increase cycle is a positive feedback loop sans other factors. With stagflation back then, you had inflation kick off during economic expansion, but then the feedback loop continued during slow growth due to continued supply shocks and lack of adequate policy solutions.
:100: Bingo. And the list goes on. Who is government to stop me from dumping metric shit-tons of hazardous waste into the air or the river? And then fining me for it!
This isn't what's being claimed. When the grotesquely bloated defense budget is brought up, it's done so to expose the utter hypocrisy and stupidity of those who suddenly worry about deficits and "fiscal responsibility" whenever social services are brought up. They don't care about deficits or the debt, or about spending -- provided the money is spent on their interests, and they use other people's money (taxpayers) while avoiding paying much themselves. That's the capitalist class for you.
The state is a tool, true, but more of a machine. Its sole purpose is the exploitation of one class by another, and to secure its interests from insurrection from within and without. It doesn’t matter who wields it or pulls its levers, it goes on doing what it always has, in fact, what all states were created to do. If you were to man the state with a flock of honorable men, what exactly would change? Extortion, robbery, exploitation, coercion, mendacity, hypocrisy, rent-seeking, corruption—all of it would go on, simply because no state was formed for any other purpose.
Thank you! I've been trying to put the facts together into a coherent picture for a while now.
So why did return on investment decline? Because wages were high?
A machine is a tool. The purpose is determined by he/she/they who build it and wield it. One purpose is indeed to prevent insurrection from anywhere. It does matter greatly who wields it and pulls its levers.
If I were to man the state with a flock of honorable people, nothing would change. That is why neither I nor any other individual should be charged with manning it. Nor should I decide who is honorable and who is not. The people at large, constrained by a Constitution designed to protect against a tyranny of the majority, and acting pursuant to the rule of law, should make such decisions and they should do so periodically, again as set forth in law.
They should also keep money from making the decisions and they should tax every swinging dick and tit under their sovereign jurisdiction; more so those who benefit the most from the machine.
Those who want the machine to seize up and stop working will, of course, seek to deprive it of oil and grease. They will instead grease palms. With money. They are insurgents from within and without. They are enemies of the people. They are the reason the state does not work for the people.
Sometimes money keeps the machine running to do dirty work against the people. Money will keep the machine around as a punching bag for those so stupid as to blame the machine instead of the money that pulls the levers. But yeah, gerrymander, buy up the 4th estate, dole out enough bread and circuses to keep the guillotine at bay, man the levers with hacks, and convince the sheep that the machine is their oppressor. But never let the people get the levers.
The right of the people to keep and bear levers has been infringed. Now money has them. But don't blame the levers. Keep and bear them. Or in this case, take them back. Legally.
I could go on but you're smart enough to beat this analogy out to it's obvious conclusion.
I assume you mean returns on the stock market? I'm not super familiar with the period like I am with 2008, which I've read a lot of books on. My understanding is that was blue chips being over valued going into the crash and then inflation beat down stocks into 1980.
When inflation goes up, generally so will interest rates, because lenders assume they will get paid back in currency that is now worth less than what they gave out.
Central banks also raise interest rates as a means of combating inflation. Higher rates basically equate to raising the price of cash, which in turn weakens demand for it. Less lending means less money changing hands (velocity in macro models), which should reduce inflation, all else being equal.
The combo led to very high rates in the 70s. The Federal Reserve had rates at 20% by 1980, which is wild. If you can earn 20+% on money markets and bonds, you don't really have much incentive to stash your cash into stocks. Inflation also makes the potential yields on speculating in bonds a lot hotter because real bond yields shift more over time with volatile inflation rates. Meanwhile, stock value needs to keep up with the high inflation rate just for your asset not to lose value.
Also, if the company you now own runs into problems, a likely issue with high inflation and low economic growth, it has to either borrow at high interest rates, which will burden it with debt service, or it will choose to issue more stock because selling debt costs too much, which devalues your asset since each share is now less of the total.
Wealth and income equality was also much better back then. Now the top 10% own 90% of stocks, and that's weighted to the top 0.1%. So we see stocks booming despite inflation because the rich need assets to stick their cash in, but fixed income has garbage yields because interest rates are so low, so money pours into other assets (unfortunately single family real estate has become a major investment class, and it is killing regular citizens). If money is more evenly distributed, less is available to flood into asset classes like stocks.
I think the mental danger of inflation in the biggest challenge right now. People fear rising prices more than they should. Because wages have stagnated for so long, they don't have faith that their wages will keep up with prices, but in the past that has absolutely been the case in tight labor markets. For the first time since 1979 I believe, the bottom 50% are seeing bigger raised than the top 10%, and their wages are beating inflation growth.
Not only that, but about 29% of Americans have more credit card debt than cash savings. That share grows if you include mortgage debt, student debt, car loans, etc. People with more debt than savings tend to be poorer obviously. The thing about inflation is, it makes your debts worth less. You're paying them back in currency with less value. So low income Americans are winning on both sides of the equation.
But the top 10-20% is getting hurt, and that's who tends to lobby best, and who makes calls in the media, so we can expect to mostly hear about the bad side of this. It's a liability for the Democrats aside from them just holding power as this happens, because they've shifted so far on migration that they no longer have any coherent criteria for when anyone shouldn't be allowed to move to the US outside them being a violent criminal. However, I think this will be a big wake up to workers that businesses having access to an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor isn't favorable for them, and that there are reasons outside of racism to control migration.
It does matter who pulls the levers. What you're describing is the state being controlled by the capitalists, and so you generalize this to all states. A nation-state is a kind of social organization, and there are various forms. Just as there are various forms of business. It would be nice if we tried democratic participation in both. You rail against the former while defending the latter, and so you forfeit any right to be taken seriously.
Abolish the state? Fine. Let's first abolish capitalism.
:rofl:
We already have our targets from Paris and we already have stated commitments. We actually don't need COP26. We need every country to just follow up on what they've previously promised.
This latest statement from China and the USA doesn't mean anything. It has the same value as the love letters exchanged between Trump and Kim.
Easy to dissolve everything in the acid bath of cynicism. There’s a few specialists of that around.
Quoting Xtrix
On the contrary, it's the crucial building block here just why things are the way they are. Neoliberals praise free markets and free trade in the West while countries like China eagerly exploit the openings, but in no way endorse neoliberalism. And even if you look at various other South Asian "tigers" that endorse free market capitalism like South Korea or Taiwan, you can find them also having long term planned industrialization programs that basically started to bear fruit in the 1980's and onward. Not so as the preachers of free markets often declare just to let the "invisible hand" to invest where markets want.
Quoting Xtrix
And here you again with one narrative from the US, which put one memo from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from 1971 as the pinnacle thing here, which is eagerly promoted by leftist thinkers who want to have culprits to accuse. (Just looking at the actual memo just shows how things were viewed in the 1970s)
Again remember your own observation about China and Vietnam. The US centric view simply doesn't explain the globalization and the present "neoliberalism" of today. We aren't living in the 1950's where everybody else was either in ruins after WW2, still colonized or enjoying the fruits of the socialist experiment.
Maybe read a book if you want a welcome change, instead of following politics! :yum:
Democracy has this often resented feature that political movements do sometimes get their objectives and accepted by all sides. Hence if you refer to wealth transfers and social welfare nets being socialist, then both parties in the US (or parties in Canada) are all socialists. That hardly is the case. Yet when you look at how the UK, Finland or your country Canada actually spends the tax income (or the new debt), a lot of it goes into wealth transfers with systems similar to those implemented by Roosevelt and Truman in the US.
Let's look at that agreement. It's noteworthy to actually read those texts. They usually aren't thousands of pages as both countries have had to agree on every term and phrasing. And do tell a lot more than the media hype around the talks.
From the State department website:
Yeah, at first glance I can say that the above is much more than a lousy Trump bullshit deal.
Yes. I was wondering if there is some way past that, but I think it would require a global government to ironically limit the ill effects of globalization.
You don't need a global government, just few simple agreements between independent governments with ways to punish those that brake the agreement. Start from things like universal safety standards, work hours etc.
This is the real failure of the labour movement. Those idealists really thought at the start of the 20th Century that "all workers would unite", but then happened WW1 and the workers happily rallied to their flags killed each other. So perhaps those objectives or ideas of global solidarity were far too rosy, even if the salaries, work safety and work hours got improved (which is a huge thing, actually). Yet these, again, were fought in the national level, never on an international level. How these movements could cooperate at the international level has not yet happened.
And have to make the criticism that the political left has abandoned this classical support group and hence many in the working class have been lured by right-wing populism in many countries. Populism, of course, is extensively nationalistic in this view and naturally see's foreigners (and foreign workers) as a huge problem. Not something that can help here.
How did that happen? The destruction of labor unions made it so leftists didn't have any way to unify them. If leftists have no power base, what are they actually doing in the world? Are they just ghosts from the past?
A bit difficult to explain, but basically it is the leftist push on woke issues and emphasizing the causes of the "new left", which don't see the labour movement as so important. At least the populists and the right have successfully painted "the woke new left" to have abandoned the working (male).
Basically it's the phenomena like Trump having success with blue collar workers voters in 2016 or the labour voters who voted for the Conservatives because the party lead by Boris Johnson pushed for Brexit (and Labour was against it). At least Boris was smart enough to understand to be humble with these new "conservatives". Even here in Finland the traditional left has lost support to the populist "True Finns" party, which apart of it's anti-immigrant stance is basically quite centrist.
But it seems to me that leftists didn't abandon labor, both labor and the left were just beaten into the ground by the 1980s and 90s.
Obliterated.
No, it isn’t, because China and Vietnam rejected neoliberalism. So your statement to the contrary makes no sense, because it isn’t true.
Quoting ssu
It has nothing to do with endorsing. Either the various policies of neoliberalism were enacted or they weren’t.
Quoting ssu
Culprits to accuse? Yes, I’d say the most powerful business lobby in the US giving a blueprint for the policies of the next several decades is a fairly big deal. It was a call to arms. It has nothing to do with left or right.
Quoting ssu
It isn’t US centric. But considering the US is the major power in the world, they’re far more influential than Chile et al.
The Chilean thing was the US.
I wonder if you get off on just making things up for fun or if you genuinely are completely ignorant of the fact that the interwar period was a literal golden age of worker power the likes of which have never been seen since.
He was talking about international solidarity.
That was their token bone tossed to the other side, making it sound like "These things have been taken into account." As if the losers would be taken care of. But the best they ever offered on that point was some weak BS about retraining and retooling the losers for some new tech.
But the most shameful thing about these debates was, the "opposition" always let the "winners and losers" comment slide, and both parties moved on to other, sexier aspects of the debate.
Shame, shame, shame.
If there is a debate at all, that means the losers have some cards left to play. Otherwise, the trade agreement would just go forward. What we need to make sure the loser's boats don't sink as the tide rises for some slaves over seas, is to make sure the losers don't lose. You know how to do that? You let them in on the profits. Not some; not a nickel here or a dime there: you make them equal partners. For ever penny to be made by the huckster who's trying to sell this shit, the losers get a penny too. They all become winners.
But the losers are losers because they are losers. They don't get off their losing fucking asses and vote. Or if they do, they vote for the proposals and people that winners tell them to vote for. Which again, makes them losers. You kind of don't even want to help them if they are that stupid. Fuck them. But if you are a better person than that, you try to help them.
At then end of the day, you don't say "Hey, look at it this way: you may lose your job, but you'll be able to afford the cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit they sell at Wally World. And when it breaks, you can return it and get another one. Look around! The tide is lifting your boat with cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit! Why, my parents didn't have cheap pieces of plastic Chinese shit! So our collective standard of living has risen!"
There is nothing wrong with globalization. Just don't tell the losers they are going to be winners and don't sweep them under the rug with a patronizing comment. Make them winners by paying them off with an equal portion of the gargantuan profits you will be pulling in as you take your tax free money out of America and invest in emerging markets overseas.
Oh, and if buying what you need to make your venture work will sink it, then I guess it wasn't a viable business model in the first fucking place, now was it? And you should not be getting big government to help you get it off the ground, now should you? Pay a fucking tax you parasite!
End rant.
Probably, but we were talking about the options for creating international solidarity.
The left didn't abandon the organizations, but organized trade unions have not succeed in the US. The working class or people who think of them as being part of the working class do exist. That they haven't found a voice in the left is the problem. Usually the left has very crappy ideas how to fix problems.
Quoting StreetlightX
And that was after WW1. Perhaps something like the Soviet revolution had an effect on socialist ideas, you know. Otherwise, please inform yourself of the actual history before accusing others of making things up:
Yes, the interwar period is generally taken to have taken place after the first war and before the second war that is correct well done five stars for you. And since your initial comment was to the effect that WWI somehow put a damper on worker solidarity despite this being literally the opposite of reality, your useless and uncited quote about socialists not putting a stop to WWI is an irrelevance and as useless as the made up facts your proffered initially.
They are socialists to me. So-called “social” legislation and other mollycoddling adopted by governments these days are but the successive steps to a socialist regime, if they’re not there already. Let’s just swallow the pill already, name and all.
LOL!
Talk about a desperate urge to find a strawman. But let's make it as simple as possible: PRIOR to WW1 the labor & socialist movement thought that the workers would unite against wars of the imperialists. THEN WW1 happened, which proved them wrong.
Understand now what I meant? Oh I forget, that isn't your agenda here, to listen what others say. Your just here to rant...
Except that WWI did not "prove them wrong" because worker solidarity literally flourished in the wake of WWI like no other time in the history of the planet. But one can see how a kindergarten-level confusion of worker solidarity for great power political tussles might lead one to be so catastrophically wrong. Or maybe you can tell me how the socialists were in charge of the General Staff over at the German ministry of war.
So if you could stop making stuff up that would be cool thanks.
Everyone is a socialist to you. Because, if anyone were a non-socialist, they'd be dead.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh, we're there already. We've been there since the first group of 30 took care of that old person, that baby, that wounded person.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not a pill. It's a flag and humanity waives it proudly. That's why there are 7+ billion of us. DOH!
Socialism is being social. Civil. Caring. Loving. Except toward assholes.
You can only pretend the two are alike in any way. If I could end my relationship with the state like I can with a business, by simply walking out the door, I would.
There is nothing but your own inaction stopping you from creating the business you keep demanding of other, so I read all you write with a clucking sound.
Well, for example the US Republican party has a long tradition of that. Just to name few examples from some Republican Presidents:
Ronald Reagan:
- signed into law the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. The act has been the most significant factor in recent growth of SSDI usage. The share of the U.S. population receiving SSDI benefits has risen rapidly over the past two decades, from 2.2 percent of adults age 25 to 64 in 1985 to 4.1 percent in 2005.
- with Native policy in 1983 instituted direct funding rights for block grants for the tribes and special assistance for small tribes to help build managerial capacities and also seed money to attract funding for economic development projects on reservations.
George W. Bush:
- instituted the most significant reforms to Medicare in nearly 40 years, most notably through a prescription drug benefit, which has provided more than 40 million Americans with better access to prescription drugs.
- Increased funding for veterans' medical care by more than 115 percent since 2001 and committed more than $6 billion to modernize and expand VA medical facilities, ensuring more veterans could receive quality care close to home.
So there you have your socialists, NOS4A2, Reagan and George Bush. And I think with a little looking in the net similar "socialist" laws are found done by Eisenhower, Nixon and older Bush.
Socialism is state monopoly and power-grubbing, nothing besides. It has only ever served asa means to dupe entire masses into giving up their autonomy.
Exactly right.
After millions of workers had killed each other and rallied to the flag of their country in 1914 and not have gone on strike everywhere...as the labour movement had thought prior.
And that's how democracy works.
That's not just socialism. That is every form of government ever. In fact, it is the big guy intimidating the little guy. Libertarians are socialists who hate themselves for it, because they want an autonomy that comes with being a big guy, and they can't have it because they aren't big guys. They rely on the state to protect them from big guys and they hate it. Colonel Colt helped, but he can't make a libertarian hate themselves less.
One thing that you (and one other I am thinking about right now but who will remain unnamed) can't possibly fathom (no, seriously, you cannot even imagine it) is that someone somewhere might actually want to help others, and that someone might honestly believe the best way to do that is with help. You can't imagine that they find it, and that there is a group of people trying to help people and that they participate in government to do it.
But there is one thing you *can* imagine, and that is me. You can imagine groups of people like me coming to get you. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
No. Wait. You don't have to be afraid. You just have to quit using our shit without paying for it.
Quoting Xtrix
Ok, I think you misunderstood me.
What I meant that this, China and Vietnam rejecting neoliberalism, is a very important thing to understand here. Basically China opening up and emerging to become the second largest economy from the size of the Dutch economy in the start of the 1980's has been the real driving force in globalization. However, as this, as you agree, hasn't been because of a neoliberal policy in China, it's wrong to argue that events in China (or Vietnam) have happened because of neoliberalism. It has been marketed in the West as a success of neoliberalism as the US has had this false idea that China opening up would bring also political change (and make it more like, uh, Taiwan).
Hopefully you understood my point. As I think you are open to real discussion (unlike some others).
Nah, just you specifically because you make things up which are the literal opposite of reality.
I can’t fathom it. You say you want to help others then delegate some government official to do it for you. But even then, erecting a bureaucracy is helping no one, so no help arrives at all, just more machine.
By all means, help others with help, but none of what you provide or do can be considered “help”. Rather, it’s an escape from having to help others.
I don't want to help others. I pay government to do that for me. Otherwise, I'd parse libertarians/parasites out as ineligible for help. But government lets them avail themselves of big government help too. Luckily for them.
Quoting NOS4A2
See, I told you a libertarian could not fathom it. It's beyond their imagination. They can't even see all the help they have received. Are they ungrateful? I'm guessing it's like a parasite. Does a parasite even know what it's doing? Or does it just do what parasites do? Lot's of people have been helped. That, again, is why there are 7+ billion of us.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, you prove you cannot fathom it. It has literally helped, and is helping billions.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not an escape. It's delegation to a better, more objective, more effective big guy that I (ostensibly) have some control over via the vote and rule of law. I say "ostensibly" because we all know that people who support their oppressors have turned over the reigns of power to their oppressors. They think the oppressor is their government when, in reality, the oppressor is the people who have convinced them the oppressor is government. That's not hard to do because, like I said, they can't fathom that anyone would use the most effect tool to help others. Since the person is ungrateful and can't fathom it, he blames the wrong entity. The oppressor absolutely LOVES it when the people blame government for their loss of their fantasy autonomy. It would be funny if it weren't such an indictment of people.
This ‘genealogical’ critique specifically doesn’t speak to whether libertarianism is a sound political philosophy. If you could show that the ideas of socialism are implicit in the ideas of libertarianism, that would be interesting. If you could show that there is a performative contradiction in espousing libertarianism — that you cannot do so without an unacknowledged commitment to socialism — that would be interesting.
One problem with this sort of ‘analysis’ is that it invites more of the same: how hard would it be for me to pass right over whatever you’re saying and instead ‘diagnose’ your attraction to this sort of critique? Would you find that a satisfying way for me to engage what you have to say about libertarians? Even when grounded in a thorough historical reconstruction, this sort of thing only makes sense if truth is off the table. It is seductive but dangerous, and we’d be better off if Nietzsche had never thought of it.
It doesn’t work like that. All we can be sure of is that they’ll take our money, they’ll spend it, but we don’t know whether it’s “helping others” or buying a politician’s neck-ties. And if they change directives, spend all their money on this or that program inimical to the citizen’s interests, we have no choice in the matter. Worse, every time we give the government the power to do something for us we give them the corresponding power to do something to us. Much better to skip the middle-man entirely, in my opinion.
Every state thus far—liberal, fascist, socialist, Islamist—has been organized monopoly and exploitation. One thing is clear to me: as government consolidates and strengthens, the power of independent moral judgment in the citizenry weakens. So it isn’t long before statists of all types beg for more government wherever their own morality is waning.
It does so speak, when it is not taken out of the balance of the post. Libertarianism is not a sound political philosophy for the reasons stated.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I can't show it because they are not. That was my point. The fact that libertarians benefit from socialism does not make the ideas of socialism implicit in the ideas of libertarianism. Rather, it points out libertarian hypocrisy.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I did.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Again, I can't. It can't be done. Well, unless you understand what I already said about the libertarian enjoying the benefits of socialism without admitting it. It is the failure to admit that makes it impossible. It's that myth of an autonomy that does not now and never has existed. I can't prove out their fantasy for them.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Not hard at all. That's what NOS has been doing since I first came here. It's what I used to do when I was a young man.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That is a good question. Why do I keep engaging NOS? Am I a glutton for punishment? Maybe it's that deep seated desire to help those who don't want help. Or maybe it's a desire to keep them occupied while the rest of society tries to move forward, knowing someone else is doing the dirty work of keeping them occupied. So the answer would be, I guess, that you should do as I have done and engage on the merits, cut to the nut and admit that you benefit (greatly) from socialism as you (NOS) define it. Then, and only then, will we have agreed upon a premise from which we can advance in argument.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Truth is off the table when we, hand in hand, refuse to go backward in argument until we find a premise upon which we can both agree. Then we can march forward in our search for truth.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I agree: failure to find that premise and proceeding anyway is dangerous to the search for truth. I can't speak to Nietzsche.
Really? When FEMA shows up and gives you a trailer to live in because your house was destroyed by a hurricane, that looks a lot like help.
I don’t think you did, at least not here.
I think it is true that the state can guarantee your ability to advocate for there being no state, among other things, and I think it’s true that providing such guarantees is one of the reasons people accept the necessity of state authority. Otherwise, only the strong have free speech.
Is that the same thing as socialism?
Yes, it does work like that.
Quoting NOS4A2
Look around at all you, personally, benefit from. Try being grateful for all you have, instead of taking it for granted. And recall that it was brought to you in spite of the aforementioned powers that seek to undermine the efforts to line their own pockets.
Quoting NOS4A2
That would be due to those who have convinced the people that government is the problem. It would not be due to government.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then just give your money to those who already have it. They are pulling the levers of government and getting you to blame government. Maybe if government no longer existed you would have to, finally, point your finger where it should have been pointing all along.
Quoting NOS4A2
Monopoly, yes. Exploitation: only to the extent government is blamed instead of the people you should be blaming. You know, the people who want autonomy to milk you like a cow and who use your government to do it.
The independent moral judgement of the citizenry has weakened when they blame themselves instead of those who stole their government right out from under them, and with their help.
Quoting NOS4A2
Bingo! See Trump.
Quoting James Riley
And that is only part. You'd have to go up and cut and paste all the other times I showed the performative contradiction espousing libertarianism. NOS and I have a long history.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
It can. But you can bet it gets a metric shit-ton of help from those who advocate for that. You know, the ones with the money.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I just wish they would stipulate to that; admit to the necessity, instead of fantasying about some world where they live free from the necessity, and yet still have all the benefits of it. That is precisely the nut that we all have to get back to, before we can go forward with our respective arguments for truth. Or, if we want to deny that premise, then let's go back until we can find one we can agree upon. Like maybe there is away to live without the state and still have all that we want to keep. But so far, crickets.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Everyone has free speech. You can stand in the square and scream until you are blue in the face. What matters is being heard. Money gets heard. Speech against it gets marginalized by it.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
No. It's self-interest without enlightenment.
FEMA is not the greatest example. It has gone through more reforms due to its failing responses than it has had successes.
What is a better example? (And remember, you don't want to use a government example without shooting yourself in the foot.) How about no response at all?
Quoting NOS4A2
What successes? I didn't think they could have any?
You can defend the existence of the state without accepting some libertarian’s equating of the state with socialism. You can also defend socialism, but it’s opposed to libertarianism only insofar as it is one way of organizing the state.
Quoting NOS4A2
That’s not an argument that the trailers don’t count as help.
You could, if you were willing, argue that it’s less helpful ‘in the long run’ than letting people suffer the consequences of their poor choice of where to live. That’s still, before even getting to the other challenges of arguing such a position, which strike me as monumental, admitting that it is, to these people, in these circumstances, helpful.
:100:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
:100:
I think socialism is opposed to libertarianism, as are any other manifestations of the state. I know that some might like to nuance the definition of some terms (and rightly so), but I think the arguments that have been made by NOS, to which I have stipulated for the purposes of our argument, have done away with the nuance and reduced themselves to government vs the absence of government. This stems, I think, from my futile search for an alternative. Somehow "we" are to afford rights without responsibilities. However, the simple use of the word "we" will not permit that. Unless someone has an idea that has yet to be expressed.
The libertarian position is only one step removed from a simple cynicism that does nothing but throw stones from the street.
My argument was not that FEMA doesn’t help—it’s their job, after all, one that they’re not very good at—but that giving the state wealth and power could not be considered an act of help or compassion, and for the reasons I stated.
The problem is, many of the wealthiest that benefit the most don't give the state anything. They just buy the legislature and the executive players so they don't have to pay the government taxes. But, as to those who do pay their taxes, what reasons did you state that preclude help or compassion as a motivation? I'm sorry, but I must have missed that.
I’m not sure how that is possible in a progressive tax system. The tax-rate increases the higher the income bracket.
Like I said, people do not know where the sum total of their money goes. This is because the government, not themselves, get to decide what to do with it. They cannot know whether it goes to feed someone in dire need or to droning some family on foreign soil.
But you have to be not exempt in order to be liable for taxes. If you have money, you cannot only buy laws to provide exemptions, you can have rates lowered.
Quoting NOS4A2
I wonder why? Because that tool, that machine has mens rea; it's living, thinking, sentient being, running live through the lives of people, all by itself, undirected?
NOS, I'm just singling out Musk because he's high profile. They are 700 billionaires in the U.S. who don't pay shit and many many more multimillionaires. And guess what! They don't have the real power. The real power is in the oil and other corporate powers that lobby Congress and the Executive for largess and get it.
Libertarians should know that a multimillionaire coal baron who takes money from Exxon and gets his rocks off sabotaging climate legislation whist sitting as chairman on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is on their side. So is the person who had sorting machines destroyed to delay the pre-election mail and owns obscene amounts of stock in private shipping companies while sitting as Postmaster General. He too is on your side. Government is full of people who agree with libertarians. They want libertarians to hate the government they work for. In fact, they are making government work for libertarians by trying to keep government from working for the people at all. Libertarians are not the people.
No, you can't, because the state is run by business, as I said before. I know reading comprehension isn't your strength.
You're right that it has been marketed as success. You noticed every time capitalism is criticized, there's inevitably the line of "it's lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history." Knowing that China is overwhelmingly responsible for this fact, and that China is hardly a capitalist country, with massive state intervention/interference/direction on every level, it's disingenuous at best.
Quoting StreetlightX
Don't forget me, buddy. Or am I just a Biden lackey? I forgot. :kiss:
I was going to ask "seriously" but then I caught myself because the word "seriously" has been so over used as to sound rhetorical, flip, facetious, or like a teen valley girl. But I can't think of another word. So, seriously?
I also want to ask why you can't walk out the door, and where you would go if you did? But that just leads to pivots and excuses and fantasy land.
So I'm left with the only serious question left, based in sincere intellectual curiosity: If you could somehow end this relationship, would you likewise forego all the state provides you in that to-be-abandoned relationship? Tell me about that, please. I might want to do that myself. It sounds interesting. Of course that would haul me back to the "why and where" question, but first things first.
Musk’s wealth exists largely in Tesla stocks, that is, on paper only. He lives off borrowed money. So the question arises, why should he pay income tax if he never made any income? When he sells his stocks (which, on a cursory glance, he just did) he will be subject to taxes you or I could never pay in many lifetimes. They don’t mention that.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/10/investing/elon-musk-tesla-stock-sale-taxes/index.html
If I could end the relationship, it would mean I am no longer paying any money, so I would no longer expect anything in return. Since there is no chance of that, I have to content myself with whatever morsels the state will offer me, which turns out to be very little.
Cool. What a guy.
Quoting NOS4A2
How would you protect what little you have from the thieves (non-governmental :roll: ) that would take it from you?
Quoting NOS4A2
Just some unsolicited advice: Sit down with a pen and paper sometime and write down all you have to be thankful for.
I won't suggest that you honestly evaluate how much of that was brought to you by, or protected by your fellow man, acting by and through government. That would be too big an ask. You can believe that all that would come to you in spite of, and not because of government.
Baby steps. Baby steps. Just start with what you are grateful for.
Maybe in 20 years the light bulb will go on.
He should pay property tax.
I would prefer to defend myself or pay for a service that defends my rights and property, instead of funding an agency that defends the interests of a central authority. But that’s theoretical. Hundreds of years of living under state rule makes it almost impossible to think how it would work in a practical fashion.
What are you grateful for when it comes to government?
Against a foreign state invader? Against a cartel? Against an organized crime family? What happens when the service you pay for is, or becomes one of those entities?
Quoting NOS4A2
Every single thing I have, except for Mother Nature. Even then, some of her has been protected for me, from the libertarians, so that I can still enjoy what's left of her. But yeah, the thin blue line, the thin green line, the highways, the rights of way over which you and I now communicate, the fire department, the subsidized health care, jeesh. I could go on and on. But if you are suggesting I should count my blessing, you are spot the fuck on. I should. More than I do.
It's quite logical to pay taxes when either you get dividends or you cash out your investments.
If you own one stock you bought for 1 dollar and later someone is ready to 100 dollars for it, you will have that 100 dollars and make the 99 dollar profit only when you sell the stock...to that someone. Not when you are just holding on to it as then nothing has changed as you don't have income. And if it comes out that the whole company behind the stock was a ponzi scheme and in the end the actual prize is 1 cent or nothing, how would you think about paying taxes of a few dollars when it was valued 100 dollars?
It's actually quite similar to the farmer that barely makes a living and hardly makes an income after expenses equivalent to working at McDonalds, but if he would sell everything, the farm, the fields and the livestock he would be a millionaire. Oh but the farmer is so filthy rich because he has all that land! (Many of my neighbors in the countryside where we have a summer cottage have stopped farming and never wanted their children to carry on farming the estate for this reason.)
When you can roll it over in a 1301 exchange, or leave it to your heirs (who didn't do shit to earn it) or take advantage of expensing every thing you do, from food to housing to the cat that catches the mice, then you essentially expense all of it, live like a king and don't pay shit. That's not logical. Even Roth contributions are capped for normal people. And if you try to withdraw, you get fucked way more than a millionaire selling some stock. Some of these people actually pursue losses and still live like kings. And if they move it over seas, it can be placed beyond the IRS. Some countries lure them and their money like a U.S. city giving Amazon a tax-free ride if they locate in town. The world is their oyster. I could go on.
What a joke. Capital gains tax is less than income and payroll taxes for ordinary Americans, when looking at percentage of income, not absolute number -- which is pointless to use. You have Warren Buffet saying the same thing for God's sake.
Someone selling $400K in stock pay $50k in taxes. Someone with an income of $400K pays $110K in taxes. It's rigged for the rich, as usual. But by all means keep fighting the good fight for those poor billionaires.
Not just other countries, you have the tax havens inside the US. Huge industry to hide the income.
Well, some call it tax planning. If it's legal, many people say it's just being smart and you are simply stupid if you don't take into account what is legal to do. To hell with it, I say. To hell with the deductions, all those bizarre ways you can decrease your taxes and with the complexity of taxation.
My view is that paying taxes and the tax system ought to be as simple, as transparent as possible so every bozo would understand it. Even better when it's automatic, that you only need to check that things are correct. And that avoiding taxes or doing anything else is simply a criminal issue.
I think one of the best improvements that happened here was that the tax official has to himself or herself to tax the person in the most convenient way for the taxpayer or otherwise the tax official is in difficulties. Earlier it was only up to the taxpayer to demand change to his or her taxation if their was a mistake or if the taxes hadn't been calculated in the best way possible for him or her. Hence a tax official could be sloppy as it didn't matter for him or her.
This is what the rich do to avoid taxes. They avoid income taxes because they don't have "income," they mostly have stock. They borrow money off of this stock -- and because it's borrowing, they pay no taxes on that either, they pay (a usually very low) interest rate on the money.
If you own $100 billion in stocks, you can go to Goldman Sachs and borrow $20 billion with the stock as collateral. That $20 billion isn't taxed. Meanwhile your stocks keep growing in value, and you hold on to them. When you croak, you hand them off to your kids. If your kids go to sell, they pay ____ in capital gains. Anyone want to venture a guess?
That's right: 0%. Stepped-up basis.
All a wonderful system for the rich.
And not only for the rich. Same way the middle class becomes a middle class.
People have gotten prosperous in many countries with buying their home and then their children inheriting something from their parents. One of the reasons why poor countries stay poor is that the ordinary people cannot get a loan, banks don't loan to them and hence they cannot buy a house or a flat and are forced to live on a rental flat for all their life. You don't leave anything for your children when you have paid rent all your life and everything goes into simply feeding the family.
Or to say it otherwise, people are sentenced into povetry when they don't have the ability to take loans for buying a home or starting a business, and/or the loans aren't affordable to be paid back by normal income.
Right -- remember what Trump said once, that he's the "king of debt." Borrowing, debt, bankruptcy, bailouts. I admire the way the wealthy have rigged the system into becoming a no-lose casino, all right in front of our eyes.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, the credit system we have is also designed to favor the wealthy. Less risk, better interest rates. Bad credit score, unstable income, high debt-to-income ratio, etc., and you won't get a loan -- or not a loan at a decent rate anyway, since you're a risky bet. Which makes it more likely that you'll default, as the interest will usually crush you.
It's true that for many people, their biggest debt (and biggest asset) are their homes. We all saw what happened in 2008 with the banks subprime lending. Its approaching bubble territory again -- as are stocks and bonds. When they burst, as they will, the Fed will step in and save the banks...again. Too big to fail, after all. Don't want another depression (which is true) -- but don't bother passing any laws or taking over the companies.
You’re the one supporting state confiscation of wealth, not me.
As if wealth can be accumulated to this degree without a state. The state giveth, the state can taketh.
I agree. I just think the laws that make that legal were not passed by government. They were passed by people who were lobbied and bought by people who have the money to pay for it.
Quoting ssu
:100: Eliminate the loopholes. As to the rate, I hold my counsel and reserve that decision to people who have not been bought. Then I woke up.
I sometimes wonder what society would be like if the no regulation, no tax, no government crowd got what they want. Probably some dystopia controlled by mega corporations that are effectively a government by another name, except even more blatantly run by and for the rich and powerful and without even the semblance of a democracy.
That's how things were in the 19th Century. There was an ostensibly democratic government, but it was understood that all major decisions needed approval from prominent business owners.
The social degradation that resulted was identified by Hayak and Friedman as the cause of the breakdown of liberalism, giving rise to collectivism in the form of Nazis on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. To reboot liberalism, they believed laissez-faire would have to be ditched
:rofl:
Why is that funny?
The principle of laissez-faire was never realized in the first place, I’m afraid, especially in economic affairs. One of the first pieces of legislation in the United States was the Tariff Act. It couldn’t do otherwise; absent begging, every State requires the economic exploitation of the people to exist. It wasn’t long until we had land-grants and subsidies, with monopolists clamoring to get a piece of it. As invariably happens, the more regulation the more regulatory capture. The point becomes not to abolish state intervention but to use it.
As far as I can tell, never once has industry wanted laissez-faire, anyways. At best they wanted protectionism, at worst they wanted hand-outs and monopoly, but in each case they ran to the State for all of it.
The usual canards like “laissez-faire” or “rugged individualism”, at least insofar as critics and proponents use them to describe some aspect of American reality or history, are mostly nonsense. No policy of either have ever existed. And of course the US is “capitalist”. So long as capital is capital, there is no system that has existed or will ever exist that is not.
Anyways, that was a round-about-way of saying maybe abandoning laissez-faire isn’t the best idea—it hasn’t been tried yet.
Start here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
Quoting NOS4A2
:100: They took over the state some time ago, and here we are.
It was clearly the ideal for liberals in the 19th Century, whether it was ever made real or not.
After two world wars and a depression, liberals realized they couldn't proceed with complete apathy about the well being of the people who make up society. So they decided intervention was necessary, but they still embraced the principle that intervention of any of kind is the road to slavery. Huge amounts of ambiguity followed.
BiDeN wILl Be BetTeR fOr ThE eNvIRoNmEnT.
We WiLl PuSh BiDeN tO tHe LeFt!
AcTiViSm!!
Fucking clowns.
God Bless President Biden. We live in a very dark age and I think Biden is doing the best that can be done. The crumbling of an empire, which Biden happens to be overseeing a significant part of, is always a terrible thing for your average Joe (pun intended) to live through.
Hold tight and praise God.
Yes, we know taking three seconds to vote against Trump was too hard a choice for you.
Biden is indeed better than Trump on the environment, and the pushing of environmental activists — like the Sunrise Movement — will continue, despite predictable setbacks.
The civil rights movement had many setbacks as well— a shame you weren’t around to tell them to give up. I’m sure they could have used the enlightenment of an Internet philosophy forum poster.
I wonder what Zizek would say. :chin:
:rofl:
Imagine still being confused about how to vote.
:100:
Quoting Xtrix
Voting is like a needle: It's either scary or it's inconvenient. Some people try to make it scarier and less convenient. Others try to make it less scary and more convenient.
It’s a trivial decision that takes a few seconds. The important work of activism, educating, organizing, unionizing, protesting, creating programs, etc., continues. Trump was the worst of two choices, especially on the environment. Biden has already been pushed leftward, thanks to Sunrise and others— not nearly enough and so far without major legislation — and the work goes on.
Those who can’t differentiate between parties simply want to sound intelligent, when in reality it’s intellectual laziness.
:100: I think you nailed it with the civil rights analogy. "Okay all you folks, head on home, now. Nothing to see here." I think some want MLK's arc to take a 90 degree turn, and right now. Either that, or they are on the other side. I'm thinking there may not be much difference.
Man when Trump gets back into power because Biden is holding the door open for him I can't wait to push him to the left. This can absolutely be done and does not in any way sound as utterly fucking stupid as the idea of pushing Biden to the left. I mean the latter must be so terrified of *checks notes* people voting for him regardless of how much he damage he causes. Which is definitely a perfectly viable strategy and not at all completely enabling of said damage. Such a threat that hangs over the poor guy no wonder he has done so much for the left like rename streets after BLM and stuff.
It is indeed a stupid comparison- but you’re the only one making it.
Quoting StreetlightX
Trump was more damaging, so the easy choice is to vote against Trump. Doesn’t mean Biden isn’t damaging. You’ve demonstrated you’re not capable of making this distinction — fine. Then don’t vote at all, or vote third party — whatever you like.
For those capable of thinking beyond Zizek soundbites, it’s an easy decision. Also for those not buying into the establishment propaganda that voting is our sole way of changing anything because “activism is stupid.”
You brought it up, brother. Just as you can't seem to stop talking about Zizek (are you OK? Did Zizek hurt you?). Or Trump ("Goebbels is better than Hitler, so I'll throw my lot in with Goebbels"). Or the false idea that I equate Biden and Trump (Biden plays a quite different role from Trump: Biden works to kill the left, and is effective at it). Gosh it's like nothing you say has any basis in reality and is entirely projection. All the better to ignore the salient point that you sanction the enabling of the death of the planet. I too, would need alot of projection if I were to do that I guess.
If those were the only choices, and there was even a chance that Goebbels would be less damaging than Hitler, or that there would be even a slightly better chance of stopping atrocities with him in power, then yes of course. If they’re equally awful and there’s no discernible difference, then there’s no pointing voting either way.
But voting is hardly the only thing to consider. It’s actually a fairly trivial choice. Do it and get back to that stupid activism. But what do I know? I’m no Zizek.
Quoting StreetlightX
Almost like the claim that I compared Joe Biden to the civil rights movement. :chin:
A perfectly viable choice might be to shoot both in the head. Nonetheless it is good to know that in a fight between Goebbels and Hitler, you would have Goebbels' back. Very cool and normal.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Are you OK?
Are you? Let me help: Notice the "and." Then: "The pushing of environment activists -- like the Sunrise Movement -- will continue, despite predictable setbacks." I wonder if the next sentence about the civil rights movement was referring to Joe Biden, an individual, or the Sunrise Movement, also a movement.
Could have been the one that makes no sense whatsoever. Guess I was unclear. :roll:
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, that's brilliant. Problem solved. Here, let me try: let's shoot them all in the head and start anew. Excellent. Satisfying.
Now back to the real world.
Mmm, your point wasn't at all that one must, despite it all, vote for Joe Biden, because not doing so would be like giving up on the civil rights movement. Mm-hm, not one bit.
Quoting Xtrix
Where one can not vote for Biden, joyfully and with panache. A very cool world (Here comes the bit where you tell me you don't simp for Biden. I can't wait. I imagine it will be something like: "you can critique him all you like - you just can't do anything whatsoever to hold him materially accountable for the suffering he causes").
I'm thinking he thinks:
1. No progress has ever been made;
or
2. Any progress made occurred as the result of magic;
or
3. Any progress made occurred as the result of people abiding his advice.
I haven't seen any of #3, so he must be rolling with #1 or #2? I'd ask, but every time I engage, I find that goodness dies a little bit, and I think that is part of his plan.
That wasn't the point, correct. The point is that, like the civil rights movement, the Sunrise Movement continues on, whether we take the five minutes to vote against the worst every four years or not. Setbacks are going to occur either way.
What we don't do is what you're promoting: everything's the same and activism is stupid. Brilliant.
Imagine thinking that withholding a vote is the only way to hold someone to account. :rofl:
He has no advice. No alternatives, no solutions, no strategy. It's stupid to vote against the worst candidate, because both candidates are awful. Activism is stupid, voting (or not voting) is paramount -- that'll teach 'em. Typical establishment propaganda.
Have you met American politicians? Or frankly, politicians in general? You keep harping on about the 'real world' - yet it's clear you've never seen one.
Yes. And they don't give a fuck about non-voters like you, who stay home because, you know, "both parties bad."
Has nothing to do with support.
Not unconditional.
:100:
I’m confused. Do you two approve of what @StreetlightX pointed out the Biden administration is up to with oil drilling? Why are we talking about Trump at all here? Doesn’t Biden deserve to be roasted for this?
I don't approve of Street.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I don't think I have been.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Nope. When Michelle Obama says to go high when they go low, I disagree. I go right down there with them. Thus, I'm taking a page from their book. You know, to see how they like it. I'm going to start holding church services on Sunday for our lord and savoir Joe Biden. He can do no wrong. Any alleged wrong is a Q conspiracy drummed up by the Brown Shirts. I fully expect them to rig the election against Joe. All their fake news will be trotted out to hurt poor Joe.
They wanted to divide the country and I'm just giving them their wish.
But the worst thing are those Putin troops who pretend to be neutral, trying to get the Democrats to stay home and not vote. You know, because Democrats are really just stooges for the Republicans. At least that is what I glean from Street. Pray tell: have you ever heard him offer a suggestion? Besides "It's all futile."
Back to philosophy: Since I am no expert, I thought that maybe Street was an adherent to a principle I don't understand. I thought maybe "cynicism." I don't really know if that is a thing, a term of art in the philo community, but I thought it might be. So I thought maybe he was just doing that. But so far I have not found any evidence of him doing to the other side what he does to the Democrats, so I think his actually just a Republican trying, disingenuously, to suppress the vote. I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing any evidence to the contrary. Maybe you know him better.
I would love your invitation to quit this thread. Never mind, I'll bow out anyway.
Yeah, I have. I know exactly what he believes in, and what I assume he gets up to when he’s not posting here. So what? What does who he is or what he’s said before have to do with whether Biden should be auctioning offshore drilling rights? He shouldn’t be. SX just pointed out that he was. And SX disapproves, as do I, for all the good it does. But we are here just to talk, and, you know, pursue truth. And the topic of the discussion is Joe, not SX.
Well I haven't. And I've asked.
If you read the thread, you'll also find I've not been arguing Trump. Further, while I haven't been arguing Biden either (in a Biden thread), I've only been arguing party (D&R) issues in response to Street. When I got nothing out of him, it became about his failure to offer suggestions (isn't that part of your search for truth?). Thus, the complaint about him just trying to suppress the vote because he's a Republican plant pretending to be neutral. I called him out.
And:
Quoting James Riley
But you keep talking with him in your pursuit of truth. I wish you all the best. I'm out.
Sure— just as he deserves to be roasted for asking OPEC to increase oil production, which I pointed out weeks ago.
No.
Probably trying to keep inflation down.
Question:
Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia?
Biden:
https://www.cfr.org/article/presidential-candidates-saudi-arabia
The Biden they got
Biden administration notifies Congress of $650 million arms sale to Saudi Arabia
But yes, Biden, like his predecessor, is a direct material supporter of Yemini genocide, which makes support for Biden among those who cosplay as leftists all the more pathetic. Apart from "not killing the Earth", "not directly supporting genocide" is, apparently, also not one of the conditions by which Biden fanboys take into account when lending their *wink wink* totally not unconditional support to him.
No, I had no such reservations. I just like pointing out that Biden’s campaign was a lie. But it’s true; the sooner the world learns to defend itself and stops sucking at America’s tit the better. You sleep cozy knowing that American military protects you while you sleep, and I wish it wasn’t so.
America relies on its tits getting sucked without which its rural economies - and by extension its entire economy - would collapse. So much so that it actively fights against efforts at international self-governance. Death overseas is the constitutive condition for American life at home. It's a nation that holds itself hostage, all the better to hold the rest of the world hostage in turn. All the better still to serve its arms dealing capitalist masters. Trump, Biden, and other subservient lackies of the American warfare state are quite happy to let this state of affairs - for which they are rewarded handsomely - metastasize indefinitely.
Australia is one of the world’s biggest importers of American weaponry, though apparently it would rather use its force to govern its own citizenry than for defense. But of course the people there gave up their right to own arms long ago. Now they have no choice but to beg for American protection, lest it become a communist or Islamist satellite. What is left of them? Who knows? Who really cares?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1460658931139813385?s=21[/tweet]
(Note the blurred seal…why?)
This will pave the way for Biden’s “Build, Back, Better” plan, which will hoist America’s decline into abject collectivism on the backs of its citizens.
Emphasis added. Hmmmm. Interesting choice of words. :lol:
Thanks. I should add that you get to watch as the federal government steals your children’s wealth and labor to fund its boondoggles.
No, they are stealing your children's un-earned inheritance to clean up the boondoggles we made. As it should be. My children are part of the collective and pay taxes voluntarily.
:love:
Right. The stories we tell ourselves. Of course, you would never voluntarily pay more or less than is required, and will dutifully pay whatever the politician demands of you. That’s the extent of your voluntary action: you voluntarily do whatever the state tells you.
For the life of me, if you aren't part of the collective and don't want to be, what the hell are you doing here? At the very least, take up arms and fight!
Whenever I hear the U.S. press say "He does (insert bad thing) to his own people" I wonder: 1. Does he view them as his own people? and 2. Do they view themselves as his people? If nobody involved thinks they are his people, then who are we to say they are? If you don't think you are our people, then we gladly show you the door. At least we are not abusing "our own people." I suppose you could always try and do something about it. Maybe some foreign press will say "Them 'Muricans is abusing they own people!" :rofl:
Or maybe you could vote. But doesn't that mean it would simply be
Quoting NOS4A2
That and complain about us?
Fight what? I’m already not a part of any collective. No one is. The error is in believing you are a part of anything of the sort.
Oh yes you are! Whether you like it or not.
Quoting NOS4A2
Everyone is. Whether they like it or not.
Quoting NOS4A2
The error is thinking you/they are not. If you were not, then you would have nothing to complain about. You'd be this autonomous cool kid living on an island somewhere, untaxed and laughing at all us fools in the collective who pay taxes to clean up your island for you. :rofl:
Nope. Your purely mental taxonomies apply to your mental furniture only, and not to any actual flesh and blood individuals, the vast majority of whom you are not even aware exist, let alone have met.
Yep.
Quoting NOS4A2
If they were purely mental taxonomies then you'd have nothing to complain about, now would you? Taxes are real and you, as an actual flesh and blood individual, will pay them, whether you like it or not. And that applies to all, whether I met them or not.
Wait, check that. My bust. If you are part of the 1% you don't have to pay taxes. I guess I'm talking only about actual flesh and blood individuals like you and me.
NYT: How Hunter Biden’s Firm Helped Secure Cobalt for the Chinese
Pro tip: If you truly miss those times, then all you have to do when you read an article is scream "FAKE NEWS" and you will be transported right back to those times you miss.
I suppose Biden could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't care. I mean, he didn't lower the bar. He gets a pass now.
Back in those times, you were obsessing over Hunter Biden without any evidence of any conflict of interest in a Biden administration. Nowadays you're obsessing over Hunter Biden without any evidence of any conflict of interest in the Biden administration.
It doesn't seem like _that_ much has changed, apart from the fact that you managed to get rid of the big orange baby in the meantime.
A fine sartorial ambition to be unliveried but your customary apparel suggests otherwise, no?
The Childs privilege...
You used to obsess about fascism and racism until the exact moment it took power.
What does that even mean?
He means the facist covid policies (among others) and the racism of the Biden admin. How do you not know that as often as you interact with him?
No, I've always been pro-vaccine and against acting to spread disease. I was a huge proponent of condom fascism during the 80s.
How about seatbelt fascism, another bugbear of the anti-collective collective? Wonder if we can trace the roots of this oxymoronic group back to mommy and eat-your-greens fascism?
When the state forces you indoors, orders you to close your business, prohibits you from travel, do you tell yourself it’s like mum making you go to your room?
More referring to the psychological genesis of the "fascism" hysteria, counterproductive as it is, seeing as such hyperbole obfuscates genuine concerns and makes you look precious and weak. A stronger foundation could be had by at least acknowledging there's a problem that governments are trying to solve here and that problem is not "How can we oppress NOS more?".
Of course there is a problem, but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it. All they’ve done, apparently, is to completely dismiss human rights in favor of regimenting society and treating the populace as prisoners in their own countries. This will be the greatest peace-time policy failure in human history.
You're starting to sound confused about whether fascism is the problem or the solution. We're agreed policy change needs to happen democratically or not?
We agree. Maybe somewhere people are voting for these policies, but none that I have seen. I also don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.
Better than letting Fox News dictate how to solve it. Unless you're an employee of Fox News.
I'd say the weakness is in not doing the right thing to protect others. Not weakness in terms of might. Not even moral weakness, or weakness of argument. Just weakness in terms of having shit for brains.
If these policies had no support, it would be political suicide to pursue them. Only it hasn't been. Why? Because regardless of what you've seen a majority of the public are still broadly behind strong anti-covid measures (e.g. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/coronavirus-polls/ ). We can reasonably infer from that they don't consider them a violation of basic human rights. Until that changes (and I'm not saying it won't), there's no reason to think those in charge are going to change track and no democratic way to make them change track, is there?
You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself.
A poll or appeal to majority is no repudiation of rights being violated, I’m afraid. Neither is it an example of democratic policy. But you’re right. There is no reason to think they’ll change so long as they are bolstered by public opinion and motivated to retain political power.
Are you talking about Covid, or generally? In terms of Covid, it's all about probabilities. By vaccinating myself at the earliest opportunity, I've reduced the probability of passing the illness onto others. True, I don't know who those others are, but that wouldn't ever be the point for me. Of course, I might not have saved anyone, by sheer luck. But I can't take responsibility for luck. I can fort my own actions.
If you mean generally, I think I've spent a well above average proportion of my life helping others.
I think you're probably genetically predisposed to behave that way.
I got vaccinated because I hate being sick. NOS got vaccinated and then whined about it: all aspects of the human potential. Each could be beneficial to the species in the right circumstances.
A socialist, an individualist and a fanatic walked into a thread...
I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy.
Let’s get those facts straight, pal.
You poor thing.
Perfection is the enemy of the good. Our emission control technology for automobiles and factories is not 100%. Should we just trash it and go back to pumping billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere, until such time as we can satisfy every individual :cry: on the planet? I don't think so.
It’s easier to ask instead of making things up. Just looking out for you.
If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution.
Do you need an authority to tell you when and where to shit, or are you an adult?
If you had even the remotest understanding of the science of emissions control technology, you'd know that the initial efforts lasted less than 3 to 6 months. You'd also know the normal turn-around time for vax development (can you say "years"?). You would also understand what a miracle science hath wrought with the imperfect RNA vax. I suspect science is working on an even better solution; not me, and not you, but REAL scientists who do REAL research.
But yeah, let's pretend to have critical thinking skills without any analytic thinking skills.
Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it.
The lesson you obviously failed to learn is about learning. :roll:
No you miss and evade my point, Tim.
I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.
They don't. You're just paranoid.
"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
So NOS42A2,
Which article does fighting a pandemic that has killed millions violate? Which article from 1 to 30? See the articles at the UDHR page of the UN
Or is a declaration by the UN too pinko-liberal and not your human rights? :smirk:
Human rights are not absolute or inherent but granted, in any case, by states and really just exists in wealthy counties that can afford it. Inequality and corruption are predictors of bad human rights practices. There are no weak or failed states with adequate human rights protections.
I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. But all men can grant rights.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's okay that you don't like that view. You have the right to be wrong. But the state, whether you like it or not, retains the right, by force if necessary, to determine what is arbitrary and what is not. It is NOT arbitrary to deprive you of your most sacred right if there is a compelling state interest to do so, and if there is no lesser way of achieving the same end, and etc. (lots of case law). In other words, all rights have limits and the law will decide what those limits are. Not you or your subjective dislike of some view.
I’m well aware of that. Might makes right. The state can do no wrong. We’ve seen countless examples of it.k throughout history.
Might is sometimes right, might is sometimes wrong, but might does not create right. I suspect might only cares whether or not it is right to the extent being right smooths the way for it. But regardless, might is and always has been the way things are.
Quoting NOS4A2
Well that is clearly not true. I mean damn, the state sits around on it's hands all the time, protecting the rights of individuals to harm other individuals because they think it is their right to do so, and the state doesn't have the balls to stand up to them.
You are now also arguing against the fact that well organised states are good at protecting human rights. Must be fun being so ideologically blinkered that you get your very own Orwellian world where good things are really bad.
States exist, no matter how benevolent they are. You don't live with without your beloved Canada even you don't need it to assist in your breathing, Nos.
Slavery exists too, ssu.
Any man can afford another man a right, and anyone can defend someone else’s rights. It’s as simple as that. If you need a state to tell you what rights are important and when you should defend them, they can get you to do anything.
If only we'd wake up and remember that the state is there to enrich the already wealthy; to uphold patent laws; to funnel public funds into research and development that is then given over to private hands; to keep taxes lower for the ultra wealthy than for anyone else; to bailout the financial sector whenever necessary; and to subsidize environment-killing fossil fuels.
That's not COVID you're dying of -- that's freedom.
:100:
That’s a strange conception of freedom.
Voltaire was right: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.
Sounds good, especially if you take from those who didn't earn it, or pay true cost for it, and give it to those who earned it, or payed the cost for it.
Anyway, on another tangent, I heard Biden put a $100.00/day tax on all containers backed up at the ports. Then, all of sudden, companies discovered a way to get product moving. I don't know if that is true, but if it is, :rofl:
Actually, I don't know if that's all that great. I mean, think of all the tons of plastic Chinese shit coming in. Hmmm. !Murica!
The government didn’t earn that money, that’s for sure. It won’t give to anyone but itself.
Brilliant. If taxes go up on shipping then shipping raises the prices, and, as usual, the cost is left up to the citizen. It makes no sense, if true. But also as usual, government sees itself to the solution to a problem it created, like any protection racket.
Yes, it earned it. I started to list the countless things it did for you and others to earn it (which is to not keep it, but turn around and give it back in many services, and few goods), but it's a thankless task for the ungrateful and ungraceful, so I won't waste my time.
Quoting NOS4A2
Good. They need to internalize a fraction of the true cost of all that plastic shit they consume.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, you believe in welfare? Where costs are passed on to that and those that did not incur them? Who'd a thunk it? Old NOS supports cost externalization!
Quoting NOS4A2
How did the government create that problem? Oh yeah, I forgot: the government embargoed China, and then ginned up the Corona. Got it. P.S. If .gov created the problem, then how come a tax fixed it? I mean, those boys at the port were wringing their hands and saying it couldn't be done, and market forces wouldn't allow it. All of as sudden the constipation frees up. Turns out all they needed was a little incentive. I thought markets did that?
No, it didn’t earn it. First it begged for it, as with war bonds, then it took it, as with income tax. Only after the money is seized could it provide for you the things you claim it does. It doesn’t just start providing services in wait for some true-believer like James to tell everyone it is deserving of some payment for its services. Hilarious.
The government created the problem by imposing lockdowns, shuttering businesses, forcing people in their homes, thereby altering consumption and shopping patterns.
Wait, what? I thought government took everything under threat of force? You mean .gov actually asked, begged even? And here I thought you were in the camps!
Quoting NOS4A2
No, only after .gov subdued the Indians and stole their land, and subsidized your railroads, lumber, mining, etc. could those industries "earn" their ill-gotten social welfare gains. That's how .gov earned it. Then it protected you and them to go about your rape of the land.
Quoting NOS4A2
Actually, it does. Only it's not me it waits for. It waits for your Plutocratic heroes to pull the levers.
Quoting NOS4A2
The government didn't create those problems. Stupid people who refused to mask, distance and vax created those problems. But hey, if it altered consumption and shopping patterns for the best, I'm all in. I hear the air got cleaner, and even saw instances where wildlife started venturing back into towns, etc. Good deal! It's about time people started paying true cost for their welfare.
Anyway, you should be thanking Biden for pulling the stuck turn out of the capital ass.
Hey, I've got a question for you: Down here in the U.S., the servicemen and women, and the cops are venerated. They provide that thin green line, and thin blue line between us and the forces of evil foreign states, and domestic criminals that might otherwise invade and/or do us harm. I'm wondering how you feel about their association with government? How that protection should be handled, or if it should? Should it be privatized? Or just done away with all together? Do you think they've contributed positively or negatively to you lifestyle and standard of living? I'm not talking about foreign adventures. I'm just asking about the local stuff.
Exactly, they stole the land and gave it to their friends. It’s an organized monopoly. Now you say I should become their friend, to enjoy “all they’ve given you”, which turns out to be no more than the fruits of their robbery.
I’m not an anarchist when it comes to the organization of defence. Though I believe people should protect their communities, they are at risk being wiped out and subject to the worst that man can offer. So I agree with Paine that government may be a necessary evil in that regard, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.
No, I think you should distinguish between the tool and those who wield it. When you blame to tool you just do what they want.
Quoting NOS4A2
Thanks. Good luck. Oh, and we will be sending a bill for a tiny fraction of the other stuff you enjoy, and which you would not have, but-for .gov.
There is nothing disproved about the fact that men can afford other men rights. History is blood-soaked with states denying rights, so I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.
It's not disproved by the fact that they can. It's disproved by the fact that they don't. We came up with the state, flawed thought it may be, to move us closer to the can. And, notwithstanding state wars and state oppression, we have moved closer to the can.
But it's like Covid 19 vaccines: those who don't want to go along fuck it all up for everyone else, and move us back toward the don't.
The irony here is that many agree with this. They only disagree just who is actually stealing from whom.
Obviously some have this problem of living in a society with some issues that are collective.
I fear that most are concerned with whom the wealth is given to rather than the fact that it is stolen in the first place. In effect they accept that state institutions are above and beyond common morality.
I didn’t mention any noble savages.
If you can mention any “centralized government” that has not violated the very human rights it purports to protect I’ll be very surprised. The history of states since time immemorial prove otherwise.
Government is just a tool. If you don't like how it is being used, then wield it yourself. It is strange how you would turn over control of the tool to those who wield it against you. Maybe you are like Gandhi, and believe that if you lay down the gun, no one else will use it. Maybe it will go away.
I’d rather not.
Rather not what? Wield the tool?
Yes, I’d rather not wield the tool.
Cool. Those who do wo wield it are happy with your decision.
I’ve never stated there was a society without a centralised government that had an excellent human rights record. So I’m not sure why I would have to demonstrate it.
Any bill of rights was formed in spite of the state, mostly to protect the individual from infringement by state authority. The UN declaration, for example, was brought about because various “centralized governments” had the bright idea to submerge the earth in war and genocide. Bills of rights don’t come about because centralized government is the best protector of them, but because they are the worst violators of them.
That's simply not true. Centralized government comes about because the absence of them is the worst violator. Then, to check the centralized government, the Bills are created. Again, that is why you are personally so much better off than you otherwise would be. First, .gov protects you from me. Then it protects you from it.
Do you have any examples of a state that has came about to protect the rights of its subjects?
Not subjects. No. Citizens, yes. Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence. No, seriously, go read it. I would post it for you here, but I want you to google it yourself and then read it. It's not very long, really. Then, when you are done, you can read the preamble to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Declaration of Independence was to announce independence from state rule and to dissolve their political allegiances. Rather, the American state came together under the articles of confederation and the constitution, not because it could better protect human rights, but because it needed a way to acquire money and prepare for war. As soon as confederation began and the state seized power and aggrandized itself, the government became destructive to the ends of the declaration, and the right of the people to abolish it quickly disappeared. Now look at her, the poor bloated thing.
Okay, so you prove you cannot read. You asked if any state had come about to protects rights. I delivered. You then again attack the tool created instead of the people who took it (people who rely upon people like you to disparage the tool instead of them).
As we have repeatedly taught you (and you have repeatedly failed to learn) the state is not and does not claim to be flawless. It's just better than what would be in the absence of it. You have been called upon to prove otherwise and you have failed. Not because you have not tried; but because it cannot be done. It cannot be done because you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. However, if you want to talk metaphysics, or unicorn Libertarian fantasy land, fine. But even there, you are defeated by fantasy.
Our founding fathers owned slaves. They oppressed Indians. The U.S. is not ideal. But it has ideals. Like your fantasy. And it has done more to achieve it than all the whining in the world.
You didn’t deliver. The United States did not form to protect rights, but to seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends. Every ideal you claim the American state has was violated by the American state. This is because ideals belong to individuals, not states.
And the moment individuals with these ideals wield your tool, they violate those ideals. They utilize organized monopoly and the right to distribute property that is not theirs. The preside over institutions designed to protect their right to do so. They are no longer ideal men, but officials.
I did deliver and you can't read worth a shit. Where, in any organic document of the U.S. does it saying anything like "seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends." It doesn't. Does it? No. Learn how to read.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't claim it. It's right there in black and white for anyone who knows how to read. The American state didn't violate shit. It was those human beings who think like you who wielded the tool who violated the tool.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's a false dichotomy. The ideals belong to both. It's the individuals who fucked it up.
Quoting NOS4A2
Bingo! Now you are catching on. They are individuals like you, who blame the tool, and the ideals, instead of the thieves who stole it.
Quoting NOS4A2
No. Those ideals in institutions were not designed to fuck people. That would be people. You are confused. But people want you to be confused. They want the sheep to blame the tool. DOH!
And just how high do you think common morality is? Sometimes it can get ugly, you know.
Sorry, but fancy-pants libertarian individualism entrenched in la-la-land utopia doesn't cut it when you belong to a people who are and have been quite a "dispensable", unimportant people. With only few million people in a tough part of the neighborhood you know that others wouldn't care a shit if my country would have been conquered and the people assimilated to another culture. Or if your nation wouldn't have existed at all. Many would actually see it only as logical. History has seen a multitude of larger nations and people simply vanish away.
There are firm reasons for societies to have some collective objectives, that unfortunately have to put the individual second. We can surely argue just what those are, but not if they exist at all. The individual isn't a god-like figure put onto a podium to be worshipped. Just as there are firm reasons for the rights of the individual.
Just upholding one or the other (the individual or the collective) isn't idealistic, it's simply stupid.
However, he doesn't want this right for everyone. He has historically taken a dim view of other people's freedoms.
When did I pretend something like that existed? Never once. And I disagree with your assertions.
I love when you start gossiping about me. The “more or less” lies increase in proportion to your sanctimony and race-thinking. An ugly combo.
The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. You divided it, fracture it, subordinate some of it. So any talk of “collective objectives” or society over the individual is a ruse designed to disguise that you would submit to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of society. Just come out and say it.
Back in the old days we used to have a Fourth Estate that would help uncover all that. But people who think like you took their ill-gotten gains, bought the Fourth Estate, and cranked up all of the things you lament. They sacrificed many individuals to their Plutocratic objectives, ruining the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. They divided it, fracture it, subordinated most of it. So any talk of “individual objectives” over the collective is a ruse designed to disguise that you would subordinate others to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of a free society. Just come out and say it. You are a tool for those who stole the tool. They did it all with your aid, abetting and comforting.
Is it a common ploy of yours to rehash what I write into language that comforts you? It’s been a few times now that you’ve done it, that I have to stop reading as soon as I notice it. You’re a good writer, James, and you should use your gift, even if it’s in service to state power.
You mean correct your mistakes? Yeah, I'm good with that.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're the good writer. I'm just rehashing your writing to correct mistakes. Maybe I should be an editor? I missed my calling.
How wrong you have it. If you "sacrifice" someone, you start with yourself.
:100: :fire: :up: :death:
Oh. I'm sorry. Are the logical consequences of your idiocy too difficult to grasp? Instead of denying it flat out, why don't you paint s picture of how such a society would look like and maybe give a historical example or two? I'll wait.
Wait all you need. None of what I said requires painting pictures of how society would look. My only point to you was that states violate the human rights they purport to protect. You even went out of your way to show that rights are subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them.
The idiocy consists of thinking better government with respect to human rights results from minimal government, which is quite clearly an ahistorical account. Strong governments are the only governments that provide good human right track records because most human rights compete in a non-hierarchical manner with each other and those competing interests need to be arbitrated and structured. Minimal governments and failed states do not have the institutions in place to do this properly and therefore have horrible track records in this area.
Better government is the consequence of how social institutions interact, how its people engage politically, how laws are established, what the voting process is, indeed, how their entire culture is organised. But that is obviously too nuanced for someone who only has an ideological axe to grind. So boring.
Individualists bring those violations upon themselves. And they deserve it.
Don't want a violation of human rights? Then don't violate the human rights of others. And support the state when it is trying to protect the victims of individualists who violate other people's human rights.
Otherwise, I will champion the state getting even heavier with it's hand. No one wants to go there. That's the parade of horribles, the slippery slope that is feared. Anyone who thinks the state is oppressive now, by asking people to distance, mask and vax, ain't seen nothing yet. And it will be all their fault. All of it. Don't want to play ball? Stay home. Or just wait till your father gets home.
(More paternalism for you, because I know that appeals to your sense of entitled victimhood)
My alternative to a state that violates the rights it purports to protect is a state that doesn’t violate the rights it purports to protect. When I criticize one behavior it follows that I expect the other. It doesn’t follow that I have no argument because I won’t produce some better or historical political organization.
Even now you won’t touch the argument, and that you buttress it with petty ridicule makes it all the more cringe-worthy. Is the protection of rights not an alternative behavior to the violation of rights?
And that is the alternate we have. The U.S./Canada, et al, does not violate the rights it purports to protect, so long as the individual who's rights it purports to protect does not violate the rights of others.
I hate caveats, but sometimes feel they are necessary, so here goes: I know I don't represent or speak for the state. And you don't represent or speak for individuals who have had their rights violated. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that we do. I will make a deal with you: I won't violate your rights if you and yours don't violate the rights of others. However, you have failed to keep your end of the bargain. Thus, I violate your rights, sometimes prophylactically.
If we are to remove the rhetorical representation, then you, of course, only speak for yourself and don't want your rights violated simply because some other individuals happen to have violated the rights of others. I get that. And it actually sounds somewhat appealing.
But the alternative is no state, with a bunch of individuals running around violating the rights of others, unchecked by a state.
I, on the other hand, side with the state against you. I charge you (a charge that you admittedly do not accept) with controlling your individualist comrades and, if you want the freedom from right violation that you think you are entitled to, then get them to stop violating the rights of others. If you don't control those of your bent, then we will. And it will include you, whether you like it or not. Tough. And it will be righteous and moral and lawful and consistent with individual human rights for us to do so. You (the individualist) may be special. But you aren't that special. We set up a system to protect your individual human rights. But no right is without responsibility, freedom is not free, and you will suffer unless and until human beings individually change; and start, individually, to honor and respect others. So long as there is an aberrant, selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful, jerk, then we, the state, will violate. Don't want violation? Get your own house in order. And by "your" I mean individualist who think like you. Ooops! Guess what? That is exactly what you did in 1776.
There is a point of agreement. We agree that coercion and force and rights violations are often required to defend another's rights from those who would violate them. That, to me, is the extent of my own statism and the proper sphere of government. Beyond that it should not go.
But your idea that the state should violate my rights because someone else is violating another's is absolutely absurd and nonsensical.
Your analogy was false.
I assume you know that a privilege to drive can be conditioned on a speed limit, and that such does not constitute a deprivation of basic human rights.
So I'll try to come up with something else, like prophylactic measures designed to stop the spread of disease; specifically lockdowns. I do believe in a basic human right to peacefully assemble, and to travel interstate. However, I don't believe those rights are unconditional. Specifically, when the state is merely limiting a privilege that is commonly used as a convenience in furtherance of exercising those rights, then it is not violating those rights when the privilege is denied to stop the spread of disease. You can still assemble and you can still travel, but you can't use the state's assets and resources to do so, unless you mask, distance and vax. The state can mandate employers to mandate vaccines because employers do not have a basic human right to run a business.
And, since the rights are not unconditional, the state could go further and actually violate those rights if necessary to stop the disease.
Finally, if the ONLY reason the disease continues to spread is because the state must do so to
Quoting NOS4A2
then it can do so. People don't have a right to infect others. And the burden is not upon the state to prove a particular individual has a disease when individuals claim a basic human right to not be tested. That is not absolutely absurd and nonsensical. Where there is a compelling state interest, and the state utilizes the least intrusive method it can to achieve the objective, then it makes sense and it is lawful and moral to protect it's citizens thus.
Quoting NOS4A2
The point here is, the state can act preemptively to stop you from killing another. It need not wait for you to kill them to try and stop you from killing them. The state can do this through any number of ways, up to and including the threat of capital punishment. But there are many lesser ways. If someone else is violating another's rights, the state can regulate the conduct used. That is not violating your rights. You have not been imprisoned or punished. Rather, you've been stopped (we hope). If not, the state will raise the ante until you are stopped. One way or the other. That is the state's obligation to others, not to itself.
Earlier the Ukrainian President was worried about a coup plot, six days ago:
Belarus teeming up with Russia:
Biden administration sending a warning:
Sounds worrying? Well, let's hope that it's just like earlier people being extremely jittery. But of course, the war is still going on in Ukraine.
Would Ukrainians be better off if they ended the war and surrendered to Russia?
:clap:
Would you do that if you it would be your country and not Ukraine?
From my country's experience it's not only that give make an acceptable and somewhat beneficial option to Russia, you also have to make it clear that the surrender option isn't happening and that the annexation option will simply be too costly. With those options being off the table, then the "Finlandization" option is the one Russia is happy with. But notice, only with those two options out of the question.
Or then you simply have to have nuclear deterrence. Of some sort. (Which the Ukrainians, btw, gave away thanks to promises from the US, UK and Russia in 1994.)
(Dismantling of the Ukrainian nuclear deterrence)
During the 100 year war the Burgundians favored surrender to England because France was suffering so much from the conflict. 1/3 of the arable land wasn't being farmed. 1/3 of the churches were empty, many of them robbed by French soldier/brigands.
I can't say they were wrong.
Yep!
And there's no independent Burgundy anymore.
Do note that independent Burgundy was absorbed to French crown lands and the Belgian part to Habsburg posessions not long after that. Now only about 50 000 people do know to speak some Burgundian.
So with that kind of thinking, history will remember you and your people/country like this:
That's some nationalistic values you have there: the grandeur of the state's legacy over the well being of the people?
Better to starve to death with a sword in your hand than to simultaneously eat morsels fertilized by brethren's corpses with said sword placed firmly up your, oh never mind.
The "legacy" of a state is the well being of the people. Defeated enemies (of the state) who claim to have been "the state" and were able to act as such simply add to the legitimacy of said state and relevant people. It's not that complicated really.
Yeah but your descendants aren't going to care what your nationality was, or what language you spoke, or what you looked like, or what your religion was. It's all vanity.
The grandeur in this case is of course the French state and the French language where prior there was a multitude of other different languages and cultures.
French is the sole official language according to the second article of the French Constitution. Other languages spoken in the area, like Occitan, are now highly endangered. This hasn't happened because of the idleness of the previous speakers of those languages. The parents didn't just suddenly not teach their children the language. It naturally has been a crucial objective for the French state to create a uniform language and uniform French culture, because left with to the old the state of a true multiethnic country would be far more troublesome than the United Kingdom or Spain.
And do note how you conquer lands, you don't take them just over, you mold the people of those conquered nations to be part of your starting from the language and culture they had. If you don't assimilate the people you have conquered, you are just asking for trouble in the future. Likely the state will just collapse when people don't think they belong to it. There aren't many Empires left these days.
So it's not nationalism I'm preaching here (or you are confusing the term), but you @frank might not understand that what you say might unintentionally be promoting imperialism.
Quoting frank
You really think so?
No, that is nationalism, you just didn't realize that nationalism is mostly made of love. It's love for a culture, love for a language and history. Is it worth killing to preserve it for a few more years?
A few years? What are you talking about?
That is simply crazy. You think in a few years English language will just die out? Or is it just Finnish, Estonian, and other small languages that will "fizzle out", in a few more years? Do the Native Americans have a right to their language and culture? Are their demands for "nationalism" so bad, inherently evil? If your logical, I guess it would be so. Or do you just change the discourse when it's politically correct to do so?
But I guess with you the question is just what would you considered to be worth defending even with resorting to violence. This seems to be the typical ignorant attitude of someone who's own culture hasn't been under threat of possible extinction. So I guess for you culture, the language you speak and your heritage doesn't matter. It's all bad I guess.
Yes. Although I'm aware that my time sense has been warped a little by my adventures into geological history and the history of the Bronze Age. I got so used to diving into the past that the present moment started seeming far away.
It gets me in trouble with climate change angst too. I realize that a thousand years isn't really that long.
Quoting ssu
There isn't any Native American nationalism. And I didn't say nationalism is inherently evil. That is your knee-jerk reaction, and that probably explains why you aren't aware of how fiercely nationalistic you actually are.
It's ok to love your country and culture. It's normal to be willing to kill to protect it.
We aren't all normal, though. Some of us are willing to say goodbye.
Quoting ssu
Oh no, you got personal, so I'll have to pull rank on ya. I'm from the Melting Pot. I am Assimilation Personified by virtue of my diverse genetics.
I'm keenly aware of how much is lost through assimilation and mixing.
You are the one who isn't aware of how much of your genome comes from cultures that have been lost through defeat. You're so proud of what you are and your pride would be a betrayal, except for one thing:
One of your old Gothic grandmothers didn't care what you would look like. She didn't care what language you would speak. She didn't care what your culture would be. She blessed your life, and that's all.
1000 years? Sure, in a 1000 years not much is consistent and doesn't change. But yes, I think the time range of one millennium isn't the most preferable one when tackling the problems of the present societies.
Quoting frank
Really? How can you say that?
It's not only the Navajo that call themselves the Navajo Nation, but with their own jurisdiction, administration and police force, they can call themselves rightly a nation.
Quoting frank
Fair enough. But do note that the discussion started from Ukraine, a country that was invaded and has now for seven years fought a war with Russia. And if it was bad (nationalism) for them to defend their country? Yet I think we agree on this issue.
Quoting frank
So hopefully your country does promotes that diversity! There's a lot of countries where those of mixed heritage are left outside the political/ethnic/racial divide and have no place in the political discourse. And that is extremely sad.
I would argue that several countries have been able to successfully create that "Melting Pot" and create a universal culture in which people from different backgrounds can relate to. We naturally think of the US, but I'd argue that the Romans were successful in this too. A multicultural state can exist, but then there has to be created a very strong identity over the older identities. The British identity is the obvious example of this. How important this is seldom is acknowledged. That the EU has totally failed in this (which is obvious, because it has taken national identities and "nationalism" to be bad). The EU will never be something like the US, it's just a political union for which nobody actually is willing to give his or her life literally.
In a way, it's crucial for the state to uphold the "priviledges" of it's people: that you can be educated in the language that your family speaks, that you get service in the language you speak. That the Constitution and the government is made for you, not someone else. These are among the obvious "perks" of having an own state intended for you that we take for granted. We shouldn't forget that this isn't granted. These "priviledges" also give the reason why people would give their life to defend that state. No small matter for the existence of a nation, large or small.
A millennium isn't that long. :cool:
Quoting ssu
Read that again and recognize that Native American tribes have their own private governments and police. That was a call for reinforcement of Native traditions. That's a lost cause. You can take my word for it, or believe what you want. :razz:
Quoting ssu
It's been devastating to the people. That's what I was thinking about.
Always nice talking to you. :blush:
I do believe it isn't a lost cause. The only thing is that actual culture cannot be just remembering the past, something new has to be created also.
(Navajo language likely won't die yet.)
It only puts a bigger burden if there are fewer people. For example, there are only 10 000 Sami people in Finland. Try upholding an own culture (music, literature, art) with that. But with even a few hundred thousand it's totally possible. Icelandic language and culture will surely prevail. I simply cannot fathom that somehow they would forget their language and start talking something else.
Quoting frank
If you haven't lived where the combat has taken place, it has been quite normal. Remember that this basically has been now a border war fought with limited resources. For instance air power hasn't been used by Russia.
(For example Donetsk looks quite ordinary, even if the front lines are close)
That's cool. Native Americans aren't like that. Their cultures are gone. There's a really sad Bob Dylan song about it.
"Well I found him
in South Carolina
trailer in the sand
the man from the picture
paste and yellow in my hand
He said I sold my blood for money
there wasn't any pain
the only thing that bothers me
is it's in someone else's veins.
My mother took me aside
tried to change my mind
she said they wadn't no use a'lookin
there's nothing
nothing left to find
So I left him
in South Carolina
trailer in the sand
the man from the picture
paste and yellow in my hand"
:roll: :snicker:
Well @frank, if you have Native American heritage, links to them or would have studied them, that might sound more credible. I think Robert Zimmermann's ancestry is Jewish from Eastern Europe.
I think one has to put these things into perspective.
My country compared to Europe is like the state of Minnesota compared to the US. I'm sure there are actors, writers and intellectuals from Minnesota, but they are a small fraction to the "cultural" people of all the US. And this shows actually that when we talk of American culture, be it Hollywood or Broadway in New York or whatever, that there are 331 million Americans, some 64 times more people than there are Finns. So actually it's no wonder that the US can have vibrant cultural centers, yet the fact is that there are only a few of them is the real question. There being the "West Coast" and the "East Coast" and the in between being "Fly over country" doesn't sound actually so vibrant to me.
Just compare motion pictures. In my country about 30 motion pictures, long films, are produced annually. Hollywood produces about 600 (earlier perhaps 800) motion pictures. Compared to the population (64 times smaller) Finland produces a lot more films than Hollywood. A way lot more. Cultural activity simply doesn't go similarly with the growth of the population. In fact I could argue that some "cultural scenes" can dominate larger populations and basically end with less cultural activity in a bigger population.
There are about 2,9 million Native Americans in the US belonging to 574 federally recognized tribes. That's less than 1 percent of the US population and equivalent to the population of Kansas. The largest community I think is the Navajo with 332 000 people belonging to this ethnic group. That is of similar size of the city of Corpus Christi in Texas.
So perhaps we have to look at how vibrant culture Corpus Christi has, how many famous artists, writers and intellectuals have come from there? Great if you can mention one. I'm sure there are, but that comparison is a good reality check of how much unique culture can be sustained with a few hundred thousand people. Some comparing the "cultural scene" in Corpus Christi to NY or LA might think the city is quite dead. Yet it's likely not. So to argue that the Native Americans have lost their culture is quite unfair. There are so few of them.
I'll let you believe those cultures still exist. There's no harm in that.
The harm is in believing they don't.
P.S. No culture is stagnant. They either change or die. Every single one.
Exactly.
If for example people don't have in ceremonies folk costumes from the 19th Century (and some from the 18th Century) doesn't mean that Finnish culture is dying. Culture isn't just remembering the past, but adapting to the present and creating something new in one's own way. Besides, there has always been the a lot of influences across cultures. Good luck trying to separate which Nordic traditional folk costumes comes from which country. They actually are quite similar.
When I was young, and ignorant of such things, I would attend powwows. I would look around for, and be somewhat disappointed not to find, dancers who were in traditional, brain-tanned buckskins and other natural materials, sewn with sinew, etc.
My little brain suffered cognitive dissonance in witnessing all the Nike sneakers, Copenhagen and Skoal can lids, bright silk fabric, metal arrowheads and other accoutrements foreign to my myopic understanding of what an Indian should be. I thought their culture must truly be dead if it did not fit my prejudicial, uninformed and wholly biased view. And there all around, were cowboy hats, boots, Wranglers and rodeo buckles. On Indians! And what was with all those western saddles! And Winchesters in the Easy Rider Rifle Racks!
But they were patient, and gentle with me over the years. And not with just a little humor. Although trust was and still is difficult to earn. And understandably so. They trade goods just as they traded goods long before Columbus showed up. Why not continue trading? That is entirely consistent with their culture. The best obsidian came from areas that may have been a thousand miles away. So why not silk from the orient? The horse itself was food, left the continent, returned and was adopted for work and transportation. So why not a truck from Detroit? I suppose if Indians can't have a truck, then horses are out too. What then of the horse culture?
The language was still there. And oh, the drumming and songs and dancing. I have heard it in the clouds laying on the ground in misty rain in familiar lands. It's still in the land. I have many CDs and they are in "shuffle" on my iPod. Whenever I go to powwow, they insist I come dance the veterans dance with them: Nez Perce, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Shoshone, Paiute.
They have all the characters of humanity, generally, including both bad and good. I represented individuals and Tribes, in Tribal and federal court. They have all the politics and infighting and animosities that other cultures have. There is even division between "traditionalists" and others. But I learned the worst thing I could do was to think their culture does not exist. Yes, there were tribes (especially on the coasts) that suffered genocide into extinction. Literally every last member killed. But there are many that are left. Many have their cultures and languages and songs and ceremonies extant.
Changed? Yes. But still very much alive.
I don't hold romantic views of Indians. They are humans and I'm no big fan of humans. But at the end of the day, there are many cultures left, and I've seen worse.
Quoting James Riley
If only things would be this way, that people would hold native peoples as humans and not either as "noble savages" or just as victims of Western imperialism. Yet those prejudicial, uninformed views do dominate. Either you have the classical derogatory (racist) views or then the more woke ideas, which also can go into nonsense just from a totally different path.
If those cowboy hats, boots and Wranglers are somehow viewed as wrong by somebody, I would say the Sami, one of the last indigenous and nomadic people in Europe, have even bigger problem with the dominant narrative. And that is that the narrative about indigenous people has this dichotomy between the indigenous people and white people, the settlers. Because this is the dominant narrative, the Sami activists simply have to adapt to this narrative and have to refer to Finns, Swedes and Norwegians as the white "settlers". The problem is that Sami, being a Fenno Ugric people, are in the American racial terms simply white. There is absolutely no way you can spot the difference of a Sami from a Finn from some outward "racial" difference. Perhaps an Udmurt could be recognized from having more likely red hair, but even that doesn't count for some reason as a racial difference (as these racial definitions are genuinely invented). Bit of a problem when a female Sami activist looks like a stereotypical Finnish or Swedish girl with blue eyes and blonde hair in an environment where intersectionality and white priviledge are so important and it is assumed that all indigenous people have a similar story with the European settlers.
But I guess the same way even the proletariat, the working class, was earlier romanticized by leftist activists in to being something that the actual people weren't.
https://t.co/s3tNP28Lae
[tweet]https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1468064220843425796?s=21[/tweet]
That’s hilarious. If you’ve seen this administration’s propaganda, you know they’ll stoop to any level to paint themselves in a certain light, even though it is comes off as phoney as a three dollar bill. Remember this one?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1424809139927146502?s=21[/tweet]
Of course, Trump would never do this. Instead of trying to subtley spin stories, he just directly called Fox News and told them to lie for him. If you'd complained about that, you might have some credibility. But you didn't, so you don't.
Trump and an appeal to hypocrisy… I’m not surprised.
You shouldn't be, it'll keep on happening until you start to be consistent and not a naughty little propagandist. :naughty:
Consistent fallacy doesn’t do much to convince me, unfortunately. Perhaps a better tactic is in order.
OK, maybe I'll just do this then.
Quoting the real NOS4A2
Better?
Hey, I can take it. So fair enough. But since it only applies to me you must forgive me for disregarding the remarks about my consistency.
:lol:
The new term is to escalate things by laying out de-escalation demands.
It would be hilarious, if it wouldn't be so bad. I assume as there's no Olympic Games going on, Russia will wait the US and NATO countries go off to the holidays when it declares that it's last red line has been walked over and has "absolutely no other solution than a military one".
Pre-emptive strike. That's what escalatory attack is called.
Wonder how the Biden administration will reply to this.
B-b-but Jan 6! Our "democracy" was uNdEr AtTaCK!!
https://theintercept.com/2022/01/09/afghanistan-sanctions-human-rights-hawks/
Whose the terrorist state exactly?
Afghanistan is getting their pound of flesh. Their heroin is destroying people all over the world.
Can't get to the article. But yeah, I know the US government has a history of feeding drugs to its population to quell revolt. But I said heroin, not fentanyl. The world is a big cartoon to you.
See what I mean? Your just like NOS.
What? Able to spell words correctly?
We'll, you said "Whose a terrorist state". when it's actually "Who's a terrorist state.". :lol:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/01/michael-hudson-what-is-causing-so-much-inflation.html
Also there's a whole thing about how the Fed has probably illegally loaned $4.5 tillion dollars to JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, and probably has journalists under gag orders from reporting it, but that's like small fry stuff.
I couldn't open the article for some reason, but this is the same thing:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/issr/cstch/papers/BrennerCrisisTodayOctober2009.pdf
"The fundamental source of today’s crisis is the steadily declining vitality of the advanced capitalist economies over three decades, business-cycle by business-cycle, right into the present. The long term weakening of capital accumulation and of aggregate demand has been rooted in a profound system-wide decline and failure to recover of the rate of return on capital, resulting largely—though not only--from a persistent tendency to over-capacity, i.e. oversupply, in global manufacturing industries. From the start of the long downturn in 1973, economic authorities staved off the kind of crises that had historically plagued the capitalist system by resort to ever greater borrowing, public and private, subsidizing demand. But they secured a modicum of stability only at the cost of deepening stagnation, as the ever greater buildup of debt and the failure to disperse overcapacity left the economy ever less responsive to stimulus".
What makes it dangerous is that both sides cannot basically back down form their positions, so the discussions cannot go anywhere (as they didn't). Russia just assumes it has a sphere of influence of the Soviet Empire and the West upholds basically Westphalian ideals. (Renewed and increasing discussion of NATO membership here and also in Sweden. Even the Green Party here is having a serious discussion about joining NATO.)
Biden's threat of economic sanctions doesn't actually matter as security policy is far more important to the Kremlin as an economic issues. It simply isn't a credible threat.
And the situation is looking just going to be worse:
The buildup continues:
Have a feeling that this can be the next thing, just like Afghanistan, that will explode in Joe Biden's lap. And I'm afraid that the domestic situation between the two dominant parties in the US is so bad, that if the thing explodes, it will lead just to political bickering. Republicans have insisted on the US to give more military aid to Ukraine before anything happens.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Lead Republican Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Let's hope that the war isn't further enflamed by an invasion.
I don't think the US has enough interest in Ukraine to engage beyond sanctions.
If they try to take Poland, I guess things would heat up. Just for old times sake?
Invading further Ukraine doesn't mean WW3. But it could mean at worst that NATO goes to the dustbin of history, just like CENTO or SEATO and be a weak inefficient or compromised organization. You see, Putin doesn't have to invade Poland, if he gets Poland to act like, well, neutral Finland or Sweden, he has succeeded! What do you do with a NATO that would have members basically taking a neutral stand on any issue?
What Putin wants is for the Americans go away from Europe, just like they went away from Afghanistan (or the Central Asian states) and Russia could face Western countries purely on the bilateral level as one to one. Hence he's against the EU too.
And he can always "escalate to de-escalate" as the Russian armed forces have trained in their large exercises. Use a tactical nuclear weapon and everyone in the West would shit their pants and cry angrily for the cessation of any hostilities... and likely blame Biden. Because, a use of tactical nuke will obviously lead to an all out nuclear war and Armageddon. Or that's how it will be interpreted...and that's why the "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine is so dangerous. It could genuinely work. (I think even a nuclear weapon test could do it even)
Of course getting entangled even more into Ukraine would be counterproductive. But this isn't the issue Putin cares anything about. After all, in the start of the 2000's guess who was the most popular politician in Ukraine? Putin, actually. Nope, he doesn't worry that feelings toward him have obviously changed. He is a man on a mission.
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/false-flags-suddenly-no-longer-a
And from the Michael Hudson interview linked above:
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/01/cia-neo-nazi-training-ukraine-russia-putin-biden-nato/
Meanwhile Americans scream themselves blue over the world-wide threat of Putin. Any wonder it was the US and Ukraine that were literally the only two countries to vote against an anti-Nazi measure at the UN. Because they're fans of fucking Nazis, when they're not being some themselves. Fuck the US.
Of course. Ukrainians are Nazis (because there were few right-wing volunteers, so obviously it's a Nazi regime. The comedian President has to be a Nazi).
Soon Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns and Swedes will be Nazis I guess. Because why would US help Nazis!
How about the fact that NATO is a voluntary organization that the states have opted to join? Do note that the US allies that didn't voluntarily become allies, Iraq and Afghanistan. Aren't in good terms with the US (and oh wait, one isn't even anymore an ally).
Just like the Monroe doctrine: it works well when the US has good relations with the countries. But when the US is a bully, the states regimes can truly feel threatened, the end result is like with Cuba, Venezuela or now actually with Nicaragua.
Because the US likes helping Nazis when it suits them.
Because the US has never had any issue supporting genocide, when not conducting it itself.
Or is this an historical remark?
It helps of course that Americans also support Nazis domestically, ever more often.
Or at the UN. Just like, wherever they tend to be, it turns out.
Yeah, that's the way!
Well, for me Oleh Tyahnybok (and his Svoboda-party) were the "Nazis" if you could say the ultra-right party was like that in 2014. Right, they have now one seat in the Parliament. Yet President Zelensky's 'Servant of the People' party claims to be centrist, which has 254 seats in the Parliament.
Yes, a party that says it promotes "Ukrainian centrism" with an ideology that "denies political extremes and radicalism", but is for "creative centrism" and has roots in libertarianism and is said to be "centrist, big-tent, anti-corruption, pro-Europeanism) is obviously pure Nazi talk according @StreetlightX.
(Just waiting if we get comments from someone that Ukraine is actually an artificial country...)
And the US is of course well known for only ever working with offical representatives and not genocidal militias the world over, ever.
Of course, when Russia annexed Crimea and started the Donetsk and Luhansk uprising, the nearly bankrupt Ukraine didn't have at first nothing than one paratroop brigade and these voluntary battalions to fight in the Donbas as their mobilization was extremely slow. And of course these voluntary battalions proved to be a headache later and naturally the Russians used extensively these people to portray the Ukrainian altogether as nazis (as those fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk are Russians, Novo-Rossija and so on).
But I guess that a volunteer battalion that was taken out of the front line in 2015 (as all other volunteer battalions) and now made one National guard regiment, but likely still has those ulra-rightwing soldiers, means that the whole Ukrainian armed forces of 225 000 (plus the 900 000 reservists) are ...nazis.
Because the Ukrainian army is where the training and support is going. The little that has been given.
Why does he want Ukraine anyway? Access to the sea? We've already talked about why Ukraine doesn't give up. Can't say I understand the region at all.
Mostly about NATO encroachment/threat. Stalin wanted (and got) the whole of Eastern Europe as a buffer zone after WWII. If all Putin gets is Ukraine, it ain't much. And he's not even wanting to take it over, just ensure it's out of NATO clutches.
Any insight into why the US might care if Russia formed a military alliance with Mexico and put its missiles there? Same reason.
If people find the subject interesting, I urge people to read what Putin himself has said about Ukraine and Russia, if one dares to venture to the official site of the Kremlin:
Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
There you can read a short introduction to Russo-Ukrainian history, just how close or basically the same country they have been. And that Ukraine has basically been an artificial construction. And how, of course, everything done to break this bond between the two people have been come from outside, from the West (not by Ukrainians seeing that other countries have prospered under the EU). But read it yourself.
And why? Purely on defensive issues, Russia then will have a huge border with NATO. US and NATO tactical combat aircraft can already reach Moscow from the Baltics, but with Ukraine
And why does Putin think that the West is going to attack and get them? Well, a good enemy gives one a reason to stay in power, to fight against "color revolutions" and everything else purely machinated from the evil US. First it was Napoleon, then it was Hitler, and Putin will make it sure it's not going to be Biden or any other US president.
Yeah, the US doesn't need that iceberg they're sitting on.
Yet after the Pershing expedition going after Pancho Villa, the US hasn't deployed it's military to fight in Mexico. In fact, Mexican troops were invited by Bush to assist in disaster relief during Hurricane Katrina, this first time since WW2 that Mexican troops were sent abroad.
A Cartoon during the last time US went into Mexico:
Bush with Mexican marines and US Navy Seabees in Gulfport, Missisippi:
But you can just ask how successful the Monroe doctrine has been especially with Cuba and later Venezuela? Or ask President Ortega of Nicaragua. You see, once you start to pressure countries and act as a bully, you might get the whole country backed on the corner and find that there are no more avenues to influence otherwise than direct military attack. Covert actions can go only so far. And then other one won't back down and just face your military. Remember that Fidel Castro wanted the Russians to use nuclear weapons if the US Marines would land on Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Sure, the US can be the bully in Guatemala, Haiti, Panama and Grenada, but when it comes to Mexico and especially South America with Brazil, Chile, military intervention would be a huge quagmire. And then the neighboring countries really could ask for help from China or Russia. In it's near abroad, Russia has simply been too aggressive.
Simply put it, you can be a bully up to a point, but friendly relations simply work better.
Quoting frank
Good at least that you offered the Baltic States NATO membership. At least they have enjoyed a moment without been under Moscow's supervision.
I remember when the Baltic States had just re-emerged as independent states that the US and UK in diplomatic talks asked both Sweden and Finland if the two countries would guarantee the independence of the Baltic states. Both were horrified about the idea: the two barely can guarantee their own sovereignty (Finland even more trouble with that), so the two neutral Nordic cordially rejected the idea. There was both in Helsinki and Stockholm true happiness when the Baltic states joined NATO, but immediately both militaries noticed that there wasn't any plan how to defend them as NATO didn't exercise in the Baltics. That all changed after the annexation of Crimea. Now NATO has exercises even in Finland and Sweden. It's a lot colder now in this region than before 2014.
What do you mean?
Liberals would have lost their shit and screamed "Trump bad" till they were blue in the face. But because their opposition to Trump is purely aesthetic and premised on the fact that Trump does not have the right class markers to be as incompetent and murderous a pig as Biden actually is being, the latter simply gets a free pass.
"In the early days of the pandemic, Democrats excoriated then-President Donald Trump for not doing enough to allow people to stay home from work. “Flatten the curve” was the phrase of the month, and even centrist Democrats found their inner democratic socialist, at least temporarily. ...Now, that rhetoric is nowhere to be found, even though most public health indicators are worse now than at any other time during the pandemic... Now, the entire political establishment has arrived at the consensus that little, if any additional help will be forthcoming. Renters in New York State face an expiring eviction moratorium. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki spoke out against the Chicago Teachers Union’s calls for a safer workplace. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky downplayed the risk Omicron poses, saying it was “encouraging news” that people who have died from the variant had at least four comorbidities."
https://truthout.org/articles/how-did-we-go-from-stimulus-checks-to-go-to-work-with-covid/
A worse Covid response than Trump. Utter crickets by liberals. May all of them be swamped in misery when Trump returns to power.
Sorry man, but that post was flat ridiculous.
---
Guess this is what Biden meant by flattening the curve.
:razz:
I'm assuming you're engaging this stuff for some purpose? I know you aren't stupid enough to believe any of it. Just curious.
So you won't share? Fine.
Basically that tensions have escalated and the threat of war has basically increased to the level that we saw during the Cold War.
Yet here I have to say that during the Cold War the threat of war in Northern Europe (Sweden and Finland) was basically low compared to places like the Middle East or here earlier in the 1930's (then the Finnish Army considered a war with Soviet Russia basically a certainty, not a probability).
After the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 basically only few analysts and the Baltic States raised the alarm. Yet Obama decided (again) to reboot the US-Russian relations, try to be friends with Russia while NATO was focused on it's "new missions": things like operations in Afghanistan and later Libya.
2014 changed all that. The annexation of Crimea took the US and the West totally at surprise, but then NATO basically "found back to it's roots". Suddenly NATO troops did start exercises in the Baltics. If the 2008 war and annexation of parts of Georgia didn't wake people up, the annexation of Crimea did it. And the climate truly changed. After that now US and NATO troops have exercised in both Sweden and Finland and basically are all but in name in NATO. For me it's nearly a culture shock to see foreign troops, young British soldiers, in one of our naval bases eating pizza at the soldiers home.
Yet that fig-leaf of not being a member of NATO is crucial for Russia and for the two countries. And naturally gives a similar option for NATO to withdraw if there would be crisis in Finland or Sweden with Russia.
B-52's practiced mine-laying in Swedish waters in Baltops 2015. Here one of the bombers posing with Swedish fighters for a photo in Swedish airspace:
Sweden has raised it's readiness by deploying more troops to the Gotland Island and rolled armored vehicles into the street of Visby just two days ago:
I remember Neil Ferguson commenting a week ago that the chance of the war escalating in Ukraine is about 50-50. 50% probability is quite high in my opinion. Let's hope we get lucky and these tensions ease...
Is it that Putin wants to grow Russia back into a regional power? It just seems like he would benefit financially from good relationships with western Europe. Why alienate them?
Joe Biden: 79 years old
:chin:
Start from what Putin thinks of the collapse of the Soviet Union:
The classic quote from Putin. That is his World view.
Quoting frank
Yeah. In fact without annexing Crimea and trying to act as an mediator in Ukraine NATO countries (except the US) would have continued to dismantle their armed forces, the basket case of an economy Ukraine likely wouldn't have gotten into NATO and many Ukrainians would supprt Putin, who along with Russia would have been treated in high esteem (after all, he is a talented smart leader).
Just remember, Putin rose into by starting a war, the second Chechen war, with a very likely "false flag" operation of killing Russians citizens in a distant sleeping suburb to get the "casus belli" to go after the Chechens after a peace agreement had been signed with them. Then his popularity got up with the Russo-Georgian war (where the Georgians overplayed their hand) and finally got huge popularity boost by annexing Crimea.
You think this guy really thinks about the economy, the stock market and foreign relations first?
So he's a petty warlord. Very Russian.
I believe that's an oxymoron. Maybe not...I ain't sure.
He is a Silovik, something like a "securocrat". And an awesome spymaster.
Perhaps the problem with all the US administrations is that US Presidents basically seem to assume that other leaders are like them, that they are also people that have risen through a political party system to gain the highest places in their country. Not so with the career spy and FSB director that Yeltsin just put on the chair of the prime minister. There were no elections, no election campaign for Putin to get that job. His election campaign for President was to fight and destroy the Chechens in the second Chechen war. That's a totally different world than making speeches in New Hampshire. And that reality makes you think about the World differently.
I guess only George Bush senior as a former CIA director himself and perhaps a military man like Eisenhower would have understood Putin right away. But the current one's with their administrations have seemed to have tried to make "a reset" and then have been disappointed in the end of the outcome.
I mean, literally, they have tried to push "the reset button":
At least Biden didn't try to push it. Not yet.
So you love him too. Good for you.
Of course.
What else could you think of a person who starts their political career by killing 300 totally innocent Muscovites and other Russians to restart a war that then kills from 50 000 to perhaps 150 000 people, because the first war before was an unmitigated disaster?
I thought you were admiring his ingenuity. Sorry.
Oh don't be sorry.
To admire someone means that you have overall positive image of the person. Yet one can admire, or acknowledge something in a person, even if other things are negative. Ingenuity and shrewdness Putin definitely has, and balls too. People have their good and bad sides.
I just think he has started to believe his own lies, that the US is out to get Russia, the public reasoning behind everything including his insistence in staying in power. Not that he's trying to act as the he can get the Soviet Empire somehow or at least partly back together. Basically he just didn't understand that to keep calm, be positive and you could get your way. Simply put it, the US couldn't uphold the Monroe doctrine if all the other countries would truly feel threatened by it.
In fact Central Asia is a perfect example how Russia could defeat "the imperialist" US. By mid-1994,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, had joined NATO’s partnership for peace program (PfP), and officers from these states, plus Tajikistan, began participating in PfP exercises as of 1995. Then happened 9/11. Suddenly Uzbekistan, in particular, and to a lesser extent Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan became frontline states in the U.S.-led struggle against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network. Top U.S. officials streamed through Central Asian capitals. And what do you know, the US had then bases all over in Central Asia! Tajikistan even had both a Russian military base and a US base.
(This is how it looked before the US withdrawal from Central Asia. Now east of Iran there are no US bases, except those in the Far East facing China.)
Then simply the US withdrew and now the Central Asian states hold military exercises with Russia and Kazakhstan had to ask for military help to quell riots, which Putin gladly assisted with. I guess now Kazakhstan has quietly buried the defense cooperation agreement it made with the US. So what happened? Russia simply operated in the shadows, didn't start to threaten (not at least openly) the countries and in the end just waited it out that the US became exhausted and pulled away leaving the place back in the sphere of itself. They got the message, just which country would defend them against possible "muslim extremists" from Afghanistan.
The the biggest error Putin made was to go and annex Crimea, simply put it. But the glory to take it back was perhaps too much for him. The fact is that his actions have made it so the we and the Swedes are having a real discussion about NATO. Sweden even got back it's military conscription.
He won't actually threaten the Nordic states will he?
If either Finland or Sweden or both join NATO, of course there's going to be sanctions and extremely tense relations and a strong response from Russia. But then again, something like a large invasion of Ukraine might trigger that and the countries could see that "enough is enough". Remember, things aren't just about a full scale occupations, but all the ways that then Russia can pressure both countries. Putin might be very happy if the times of "Finlandization" come back and Finns will have none it. It's not 1945, he's not Stalin and present Russia isn't the Soviet Union.
And then there is the other side to the equation: now Finland and Sweden have far more better relations with Russia than NATO countries and both would be happy if things would be OK as now. A passive Russia likely would mean that neither countries would join NATO. There isn't a desperate urge to join the alliance.
Of course an "out-of-the-blue" occupation of let's say of demilitarized the Åland Islands or the Swedish island of Gotland is a possibility, but I think that probability is still very low.
I didn't know that. I think NATO, a product of the Cold War, will just morph into a European defense force, right? I don't think the US military sees Europe as a reliable or effective ally. It sounds like Finland and Sweden have already made their choice regarding hegemony.
If so, who then the US sees as a reliable and effective ally? Or is like with Trump that the US needs no allies?
* * *
And Again. Biden being Biden just the way Biden can be. This was noted here in the papers and also in Ukraine. So a small incursion is OK? Or did he utter what the views are going around in the White House?
Finland admitted that it has increased it's military readiness due to the present tense situation. The UK is increasing arms exports (NLAW anti-tank guided missiles) to Ukraine and increasing it's military advisors to train the Ukrainian armed forces as part of Operation Orbital. (The link has also an interesting map just where the UK armed forces are now around the World.)
I'm sure you realize that American unilateralism started before Trump, so what was the point of bringing him up? Sorry, I'm just getting tired of the pervasive trollishness on this forum. I probably just need a break.
Quoting ssu
Yeah. Signaling to Ukraine (or anyone else) that the US will protect them when that will doesn't exist only invites death and destruction, see Syria.
So I don't see that as a gaffe. I agree that if Putin decides to play Hitler the US would try to respond, although I'm not sure how. Strategic bombing?
Quoting ssu
What does that mean in practical terms? I thought you said that the Finnish prefer Russia to the US in terms of hegemony.
It really happened when the Soviet Union collapsed. The best example of this when you had the liberation of Kuwait by older Bush and the occupation of Iraq by his son. The great diplomatic lengths that Bush senior went, the huge alliance consisten of Pakistan, Egypt, GCC countries, Morocco and even Syria (whose armed forces actually during his vice Presidency the US had bombed and had lost aircraft shot down) show how that wasn't the unipolar moment. After it, it was. Many same guys where there with the younger Bush and basically didn't care a shit about others. Not even France, a long term ally of the US, didn't bother. (And the US response was Freedom Fries!)
I would say bluntly, that for the US to behave reasonably, to take into account other countries and to form alliances, the country needs a real threat of nuclear weapons. Then it truly thinks of how others might respond...and makes rational choices. When there's no actual threat of large losses, then some cabal can hijack the whole foreign policy to cater for their own objectives. Many examples of this in Central America and the Caribbean.
Quoting frank
Definately not. Just as Sweden, the US isn't a military threat. Why would the US put sanctions, threaten with occupation or annexation Finland? In the 19th Century the US was a similar bully as Putin's Russia towards it's neighbors and in the case of it's northern neighbor back then, it got it's ass kicked in a humiliating way. Hence you have warm relations now, I guess.
Do notice that the membership in the Warsaw Pact wasn't voluntary for the countries under Soviet occupation. The non-aligned status of Yugoslavia is notable here, as it hadn't been liberated by Soviets and had no Soviet troops. It had no interest voluntarily joining the Warsaw Pact, as neither had Albania. Yet NATO is voluntary. The de facto non-voluntary allies of the US, those countries where US has put a leadership into position by force, have huge problems with the relationship with the US (Iraq case example). The rapid speed of the collapse of the Afghan government just shows how this simply doesn't work: you don't just occupy a country, put your lackeys into power and assume everything will go smoothly and then just walk away. South Korea is a case example of how long it takes for a war torn country to get on it's feet. It could well defend itself, but left alone, naturally would have to start a crash-program to obtain a nuclear deterrent.
I think many Americans see NATO as just an extension or tool of American security policy. Yet a lot of European countries have put their own security policy on the hands of NATO and hence NATO is genuinely also European security policy. Many times US has wanted to do something, but other NATO countries haven't been interested.
If the US would go out of Europe, oh boy! Think about instability as everyone would rearrange their security policy and alliances would be enormous. But Putin would be extremely happy.
You really only need allies when you're fighting for your life. Otherwise, why care what Europeans want or need when they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire?
That's just the 21st Century reality I think.
But whence this idea that Russia wants to invade Ukraine??
This is pure provocation on the part of the US and their EU allies. They've been treating Russia as if it was a rebellious teenager who needs to be put in place. They've been pretty much telling Russia words to the effect of "You're bad, and you're doubly bad because you don't admit that you're bad".
Not 21st century reality, but American mentality. They've been hyping themselves up with anti-Russian paranoia for seventy years. It's a miracle they haven't exploded into action by now.
Americans need an external enemy, this is how Americans feel like Americans, this is how they have an identity. And if no external enemy is in sight, they'll cultivate one.
Uumm...because they have already done that? You see, there already is a war going on in the Donbas. Or that they had made demand the West cannot accept (based on Westphalian sovereignty). It's hard to deny something that has already happened, as you are saying.
Quoting baker
Really?
Just who has put 100 000 troops on it's border to a neighboring country? And furthermore, please note how Putin views Ukraine. As I said 6 days ago, I urge really to read what Putin himself has said about Ukraine and Russia, if one dares to venture to the official site of the Kremlin:
Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
Yes, it's a lengthy historical text, but do notice the open hostility towards the current independent Ukrainian administration is clearly evident. Even the independence of Ukraine as an sovereign state is put into question. I already had a long debate earlier with @StreetlightX about just how "nazi" the current administration in Ukraine is. Yes, Ukraine has a small fringe of the extreme right, neonazis, of whom many volunteered for the fight against Russia in 2014, but president Zelensky or his centrist party are not nazis.
Quoting baker
I only hope that you would also look at how Russia has been behaving here towards it's neighbors as it's actions, it's wars and annexations of parts from two neighboring countries is the reason for all this.
And if you really argue that Russia has a right to do this, please think twice what you are saying. The Soviet Union collapsed. Period. It went into the garbage bin of history just like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. But now it would be as if Austria would demand "a sphere of influence" over Hungary and the Czechs and Slovaks.
It's not independent. Ukrainians rely on Russia to give them work and natural resources.
If they hate Russia so much, then why do they go to work there? Why do they take its gas?
Do you really think that Americans care about the Ukraine??
Quoting ssu
When the US demands a sphere of influence that's okay, right?
Maybe not Austria, but the Hungarian rightist government still thinks it should be granted its 'greater' pre-WWI borders. This is the gut feeling Putin has for Ukraine and many Ukrainians are sympathetic to Russia.
From Biden's perspective, Russian direct interference in the American election process in an attempt to install a neo-commie puppet regime might be enough to welcome an economically and politically productive war against Russia. What are the options? The end of democracy in America in 2024 or another world war.
And this just shows that there is truth to what they say about EU and NATO: that these organizations make members to be team players, or at least not to have open military hostilities with each other. Greece and Turkey, two NATO countries with the worse bilateral relations, have barely avoided war. Yet without them being NATO members, they would surely have had a war or two between the two armed forces since WW2.
Quoting magritte
Oh yes.If Trump would win in 2024 and if the US and the West would be at that time even deeper mired to an Ukrainian bog (assuming if Putin would make large scale attack into Ukraine), that would be a really, really confusing time.
The original story, broke by the New York Post, was maligned as Russian disinfo by former intelligence officials, and subsequently banned in the media before the 2020 election. Had it been any other candidate’s son, the story would have been front page for months. But the mass suppression of the story benefitted no one but a single candidate, now president, the same one sinking the country into the abyss.
Job Biden: The More Efficient Trump. If fuckwits like NOS had any political coherency they ought to be championing Biden, not attacking him.
I thought his ratings were in the toilet. But anyway, do you think he'll run again?
I think he'll have to. Harris can't beat Trump.
Durn.