EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4023
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:18 SK.Testie wrote: JW_DTLA earlier when discussing globalism vs nationalism you talked about how you had to raise the middle class of the rest of the world slightly. Which countries in particular are you referring to? Or a truly global raise in the middle class? Does most of the world even have a middle class? I'm not trying to be sarcastic I'm actually just ignorant of this. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote: Europeans are better informed on American politics than Americans  Look at it from the good side, everyone is taking interest in what happens in your country (on a slightly more cynical note, maybe people around the globe are just shit scared of having that orange clown anywhere near the nuclear button.) | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh, my bad. Apologies to him. Thanks that's nice of you  I'm afraid I'm just a ranting left wing frenchman getting his fix of controversies here.Yeah, I was trying to highlight how easily negative inferences about HRC can get taken up absent real evidence**. HRC has been subject to a good 25 years of phony non-scandal investigations by right wingers (cattle futures, Vince Foster, some real estate something, the preposterous 8th Benghazi investigation, the emails). These investigations have gone nowhere, but they pollute the discourse and make it too easy to assume HRC is Corrupt. So I get triggered when I see people making inferences about HRC that are negative without any evidence (like assuming her campaign was sitting on the Delete Your Account Tweet). ** I just got off a long ass facebook argument with an old friend who breezily assumed HRC is the most Corrupt Pol Ever without ever showing even one Quid Pro Quo. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Does most of the world even have a middle class? I'm not trying to be sarcastic I'm actually just ignorant of this. I'm not sure; I don't think they're influential in the same sense they are in the Western world. But given that they had a middle class in medieval europe, i'm sure they're all over the place and there are middle classes of some size worldwide. Being middle class is partly a relative position after all. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:15 Mohdoo wrote: Europeans are better informed on American politics than Americans We dont have your media. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Does most of the world even have a middle class? I'm not trying to be sarcastic I'm actually just ignorant of this. China, Brazil and India have a rising middle class (and they are most of the world by themselves), so they would make your case by themselves, if you add of course all developed countries. One of the interesting development recently is that the chinese leadership is realizing slowly that they can't rely on export for ever. And that they need to develop enormously their interior market if they don't want to be dependent of the rest of the world. It's a risky bet, and they have always refrained from going that way, because a 500 million people well educated middle class will be a real challenge to keep under the current dictatorial system. But I guess with their growth slowing down because of global demand being atone, they are back to the wall. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:22 Biff The Understudy wrote: Look at it from the good side, everyone is taking interest in what happens in your country (on a slightly more cynical note, maybe people around the globe are just shit scared of having that orange clown anywhere near the nuclear button.) Yea because the 'she's often forgetful' crook voting for NAFTA and the Iraq war and the Libyan crisis (leading to the rise of ISIL) is better judgment and safer around nuclear codes. If you want to just flame the candidate you don't support like it's an obvious choice this works both ways. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:18 SK.Testie wrote: JW_DTLA earlier when discussing globalism vs nationalism you talked about how you had to raise the middle class of the rest of the world slightly. Which countries in particular are you referring to? Or a truly global raise in the middle class? The story of the last 20 years of course. 1st world nations have had stagnating middle class incomes, but the BRICs had HUGE HUGE gains in middle class income. But, those gains can't go on forever. Now Vietnam is the cheap labor spot and China is getting expensive. The great wave of globalization cannot go on forever. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2015/01/01/opinion/010115krugman1/010115krugman1-tmagArticle.png) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/recent-history-in-one-chart/ EDIT: I would specifically be talking about the TPP-consistency-plan countries: Vietnam, Malayasia, and Brunei. https://onlabor.org/2016/02/29/enforcing-labor-standards-under-the-trans-pacific-partnership/ These countries need to have their wages go up before the wages of the first world can go up. If you check out the chart above Krugman linked, it is pretty clear that in the last 20-30 years, there were massive middle income gains globally, but that 80-90% 1st world middle class stagnated as the rest of the world surged. This is simply due to international labor competition. EDIT2: if you get the point of the big income story chart, all this talk about 1% versus 99% seems kind of ridiculous. What were USA policy makers supposed to do? The global middle class is rising, USA FEDGOV can't keep them down. And until they rise enough that their wages are near that 80-90%, the USA middle class is going to stagnate. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:26 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Yea because the 'she's often forgetful' crook voting for NAFTA and the Iraq war and the Libyan crisis (leading to the rise of ISIL) is better judgment and safer around nuclear codes. If you want to just flame the candidate you don't support like it's an obvious choice this works both ways. + Show Spoiler + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqLxhNj9oyA You really think Trump has as good a judgment as Hillary on foreign politics? We talk of a guy who boast about carpet bombing the middle east, torturing prisoners and killing civilian if they are on the family of a bad guy. I don't like Clinton hawkish positions, just as I don't like Obama's drone war and the way he has dealt with pretty much everything on foreign affairs. But that's America, and that won't change. There is a continuity in American foreign policies since the Vietnam war (again, with the exception of Bush, for the worst, he was a special case). Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Obama, all have basically be on the same line when it comes to foreign affairs, and Hillary will carry on. I don't like it, it really sucks. But Clinton is not a lunatic, and yeah, I don't mind her having the nuclear button close because she won't ever press it. I really do mind in the case of The Donald because frankly, I'm not that sure. I wouldn't have liked to have him in office when 9/11 happened, keeping in mind we had the worst president in over a century. And I repeat myself: back up with facts that Hillary is a crook, thanks. Unless you want to transform that debate into schoolboy taunts, as Trump is currently doing. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote: You really think Trump has as good a judgment as Hillary on foreign politics? We talk of a guy who boast about carpet bombing the middle east, torturing prisoners and killing civilian if they are on the family of a bad guy. I don't like Clinton hawkish positions, just as I don't like Obama's drone war and the way he has dealt with pretty much everything on foreign affairs. But that's America, and that won't change. There is a continuity in American foreign policies since the Vietnam war (again, with the exception of Bush, for the worst, he was a special case). Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Obama, all have basically be on the same line when it comes to foreign affairs, and Hillary will carry on. I don't like it, it really sucks. But Clinton is not a lunatic, and yeah, I don't mind her having the nuclear button close. I really do mind in the case of The Donald. And I repeat myself: back up with facts that Hillary is a crook, thanks. Unless you want to transform that debate into schoolboy taunts, as Trump is currently doing. I suggest you actually look at his foreign policies instead of believing facebook clickbait articles are what he plans to actually do because none of what you just said is a fair representation of the opposition. Maybe watch his foreign policy press conference if you want a more accurate view of his positions (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in over half a year, probably because she's often forgetful) | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
I think Hillary will be a good president but we'll regret this guy. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:37 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I suggest you actually look at his foreign policies instead of believing facebook clickbait articles are what he plans to actually do because none of what you just said is a fair representation of the opposition. Maybe watch his foreign policy press conference if you want a more accurate view of his positions (Hillary hasn't had a press conference in over half a year, probably because she's often forgetful) Thank you I did. It's not facebook click bait, it's stuff he did say, in his campaign. And being "unpredictable" and "getting better deals" is not a foreign policy agenda. It's a fucking joke. On a side note, watch that wonderful video. It's just amazing, he talks for 50 minutes and say absolutely NOTHING (the fact he has no idea and no experience about foreign relations maybe a beginning of an explanation). | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:34 Biff The Understudy wrote: You really think Trump has as good a judgment as Hillary on foreign politics? We talk of a guy who boast about carpet bombing the middle east, torturing prisoners and killing civilian if they are on the family of a bad guy. I don't like Clinton hawkish positions, just as I don't like Obama's drone war and the way he has dealt with pretty much everything on foreign affairs. But that's America, and that won't change. There is a continuity in American foreign policies since the Vietnam war (again, with the exception of Bush, for the worst, he was a special case). Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Obama, all have basically be on the same line when it comes to foreign affairs, and Hillary will carry on. I don't like it, it really sucks. But Clinton is not a lunatic, and yeah, I don't mind her having the nuclear button close because she won't ever press it. I really do mind in the case of The Donald because frankly, I'm not that sure. I wouldn't have liked to have him in office when 9/11 happened, keeping in mind we had the worst president in over a century. And I repeat myself: back up with facts that Hillary is a crook, thanks. Unless you want to transform that debate into schoolboy taunts, as Trump is currently doing. This whole thing boils down to whether you are satisfied with current state of countries, globalism, capitalism, mega corporations and where all that heads to, or you want change. I think we live in an era where capitalism is under a big microscope of the general population, where people feel it has reached an end of the spectrum where it serves capital and not the people, and a lot of people want it toned down. Hillary represents "the establishment" and a continuation of these policies, where Trump on the other hand represents an outsider and a change in peoples eyes, for better or for worse. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22564 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:52 NukeD wrote: This whole thing boils down to whether you are satisfied with current state of countries, globalism, capitalism, mega corporations and where all that heads to, or you want change. I think we live in an era where capitalism is under a big microscope of the general population, where people feel it has reached an end of the spectrum where it serves capital and not the people, and a lot of people want it toned down. Hillary represents "the establishment" and a continuation of these policies, where Trump on the other hand represents an outsider and a change in peoples eyes, for better or for worse. 'Change' in and of itself is meaningless. It is the direction of change that matters. Yes you may not like the way the world currently works but the question is 'Will Trump make it better to my liking. Will making a rich businessman, the most powerful man on earth reduce the effect of capitalism and corporate control of governments". To expect a man like Trump to bring down the rise of an corporate state is hilariously naive in my eyes. Your not changing the world for the better, your cutting out the middle man of the current problem. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:57 Gorsameth wrote: 'Change' in and of itself is meaningless. It is the direction of change that matters. Yes you may not like the way the world currently works but the question is 'Will Trump make it better to my liking. Will making a rich businessman, the most powerful man on earth reduce the effect of capitalism and corporate control of governments". To expect a man like Trump to bring down the rise of an corporate state is hilariously naive in my eyes. Your not changing the world for the better, your cutting out the middle man of the current problem. Im not even saying Trump will do any change in any direction. I really dont care. Theyre both terrible in my eyes. What my point was that people wanting change is exactly the reason why Trump is so popular now and to a much lesser degree, his actual policies. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
On June 11 2016 03:25 zlefin wrote: I'm not sure; I don't think they're influential in the same sense they are in the Western world. But given that they had a middle class in medieval europe, i'm sure they're all over the place and there are middle classes of some size worldwide. Being middle class is partly a relative position after all. Partly relative yes but there are official definitions for middle class. The global middle class has expanded massively whichever way you look at it. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABCDE/Resources/7455676-1292528456380/7626791-1303141641402/7878676-1306699356046/Parallel-Sesssion-6-Homi-Kharas.pdf http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2012/11/13/new-world-bank-report-finds-fifty-percent-increase-middle-class-latin-america-over-last-decade http://www.economist.com/node/13063338 | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Considering Africa is going to have 4 billion people in 80 years and Asia is going to be approaching 5 billion.. let's not pretend what we're doing now is going to be more than that. Why nerf ourselves? That massive population explosion isn't going to set that doomsday clock back. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22564 Posts
On June 11 2016 04:17 SK.Testie wrote: His immigration policy and his energy policy are the tits. Even if it pisses everyone off. Considering Africa is going to have 4 billion people in 80 years and Asia is going to be approaching 5 billion.. let's not pretend what we're doing now is going to be more than that. Why nerf ourselves? That massive population explosion isn't going to set that doomsday clock back. I'm sorry but what are you even trying to say? Not a single sentence of that post makes any form of sense. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 11 2016 04:17 SK.Testie wrote: His immigration policy and his energy policy are the tits. Even if it pisses everyone off. Considering Africa is going to have 4 billion people in 80 years and Asia is going to be approaching 5 billion.. let's not pretend what we're doing now is going to be more than that. Why nerf ourselves? That massive population explosion isn't going to set that doomsday clock back. Predicting civilization any more than 20 (pulling this out of my ass, but even 20 seems nuts) years in the future is complete nonsense. It doesn't account for technology at all. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://i.redditmedia.com/JWnjc2pOnN6LCRJqDIQbnrpEB_GuT9j0W1EaMDWTyyE.jpg?w=1024&s=e6699135d4805ee53fe7618cdbd93cc6)
