|
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. |
On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against.
Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ?
I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives enough revenue to live (sometimes barely) to more than 6 billion people.
It's like you're a communist arguing for the acceleration of capitalism lol.
|
On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people.
Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice.
|
On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people. Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice.
Because you profit from the rest of world, and because you don't want the rest of the world from coming in to find work. You can roll the dice with intelligence really, the US has enough power to force the WTO to move its ass.
|
On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people. Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice.
But the US isn't subsidizing the rest of the world. And yes we recognize people are dissatisfied; we've already stated that; we're just mocking a stupid decision which can't accomplish the goals they claim to have.
we'd be happy to address the root issues in an intelligent matter.
We're free to mock people who address them in ways that simply won't work.
|
On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against.
I agree completely, wealth equally and distribution is the cause of a lot of unrest but what does the Paris climate accord, the WTO and Mexicans have to do with that? (well the WTO atleast a little bit)
|
On July 25 2016 03:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people. Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice. Because you profit from the rest of world, and because you don't want the rest of the world from coming in to find work. You can roll the dice with intelligence really, the US has enough power to force the WTO to move its ass.
More accurately, I'd say that select American interests profit from the rest of the world. And I'd also say that it is these same interests that won't change the status quo to ameliorate the concerns of those who do not so benefit.
|
On July 25 2016 03:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 03:02 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people. Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice. Because you profit from the rest of world, and because you don't want the rest of the world from coming in to find work. You can roll the dice with intelligence really, the US has enough power to force the WTO to move its ass. More accurately, I'd say that select American interests profit from the rest of the world. And I'd also say that it is these same interests that won't change the status quo to ameliorate the concerns of those who do not so benefit.
I like when you're a communist xDaunt.
|
On July 25 2016 02:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? it's not the middle class; it's a subset of the middle class. And in some of the cases, they're just plain wrong. in some they're right of course.
It doesn't help that the way the system is designed, they are often presented the good with the bad and misled to believe that there isn't a difference. When you call people idiots for defending their obvious self-interest, they stop listening. When you get "experts" to tell them the same, those "experts" lose credibility. And the result tends to be that people will push back further than what might be in their perfect best interest but they do so because that's the only way that they will actually get results. You poison the well of trust, and it goes downhill from there.
DWS was mentioned briefly upthread; here is a little more about what is happening right now.
Bernie Sanders said on Sunday that the leak of Democratic National Committee emails that show its staffers plotting against him proves Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz should resign.
Shortly after the interview aired, CNN reported that Wasserman Schultz will no longer serve as chair of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, which begins Monday. According to CNN, she’ll be replaced at the convention by Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge.
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders said the email leak proved once and for all that Wasserman Schultz was unfit to lead the committee.
“I don’t think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC,” the Vermont senator said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday. “Not only for these awful emails — which revealed the prejudice of the DNC — but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don’t think her leadership style is doing that.”
“I think she should resign, period,” Sanders said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” Sunday.
“I think I told you a long time ago that the DNC was not running a fair operation. That they were supporting Secretary Clinton,” he continued. “So what I suggested to be true six months ago turns out, in fact, to be true. I’m not shocked. But I am disappointed. And that is the way it is.”
Source
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will no longer preside over the party's convention this week after a leak of Democratic party emails appeared to show efforts to actively discredit Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign, CNN reported Sunday.
The party's Rules Committee rescinded Wasserman Schultz's role as the chair of the convention, which begins Monday, and will replace her with Marcia Fudge, an Ohio Congresswoman, CNN reported, citing a DNC source.
Source
|
Its really just recognizing the endgame of capitalism, people escaping the bonds of legitimate government telling them what to do and gaining enough economic power for themselves to dictate to that government what they want to do.
|
legallord -> i'm not calling anyone an idiot for defending their self-interest; so i'm not sure where that's coming from, seeing as it's in the reply to me section. perhaps some sort of general rant?
while I agree there are some systemic issues with info transfer; i'm not aware of people bieng given good and bad and not told which is which, so i'm not sure what you meant by that part.
|
On July 25 2016 03:43 zlefin wrote:
legallord -> i'm not calling anyone an idiot for defending their self-interest; so i'm not sure where that's coming from, seeing as it's in the reply to me section. perhaps some sort of general rant?
while I agree there are some systemic issues with info transfer; i'm not aware of people bieng given good and bad and not told which is which, so i'm not sure what you meant by that part.
More general rant, yes. Your post just seemed like the most logical segway into it. The "you" refers to xDaunts "current global and social world order" not your post specifically.
The point about "the good with the bad" without being told the difference? A lot of the trade and association agreements can be qualified as such. The EU rules on "freedoms" (and the EU in general) is a good example - while freer trade is generally a good thing and more simplified rules are not harmful, it also comes with random foreign governments trying to force you to take any number of refugees just because they want to, migrants from other European nations driving down wages in your own country, attempts to federalize the whole union, etc. In the US, the TPP runs into trouble for similar reasons. While yes, it is true that free trade has its benefits, and the agreement certainly helps people who are overall opposed to it in some ways, it has gained criticism because the benefits are not well-distributed among the population at large. But these ideas are being sold as if this wasn't the case, as if the entire agreement is an absolute good and that anyone who opposes it is an idiot. And that's when people who obviously see that that isn't the case start to object.
|
On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:
And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice.
How often is it that "rolling the dice" has actually made things a lot better though, compared to how often it's made things a lot worse?
I feel like most of the time when people think "it can't get worse than this, I have nothing to lose", most of the time they have more to lose than they think, and it actually can get a lot worse. It might also just be that I'm a lot more risk averse than the average person, though.
On July 25 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:
In the US, the TPP runs into trouble for similar reasons. While yes, it is true that free trade has its benefits, and the agreement certainly helps people who are overall opposed to it in some ways, it has gained criticism because the benefits are not well-distributed among the population at large. But these ideas are being sold as if this wasn't the case, as if the entire agreement is an absolute good and that anyone who opposes it is an idiot. And that's when people who obviously see that that isn't the case start to object.
Sure, but isn't there a reasonable difference between "I believe the US makes too many concessions as part of the TPP and cannot support it in its current form and believe that it should be amended to be somewhat more favorable to Americans" and "The TPP is an ill-conceived concept and we should back out and scrap it entirely"? Is the former position not reasonable?
|
legallord -> Well, in the eu case; i'd note that the EU is no longer simply an economic union, but a partial political one as well. I'm not entirely clear on the legality of those refugee demands anyways; it seems rather contrary to the setup of the eu; but i'm no expert on it. Of course political pressure to do things happens anyways regardless.
Certanily better distribution of benefits from trade deals is something that sohuld be worked on; though from what i've seen it's often better addressed through mechanisms other than the terms of the trade deal itself.
And I haven't seen anyone selling it as an absolute good and all opposition is idiotic; what I have seen is that the people who are opposing it often do so on unsound ground that's politically popular (and often involves misrepresentation), rather than on actual sound grounds. Of course you may've seen different people, and there's a lot out there so I can't see everything.
ps, we do have to keep in mind this discussion chain started with trump saying some more very stupid things.
|
On July 25 2016 03:18 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 03:11 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2016 03:02 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On July 25 2016 02:55 WhiteDog wrote:On July 25 2016 02:51 NukeD wrote:On July 25 2016 02:36 Gorsameth wrote:On July 25 2016 02:33 xDaunt wrote:
Isn't it obvious to y'all yet that the middle class is rebelling against the current global and social world order because they've decided that it doesn't comparatively benefit them? *some people who do not know what they are actually rebelling against have decided to blame the rest of the world for their problems* Nice attempt at being smart. Actually its very precise why the climate against the "establishment" is this high today. Its the wealth distribution. I dont know how true the numbers are but we keep hearing over and over again how the top 1% hold 90% of wealth and people have basically accepted this as being true. Hence the "rebbelion" and if true, its a good thing to rebel against. Are you saying that Trump has some kind of policies to prevent those top 1 % from holding that much wealth ? I agree that the current world economy is fucked up, but the solution Trump propose, while going in the right direction from time to time, could create unseen unstability and destruction : as fucked and inequal as it is, the global economy also gives revenue to live for more than 6 billion people. Sure, but I don't see where it is written that the US is obliged to subsidize the rest of the world. And again, the root issue here is that a large enough number of people are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs that they are willing to roll the dice. Because you profit from the rest of world, and because you don't want the rest of the world from coming in to find work. You can roll the dice with intelligence really, the US has enough power to force the WTO to move its ass. More accurately, I'd say that select American interests profit from the rest of the world. And I'd also say that it is these same interests that won't change the status quo to ameliorate the concerns of those who do not so benefit. I like when you're a communist xDaunt.
Sam!zdat would be proud of me.
But just to be clear, I'm not really advocating a position so much as I am explaining why certain groups are supporting the policies that they do.
|
The White House will revisit a 2015 ban on police forces getting riot gear, armored vehicles and other military-grade equipment from the U.S. armed forces, two police organization directors told Reuters on Thursday.
Shortly after the recent shooting deaths of police officers, President Barack Obama agreed to review each banned item, the two law enforcement leaders said.
That could result in changes to the ban imposed in May 2015 on the transfer of some equipment from the military to police, said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, and Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations.
Last year's ban came after a public outcry over police in cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, using military-grade riot gear and armored vehicles during protests against police brutality.
Both Pasco and Johnson were among eight police organization chiefs who met with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on July 11. That was three days after a shooter targeted and killed five police officers in Dallas.
Following the meeting, three officers were killed in Baton Rouge on July 17.
A White House official said the administration regularly reviews what military equipment can be transferred to police and that current rules ensure police get “the tools that they need to protect themselves and their communities while at the same time providing the level of accountability that should go along with the provision of federal equipment.”
Pictures of police in riot gear and driving armored vehicles toward peaceful protesters sparked a national debate that drew attention to a program used by the U.S. military to unload its excess equipment on local police.
At last week's meeting, law enforcement leaders urged Obama to reinstate military equipment such as helmets, grenade launchers and tracked armored vehicles to enhance officers' safety and their ability to respond to violent riots.
Source
|
On July 25 2016 03:59 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:
In the US, the TPP runs into trouble for similar reasons. While yes, it is true that free trade has its benefits, and the agreement certainly helps people who are overall opposed to it in some ways, it has gained criticism because the benefits are not well-distributed among the population at large. But these ideas are being sold as if this wasn't the case, as if the entire agreement is an absolute good and that anyone who opposes it is an idiot. And that's when people who obviously see that that isn't the case start to object. Sure, but isn't there a reasonable difference between "I believe the US makes too many concessions as part of the TPP and cannot support it in its current form and believe that it should be amended to be somewhat more favorable to Americans" and "The TPP is an ill-conceived concept and we should back out and scrap it entirely"? Is the former position not reasonable?
When the original criticism falls upon deaf ears the second criticism becomes more powerful. It's part of why if the core parties refuse to address a certain issue, a lot of people will turn to radical and often single-issue parties that, while not viable as a centrist option in their current state, are the only ones willing to genuinely address an increasingly important issue that the mainstream is ignoring. That manifests itself in far-right parties in Europe, and populist candidates in the US.
On July 25 2016 04:00 zlefin wrote:
legallord -> Well, in the eu case; i'd note that the EU is no longer simply an economic union, but a partial political one as well. I'm not entirely clear on the legality of those refugee demands anyways; it seems rather contrary to the setup of the eu; but i'm no expert on it. Of course political pressure to do things happens anyways regardless.
Certanily better distribution of benefits from trade deals is something that sohuld be worked on; though from what i've seen it's often better addressed through mechanisms other than the terms of the trade deal itself.
And I haven't seen anyone selling it as an absolute good and all opposition is idiotic; what I have seen is that the people who are opposing it often do so on unsound ground that's politically popular (and often involves misrepresentation), rather than on actual sound grounds. Of course you may've seen different people, and there's a lot out there so I can't see everything.
ps, we do have to keep in mind this discussion chain started with trump saying some more very stupid things.
Trump is like any other populist: his ideas may not be viable in full, and you can attack some of their illegitimacy, but they touch upon a core issue that is important and that the other side is severely failing to address. So that's grounds for them to forgive a little bit of populist irrationality and to discard the blanket criticisms that the critics of the populists make. Because while they may have faults, they are actually addressing the issue, not shrugging it off.
It doesn't do Hillary as much of a favor as she obviously thinks it does to try to fully discredit Trump. She should instead focus on how she'd do it better.
|
On July 25 2016 00:54 farvacola wrote:
In their defense, I too had difficulty differentiating between "por" and "para" in 8th grade Spanish.
Yep, and the para/por is something that i had heard/read from Latino americans in the past anyways.
And i could point mistakes made by Kaine on senate speech, or latest speech on spanish which are equal to this one 
But the most important thing, is how showing "empathy" towards a minority seems to be just to be able to talk their language. I don't know how it has been in other medias, but spanish media was repeating it like a huge deal or something lol, when it is just obvious void pandering withouth any kind of policies shown.
|
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Sunday that he would consider pulling the United States out of the World Trade Organization should he end up winning the election.
The comments, made to NBC’s “Meet the Press,” are the latest in a series of Trump threats to pull the U.S. away from international institutions and compacts. Trump’s disgust for trade deals is well-known. And in the midst of his convention in Cleveland, he reiterated to The New York Times that he would not come to the aid of NATO allies if they hadn’t fully paid their dues to the organization.
Trump’s distaste for the WTO appears to be based on his view that it’s helped create a trade imbalance for the United States ― though he doesn’t explicitly say that; he merely calls the organization “a disaster.”
Trump said that he would like to levy a tax of somewhere between 15 and 35 percent on the products of U.S. companies that move their production jobs overseas. When “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd told him that some of those hikes “aren’t going to get through” the WTO, the Republican nominee responded in kind.
“Then we’re going to renegotiate or we’re going to pull out,” he said. “These trade deals are a disaster, Chuck. You know, the World Trade Organization is a disaster.”
Source
|
legal -> I agreed already that there were core issues being inadequately addressed; of course the saner politicians are trying to address them, and make adjustments. Sometimes the problem is that concerns are being addressed, but idiots refuse to accept the actual limits on what can/cannot be done, despite it being thoroughly and carefully explained.
There's also a difference between ideas not viable in full; and ideas that are grossly unsound and terrible, of which Trump has provided quite a few. Mostly we've (or at least I've) been mocking the truly terrible ones.
And in terms of plans, Hillary has posted plenty of actual plans with detail on the issues (at least from what I've heard).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
