|
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 September 21 2016 13:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2016 13:20 Hexe wrote:On September 21 2016 13:11 Doodsmack wrote:On September 21 2016 12:45 hunts wrote:A look into the alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart's technology editor, also avoids directly typing "commit crimes for me against this person." But this article gives a great breakdown of how he gets around that. First, Yiannopoulos writes an article about someone (usually a woman) who did something he disagrees with.He doesn't include her name, but he links her Twitter prominently. Within a couple of hours, the harassment train is at full steam, with each such Tweet linking back to Yiannopoulos (his handle was @nero before he was banned from the platform). My daughter is 22, she just graduated college ... they stalked her at her school, they followed her, they put notes on the door where she used to live. My daughter was the captain of the university ... she's been drug tested ... she's a clean-cut kid ... and they've got people calling the University of Tennessee saying 'Eleanor Wilson's involved in prostitution and drug sales and all this other shit.'" source That is one way to become well known I guess. and yet none of that mentions that leslie jones is the actual racist and bigot. thousands of sites and blogs rush to her defense, but turn away when someone writes a negative, (but honest,) review and then gets banned from twitter. twitter/facebook/google are all liberal biased machines Regardless of whether or not Leslie is a bigot, Milo is also a bigot. Calling Milo a bigot is a good example of why the term has no meaning anymore.
Just because you wrap yourself in misrepresented/flawed science and more eloquent language doesn't change what a lot of his pieces are. He is just a high class who is smart enough to know how to spin things so to not be overt and appeal to those unconscious biases we all have.
|
On September 21 2016 13:59 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2016 13:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2016 13:20 Hexe wrote:On September 21 2016 13:11 Doodsmack wrote:On September 21 2016 12:45 hunts wrote:A look into the alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart's technology editor, also avoids directly typing "commit crimes for me against this person." But this article gives a great breakdown of how he gets around that. First, Yiannopoulos writes an article about someone (usually a woman) who did something he disagrees with.He doesn't include her name, but he links her Twitter prominently. Within a couple of hours, the harassment train is at full steam, with each such Tweet linking back to Yiannopoulos (his handle was @nero before he was banned from the platform). My daughter is 22, she just graduated college ... they stalked her at her school, they followed her, they put notes on the door where she used to live. My daughter was the captain of the university ... she's been drug tested ... she's a clean-cut kid ... and they've got people calling the University of Tennessee saying 'Eleanor Wilson's involved in prostitution and drug sales and all this other shit.'" source That is one way to become well known I guess. and yet none of that mentions that leslie jones is the actual racist and bigot. thousands of sites and blogs rush to her defense, but turn away when someone writes a negative, (but honest,) review and then gets banned from twitter. twitter/facebook/google are all liberal biased machines Regardless of whether or not Leslie is a bigot, Milo is also a bigot. Calling Milo a bigot is a good example of why the term has no meaning anymore. Just because you wrap yourself in misrepresented/flawed science and more eloquent language doesn't change what a lot of his pieces are. He is just a high class who is smart enough to know how to spin things so to not be overt and appeal to those unconscious biases we all have. The only way that you can reach "Milo is a bigot" is by adopting an over-expansive definition of racism -- precisely the type that he (and I, for that matter) routinely rail against.
|
On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote: At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders.
Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology?
Milo literally equated black people to monkeys on twitter, I guess that's fine? Xdaunt?
|
On September 21 2016 13:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:01 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:35 Nebuchad wrote:On September 21 2016 12:27 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote: Change is happening anyway. The next generation is way too progressive for the parties to stand as they are and hope for any success. Eight years from now Clinton+ can't beat Sanders+, and it's not even super close. That's pretty misleading. People naturally become more conservative as they get older. The "old" people that are now supporting Trump were all peace, drugs and free love in the 70s. There's no reason to believe current generations won't become more conservative in their thinking as time goes on. I highly doubt many Trump supporters were hippies in the 70s, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think all generations function the same politically. Sanders wouldn't have scored like this with young people in the 1970s or in the 1990s, the growth of progressivism is quite new. And given that a lot of these young people believe their positions stem from being a lot more informed than the older generations (for the purpose of this discussion, I don't need to analyze whether it's true or not, which is why I just wrote "perceive" here), due to internet being their source as opposed to traditional media, I see no reason to think they'll change their mind as a group any time soon. http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-47910I'm not fooling myself at all. Personal circumstances absolutely shape people's political outlook and people in their 20s have different goals, values and circumstances to people in their 40s and over. Why wouldn't their politics be subject to change given how much of their lives will change? Older people have children, careers and a greater capacity for self reliance than younger people, of course they're going to have different political viewpoints. In my view the rise of the fringes of both sides of politics (Sanders/Trump) has more to do with the increasing role of the internet (a tool that fragments and divides) in our society and the modern media's addiction to outrage as a revenue stream. If there really was a rising tide of progressivism you wouldn't have the same rush to the fringe occurring on the other side of politics. This graphic ignores what it means to be a conservative over the years. Twenty years from now, the conservatives won't think that gay marriage is bad. They will still identify as conservatives. Sanders is not fringe. He's only fringe in the US cause you have an imbalanced system. You don't have a rush to both extremes, you have a rush to something that should exist, but doesn't (a social democrat party), and a rush to an extreme that is also happening in most european countries. Check out how Trump was doing against Sanders among young people before you decide the same explanation can cover both.
The goalposts of conservative v progressive will obviously be different in different countries/generations. I think the jury is very much out on which proposed changes to today's society will be universally accepted by future generations and yes that includes gay marriage.
The idea that history is on an arc towards progressivism isn't one that's in any way set in stone. The future is fluid.
http://theweek.com/articles/632380/how-brexit-shattered-progressives-dearest-illusions
PS: I'm not American :p
|
On September 21 2016 14:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:59 Slaughter wrote:On September 21 2016 13:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2016 13:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2016 13:20 Hexe wrote:On September 21 2016 13:11 Doodsmack wrote:On September 21 2016 12:45 hunts wrote:A look into the alt-right Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart's technology editor, also avoids directly typing "commit crimes for me against this person." But this article gives a great breakdown of how he gets around that. First, Yiannopoulos writes an article about someone (usually a woman) who did something he disagrees with.He doesn't include her name, but he links her Twitter prominently. Within a couple of hours, the harassment train is at full steam, with each such Tweet linking back to Yiannopoulos (his handle was @nero before he was banned from the platform). My daughter is 22, she just graduated college ... they stalked her at her school, they followed her, they put notes on the door where she used to live. My daughter was the captain of the university ... she's been drug tested ... she's a clean-cut kid ... and they've got people calling the University of Tennessee saying 'Eleanor Wilson's involved in prostitution and drug sales and all this other shit.'" source That is one way to become well known I guess. and yet none of that mentions that leslie jones is the actual racist and bigot. thousands of sites and blogs rush to her defense, but turn away when someone writes a negative, (but honest,) review and then gets banned from twitter. twitter/facebook/google are all liberal biased machines Regardless of whether or not Leslie is a bigot, Milo is also a bigot. Calling Milo a bigot is a good example of why the term has no meaning anymore. Just because you wrap yourself in misrepresented/flawed science and more eloquent language doesn't change what a lot of his pieces are. He is just a high class who is smart enough to know how to spin things so to not be overt and appeal to those unconscious biases we all have. The only way that you can reach "Milo is a bigot" is by adopting an over-expansive definition of racism -- precisely the type that he (and I, for that matter) routinely rail against. How much racial slur-laden harassment can you instigate before you might as well have said the racial slurs yourself? As I understand it, before he was banned on Twitter there were repeated incidents with Milo attacking someone on Twitter, spawning a wave of harassment against the person he attacked. Then when people started complaining about the harassment he would mock them, refuse to discourage his supporters from harassing them, and even say that they deserved to be harassed. Like, if a black person is getting all kinds of racial slurs thrown at them, and they say you should tell your supporters to stop doing it, and you respond by calling them "barely literate," that's not even a dog whistle. Who wouldn't recognize that as a not-so-subtle hint at supporting the racism?
It's like that time Destiny was pissed at Deezer and got all his stream followers to spam Deezer with messages until he lagged out of Bnet. It wasn't Destiny that was doing the messaging, but everyone knew he incited it, so Blizzard banned him for a week or w/e for it. Seems fair for the "bigot" title to fall on someone who instigates racial harassment, and that's really not all that broad a definition of "bigot."
|
For me the issue isn't whether Milo is a dick on twitter, it's that there are an absolute horde of dicks on twitter of a variety of political persuasions that don't get banned. There are ISIS accounts that seem to be fine. You're either a bastion of free speech or you're selectively curating discussion. You can't have it both ways.
|
On September 21 2016 14:42 Amarok wrote: For me the issue isn't whether Milo is a dick on twitter, it's that there are an absolute horde of dicks on twitter of a variety of political persuasions that don't get banned. There are ISIS accounts that seem to be fine. You're either a bastion of free speech or you're selectively curating discussion. You can't have it both ways.
On its face I don't like having terrorist twitter accounts either. However no one has any idea if the FBI or any other government or international agency hasn't told twitter to keep certain accounts active for the purposes of tracking suspected terrorists. It's certainly easier to track people out in the open rather than letting them hide in the shadows. I'm certain someone somewhere is using twitter accounts to keep eyes on possible white supremacists and ISIS agents, their followers, circles, and communications. That's where the "You banned Milo but not Osama Bin Laden!" argument kind of falls apart.
|
Well, maybe. But there's also a difference between a) a run of the mill dick and a high-profile dick, and b) someone with and offensive viewpoint and someone who is specifically using Twitter to spam others with that hateful viewpoint. There may be plenty of run of the mill dicks that don't get banned simply because Twitter doesn't have the resources to find and ban them all; they'll still get banned when Twitter finds them (e.g. many of the accounts harassing Leslie Jones were also banned). And there may be plenty of accounts on the internet advocating hateful viewpoints, but when you're specifically using your place as a public figure on Twitter to get your fans to spam another account with racial slurs, that demands special attention.
To put it simply, Twitter's goal isn't to maintain the most robust marketplace of ideas possible, it's to protect and promote the Twitter platform. If you're abusing or otherwise damaging the platform, you'll get banned, even if plenty of other more onerous accounts are out there (because those accounts aren't actively abusing your platform, even if their presence still damages your platform a little by association).
Anyway, the question at hand wasn't whether Twitter was right to ban Milo, it was whether Milo can fairly be called a bigot. I'd say it's easy enough to find his actions bigoted without expanding the definition of the term to meaninglessness.
|
On September 21 2016 14:50 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 14:42 Amarok wrote: For me the issue isn't whether Milo is a dick on twitter, it's that there are an absolute horde of dicks on twitter of a variety of political persuasions that don't get banned. There are ISIS accounts that seem to be fine. You're either a bastion of free speech or you're selectively curating discussion. You can't have it both ways. On its face I don't like having terrorist twitter accounts either. However no one has any idea if the FBI or any other government or international agency hasn't told twitter to keep certain accounts active for the purposes of tracking suspected terrorists. It's certainly easier to track people out in the open rather than letting them hide in the shadows. I'm certain someone somewhere is using twitter accounts to keep eyes on possible white supremacists and ISIS agents, their followers, circles, and communications. That's where the "You banned Milo but not Osama Bin Laden!" argument kind of falls apart.
The terrorist thing is kind of a side issue though. To be more clear, plenty of progressives are dicks on twitter too and being called out for selectively applying their rules is fair enough.
Honestly the issue is that twitter is a shitty platform that encourages low dialogue, there's very little productive discussion that can occur in 160 characters. The sooner it dies the better off the world will be.
|
On September 21 2016 15:03 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 14:50 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 21 2016 14:42 Amarok wrote: For me the issue isn't whether Milo is a dick on twitter, it's that there are an absolute horde of dicks on twitter of a variety of political persuasions that don't get banned. There are ISIS accounts that seem to be fine. You're either a bastion of free speech or you're selectively curating discussion. You can't have it both ways. On its face I don't like having terrorist twitter accounts either. However no one has any idea if the FBI or any other government or international agency hasn't told twitter to keep certain accounts active for the purposes of tracking suspected terrorists. It's certainly easier to track people out in the open rather than letting them hide in the shadows. I'm certain someone somewhere is using twitter accounts to keep eyes on possible white supremacists and ISIS agents, their followers, circles, and communications. That's where the "You banned Milo but not Osama Bin Laden!" argument kind of falls apart. The terrorist thing is kind of a side issue though. To be more clear, plenty of progressives are dicks on twitter too and being called out for selectively applying their rules is fair enough. Honestly the issue is that twitter is a shitty platform that encourages low dialogue, there's very little productive discussion that can occur in 160 characters. The sooner it dies the better off the world will be.
Well people expecting to have quality dialogue in 140 characters are crazy. It's like trying to solve world hunger via thumbs in a text message. Twitter is fantastic at what it does well. It's a great place to check out what is going on in a snapshot. What's up with your favorite team, favorite players, a director you like, your favorite comedians, whats going on locally. You get a tiny taste of all of your interests at once so its amazing at checking the pulse of the wide range of your interests all at once. Yeah it's terrible for having meaningful discussion, it's awful with clickbait, people taking things out of context, saying dumb stuff because they're trying to be concise, people being assholes in quick sharp 140 character jabs, etc. Like everything it has its pros and cons. I thought it was dumb as hell at first glance but it does do a great job of keeping you abreast of a ton of little things.
People are dicks on all sides of the fence. They're dicks when they're anonymous and even on facebook where your account is often times very real, people are massive douches. The internet is rife with problems and everyone is an asshole, you'll get no argument from me there. But its well within Twitter, or Facebook, or TL.nets right to cut someone off if they don't like how someone is using their property. Milo had a history of long term targeted harassment and bandwagoning. Twitter is a better place with him gone without a single doubt. I think their removing his verification check ~a year ago was super childish and at that time they should have either banned him or let him keep the check so I don't think twitter is above being petty. If someone is being a long term assbag to people just cut them out and move on.
As I've said countless times here. Unfortunately people have found out a FABULOUS way to get eyes on you is to be as loud, as dickish, as outlandish as possible. Scream your hatred and lunacy proudly as loud as you can from the highest mountain top. A certain percentage of those eyes will turn into followers, devotees, cash in your bank account. Scream and people will show up to see what all the fuss is about, a certain number of people will just turn back and ignore it, some people will see you're crazy and pity you, some will see you're crazy and hate you, some will see through your BS, but a certain percentage of people will go "oh yeah this guy makes a lot of sense!" and latch onto your lunacy. Those people will keep coming back, they'll become fans, they'll cheer your every word, watch all your videos, read all your books. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Unscrupulous people have figured out that they can make a lot of money saying inflammatory things. That poisons the discourse more than anything IMO.
|
On September 21 2016 14:12 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 21 2016 13:01 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:35 Nebuchad wrote:On September 21 2016 12:27 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote: Change is happening anyway. The next generation is way too progressive for the parties to stand as they are and hope for any success. Eight years from now Clinton+ can't beat Sanders+, and it's not even super close. That's pretty misleading. People naturally become more conservative as they get older. The "old" people that are now supporting Trump were all peace, drugs and free love in the 70s. There's no reason to believe current generations won't become more conservative in their thinking as time goes on. I highly doubt many Trump supporters were hippies in the 70s, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think all generations function the same politically. Sanders wouldn't have scored like this with young people in the 1970s or in the 1990s, the growth of progressivism is quite new. And given that a lot of these young people believe their positions stem from being a lot more informed than the older generations (for the purpose of this discussion, I don't need to analyze whether it's true or not, which is why I just wrote "perceive" here), due to internet being their source as opposed to traditional media, I see no reason to think they'll change their mind as a group any time soon. http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-47910I'm not fooling myself at all. Personal circumstances absolutely shape people's political outlook and people in their 20s have different goals, values and circumstances to people in their 40s and over. Why wouldn't their politics be subject to change given how much of their lives will change? Older people have children, careers and a greater capacity for self reliance than younger people, of course they're going to have different political viewpoints. In my view the rise of the fringes of both sides of politics (Sanders/Trump) has more to do with the increasing role of the internet (a tool that fragments and divides) in our society and the modern media's addiction to outrage as a revenue stream. If there really was a rising tide of progressivism you wouldn't have the same rush to the fringe occurring on the other side of politics. This graphic ignores what it means to be a conservative over the years. Twenty years from now, the conservatives won't think that gay marriage is bad. They will still identify as conservatives. Sanders is not fringe. He's only fringe in the US cause you have an imbalanced system. You don't have a rush to both extremes, you have a rush to something that should exist, but doesn't (a social democrat party), and a rush to an extreme that is also happening in most european countries. Check out how Trump was doing against Sanders among young people before you decide the same explanation can cover both. The goalposts of conservative v progressive will obviously be different in different countries/generations. I think the jury is very much out on which proposed changes to today's society will be universally accepted by future generations and yes that includes gay marriage. The idea that history is on an arc towards progressivism isn't one that's in any way set in stone. The future is fluid. http://theweek.com/articles/632380/how-brexit-shattered-progressives-dearest-illusionsPS: I'm not American :p
Sorry for some reason I thought you were american.
I agree with you that it's not set in stone that all future generations will be more progressive, I'm just talking about this one, and for this one I don't have a lot of doubts. The notion that they will become less progressive as they grow old and run back to the Rubios of this world seems to me like an extraordinary claim, which requires more evidence than: other generations grow more conservative as they grow old. Even if we follow that claim, and they grow old to become more conservative following an european model (seems the logical model to use given that Sanders fits the european model better), they should tend to move from someone like Sanders to someone like Clinton, which would be a huge step in the right direction in my view.
I would defend the argument that this generation is extremely likely to bring a lot of change, again, based on getting their information from internet rather than mainstream media, and on the perception that they have that they are a more informed generation politically than the ones before them. Sure, some of them may become rich and suddenly feel like taxing the 1% more is not such a priority, but we should expect them to be outliers (especially if nothing changes regarding social injustice, which is very likely for the next 8 years no matter who wins this).
|
On September 21 2016 14:10 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote: At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders. Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession.
|
So lets compare charities
Clinton Foundation- High rated charitable foundation, probably one of the best in the US gets Clinton chewed out and grilled to no end cause so and so donated and then tried to get a meeting with Hillary.
Trump Foundation For all regards seems like a very poor charitable foundation that trump has been using as a glorified slush fund gets a mehhhh
Why are the Republicans not jumping on this, the Clinton Foundation so much as puts a wrong piece of punctuation on legal document you know there would be at least 4 investigation into it by at least 2 house committees.
|
On September 21 2016 17:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 14:10 hunts wrote:On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote: At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders. Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession.
and yet even the smallest recovery is more than what we had under bush, and far more than we could expect under trump. A big reason chinas economy is growing so much is because of the labor market, eventually it will stop when they either start demanding actual pay for labor, or we simply replace labor with machines. Furthermore, trump can't do anything to help any of that, all his "plans" to "bring the jobs back" would not bring a single job back to America that has left America, all it would do is piss off both other countries and companies working in America.
|
On September 21 2016 17:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 14:10 hunts wrote:On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote: At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders. Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession. How can you even call debt fuelled expansion a problem and then give China as an example of a country which does well in the same post. China's leveraging since 2008 (although before as well tbh) is a huge long term problem.
|
On September 21 2016 17:50 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 17:25 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 21 2016 14:10 hunts wrote:On September 21 2016 13:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 21 2016 12:26 a_flayer wrote: At this point, I'm sort of hoping Trump wins and tanks the US into such a deep pit of depression it no longer capable of projecting its power throughout the world. All happening already.No matter who wins it's going to be real bad. Economic power is shifting east at an accelerating rate. USA can't even take out Assad which seems to be one of their pet projects despite the chaos caused in Libya and Iraq when removing leaders. Except that, you know, economic growth this year and such. But I guess that's mostly limited to actual cities, so maybe you live in a rural area and don't get to see it like a lot of trump voters? Or work in a meaningless field that doesn't see growth because it is being replaced by technology? Well if you add 10 trillion to the national debt in 8 years you'd hope for some positive GDP figures. Sadly this is still the weakest recovery of the post WW2 era. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/Meanwhile China keeps growing at 6% per year. We just saw Ford announce it is moving all small car production to Mexico last week and Boeing also announced there will be no yearly price rises on aircraft (First time since 2009). All indicators point to a weak economy entering recession. and yet even the smallest recovery is more than what we had under bush, and far more than we could expect under trump. A big reason chinas economy is growing so much is because of the labor market, eventually it will stop when they either start demanding actual pay for labor, or we simply replace labor with machines. Furthermore, trump can't do anything to help any of that, all his "plans" to "bring the jobs back" would not bring a single job back to America that has left America, all it would do is piss off both other countries and companies working in America. I'm not here to defend Bush so I'm not sure why you're getting partisan but did you even read the article? This is the weakest post WW2 recovery ie weaker than the recovery under Bush from the dot com bubble/ 9/11 recession. Obama is the first president since Hoover not to oversee at least one year of 3% GDP growth - fact.Go look it up.
And i agree that any recovery/expansion under Trump would be weaker than it is now under Obama.That has been the trend since the late 1970's.The guy i replied to was arguing the economy is strong, I am saying it's weak now and will be weaker whoever gets elected, I've been saying that for months.
And the other guy who mentioned China - point about China is they are buying up hard assets all over the globe.Farmland, mining companies, ports, huge investments in Africa, factories.Try invest in Chinese owned companies and see how far you get.Meanwhile five trillion of the US debt is due to the Afghan and Iraq wars.
|
Pretty sure the lack of growth in the GDP has to do with the crash that took place during the Bush years. The Bush administration handed Obama a pending depression with a hearty "Good Luck."
|
|
On September 21 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 14:12 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 13:08 Nebuchad wrote:On September 21 2016 13:01 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:35 Nebuchad wrote:On September 21 2016 12:27 Amarok wrote:On September 21 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote: Change is happening anyway. The next generation is way too progressive for the parties to stand as they are and hope for any success. Eight years from now Clinton+ can't beat Sanders+, and it's not even super close. That's pretty misleading. People naturally become more conservative as they get older. The "old" people that are now supporting Trump were all peace, drugs and free love in the 70s. There's no reason to believe current generations won't become more conservative in their thinking as time goes on. I highly doubt many Trump supporters were hippies in the 70s, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think all generations function the same politically. Sanders wouldn't have scored like this with young people in the 1970s or in the 1990s, the growth of progressivism is quite new. And given that a lot of these young people believe their positions stem from being a lot more informed than the older generations (for the purpose of this discussion, I don't need to analyze whether it's true or not, which is why I just wrote "perceive" here), due to internet being their source as opposed to traditional media, I see no reason to think they'll change their mind as a group any time soon. http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-47910I'm not fooling myself at all. Personal circumstances absolutely shape people's political outlook and people in their 20s have different goals, values and circumstances to people in their 40s and over. Why wouldn't their politics be subject to change given how much of their lives will change? Older people have children, careers and a greater capacity for self reliance than younger people, of course they're going to have different political viewpoints. In my view the rise of the fringes of both sides of politics (Sanders/Trump) has more to do with the increasing role of the internet (a tool that fragments and divides) in our society and the modern media's addiction to outrage as a revenue stream. If there really was a rising tide of progressivism you wouldn't have the same rush to the fringe occurring on the other side of politics. This graphic ignores what it means to be a conservative over the years. Twenty years from now, the conservatives won't think that gay marriage is bad. They will still identify as conservatives. Sanders is not fringe. He's only fringe in the US cause you have an imbalanced system. You don't have a rush to both extremes, you have a rush to something that should exist, but doesn't (a social democrat party), and a rush to an extreme that is also happening in most european countries. Check out how Trump was doing against Sanders among young people before you decide the same explanation can cover both. The goalposts of conservative v progressive will obviously be different in different countries/generations. I think the jury is very much out on which proposed changes to today's society will be universally accepted by future generations and yes that includes gay marriage. The idea that history is on an arc towards progressivism isn't one that's in any way set in stone. The future is fluid. http://theweek.com/articles/632380/how-brexit-shattered-progressives-dearest-illusionsPS: I'm not American :p Sorry for some reason I thought you were american. I agree with you that it's not set in stone that all future generations will be more progressive, I'm just talking about this one, and for this one I don't have a lot of doubts. The notion that they will become less progressive as they grow old and run back to the Rubios of this world seems to me like an extraordinary claim, which requires more evidence than: other generations grow more conservative as they grow old. Even if we follow that claim, and they grow old to become more conservative following an european model (seems the logical model to use given that Sanders fits the european model better), they should tend to move from someone like Sanders to someone like Clinton, which would be a huge step in the right direction in my view. I would defend the argument that this generation is extremely likely to bring a lot of change, again, based on getting their information from internet rather than mainstream media, and on the perception that they have that they are a more informed generation politically than the ones before them. Sure, some of them may become rich and suddenly feel like taxing the 1% more is not such a priority, but we should expect them to be outliers (especially if nothing changes regarding social injustice, which is very likely for the next 8 years no matter who wins this).
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/
Pew research on the subject.
People become more extreme in their viewpoints as they get older. They don't simply get more conservative. Different generations have different political leanings, so people misconstrue this as older -> more conservative.
|
Can someone explain the USA's effect on Asian politics? I've always been confused about how all of the Susan countries felt about us. I'm specifically asking about China, India, Japan, the Koreas, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and all of the other countries which would turn this into a wall is text.
|
|
|
|