|
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 October 22 2016 01:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:09 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote:
War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually. Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness. The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war. Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities. You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
That's a bad definition of "solving economic problems" because working 15 hours while bombing everything to shit keeps you occupied but is obviously the worst thing you can possibly do with your free time. I'd rather be unemployed than live through WW2.
|
On October 21 2016 23:59 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2016 23:20 farvacola wrote:
"amount of collaboration" and "rhetoric used" are not "very objective measures" because each requires a significant amount of contextualization/subjectivity/inductive reasoning in order for it to be judged properly. Political collaboration outside the vacuum of the poly sci classroom is an incredibly difficult to thing to measure for the same reason the stories behind the passage of bills like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold Act) or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are fascinating stories. Rhetoric, naturally, appeals to different people in many different ways, and while it's nice to pretend that political promises can be neatly unpackaged in the form of a self-satisfied fact checker, I think the reality of contemporary politics is a bit more complex than that.
Just so that we start this discussion on the right foundation: Do you disagree with the point that the political climate is comparatively worse or do you disagree with the off-hand briefly mentioned proxy-measures I chose? I'll happily concede they aren't entirely objective - what I meant to say was that they were measurable, but you'll have to forgive me for typing on a phone and not spending an entire paragraph explicitly detailing things which aren't actually my main argument. Just like I'll forgive the weak as shit jump you made between rhetoric and political promises. Rhetoric is a great deal more than political promises and you are a smarter guy than this, so how about we skip that non-point? Obviously politics - contemporary as well as past - are complex.
Every single generation thinks their political climate is so much worse than the climate of the past. Even if the threat of nuclear annihilation was the norm only 30 years ago. What issues or problems do we have now that is worse than possible chance of exctinction? Or 60 years ago when the possible threat was invasion? What harsh political climate do we have that even comes remotely close to those issues?
|
On October 22 2016 01:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:13 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 00:47 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 00:41 a_flayer wrote:On October 21 2016 23:49 KwarK wrote:
Dude. WW1 is super easy to explain. So you have about 150 years in which France and the United Kingdom are the strongest nations in the world and they basically take over most of the world. Then, right at the tail end of it, Germany suddenly appears as a superpower that eclipses either of them (was arguably the strongest nation in the world in 1900) in industrial production, population and military might. And they are robbed of their destiny by the UK and France and told they must content themselves to being a second rate imperial power and just having European influence. And so they flip the fuck out, say that it's total bullshit and go "fite me irl bitches". Dude. WW3 is super easy to explain. So you have about 50 years in which the US are the strongest nation in the world and basically takes it over. Then, right at the tail end of it, as other countries begin to build economic and industrial force to match it, there's an economic collapse in the US leading into instability... Their citizens feel that their dream is being destroyed, flip the fuck out and go "fite me irl bitches". I barely had to make any adjustments at all, and I don't think there's anything inaccurate about it either. Looking back and finding similarities is easy, though, and looking ahead is a lot more difficult. I'm sure you could have had discussions comparable to this while the events you described as leading up to WW1 were unfolding. We can try to make analogies to what happened in the past, but there's always issues that invalidate such analogies (like technological developments). I'm not saying it is inevitable or even "likely" (chance would need analysis to be expressed), but it's a realistic thing to be worried about in the upcoming few decades. Especially if the US continues in its persistence of their claim to be the only indispensable country in the world (which is what both Clinton and Trump seem to represent in my eyes). We're seeing more resistance to the US policies already, like that Duterte fellow in the Philippines. Do you really think that will be end of it in the next few decades? 50 years of the US being the strongest nation in the world by far was about 40 years ago now and I don't remember WW3, although I hadn't been born yet when you're predicting it having happened. Just saying. Furthermore the US hasn't taken over the world. It has economic interests all over the world but those can shift with the balance of power, and have been. China has gone from being a colony to a great power in its own right but rather than needing to explode out of constraints imposed upon it by external forces, as Germany tried to do, it can just buy influence and power in Africa using the exact same means that the US uses. The game is much more flexible now than it used to be. The end of the explicit spheres of interest system has allowed for continual adjustments to preserve the balance. The Philippines is actually an example of the solution, not the problem. If it were a US colony then it couldn't barter itself to the Chinese. But it is not so it can. Sorry, I realized that I was potentially unclear and edited my post for clarity (and had in fact finished editing before you posted your reply). I had thought it would have been obvious from the second paragraph where I was coming from. And 50 vs 90 years really doesn't matter for what I was trying to point out. Your point remains wrong. The old system was very brittle, an obsolete power that was no longer as strong as it used to be did not shrink from its old lines but rather had them fracture and break. Likewise a new power was contained by those brittle shackles and would remain within them with pressure building and building until it exploded outwards. There will always be fluctuations in the primacy of various nations, that existed before and still exists now, as you identify. But the system that curtailed the national destinies of Germany and Japan and likewise would have led the Soviet Union on in a futile struggle to fight its own inevitable demise no longer exists. The United States has not sought to suppress the rise of China etc. Natural expansion and contraction, with a constant readjustment of relations between nations, has provided a vent where previously the pressures were kept within sealed brittle structures that exploded and imploded with catastrophic consequences.
You honestly don't think that the US world domination is a thing, and that not adjusting its policies of trying to (covertly) overthrow governments such as Iraq, Libya and Syria (and to a lesser extent Georgia and Ukraine) is a sign of them not shrinking from old (Cold War-esque) lines? That the US unilateral-driven policies are not seen as "debilitating" or "curtailing" by powers such as Russia, the Philippines and maybe even China (I'll admit that really don't know shit about their government or views)?
In any case, I am fairly sure that the majority of the people in the Middle East hold the view that the US is holding their nations back.
|
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something?
|
On October 22 2016 01:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:12 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:09 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote:
War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually. Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness. The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war. Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities. You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple). That's a bad definition of "solving economic problems" because working 15 hours while bombing everything to shit keeps you occupied but is obviously the worst thing you can possibly do with your free time. I'd rather be unemployed than live through WW2.
Funnily enough, suicide rate drop down during war. Individuality is entirely dedicated to the war effort - to the collective - and, because of it, many things that are problematic in a normal situation, are not anymore. Of course it's not a good thing.
|
On October 22 2016 01:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:09 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote:
War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually. Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness. The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war. Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities. You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple).
As Walter Bejamin says:
All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
|
On October 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something?
You're not missing something, few people knew he existed. Only Conway, Bannon or Pierson leaving would make a big splash at this point.
|
On October 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something?
It's just a matter of diminishing returns I think.
|
On October 22 2016 01:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something? You're not missing something, few people knew he existed. Only Conway, Bannon or Pierson leaving would make a big splash at this point.
Yeah and I imagine all of them have some sort of contract forbidding them from publicly leaving. Any of those 3 publicly leaving the campaign would be as close to a concession as it gets.
|
On October 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something?
He's probably lost enough top level campaign people over the past year to field multiple campaigns so what's one more?
|
United States42605 Posts
On October 22 2016 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:
I feel like Trump's national director jumping ship should be a bigger deal than it is. Am I missing something?
I think we all just stopped worrying about the election.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I already sent in my ballot and Trump's campaign is a bloated cadaver at this point. Trump campaign internal issues are just about irrelevant at this point.
|
I thought the same thing one week before Brexit, I'm not really trusting anybody again lol. People still need to vote.
|
I think Trump might start TrumpTV, continue spreading his message, and then possibly win the presidency next election. Maybe he will just buy RT instead of bothering to start from scratch. There's a lot of overlap there in terms of their general feeling towards the establishment.
|
No comments on the massive ddos?
|
United States42605 Posts
The Republican elite will complete a book of ritual sudokus before they follow Trump into the abyss for a second time.
|
trumptv is a feasible plan, but it won't be enough to win presidency on the next election. he still just doesn't have the support level to win.
|
On October 22 2016 01:44 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 01:12 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:09 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:06 WhiteDog wrote:On October 22 2016 01:04 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 01:03 WhiteDog wrote:
War is a great way to get out of any kind of economical problem actually. Just ask the Germans. They look back on 1945 with fondness. The germans are a great exemple, their economy was blooming during the 2nd WW, because they completly dedicated their production towards war, and the population was willing to accept restrictions due to the war. Yeah, this isn't true. Fortunately we actually have their war archives and we can read Speer's memos about how hard it was to do anything when they couldn't get rubber and had to manufacture all their petrochemicals from scratch with huge manpower shortages while facing a devastating bomber campaign that could obliterate entire industrial cities. You misunderstood my post : war does not increase your life condition, but it solve economical problem because A) people are employed B) people accept restrictions (to a certain extent) C) ressources are concentrated, and directed by the state, towards a few sector which makes them very productive (in terms of innovations for exemple). As Walter Bejamin says: All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. That is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system [ . . .] the aesthetics of today's war appears as follows: If the natural utilization of productive forces is impeded by the property system, the increase in technical devices, in speed, and in the sources of energy will press for an unnatural utilization, and this is found in war. [. . .] The horrible features of imperialistic war warfare are attributable to the discrepancy between the tremendous means of production and their inadequate utilization in the process of production--in other words, to unemployment and the lack of markets.
While WhiteDog is simply ignoring the last 80 years to make his WW3 point, Benjamin didn't see them. He didn't see nuclear proliferation, he didn't see the global economy becoming anywhere near as interdependent as it is now, he didn't see the unidirectional shift in the risk vs reward of massive wars. Although he did live to see Nazi Germany start WW2 after dealing with unemployment, as opposed to that passage.
|
United States42605 Posts
|
On October 22 2016 02:04 KwarK wrote:
The Republican elite will complete a book of ritual sudokus before they follow Trump into the abyss for a second time.
He would run as an independent/3rd party. Look at the way he's been denouncing the GOP. Don't you think we could be looking at the rise of an actual relevant 3rd party built up from the Trumpeteers?
On October 22 2016 02:04 zlefin wrote:
trumptv is a feasible plan, but it won't be enough to win presidency on the next election. he still just doesn't have the support level to win.
Right now he doesn't have the support. Add four years of TrumpTV and perhaps more instability in the world (maybe partly due to Clinton's hawkishness), and the picture could change.
But yeah, maybe four years is too soon, maybe its Trumps son who will take a stab at it in 10-20 years or so. But that's just wild speculation at this point of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
