|
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 December 08 2016 04:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
Foreign nations have always given support to parties in other countries that help them. The only difference now is that populists are on the rise and a scapegoat is needed. No, this is not an accurate assessment of the situation at all. There have been over the last few years a growing number of reports about Russia making moves to influence the politics of various European countries, and, more recently, of the US. This notably takes the form of providing support to far-right parties and of propagating stories undermining ruling governments and non-extreme parties, in particular on social media. This is a phenomenon that goes beyond what was previously the case over the last twenty years (Russia mainly seeking to influence the states in its immediate vicinity), and it is apparently linked to a desire to undermine NATO and EU unity, in particular with regards to their stances towards Russia, and weakening domestically the governments that oppose Russia internationally (especially with regards to Ukraine). Arguing that nothing has changed in this respect is clearly not true.
Yeah, and I call it a multi polar world and I like it. Stop fighting it. Just ease into it. It's really nice once you get used to the temperature of the water. First thing: remove like 90% of your military bases across the world. Thanks. Let me know when you need a drink. Let the Muslims have their little stoning rituals to people they consider criminals. Let the Europeans have gay sex with each other all the time. You can lock up all the blacks you want and put them to work. It's fiiine. I mean I hope they don't start doing that in Europe, but it's no skin off mine if you guys are OK with it over there. Better watch your back though cause they'll want to strike back. Let Middle America ban abortion if it really wants to do that (I really doubt it). Just stay out my business. And sure, Muslims are bringing their culture to Europe, but I don't care. I wouldn't mind if Europe closed its borders to migration either, but I'm pretty loose in that way. Some people aren't. Eh.
Wow, I really needed to cool off after that banking rant.
Also: this (the video in the spoiler) seems more than a little disturbing to me regarding the encirclement of China. Sounds rather similar as what is happening with Russia. And to think Clinton wanted to add the Missile Defense around China as well. Unbelievable.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Exactly. This idea that there was remotely even coverage of the two candidates by mainstream media is simply insane to me. This should be self-evident given how the moderators operated at the debates (except for Chris Wallace).
|
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing.
|
On December 08 2016 04:03 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:54 LegalLord wrote:
Foreign nations have always given support to parties in other countries that help them. The only difference now is that populists are on the rise and a scapegoat is needed. I personally am not scapegoating anyone just annoyed that the president-elect refuses to accept what's basically an agreed upon fact in the intelligence community. If Russia does do something seriously problematic Internationally is he going to accept that they did that or start coming up with reasons to not blame them? as for the rest of the argument I am uninformed about so I'll leave it alone
Well, its obvious why he doesn't want an investigation on the validity of his election run... I mean, he might ALSO be best friends with Putin and they meet up to cannibalize protestors on a monthly basis, but let's be honest that he would act the same if any other country was being investigated for hacking the election, especially when there are investigations RIGHT NOW of hackings in the election/recounts.
Now, I am assuming that he is fairly close with Putin and will be making decisions with Putin in mind in the near and far future. But its safe to say that for this specific thing its purely for selfish reasons.
|
On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context.
The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion."
This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil.
|
On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing.
Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there.
Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there.
|
On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there.
I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us.
|
On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us.
A lot of the US oil comes from fracking though, which poses a very serious problem based on environmental concerns as I have covered earlier.
Terrorism, Israel, and proximity to various Middle Eastern geographical features are other reasons why it's strategically important as well.
|
On December 08 2016 04:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us. A lot of the US oil comes from fracking though, which poses a very serious problem based on environmental concerns as I have covered earlier.
The environmental concerns over fracking are massively overstated. Speaking of which, it's time for liberals to have an aneurysm over Trump's EPA pick: Pruitt.
|
On December 08 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us. A lot of the US oil comes from fracking though, which poses a very serious problem based on environmental concerns as I have covered earlier. The environmental concerns over fracking are massively overstated.
No, not really. Fracking is actually pretty bad for the environment and does have quite an effect on water supplies. The cleaning process is quite insufficient at present.
|
On December 08 2016 04:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On December 08 2016 04:31 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us. A lot of the US oil comes from fracking though, which poses a very serious problem based on environmental concerns as I have covered earlier. The environmental concerns over fracking are massively overstated. No, not really. Fracking is actually pretty bad for the environment and does have quite an effect on water supplies. The cleaning process is quite insufficient at present.
Yes, fracking uses a lot of water, but if you're referring to the risk of water contamination, it's a minimal risk. Not even Obama's EPA was able to find evidence of pervasive water contamination from fracking:
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on
drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report,
we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water
resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases,
however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
Source.
|
Contamination is one factor, though I would agree that that is in part simply due to poor practices. Generally no one is trying to contaminate water supplies specifically. Then again, mining in general has that problem and I doubt people would favor a mining ban.
The water actually used in the fracking process is a substantial cost as well. Cleaning frackwater is... not an easy task. I'd be more supportive of the practice if they managed to take care of that issue. I wouldn't call the concern overblown though, not in the slightest. Poorly managed fracking can do a lot of harm.
|
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020?
|
On December 08 2016 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Is anyone excited about Joe Biden running in 2020?
I might be in 2019. Frankly I don't know what the world is going to look like a few years from now so it's hard to say if I will or will not want a president like Crazy Uncle Joe.
|
On December 08 2016 03:13 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 01:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative. The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors. it's shaped by many things other than political forces; like technology. I find your claim that there's nothing natural about it inadequately founded. the economy is changing how it is changing; we don't have enough alternate worlds to look at to tell what natural evolution of an economy looks like. At any rate, I was answering your question and provided clear answers. You speak in a jargon I have trouble understanding so I don't intend to get into this more.
it would probably help if instead of immediately thinking what "alternate" evolutiona of the economy might look like you consider what the various meanings that "natural" can have. technology, for example, is used in a particular way and applied through engineering in a particular way towards particular ends. both the means and the ends are subjective choices tied to human politics/sociology.
the fact that you find my claim that its "not natural" to be "inadequately founded" belies your lack of critical thought about what a "properly founded" claim about the economic structure's naturalness would look like.
|
On December 08 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 03:13 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2016 01:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative. The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors. it's shaped by many things other than political forces; like technology. I find your claim that there's nothing natural about it inadequately founded. the economy is changing how it is changing; we don't have enough alternate worlds to look at to tell what natural evolution of an economy looks like. At any rate, I was answering your question and provided clear answers. You speak in a jargon I have trouble understanding so I don't intend to get into this more. it would probably help if instead of immediately thinking what "alternate" evolutiona of the economy might look like you consider what the various meanings that "natural" can have. technology, for example, is used in a particular way and applied through engineering in a particular way towards particular ends. both the means and the ends are subjective choices tied to human politics/sociology. the fact that you find my claim that its "not natural" to be "inadequately founded" belies your lack of critical thought about what a "properly founded" claim about the economic structure's naturalness would look like.
it says nothing about my critical thought; which is fine.
the problem remains that you use a jargon I don't understand well, which is why I don't wnat to get into this; as I clearly stated previously. please listen to that.
|
On December 08 2016 04:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 02:56 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 08 2016 01:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
Time Magazine names Donald Trump person of the year 2016 Subline: President of the Divided States of America (they couldn't resist themselves I suppose). Actually, with that under the title, they should really be featuring Barack Obama and the stewardship of the Democrat party and media allies. Trump was only the face of the rebellion, not the division that created the two bitter rivals. One special sequence bears mention: + Show Spoiler +Divided America has been in the works for quite a while. i honestly don't see what barack obama has done to divide the nation. he can be a good or bad president but i just don't see how he can be labeled as actively divisive. @above see that's a nice post by kwizach. i didn't know dauntless sucked those graphs out of context. The rhetoric was definitely divisive. Suggesting his opposition were reprobates or racists. It was never loudly active, I can give you that. But he's the guy that called Republican Party extremists. Said Republicans will do anything to "rig the system for those at the top." Republican rhetoric was recruiting for ISIL. Republican policy harms millions of Americans. He fought with the political big guns and continually made reference to his opponents as having no legitimate ground for opposition. So his just desserts for spending so much time bullying the opposition (and some say it was justified) is somewhere around half the country feeling marginalized ... your views and concerns aren't legitimate, they're attached to hardliners or extremists. The best microcosm of this attitude was talking about Americans who "cling to guns and religion." This is probably all an argument for the history books when the figure of Obama is judged by what he actually said and did. Nixon was also pushed by the media as one thing (some radical), and years later everyone discovered something else (moderate policymaking) after active warfare against his administration was completed. Today the same types are carrying water for the Obama administration, but eventually they'll move on. Trump even now has a chance to show what deal-making is (and I'll probably hate the deals) to contrast with the way Obama clung to his ideology and sorta flipped the table and demonized the negotiators every time he signed something. But if you can't see it now, stay tuned ... it's the internet age and all his speeches and addresses are catalogued for future biographers to examine his methods and impact for those that missed it the first time around. I'd be remiss to not also mention the parallel culture wars in society that treated groups like traditional christians and white working class families like they were the enemy and their views on the functioning of society were not just wrong but evil.
well if there are (at least) two sides which you seem to acknowledge it makes one wonder what a non-divisive president would look like. presumably you are not arguing for a radical centrism. so for the description "divisive" to not be a tautological corollary to an axiomatic two party system there must be something more than simple disagreement. and i dont see that in obama's case. he seems eminently reasonable (eg in a conversation) and level headed with significant levels of empathy.
|
On December 08 2016 05:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 03:13 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2016 01:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA?
I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights?
None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative. The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors. it's shaped by many things other than political forces; like technology. I find your claim that there's nothing natural about it inadequately founded. the economy is changing how it is changing; we don't have enough alternate worlds to look at to tell what natural evolution of an economy looks like. At any rate, I was answering your question and provided clear answers. You speak in a jargon I have trouble understanding so I don't intend to get into this more. it would probably help if instead of immediately thinking what "alternate" evolutiona of the economy might look like you consider what the various meanings that "natural" can have. technology, for example, is used in a particular way and applied through engineering in a particular way towards particular ends. both the means and the ends are subjective choices tied to human politics/sociology. the fact that you find my claim that its "not natural" to be "inadequately founded" belies your lack of critical thought about what a "properly founded" claim about the economic structure's naturalness would look like. it says nothing about my critical thought; which is fine. the problem remains that you use a jargon I don't understand well, which is why I don't wnat to get into this; as I clearly stated previously. please listen to that.
you keep saying jargon but you never point out or ask what i meant. are you deeply incurious or is hermeneutics just a bridge too far for you?
|
On December 08 2016 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 05:36 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2016 05:29 IgnE wrote:On December 08 2016 03:13 zlefin wrote:On December 08 2016 01:31 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 23:45 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 12:32 IgnE wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely.
I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own:
are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient?
are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be?
Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved?
e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %.
why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil.
does OSHA actually need more funding?
from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there.
what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions?
or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done?
there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems. ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default. I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend. I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on. There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have. Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is? Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities. It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially. Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent. Why do you think union membership is down? People just got tired of having too much negotiating power and decided to work for less money and fewer benefits? Your causality is all messed up. And I'd like to know what you meant by unions are a sometimes "necessary evil." I think union membership is down due to structural changes in the economy. Certain sectors of the economy are much more likely to have unions than others. In particular, manufacturing stuff in factories tend to have unions a lot. The economy has shifted from a manufacturing one to a service one; and automation has greatly reduced the number of people working in factories. Thus union membership is down. By necessary evil here's what I mean (might not apply outside America): unions are a monopoly on the supply of labor. They use that monopoly power to get more stuff. Monopolies can cause problems, which is why there are things like anti-trust laws. monopolies are in general a bad thing. In practice however, the unions, especially in the past, served as a counterweight to the power of management/owners, and helped improve standards. They can also ensure the wealth is spread around reasonably rather than all going to owners. I said might not apply outside america because in america the relation of unions to owners has been historically and continues to be very adversarial. I have heard that in some countries the relationship is much more cooperative. The structure of the economy is shaped by human political forces. There's nothing "natural" about the evolution of our economy towards flexibilized precarious employment in the service sector. You are, probably unconsciously, importing naturalizing norms into your assessment of the forces that have moved our economy from centralized factories to a decentralized service economy. But in doing so you are ignoring the real decisions made by employers and politicians to drive down the price of labor. What do you think people are referring to when they use the phrase "neoliberalism"? It is used quite often in relation to the ideologically driven policies that have broken up unions and reduced job security across all sectors. it's shaped by many things other than political forces; like technology. I find your claim that there's nothing natural about it inadequately founded. the economy is changing how it is changing; we don't have enough alternate worlds to look at to tell what natural evolution of an economy looks like. At any rate, I was answering your question and provided clear answers. You speak in a jargon I have trouble understanding so I don't intend to get into this more. it would probably help if instead of immediately thinking what "alternate" evolutiona of the economy might look like you consider what the various meanings that "natural" can have. technology, for example, is used in a particular way and applied through engineering in a particular way towards particular ends. both the means and the ends are subjective choices tied to human politics/sociology. the fact that you find my claim that its "not natural" to be "inadequately founded" belies your lack of critical thought about what a "properly founded" claim about the economic structure's naturalness would look like. it says nothing about my critical thought; which is fine. the problem remains that you use a jargon I don't understand well, which is why I don't wnat to get into this; as I clearly stated previously. please listen to that. you keep saying jargon but you never point out or ask what i meant. are you deeply incurious or is hermeneutics just a bridge too far for you?
neither; I just simply don't enjoy talking to you.
and from what I can tell of the times when things are clear, I don't think i'd gain any interesting insight if I did understand better what you were saying.
|
On December 08 2016 04:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2016 04:24 LegalLord wrote:On December 08 2016 04:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't really understand the necessity of American antagonism towards Russia. I certainly understand why the EU has a dog in the fight given that they share a continent and there's a bunch of hoopla regarding oil and gas pipelines and supplies. But looking strictly at core American interests, I'm not sure which ones are really implicated by the things that Russia is doing. Depends how you define "core American interests." If the Middle East is one of them then there's a reasonably good reason for being upset with the way Russia stands in opposition there. Also, Hillary needed someone to blame to take the attention off the contents of the Wikileaks hacks. Russia is the obvious and easy scapegoat there. I don't think that the US has a core interest in the Middle East anymore. We don't need their oil. I'm pretty sure that we have more than they do at this point, and I know that we have more than enough to satisfy our demands for possibly another two centuries. We have a general interest in ensuring stability over there so as to avoid massive impacts to global trade, but frankly, given our oil production, massive risk premium and cost increases from interruption to Middle Eastern oil benefits us.
The US needs to control the stright of hormuz in order to keep the petrodollar. Its literally the flower of American Imperialism and the focus of global US policy.
Do you think we're the only one that buys oil or decides what the price of oil is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
