|
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 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor.
And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife.
|
On October 25 2017 02:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 00:57 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2017 00:27 ChristianS wrote:
Here's the thing that confuses me. Trump supporters are an amorphous group without public statements or actions for us to scrutinize and determine what they believe. It's hard enough to demonstrate whether someone is racist or not when you can look at their words and actions; it's probably impossible to have a good evidence-based discussion on whether Trump supporters are racists or not. I think you should spend some more time rereading myself and xDaunt's comments explaining what happened. You might push past what's hard to scrutinize and learn from left-wing sources and help demonstrate your own flawed thinking. Start around the RNC convention and read through to a couple months past the inauguration. If your interaction is to dismiss people on the right stating why the Trump-lovers and reluctant Trump voters made their choice, maybe you prefer to live in the dark or set too high of standards for discussion. Can I say this whole post (including the bits quoted below) felt incredibly patronizing? I meant trying to judge the nature of Trump supporters as a whole, not specific ones. I feel comfortable enough with my understanding of where you and xDaunt are coming from, thanks, and have better things to do than reread every xDaunt and Danglars post in this thread since June of 2016. Or do you think that you and xDaunt are perfectly representative of the millions of people that support Trump?
It was somewhat intentional. My default reaction to seeing this "amorphous" and "difficult to scrutinize and determine" is to point out that much of what's lacking has been supplied in this forum. You should be much better informed about the various desires and reactions Trump voters had compared to leftists in other left-dominant forums and news outlets. You're much better off synthesizing the characterizations and evidence for them from our argumentation and then proceeding to cut back where you think it lacks. It's high time some of the poor takeaways were pruned and some of the more obvious takeaways were adopted. You're really in the position of asking the pitiful few on the Right here to increase your understanding again having missed the last twenty or thirty pages on the topic. I think some of this bears repeating, and I'll repeat myself, but I'm not about to steer the discussion back into the big tenets if your #1-4s show the last ones were similarly ignored. I won't be in the business of convincing the unconvincable. I'll just wait until two more elections (at this point, maybe narrowly lost elections) bring up a couple more of your presuppositions to the chopping block.
Show nested quote +But it's not hard to show Trump said a lot of racially inflammatory things (i.e. things many of us liberals would consider racist). That was a constant theme of his campaign, so the obvious question is, why? I can imagine a few explanations:
1) Trump's not racist, he's just an idiot who says dumb (sometimes racially inflammatory) stuff; and Trump supporters don't like it, but they tolerate it because he has other things going for him.
2) Trump's racist, so he says racially inflammatory stuff; but his supporters don't like it, they just tolerate it because he has other things going for him.
3) Trump's not racist, but he says racially inflammatory stuff because his supporters like it when he says that stuff.
4) Trump's a racist, but he only says racially inflammatory stuff openly because his supporters like it when he says that stuff.
Looking at how both the primary and general went, I see little evidence that Trump's racially inflammatory comments were a detriment to his campaign. The Judge Curiel thing maybe hurt him a little in the polls, and the Khizr Khan stuff seemed like it did, but that might have just been the convention bounce for Hillary. Meanwhile "they're rapists and drug dealers," dragging victims of violent crimes committed by Hispanics out in front of rallies, etc. didn't seem to hurt him at all. Nor did people pointing out his buildings discriminating against blacks in the 70's. Nor did people bringing up the "Black guys counting my money! I hate it" stuff.
At a certain point, you have to consider the possibility that either 3 or 4 was at least partially true – that part of Trump's surprising success stemmed from people underestimating how much people wanted to hear their politicians say racist stuff. This isn't to say that all Trump supporters are racist, or that racism is the primary reason Trump won, but it is to say that if race doesn't factor into your explanation of Trump winning, or if it does only in the form of "non-racist people were tired of being called racist so they voted for a guy that says racist stuff," you're missing something. It's not hard to show he violates politically correct norms in ten ways. I'll give you a breathtakingly obvious opinion: He says derogatory things about everything and everyone, including people that work for him. It's just you want to box in one type of statements and say this alone should be considered without looking at the whole. It makes talking about categorizations with you a remarkably fruitless exercise. I'll even give you the Arpaio pardon as an overtly racist act--too early, too insensitive of his actual acts, and a rather simple case study. There's this rather dumb idea people like to push sometimes that if you're just a dick to everyone, it's not possible to be racist. It's usually expressed humorously, in which case people can at least hide behind "just saying it ironically," but it really does display a complete misunderstanding of what racism is and means. If I cut a guy off on the freeway, and then go home and accuse my black neighbor of stealing my lawnmower (I just KNOW it's him!) it's not less racist to assume the black guy stole it just because I'm a dick in other scenarios, too.
There's this rather dumb idea that a president who claims crowds were bigger and frequently talks all kinds of nonsense suddenly means it specifically going against the norms of racial discussion. He's not a precise man with his language. He lurches everywhere. Suddenly one lurch is this deep insight into who he is and what he thinks. And this is all besides the fact that the norms needed to be thrown out for a while now and twenty minutes of apologies for every one minute talking about disproportionate impact topics.
Show nested quote +For the rest, he never said "they're rapists and drug dealers," the American media ignored repeat offenders of people that got deported and jogged back in multiple times (build the wall), and it makes sense to point out that illegal immigrants aren't screened. Every time Trump said a racially inflammatory thing, there was an adjacent nuanced policy position that he could have been describing which is not inherently racist. Historically, politicians have been pretty careful to clarify they weren't saying the racist thing, they were saying the adjacent nuanced policy position. Trump took no such care. In this case, the "(Mexican) immigrants are a pox on our society because they're so prone to crime" argument isn't necessarily what Trump is saying – but he's not trying very hard (or else he's failing miserably) to disavow that position. The weird thing that I think the rest of Republicans are starting to notice is that if you don't try very hard to disavow the openly racist position, the base gets a lot more fired up. If you bring out the mother of a girl that got raped and killed by some German guy that overstayed his visa, they'll quietly clap for you. But if you bring out the mother of a girl that was killed by an undocumented Honduran drunk driver, you can barely hear her over the screams and cheers. Ultimately, the policy proposals follow suit. Republicans don't talk about how we should make sure immigrants who commit violent crimes see prison either here or in their home country. They talk about how we need a wall to keep all the Mexicans out. They don't talk about how while the evidence we have says illegal immigrants are less violent than the general population, we should improve our mechanisms for dealing with immigrants when they do commit crimes. They talk about how (in absence of any statistical evidence) immigrants as a whole are making our communities less safe, and for the safety of our women and children we need to track them down and deport them.
You'll really have to actually give the direct quotes. Paraphrasing Trump does not work for you. He didn't increase Republican shares among hispanics because his speech was so obviously inflammatory. He said a lot of things because the broad takeaway was he was going to treat border security, immigration, jobs, and repeat violent offenders seriously. Instead of ignoring all these things (not racist to ignore repeatedly deported violent offenders), he made a mark that he was listening and he would take it seriously. That's why it was absolutely warranted to bring up victims because topics like Kate's Law were missed among bipartisan consensus that a few more repeat rapists catch and release were called for in a broadly low-violence population. Not a pleasant thing for the victims in society, but people on your side pick who gets to be victims and who doesn't get to be victims, however unconvinced I am that you specifically choose to ignore victims according to your own ideology.
Show nested quote +You're missing everything here. It's pretty sad. I want to say you have an open mind behind all these missed opportunities to see both sides, but I keep hearing evidence to the contrary in every post. The dialogue had fallen flat, so America picked the wrong man asking the right questions. The other option was essentially ChristianS's view--you don't understand the basics of what's going on, you look back and can't properly re-examine what made you missed the train, and people have started giving up convincing the race-narrative types of the errors of their ways. Was there any actual substance to this paragraph besides "I'm so smart, I understand everything, you're so blind you don't even know you're blind"? If you think I'm wrong about something, present evidence. If there's a possibility you think I'm missing, argue for it. Or if you can't be bothered, don't post. Honestly, you're getting more superior in tone than GH.
You tried to capture all the possibilities and stopped short in spectacular fashion. It was a little demeaning, I'll admit. But my big takeaway from your attempted summation of the race issue is only indicative of your ignorance on the issue. It's partly informed by past attempts to explain the goals within the constitution without desiring to read the Federalist Papers describing them, as sold to the states to sign on and make this great nation. Here, you're missing the history of amnesty without border enforcement, inaction on sanctuary cities catch-and-release, concomitant punishment of States trying to enforce immigration law by the courts, RINO inaction/corruption on illegal immigration for cheap labor and dodging a divisive topic, Mexico's angle on remittances, drug trafficking, and I'm sure I'm missing some. If you had nailed two or three of these in this broad topic while trying to peg attitudes broadly, I wouldn't have seen the need. It happened that you want to box in comments + reaction without looking at the broad picture, which is absolutely not appropriate here. Simultaneously, I wanted to mention the reason why people are less and less inclined to argue the point because you never make headway in understanding.
Show nested quote +Trump single handedly took the dialogue from discussing what type of amnesty when to when will border security be implemented and what kind. It's only in a corrupt Republican party that doesn't understand the base's views on immigration (and wants it to forget the Reagan amnesty sellout that never gave the promised accompanying border security) that made Trump necessary. That includes what flies as inflammatory now (you have a point behind several layers), and that includes why Trump gained over Romney in the hispanic vote. And how did he manage to change the discourse so? There were conservatives all along trying to say things like "We can't have amnesty until we deal with issues x y z," including whatever border security issues you think Trump did a good job drawing attention to. There were conservatives all along talking about sanctuary cities, and border walls, and even mass deportation. But somehow the discourse changed dramatically when you got a guy willing to say the Mexican government is sending over drug dealers and rapists. Somehow the discourse changed dramatically when you got a guy willing to say that literally all Muslims should be banned from entering the country. Is it possible that such language tapped into some deeper sentiment in the population – one that goes beyond pure policy proposals? You're noting that Trump brought about a dramatic change in discourse. I don't disagree. But part of how he got so much fire behind him was by leaving the door open to racists whenever he talked. Didn't explicitly endorse them (not usually, anyway), but left things open enough to interpretation that those people could look at him and say "yeah, that's our guy." I think that's evil, and must be opposed; you obviously disagree, but feel free to clarify on which point you disagree. It wouldn't be hard to show that the racists and white supremacists of the country clearly think he's their guy. It wouldn't be hard to go back through Trump's statements and show a lack of disavowal for racist positions directly adjacent to what we can generously assume are the non-racist positions he's pushing. It would be more work than I have patience for to go back to the pre-Trump era, and find conservatives who were more careful in their proclamations, but the sheer fact we don't remember them is pretty good evidence they weren't able to pull anywhere near the same support. Correlation =/= causation, I suppose, so you might argue that while Trump was very successful, and he didn't try very hard to disavow the racist positions, and other conservatives who did disavow the racist positions had nowhere near the same success, that's all purely coincidence and Trump was successful despite his incautious racial positions, not because of them. But would you really find that persuasive?
Two big ones: Gang of Eight Immigration Bill, and Jeb Bush's frontrunner campaign "they come out of love" style amnesty statements. Rubio forever wears the label of selling out his conservative supporters' stance on immigration by trying to compromise through an amnesty bill with token enforcement (really, unenforceable provisions). Conservative Republicans remember that betrayal and saw just how strong he was coming out on immigration, which brought the duplicity in the limelight. The second aspect is how much money Jeb raised with such a pro-amnesty position on all the issues. He was declared the frontrunner, articles were written wondering if anybody could catch him. He had all the pro establishment campaign team on his side, all the advisors, all the stuff we hated about George W Bush here for all to see. Trump made immigration his stand out issue from the start and brought necessary contrast to everybody's sinking feeling seeing the Jeb Bush campaign and Marco's about-face. The only other Republican in that packed field that had standing on the matter was Cruz, maybe a little on Scott Walker.
You're still missing the quote on what Trump said, so I'll be waiting for a real characterization and not a third bad attempt (not Mexican government, not that it was all he singled out the country was sending). I don't see much progress until you can criticize Trump on what he said, not on what you thought you heard. I say this in contrast to future times I'd join you in saying Trump was wrong to say this. You're missing an "until" in the Muslim quote, and I don't know what country you live in to think Trump was talking about pure policy proposals. I'd love to see this campaign where he talked pure policy proposals ... they were very few and far between e.g. tax plan.
He got so much fire behind him because Republicans believed he would get serious about the immigration problems in the United States. I'm not with you that he tapped into racist sentiment. I'd put that so low on the percent affected that we'd have to start talking about Hillary's courting of Communist party sentiment and the conversation would collapse. It's not a force and and wasn't a force during the campaign. It results from slander by the left, the media, and the DNC that this country's got a huge racist population and wants a racist president to support their views. It's that the opponents estimate America to be this evil racist place that gives rise to stupid people saying that he didn't disavow the racist positions hard enough. That's one sticking point that will never change: the great danger was that Trump would talk a big game on immigration and sell out his voters like almost every other Republican candidate in the last forty years. It wasn't a matter of being cautious about inflammatory speech, because the speech policing has already gone so far overboard that he would've reaped that characterization regardless (see: Romney, McCain, George W Bush, George H W Bush). It's a political play and right up Trump's alley and he hit it out of the park.
I really wish the country's dialogue allowed such nuanced talking positions because I would never consider Trump a necessary evil in that case. We've lost it and I doubt we can recover it. Sorry.
|
|
|
On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife.
Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something.
|
On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it.
Another RINO bites the dust.
|
On October 25 2017 03:17 Slydie wrote:So, is there anything left to dig up in this case? Show nested quote +PowerPost House leaders begin new investigation of Obama-era uranium deal
Nunes announces probe into uranium deal during Obama’s tenure
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announces a probe into a deal on U.S. uranium mines reached under the Obama administration. (The Washington Post)
By Karoun Demirjian
October 24 at 1:03 PM
Leading House Republicans are beginning an investigation of the Obama administration’s handling of a deal that gave a Russian-owned company control over 20 percent of the United States’ supply of uranium, an episode that the Trump campaign used to try to discredit Democratic rival Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that the panel has “been looking into this for a while now” but elected to formally start the inquiry in light of new evidence, reported in the Hill, that the FBI had been investigating Russian efforts to influence the American nuclear industry through various corrupt schemes.
Nunes said the first goal of the investigation, for which the Intelligence Committee is partnering with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is determining “was there actually an open FBI investigation or not.”
Oversight committee member Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said Tuesday that members had identified a “witness who was a confidential informant who wants to talk about his role in this” but were trying to first get the witness released from a nondisclosure agreement with the Justice Department.
The uranium deal in question dates to 2009, when state-owned Russian nuclear energy company Rosatom began buying shares in Uranium One, a company based in Toronto with interests in the United States. The next year, Rosatom sought to assume majority ownership in Uranium One — a deal that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) had to approve. Russia later assumed full ownership of the company.
At the time, Clinton was secretary of state, leading one of nine government agencies comprising CFIUS. Notably, Nunes did not mention Clinton’s name Tuesday as he announced his investigation — instead, he, DeSantis and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) focused on the involvement of then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, and the extent to which the Justice Department and the FBI had been scrutinizing the transaction or the entities involved.
The House is not the first body to resurrect the Russian uranium deal — last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee also announced that it would be investigating the matter.
In a C-SPAN interview Monday, Clinton said the new focus on the uranium deal is “baloney” and evidence that the Trump administration is worried and trying to deflect attention away from the ongoing probes into the Trump team’s alleged ties to the Kremlin.
Nunes has become a focal point of such efforts before. Earlier this year, he came under fire for suggesting that the Obama administration had inappropriately unmasked the identities of members of the Trump transition team, and perhaps the president himself. He made those allegations after visiting the White House, leading Democrats to accuse him of coordinating his efforts with the Trump administration. Nunes, now the subject of an ethics inquiry for his actions, subsequently handed over the reins of the committee’s investigation of Russian election meddling to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), but he has not recused himself from the inquiry.
Nunes said Tuesday that he has not spoken with the White House about the uranium matter. But when asked whether he would brief the White House in the future, he would not commit to continuing to steer clear of the
King, appearing with Nunes, insisted that the investigation of the uranium deal was a separate matter entirely from the committee’s ongoing inquiry of Russian election meddling.
“This is totally different from the election issue . . . it has nothing to do with the Russian election,” King said, stressing that his focus, at the time of the deal and now, was primarily driven by concerns about “why 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply was being given to a Russian-owned company.” www.washingtonpost.com
I linked the Hill piece a while back. Did you read it? What did you think of the indictments, the Russian state actor involvement, and the administration response?
This topic is too tarred by association with a ideologically-associated book and people can't see straight. The Hill dug up some interesting information and the only reaction I've seen (outside of some conservative outlets, congressional committees, and a Trump tweet) is dismiss and ignore it. I've yet to see a breakdown.
|
On October 25 2017 04:24 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife. Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something.
They are likely equal in scope. The Chinese civil war lasted longer and had twice the number of casualties. But the US civil war was also fought before the industrial revolution, which makes the nearly 1 million casualties grimly impressive.
|
On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust.
I agree, but that's because the Republican party has morphed into something some might call 'deplorable'.
|
The wartime economy is a pretty strong economic engine. Slavery is without a doubt one of the most important institutions historically, not just with American civilization but with any large one past and present. The hard part is emancipating before it triggers a collapse.
|
On October 25 2017 04:24 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife. Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something.
I think this turns on the distinction between a civil war and a revolution, though we're in murky semantic territory to be sure.
|
On October 25 2017 04:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 03:17 Slydie wrote:So, is there anything left to dig up in this case? PowerPost House leaders begin new investigation of Obama-era uranium deal
Nunes announces probe into uranium deal during Obama’s tenure
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announces a probe into a deal on U.S. uranium mines reached under the Obama administration. (The Washington Post)
By Karoun Demirjian
October 24 at 1:03 PM
Leading House Republicans are beginning an investigation of the Obama administration’s handling of a deal that gave a Russian-owned company control over 20 percent of the United States’ supply of uranium, an episode that the Trump campaign used to try to discredit Democratic rival Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that the panel has “been looking into this for a while now” but elected to formally start the inquiry in light of new evidence, reported in the Hill, that the FBI had been investigating Russian efforts to influence the American nuclear industry through various corrupt schemes.
Nunes said the first goal of the investigation, for which the Intelligence Committee is partnering with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is determining “was there actually an open FBI investigation or not.”
Oversight committee member Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) said Tuesday that members had identified a “witness who was a confidential informant who wants to talk about his role in this” but were trying to first get the witness released from a nondisclosure agreement with the Justice Department.
The uranium deal in question dates to 2009, when state-owned Russian nuclear energy company Rosatom began buying shares in Uranium One, a company based in Toronto with interests in the United States. The next year, Rosatom sought to assume majority ownership in Uranium One — a deal that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) had to approve. Russia later assumed full ownership of the company.
At the time, Clinton was secretary of state, leading one of nine government agencies comprising CFIUS. Notably, Nunes did not mention Clinton’s name Tuesday as he announced his investigation — instead, he, DeSantis and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) focused on the involvement of then-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, and the extent to which the Justice Department and the FBI had been scrutinizing the transaction or the entities involved.
The House is not the first body to resurrect the Russian uranium deal — last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee also announced that it would be investigating the matter.
In a C-SPAN interview Monday, Clinton said the new focus on the uranium deal is “baloney” and evidence that the Trump administration is worried and trying to deflect attention away from the ongoing probes into the Trump team’s alleged ties to the Kremlin.
Nunes has become a focal point of such efforts before. Earlier this year, he came under fire for suggesting that the Obama administration had inappropriately unmasked the identities of members of the Trump transition team, and perhaps the president himself. He made those allegations after visiting the White House, leading Democrats to accuse him of coordinating his efforts with the Trump administration. Nunes, now the subject of an ethics inquiry for his actions, subsequently handed over the reins of the committee’s investigation of Russian election meddling to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), but he has not recused himself from the inquiry.
Nunes said Tuesday that he has not spoken with the White House about the uranium matter. But when asked whether he would brief the White House in the future, he would not commit to continuing to steer clear of the
King, appearing with Nunes, insisted that the investigation of the uranium deal was a separate matter entirely from the committee’s ongoing inquiry of Russian election meddling.
“This is totally different from the election issue . . . it has nothing to do with the Russian election,” King said, stressing that his focus, at the time of the deal and now, was primarily driven by concerns about “why 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply was being given to a Russian-owned company.” www.washingtonpost.com I linked the Hill piece a while back. Did you read it? What did you think of the indictments, the Russian state actor involvement, and the administration response? This topic is too tarred by association with a ideologically-associated book and people can't see straight. The Hill dug up some interesting information and the only reaction I've seen (outside of some conservative outlets, congressional committees, and a Trump tweet) is dismiss and ignore it. I've yet to see a breakdown.
Something about the boy who cried wolf.
|
something about the boy who cried wolf? anything about the boy who cried wolf? what thing? let your imagination run wild. either analogy or disanalogy. it doesn't matter.
|
What would happen if all the "RINOs" in the senate flat out flipped parties? I'm talking mainly Murkowski and Collins here.
McCain and Flake are more never trumpers than actual moderates, so I find claims of them as RINO to be dubious.
|
2774 Posts
On October 25 2017 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:24 kollin wrote:On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife. Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something. I think this turns on the distinction between a civil war and a revolution, though we're in murky semantic territory to be sure.
Depends on connotation, that's all. The American Civil War is arguably not the bloodiest or the biggest civil war, rebellion or revolution. There's a handful of conflicts that could (again, arguably) surpass it.
|
On October 25 2017 04:52 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:32 farvacola wrote:On October 25 2017 04:24 kollin wrote:On October 25 2017 04:16 Plansix wrote:On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor. And for the low low price of the largest civil war in human history and two centuries of civil strife. Wasn't the Chinese civil war in the 20th century bigger? I'm just being pedantic but I'm wondering if there's some reason that that's not considered or something. I think this turns on the distinction between a civil war and a revolution, though we're in murky semantic territory to be sure. Depends on connotation, that's all. The American Civil War is arguably not the bloodiest or the biggest civil war, rebellion or revolution. There's a handful of conflicts that could (again, arguably) surpass it.
Well, a civil war has a specific connotation that dates back to the latin bellum civile, or a conflict in which one side claims to represent civil society, but your point with regards to the relative scope of the American Civil War is well taken. The Chinese Civil War definitely had higher casualty rates, for example, and even took place over multiple periods of time.
|
Wouldn't the Taiping Rebellion be counted among those as well and have higher casualty numbers?
Though only counting wars titled as civil wars then the American is ~6:th highest casualty count. After Chinese, Russian, Nigerian, Sudanes and maybe Ethiopian.
|
off the top of my head the taiping rebellion and the anlushan rebellion (which happened during the tang dynasty, and likely resulted in the deaths of 10m+ ie a good few percent of the entire world population) both had stupid high casualty counts.
|
On October 25 2017 05:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
off the top of my head the taiping rebellion and the anlushan rebellion (which happened during the tang dynasty, and likely resulted in the deaths of a good few percent of the entire world population) both had stupid high casualty counts.
You usually don't realise just how many people China have and have had until you end up with half the top ten of worst wars being two factions/dynasties/kingdoms against each other in what is modern China.
Both of those have 20 million +. One being 755–763 which predates the American one by a millennia.
Something that always struck me as strange is how little India features in the worst wars when one considers the huge modern population the region has.
|
On October 25 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2017 04:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
jeff flake is not running for re election. wonder how many other senators are gonna decide that this shit aint worth it. Another RINO bites the dust.
Flake voted 100% Conservative in the Senate and voted with Trump/McConnell every time a vote came up
But Flake wouldn't go along with the daily lies and Kulturkampf, so he is a RINO!
I am glad you are so transparent that you have no ideology and actual voting records don't matter. Kulturkampf was always your underlying value system, and by extension Kulturkampf has always been the true value system of supposed 'conservatives'.
|
On October 25 2017 04:09 chocorush wrote:
Slavery allowed population to be turned into raw production at a much higher level than there would have been had resources been allocated more naturally.
There is a chance that some of those slaves could have been scientists. On average though, most people don't really have the skill to be scientists, and they really would produce more value with more unskilled labor. This is especially more true in the less technologically advanced time periods when a unit of physical human labor was more valuable than technical labor.
This is laughably false. If slavery were so efficient, why didn't the CSA win in a war of industrial production with the non-slaver North? Shouldn't all that super efficient slave production have lead to more efficient production of weaponry and food to support a larger army? The efficiency of slavery was tested, it was found wanting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
