|
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 November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama."
And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit.
|
|
|
On November 20 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama." And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit.
Do you not know anyone who's had a relative killed by an illegal immigrant, or a legal immigrant admitted by an absurd system who rented a truck, who's lost their job because of the federal government's foulups, who's had their city ripped apart by gang violence, who's had their community's health wrecked by opioid abuse, who's been beaten up for wearing a hat, who's had health insurance premiums go up 30% 50% 100% (if your economy grows 1-3% every year and the cost of something is skyrocketing past that, like insurance and tuition, it means sad face)?
We're on the same page at first when it comes to racism until your anecdote gets plotted on the graph of a narrative of the US trending towards Alabama reopening the plantations or something. You can't have a one-party state propped up on the fear of disagreement turning someone somewhere into an asshole. The answer to hysteria is not hysteria.
What deported, is this about illegal immigrants, people who eschew immigration law? I just saw something about rule of law on the last page. If someone was able to live in a country for 30 years without asking I would think of that as a generous gift by itself.
|
On November 20 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama." And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit. Do you not know anyone who's had a relative killed by an illegal immigrant, or a legal immigrant admitted by an absurd system who rented a truck, who's lost their job because of the federal government's foulups, who's had their city ripped apart by gang violence, who's had their community's health wrecked by opioid abuse, who's been beaten up for wearing a hat, who's had health insurance premiums go up 30% 50% 100% (if your economy grows 1-3% every year and the cost of something is skyrocketing past that, like insurance and tuition, it means sad face)? We're on the same page at first when it comes to racism until your anecdote gets plotted on the graph of a narrative of the US trending towards Alabama reopening the plantations or something. You can't have a one-party state propped up on the fear of disagreement turning someone somewhere into an asshole. The answer to hysteria is not hysteria. What deported, is this about illegal immigrants, people who eschew immigration law? I just saw something about rule of law on the last page. If someone was able to live in a country for 30 years without asking I would think of that as a generous gift by itself.
you post everything seems fine.
here you post someting you don't regard being fine.
make up your mind and don't switch opinion based on what or whom you're attacking.
|
On November 19 2017 20:01 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is. No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight. Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP. Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does. ... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that. How does it remain to be seen? The amount of food production and trade that flows through the area isn't replica table anywhere else in the world. Its the crossroads of India China Indonesia Indochina Japan and Korea. Nothing else in the world comes close. The blatics? the Suez or the Hormuz? Nowhere else comes close to the value the SCC has today and will have by any metric in the coming decades. The US has the Military force to force an overwhelming victory in any of these passages. We plant 3 or 4 carrier battle groups and the US decides what exists there and what doesn't. The Hormuz and the Suez isn't going anywhere and can't decline in value if we take them. The suez is Europe's lifeline to Asia and the Hormuz has tons of oil going through it regardless. You think that the oil will be shipped through to the med through Israel or Syria? Or making Kurdistan the most powerful tribal region in the world? God forbid proposing that the oil goes through Iran or Russia. Its easier to harass ships when you arn't at war and won't just blow up anything remotely threatening. Iran could cause problems in Hormuz and there is a large port sitting there but they won't cling to power for long if no food travels in their country anymore. It doesn't matter if its subservient to corporate interests. If the decision is between state owned or controlled foreign corporations and evil don't want to pay taxes US corporations I'm going to pick the US corporations. It doesn't matter any further then that. You're whole shtick is wordy nonsense that says nothing and insists its superior. You didn't address anything I said other then to simply disagree. A dog could have given the exact same argument and the world would have understood them the same. You'd think you'd give some respect to one of the few people who defend you here but I guess we can all see exactly what your game really is. There is a decent chance the Suez channel will decrease in importance as the ice north of Russia keeps melting. So you can take the northern route in many cases. Depends on departure and destination points of course. Skipping the rest of the posts points.
To be honest looking at a map that doesn’t seem generally better than the pre-Suez route of circling Africa. Would probably only come to prominence if someone tried to deny access to a trade route, a commonly accepted act of war by modern international law. The long way around is preferable than a high chance of your ship getting a case of the exploding, after all.
|
On November 20 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 20:01 Yurie wrote:On November 19 2017 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is. No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight. Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP. Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does. ... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that. How does it remain to be seen? The amount of food production and trade that flows through the area isn't replica table anywhere else in the world. Its the crossroads of India China Indonesia Indochina Japan and Korea. Nothing else in the world comes close. The blatics? the Suez or the Hormuz? Nowhere else comes close to the value the SCC has today and will have by any metric in the coming decades. The US has the Military force to force an overwhelming victory in any of these passages. We plant 3 or 4 carrier battle groups and the US decides what exists there and what doesn't. The Hormuz and the Suez isn't going anywhere and can't decline in value if we take them. The suez is Europe's lifeline to Asia and the Hormuz has tons of oil going through it regardless. You think that the oil will be shipped through to the med through Israel or Syria? Or making Kurdistan the most powerful tribal region in the world? God forbid proposing that the oil goes through Iran or Russia. Its easier to harass ships when you arn't at war and won't just blow up anything remotely threatening. Iran could cause problems in Hormuz and there is a large port sitting there but they won't cling to power for long if no food travels in their country anymore. It doesn't matter if its subservient to corporate interests. If the decision is between state owned or controlled foreign corporations and evil don't want to pay taxes US corporations I'm going to pick the US corporations. It doesn't matter any further then that. You're whole shtick is wordy nonsense that says nothing and insists its superior. You didn't address anything I said other then to simply disagree. A dog could have given the exact same argument and the world would have understood them the same. You'd think you'd give some respect to one of the few people who defend you here but I guess we can all see exactly what your game really is. There is a decent chance the Suez channel will decrease in importance as the ice north of Russia keeps melting. So you can take the northern route in many cases. Depends on departure and destination points of course. Skipping the rest of the posts points. To be honest looking at a map that doesn’t seem generally better than the pre-Suez route of circling Africa. Would probably only come to prominence if someone tried to deny access to a trade route, a commonly accepted act of war by modern international law. The long way around is preferable than a high chance of your ship getting a case of the exploding, after all.
are you looking at the right maps?
mercator projection maps don't represent the distances involved well.
|
On November 20 2017 00:42 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:On November 20 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama." And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit. Do you not know anyone who's had a relative killed by an illegal immigrant, or a legal immigrant admitted by an absurd system who rented a truck, who's lost their job because of the federal government's foulups, who's had their city ripped apart by gang violence, who's had their community's health wrecked by opioid abuse, who's been beaten up for wearing a hat, who's had health insurance premiums go up 30% 50% 100% (if your economy grows 1-3% every year and the cost of something is skyrocketing past that, like insurance and tuition, it means sad face)? We're on the same page at first when it comes to racism until your anecdote gets plotted on the graph of a narrative of the US trending towards Alabama reopening the plantations or something. You can't have a one-party state propped up on the fear of disagreement turning someone somewhere into an asshole. The answer to hysteria is not hysteria. What deported, is this about illegal immigrants, people who eschew immigration law? I just saw something about rule of law on the last page. If someone was able to live in a country for 30 years without asking I would think of that as a generous gift by itself. you post everything seems fine. here you post someting you don't regard being fine. make up your mind and don't switch opinion based on what or whom you're attacking.
Meaning the administration is doing fine.
|
On November 20 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama." And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit. Do you not know anyone who's had a relative killed by an illegal immigrant, or a legal immigrant admitted by an absurd system who rented a truck, who's lost their job because of the federal government's foulups, who's had their city ripped apart by gang violence, who's had their community's health wrecked by opioid abuse, who's been beaten up for wearing a hat, who's had health insurance premiums go up 30% 50% 100% (if your economy grows 1-3% every year and the cost of something is skyrocketing past that, like insurance and tuition, it means sad face)? We're on the same page at first when it comes to racism until your anecdote gets plotted on the graph of a narrative of the US trending towards Alabama reopening the plantations or something. You can't have a one-party state propped up on the fear of disagreement turning someone somewhere into an asshole. The answer to hysteria is not hysteria. What deported, is this about illegal immigrants, people who eschew immigration law? I just saw something about rule of law on the last page. If someone was able to live in a country for 30 years without asking I would think of that as a generous gift by itself.
This is all a bunch of cowardly right-wing tit-for-tat justificationism, but at least you've dropped the veneer of attempting to speak as a middle-watcher. Of course people who think as you do believe things to be fine, those illegals are getting what's coming to them and the rule of law is being restored! Wooo, America!
|
Administration doing fine = country doing fine (on the long run).
That's the one job of the government.
|
On November 20 2017 00:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2017 20:01 Yurie wrote:On November 19 2017 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is. No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight. Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP. Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does. ... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that. How does it remain to be seen? The amount of food production and trade that flows through the area isn't replica table anywhere else in the world. Its the crossroads of India China Indonesia Indochina Japan and Korea. Nothing else in the world comes close. The blatics? the Suez or the Hormuz? Nowhere else comes close to the value the SCC has today and will have by any metric in the coming decades. The US has the Military force to force an overwhelming victory in any of these passages. We plant 3 or 4 carrier battle groups and the US decides what exists there and what doesn't. The Hormuz and the Suez isn't going anywhere and can't decline in value if we take them. The suez is Europe's lifeline to Asia and the Hormuz has tons of oil going through it regardless. You think that the oil will be shipped through to the med through Israel or Syria? Or making Kurdistan the most powerful tribal region in the world? God forbid proposing that the oil goes through Iran or Russia. Its easier to harass ships when you arn't at war and won't just blow up anything remotely threatening. Iran could cause problems in Hormuz and there is a large port sitting there but they won't cling to power for long if no food travels in their country anymore. It doesn't matter if its subservient to corporate interests. If the decision is between state owned or controlled foreign corporations and evil don't want to pay taxes US corporations I'm going to pick the US corporations. It doesn't matter any further then that. You're whole shtick is wordy nonsense that says nothing and insists its superior. You didn't address anything I said other then to simply disagree. A dog could have given the exact same argument and the world would have understood them the same. You'd think you'd give some respect to one of the few people who defend you here but I guess we can all see exactly what your game really is. There is a decent chance the Suez channel will decrease in importance as the ice north of Russia keeps melting. So you can take the northern route in many cases. Depends on departure and destination points of course. Skipping the rest of the posts points. To be honest looking at a map that doesn’t seem generally better than the pre-Suez route of circling Africa. Would probably only come to prominence if someone tried to deny access to a trade route, a commonly accepted act of war by modern international law. The long way around is preferable than a high chance of your ship getting a case of the exploding, after all. are you looking at the right maps? mercator projection maps don't represent the distances involved well.
Globe.
|
On November 20 2017 00:55 Artisreal wrote:
Administration doing fine = country doing fine (on the long run).
That's the one job of the government.
Not everything that happens in the country is causally sourced from government edict, and also what they have their hands in changes over time. For example, none of the problems people care about that I cowardly listed came from this administration. There's also others like the national debt. Some of them came from no administration. Some of them came from actions, some of them from inaction. Some things are many people's fault, some things are nobody's fault. Once it's out there in the world it doesn't really matter.
What I do not mean is that the country is perfect. But the sky is not falling - left or right. What I meant by fine, which is one word a page ago that you've nearly mined out, is the administration's impact on things is so far at least as good as you'd expect on average, considering recent history and the alternatives we had. The potential of a president in the US system is exaggerated both by the winner during the campaign and the losers after. It's hard to really estimate.
+ Show Spoiler +To say Trump is doing terribly would be to assess an undue level of competence to career politicians that seems not befitting the cynicism I'd hope from someone of voting age, and certainly not in line with the way I remember anyone talking about their opposition.
|
On November 20 2017 01:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:55 Artisreal wrote:
Administration doing fine = country doing fine (on the long run).
That's the one job of the government. Not everything that happens in the country is causally sourced from government edict, and also what they have their hands in changes over time. For example, none of the problems people care about that I cowardly listed came from this administration. There's also others like the national debt. Some of them came from no administration. Some of them came from actions, some of them from inaction. Some things are many people's fault, some things are nobody's fault. Once it's out there in the world it doesn't really matter. What I do not mean is that the country is perfect. But the sky is not falling - left or right. What I meant by fine, which is one word a page ago that you've nearly mined out, is the administration's impact on things is so far at least as good as you'd expect on average, considering recent history and the alternatives we had. The potential of a president in the US system is exaggerated both by the winner during the campaign and the losers after. It's hard to really estimate. + Show Spoiler +To say Trump is doing terribly would be to assess an undue level of competence to career politicians that seems not befitting the cynicism I'd hope from someone of voting age, and certainly not in line with the way I remember anyone talking about their opposition.
the bolded part is completely unjustified, you haven't provided a case for it. and is also quite clearly false without even needing any further examination of it.
so since what you meant was thta you were asserting something that's blatantly false, anything you derived from that is meaningless (due to the rule of false implies anything). and asserting false things to be true also simply looks bad for you, and means your words have little value.
|
On November 20 2017 00:38 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote:On November 19 2017 23:40 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 23:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:...I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise.
... Since the statements originally made were in terms of risks rather than certainties, observing a single outcome doesn't say much about the validity of the original statement. Therefore, I assume that the " existential problem card" was approximately average-ly "credible". So do you mean about a coin flip? I don't know, 4 years is a "single outcome?" As almost the entirety of Hollywood reminded us last November it can seem like a long time. It's the length of higher education anyway. On November 19 2017 23:19 Scarecrow wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine I'm baffled at how you can look at the last year and think everything's okay. America's international reputation has nosedived, the country is fractured, the government can't pass anything and Trump can't seem to fulfill the basics of office, like appointments or showing empathy. He's friendlier with foreign dictators than traditional allies, is pushing coal power whilst enriching himself through the office and he seems to be under some form of Russian influence. I could go on but it's pretty apparent that everything isn't 'fine'. He just hasn't nuked anyone or attempted a coup yet, and that's a pretty low bar to be setting. It's hard to listen to, in the case of Kim Jong Un he's too mean and Putin he's too nice. The country was already fractured and government dysfunctional, can't scapegoat the system on him, and anyway fractured is good because it means people are involved and at least want to pay better attention and revitalize both parties. To any other extent the fracturing and reputation are things in people's heads. Can't show empathy and presidenting under the influence of Russia, there's nothing to grab onto there, it's just psychoanalysis. Just had a wide tour of Asia. On November 19 2017 23:23 farvacola wrote:
"everything seems fine" is a good way for an individual to signal that they don't know anyone personally affected by Trump and his attendant bullshit. It's also a weak, unverifiable statement that does little aside from cast aspersions towards those who feel otherwise. "Attendant" is smart-aleck way to ascribe responsibility for anything bad that happens on your most convenient enemy. "Trump's America" is just repackaged "Thanks, Obama." And your entire spiel is a smart-aleck way to disclaim any knowledge of folks who have had their relatives unceremoniously deported without any of the process previously afforded them, even after 30+ years of residency. You must also not know any muslim-americans who have only recently been publicly called "sand nigger" and threatened by random people on the street. That's ok, not everyone can experience everything that happens in a big country like the United States, but that's also why your "everything seems fine" quip is a hot load of self-important bullshit. Do you not know anyone who's had a relative killed by an illegal immigrant, or a legal immigrant admitted by an absurd system who rented a truck, who's lost their job because of the federal government's foulups, who's had their city ripped apart by gang violence, who's had their community's health wrecked by opioid abuse, who's been beaten up for wearing a hat, who's had health insurance premiums go up 30% 50% 100% (if your economy grows 1-3% every year and the cost of something is skyrocketing past that, like insurance and tuition, it means sad face)? We're on the same page at first when it comes to racism until your anecdote gets plotted on the graph of a narrative of the US trending towards Alabama reopening the plantations or something. You can't have a one-party state propped up on the fear of disagreement turning someone somewhere into an asshole. The answer to hysteria is not hysteria. What deported, is this about illegal immigrants, people who eschew immigration law? I just saw something about rule of law on the last page. If someone was able to live in a country for 30 years without asking I would think of that as a generous gift by itself.
Most people don't have relatives killed by illegal immigrants - immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than natives.
People have a incorrect assessment that ACA premiums are too high - broadly, those are just what premiums cost for the insurance given. If that's too high for your budget, then you need to find someone to subsidize you (healthy people, employer, government).
Tuition is in a similar boat. States have cut back on subsidies over the decades and pushed the cost onto students.
|
New Orleans just elected there 1st African American women mayor
https://www.yahoo.com/news/latoya-cantrell-become-orleans-1st-female-mayor-041922862.html
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — LaToya Cantrell, a City Council member who first gained a political following as she worked to help her hard-hit neighborhood recover from Hurricane Katrina, won a historic election Saturday that made her the first woman mayor of New Orleans.
The Democrat will succeed term-limited fellow Democrat Mitch Landrieu as the city celebrates its 300th anniversary next year.
"Almost 300 years, my friends. And New Orleans, we're still making history," Cantrell told a cheering crowd in her victory speech.
The leader in most polls before the runoff election, she never trailed as votes were counted.
Her opponent, former municipal Judge Desiree Charbonnet, conceded the race and congratulated Cantrell late Saturday. Later, complete returns showed Cantrell with 60 percent of the vote.
"I do not regret one moment of anything about this campaign," Charbonnet said.
The two women led a field of 18 candidates in an October general election to win runoff spots.
Landrieu earned credit for accelerating the recovery from Hurricane Katrina in an administration cited for reduced blight, improvements in the celebrated tourism economy and economic development that included last week's announcement that a digital services company is bringing 2,000 new jobs to the city.
But Cantrell will face lingering problems. Crime is one. Another is dysfunction at the agency overseeing the city's drinking water system and storm drainage — a problem that became evident during serious flash flooding in August.
Cantrell faced questions about her use of a city credit card. Charbonnet had to fight back against critics who cast her as an insider who would steer city work to cronies.
Katrina was a theme in the backstories of both candidates. Cantrell moved to the city from California. Her work as a neighborhood activist in the aftermath of Katrina in the hard-hit Broadmoor neighborhood helped her win a seat on council in 2012.
Charbonnet, from a well-known political family in New Orleans, was the city's elected recorder of mortgages before she was a judge. In the campaign she made a point of saying hers was the first city office to re-open after Katrina, providing critical property records to the displaced.
Cantrell entered the race as the perceived front-runner, leading in fundraising and in various polls. She had an 11 percentage point lead in a poll released last week by the University of New Orleans. It showed 46 percent of 602 voters surveyed from Nov. 1-8 favored Cantrell over Charbonnet, who had 35 percent; 20 percent were undecided.
Former state civil court Judge Michael Bagneris, who finished third in last month's race, endorsed Cantrell, as did Troy Henry, a businessman who also ran for the post last month.
UNO political science professor Edward Chervenak said the endorsements appeared to help Cantrell overcome revelations that she had used her city-issued credit card for thousands of dollars in purchases without clear indications that they were for public purposes. The money was eventually reimbursed but questions lingered about whether she had improperly used city money for personal or campaign expenditures.
Voters also made history in a New Orleans City Council race.
Cyndi Nguyen defeated incumbent James Gray in an eastern New Orleans district. An immigrant who fled Vietnam with her family when she was 5 in 1975, Nguyen is the organizer of a nonprofit and will be the first Vietnamese-American to serve on the council.
|
|
|
When the world's 2 largest egos collide.
|
Remember: the presidential oath of office is only a promise to protect and serve Americans who like and respect you. It's not like he's the president of the *entire* country or anything like that.
|
Wait, is Trump saying shoplifting is a big deal or that it isn't?
|
On November 20 2017 03:17 Gahlo wrote:When the world's 2 largest egos collide.
Its just like the Taylor Swift Kanye West thing except one of them is the fucking president.
|
On November 20 2017 03:21 LegalLord wrote:
Wait, is Trump saying shoplifting is a big deal or that it isn't?
I think he's saying that Americans who don't respect him deserve to stay in jail, regardless of whether or not they did anything to warrant their jail time in the first place. Respecting him is apparently more important than following laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
