|
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 January 12 2018 22:48 farvacola wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, this notion that you can accurately describe the US via broad metrics or generalizations entirely mistakes the extremely different-among-itself nature of this country. Louisiana, to pick one among a variety of "bad places here in the US," can easily compete with some of the worst nations in the world in terms of healthcare, law and order, and even basic sanitation. And it's not alone. So yeah, Mr. California on his high horse complete with "if it's so bad, go to Burundi" spiel entirely misses the point. There are millions of Americans who live in conditions that absolutely justify statements of national shame, and sentiments that amount to "well there are some awesome places in the US too, don't complain that way" are tone-deaf.
Louisiana isn’t bad enough to compete with some of the worst countries. You have to put heavy qualifications on what you mean by the worst countries to even get close to a sane opinion.
|
On January 13 2018 00:29 Introvert wrote:Trump said something he shouldn't have, but criticizing him isn't enough, you must throw out your reason too. Trump denied saying that about Haiti, which seems true*. Meanwhile we have all these high horse media outlets who feel like they MUST use the exact word even though it was something he said in a private conversation, as if a potty mouth president is new. No sense, all drama. * + Show Spoiler +
So Trump merely said something he shouldn't have, he used a potty mouth in a private conversation. Let's ignore that he was discussing the nation's policy, and expressing viewpoints that cause him to take a certain position. Another time it was reported that Trump said everyone from Haiti "has AIDs" and people from Nigeria live "in huts." These are his views on foreign countries (and their people), and that's more significant than it being mere potty mouth in a private conversation. So you can't really just deflect attention to the media as an oblique expression of support for Trump. It's not credible.
|
On January 13 2018 00:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 22:48 farvacola wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, this notion that you can accurately describe the US via broad metrics or generalizations entirely mistakes the extremely different-among-itself nature of this country. Louisiana, to pick one among a variety of "bad places here in the US," can easily compete with some of the worst nations in the world in terms of healthcare, law and order, and even basic sanitation. And it's not alone. So yeah, Mr. California on his high horse complete with "if it's so bad, go to Burundi" spiel entirely misses the point. There are millions of Americans who live in conditions that absolutely justify statements of national shame, and sentiments that amount to "well there are some awesome places in the US too, don't complain that way" are tone-deaf. Louisiana isn’t bad enough to compete with some of the worst countries. You have to put heavy qualifications on what you mean by the worst countries to even get close to a sane opinion.
Who cares? If people in Louisiana can’t get quality healthcare, education and services when compared to other Americans, what does it matter?
|
On January 13 2018 00:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2018 22:48 farvacola wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, this notion that you can accurately describe the US via broad metrics or generalizations entirely mistakes the extremely different-among-itself nature of this country. Louisiana, to pick one among a variety of "bad places here in the US," can easily compete with some of the worst nations in the world in terms of healthcare, law and order, and even basic sanitation. And it's not alone. So yeah, Mr. California on his high horse complete with "if it's so bad, go to Burundi" spiel entirely misses the point. There are millions of Americans who live in conditions that absolutely justify statements of national shame, and sentiments that amount to "well there are some awesome places in the US too, don't complain that way" are tone-deaf. Louisiana isn’t bad enough to compete with some of the worst countries. You have to put heavy qualifications on what you mean by the worst countries to even get close to a sane opinion.
I actually heard from an insider in the White house that Trump was going to expel Louisiana from the United States, and then stop any and all immigration from that area, as it is a 'shit hole'.
|
I think military presence is highly overrated nowadays and I think the economic reliance might have actually taken over in terms of relevance. Interfering with another country, provoking global conflict will completely fuck global economy.
Also, the technological advance could be allocated much better though. I mean, we already have rudimentary fusion technology, if 250 billion was spent on energy infrastructure, technology and innovation they'd probably be the first country colonizing Mars by now (hyperbolic).
On January 13 2018 00:43 bo1b wrote:
The military budget is closing in on $600 billion, it is responsible for the employment of just shy of 4 million Americans. Gut instinct tells me that it wouldn't be great for the world if it stopped spending tomorrow.
This is completely ignoring the massive changes the world would go through, just the economic changes.
You allocate the 300 billion towards other things. You surely must think that this can generate at least a compensatory amount of jobs, no?
|
On January 13 2018 00:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:29 Ghostcom wrote:On January 13 2018 00:13 Plansix wrote:On January 13 2018 00:10 oBlade wrote:On January 12 2018 07:59 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone finally said it.
We are the shithole country. Finally? Someone finally said it? There weren't people constantly talking about rebuilding infrastructure, jobs, stopping people from dying in the streets, staying out of pointless wars? Even just one person talking about all of them, except student loan debt which is an actual first world problem, like it's something that only happens to people who can go to universities and more Bernie's signature I guess. Anyway, it's perplexing to see such a compartmental view of the world, I wonder if StealthBlue has been paying attention the past few years. On January 12 2018 23:57 brian wrote:
can’t wait to be lectured again about how trump isn’t a racist and it’s the liberals fault we’re here. yawn. We want to help the poor and underprivileged of the world but their countries are already fantastic? no, they're not good places to be which is why people all over the world want to go to the US even illegally. This is the whole point. This isn’t about illegal immigration. Trump was saying he didn’t want people from those countries to legally immigrate to the US. Also you should read up on immigrants from those “shithole” nations, they do very well in the US. There is no real data to support not taking that I have seen. Out of curiosity: As I understand your statement you are merely stating that legal African immigrants do better than the average American citizen right? Do you happen to know if those legal African immigrants do better than legal Norwegian immigrants? I am not sure if such data is available in the US and was hoping you could point me in the right direction. It would be interesting to compare such data with the Danish data. My understanding of the data is that legal immigrants all do reasonably well in the US and on average have a slightly higher than standard of living than most Americans. I don’t know if we compare achievement based on nation of origin, but it does not seem to be a huge factor if someone can obtain legal status. But that creating a system based on nation of origin would really run counter to our national identity, since we are a nation of immigrants. We only limit immigration based on nation of origin for security reasons. I can’t find the studies with a quick google search, because immigration is a pretty saturated topic on the internet. I would link them if I could get them quickly.
I remember seeing some data on this on Marginal Revolution. Here you go:
"In 2009, 41.7 percent of African-born adults age 25 and older had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 28.1 percent of native-born adults and 26.8 percent of all foreign-born adults. Of these, 25 percent of Africans reported a bachelor's degree as their highest credential, compared to 17.9 percent of the native born and 15.8 percent of immigrants, and 16.7 percent of Africans reported having a higher degree than a bachelor's, compared to 10.2 percent of the native born and 11.0 percent of immigrants."
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/african-immigrants-united-states/
Despite that, "In 2009, a greater share of African immigrants lived in a household with an annual income below the federal poverty line (18.5 percent) than the native born (13.6 percent) and immigrants overall (17.3 percent).".
I don't find data about median incomes.
|
Louisiana was the setting for the first season of True Detective, I for one think that absolves them of any flaws.
|
On January 13 2018 00:50 Uldridge wrote:
I think military presence is highly overrated nowadays and I think the economic reliance might have actually taken over in terms of relevance. Interfering with another country, provoking global conflict will completely fuck global economy.
Also, the technological advance could be allocated much better though. I mean, we already have rudimentary fusion technology, if 250 billion was spent on energy infrastructure, technology and innovation they'd probably be the first country colonizing Mars by now (hyperbolic).
Should probably ask what the Crimeans think of military presence and if they'd have wanted some U.S troops there or not.
It is easy to overlook the benefits of Pax Americana though, I'll give you that.
|
On January 13 2018 00:50 Uldridge wrote:I think military presence is highly overrated nowadays and I think the economic reliance might have actually taken over in terms of relevance. Interfering with another country, provoking global conflict will completely fuck global economy. Also, the technological advance could be allocated much better though. I mean, we already have rudimentary fusion technology, if 250 billion was spent on energy infrastructure, technology and innovation they'd probably be the first country colonizing Mars by now (hyperbolic). Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:43 bo1b wrote:
The military budget is closing in on $600 billion, it is responsible for the employment of just shy of 4 million Americans. Gut instinct tells me that it wouldn't be great for the world if it stopped spending tomorrow.
This is completely ignoring the massive changes the world would go through, just the economic changes. You allocate the 300 billion towards other things. You surely must think that this can generate at least a compensatory amount of jobs, no?
Economic ties preventing wars works if all sides are ok with it (see Europe). It doesn't work when one side doesn't care much about the suffering of its people. See NK or Russia.
|
On January 13 2018 00:48 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:29 Introvert wrote:Trump said something he shouldn't have, but criticizing him isn't enough, you must throw out your reason too. Trump denied saying that about Haiti, which seems true*. Meanwhile we have all these high horse media outlets who feel like they MUST use the exact word even though it was something he said in a private conversation, as if a potty mouth president is new. No sense, all drama. * + Show Spoiler + So Trump merely said something he shouldn't have, he used a potty mouth in a private conversation. Let's ignore that he was discussing the nation's policy, and expressing viewpoints that cause him to take a certain position. Another time it was reported that Trump said everyone from Haiti "has AIDs" and people from Nigeria live "in huts." These are his views on foreign countries (and their people), and that's more significant than it being mere potty mouth in a private conversation. So you can't really just deflect attention to the media as an oblique expression of support for Trump. It's not credible.
I think his opponents have managed to take something uncouth and prob wrong (I think I'd prefer more African migrants to Norweigean ones all else being equal) and still overdo it, which is their super power.
|
On the other hand, Duck Dynasty.
Louisiana is an interesting state (as someone who lived there for over a decade). I love it, but I doubt I'd ever move back.
|
On January 13 2018 00:43 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:34 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 00:13 bo1b wrote:
Yeh I wonder what the consequences of that would be. Let's just cut military spending by 90% and see how it goes. It wouldn't cause catastrophic geopolitical consequences or tank the world economy or anything like that it certainly wouldn't tank the world economy; it'd be a net economic benefit most likely. there would be considerable geopolitical consequences, 90% might be a bit much; but 50% cut would be fine. The military budget is closing in on $600 billion, it is responsible for the employment of just shy of 4 million Americans. Gut instinct tells me that it wouldn't be great for the world if it stopped spending tomorrow. This is completely ignoring the massive changes the world would go through, just the economic changes.
welfare spending is welfare spending. throwing money at people to give htem makework jobs is no different be it military or otherwise.
and the $600 billion has to come from somewhere; it's not just magic money, it's money not being spent on other, better things.
it's not productive economic activity, so it's loss wouldn't be problematic to the economy as a whole. there would obviously be some short term adjustments for some individuals.
|
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better?
|
Yes, I understand. And the US also keeps China from invading South Korea.
Russia is just a country that still hasn't gotten the memo that its pan-slavistic tendencies are outdated.
I mean, maybe instead of everyone being passive aggressive all the time, one should finally be frank and ask one of the powerhouses what the fuck they actually want to do with this globe and with the influence they're exerting.
On January 13 2018 00:55 Gorsameth wrote:
Economic ties preventing wars works if all sides are ok with it (see Europe). It doesn't work when one side doesn't care much about the suffering of its people. See NK or Russia.
So now that we all have become civilized people we can't stand for atrocities any longer? If Russia exploits/exhausts its population into certain doom, they'll ultimately not stand for it. I actually wonder what'll happen once Putin dies. Also, I hope China and Europe become very good buddies so that the US - China relations can finally warm up a little bit and Korea can become whole again without outside influence. I think it's about time the stand offs without much accomplishing much are over. It's childish.
|
On January 13 2018 01:01 Uldridge wrote:
Yes, I understand. And the US also keeps China from invading South Korea.
Russia is just a country that still hasn't gotten the memo that its pan-slavistic tendencies are outdated.
I mean, maybe instead of everyone being passive aggressive all the time, one should finally be frank and ask one of the powerhouses what the fuck they actually want to do with this globe and with the influence they're exerting.
The answer is that they don’t really know, but the concept of leaving it up to someone else is really unappealing.
|
United States43534 Posts
If the US wasn't serving as a global peacekeeping force then we'd simply see nukes everywhere because they act as a force equalizer. Now you'd think logically that with nukes everywhere people would walk on eggshells and be a whole lot more respectful and cautious with each other but from what we know of the Cold War, that's not true. We made it through the Cold War largely by accident, the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't turn hot by mistake, not by design. Humans are really shitty at risk management.
It probably wouldn't be global nuclear annihilation, we'd probably just see some shit like Russia annexing Crimea, Ukraine nuking Moscow, and Russia glassing Ukraine, but still, not really ideal.
|
I don't think there's much passivity in Putin's desires for a returned Soviet Union.
In fact, I'm reasonably sure you believe that Russia interfered with the U.S election right, given that what on earth makes you think Belgium would not eventually become part of greater Russia?
|
On January 12 2018 22:58 Plansix wrote:
The recent Trump comments about shithole countries really undercuts that push for “merit based” immigration.
This is the right approach. It demeans the individual by group identity (nationality). Besides that, it’s a coarse and dismissive thing to say by a President.
|
On January 13 2018 00:59 bo1b wrote:
Just to be clear, are you advocating that both the spending on military during peace time is welfare, and that a massive reduction in welfare would be better?
it's not exactly welfare, but it's not necessarily dissimilar (though it's not well-aimed as a welfare program, other programs do a far better job of being welfare programs). It's not economically productive activity, so it's loss would not result in horrible economic consequences; not sure it should even effect gdp at all.
it's not a very good welfare program, so if the only point of it is welfare spending it'd be FAR better spent in other ways, or simply not spent at all to reduce debt.
remember - this is ultimately all from me disputing your claim of disastrous economic consequences from cutting US military spending.
|
And apparently Trump is now being petty with our closest ally. One does not cancel a visit with the queen over a real estate deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
