|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 06 2019 04:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:49 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2019 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 06 2019 03:34 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Do I really need to explain why poor people from a third world country in chaos in an arab world that has built up isreal to be the scapegoat of all their problems blame the jews living in said isreal for their problems? Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? I'm not saying that ilhan omar is anti semenic. I'm saying the stain of anti-Semitism is on her from parts of her community being anti semetic. Half the responses to my post the other day were either nebs incoherent ramblings or wildly confusing misunderstandings of my post that I didn't have the patience to clarify every part of at the time. So I guess that gives me the stink of "ignoring the questions" even though we were told to ignore posts we didn't feel the need to respond to. This approach is fine, I guess. I also means that we can freely associate all US Conservatives with the KKK and white supremacists without worrying about painting with a broad brush. A lack of conviction in your beliefs isn't funny. You can't say that painting with a broad brush is unacceptable and unthinkable in one breath and then completely flip yourself the other way in the next because someone confronts you that people associations shape them. It is painting with a broad brush to say that ilhan omar is anti-semetic. But even that analogy implies there's something near here to paint her that way. I would be impressed if you provided even a single scrap of evidence that people from the nation of Somalia have long standing culture prone to anti-Semitism equal to that of, I don't know, Poland or Russia. Like where do they fall on the scale of historically hating Jews? Because I feel that folks would justifiably question a statement about a Polish community being anti-Semitic without any further evidence beyond "well they are Polish and you know those Poles." I make a claim based on relatively recent anti-Isreal propaganda. You ignore said claim and decide I mean that they just hate jews. Then you for some reason bring the poles and Russians in for a "whataboutism" distraction. This is just ignoring my post and substituting what you want my post to be. There isn't anything to connect what you replied to.
Can we have a source for said claim perhaps?
What is this "recent anti-Isreal propaganda", and how does it link to fucking Somalia?
|
I saw a couple of interesting points in a WSJ op-ed today written by Phil Gramm and Michael Solon (behind a paywall). First, there was a comparison of tax policy under Trump and under Obama and, in particular, how the CBO screwed up its projections for both Obama's tax hikes and Trump's tax cuts:
For a midterm report card on the economy under President Trump, take a look at two recent government reports. The Commerce Department reported Thursday that real gross domestic product grew by 3.1% from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018—the largest rise in 13 years. And last month the Congressional Budget Office reported that even if the current surge in economic growth isn’t sustained, the revenue residual from our current strong growth rate will pay for some 80% of the projected cost of the 2017 tax reform. While these reports reflect only the initial impact of the tax cuts and the deregulatory effort, any objective evaluation would give the administration’s economic program high midterm marks.
The tax cuts and the lifting of regulatory burden have produced an economic takeoff that had failed to occur under the policies of the previous administration, despite a doubling of the national debt and the greatest monetary easing in the history of the Federal Reserve. Many respected economists in those years concluded that America suffered from “secular stagnation” and was incapable of strong growth. But today, greater than 3% GDP growth for the first time in 13 years makes it clear that bad policies rather than fate were the cause of the failed recovery. Slowing global growth, a looming trade war and socialist tax and spending proposals by Democrats in Congress all threaten to nip the recovery in the bud, but for now the economic triumph continues.
...
Today changes in economic growth overwhelm the direct effects of policy changes. After President Obama raised income taxes in 2013, expecting to collect an additional $650 billion over 10 years, the CBO had predicted annual growth would average 3.7% through 2016. When the actual growth rate for 2014-16 was 40% lower, the CBO revised its revenue estimate down by $3.1 trillion: 4.7 times the amount the tax increase was supposed to collect. The CBO also cut its growth estimate for 2016 by $524 billion, $6,475 of GDP for every family of four in America.
Conversely, when economic growth in 2018 came in higher than the 2% the CBO had projected in the previous year, the windfall added $4,740 of GDP for every family of four and prompted the CBO to increase federal revenue projection for the next decade by $1.2 trillion.
But perhaps more interesting was this tidbit that I had not seen before:
As the American tax code has become more progressive, the collection of revenues at the federal, state and local levels all are increasingly dependent on strong economic growth. The top 10% of U.S. households earn 33.5% of all income but pay 45.1% of all income-based taxes, including income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. The top 10% of American earners pay 1.35 times their share of income in income taxes. In France, Germany and Sweden—supposed progressive paradises—the top 10% of earners pay just 1.1, 1.07 and 1.01 times their respective shares of national income.
With the most progressive tax code in the developed world, the U.S. government relies increasingly on a small proportion of higher-income families to pay a larger share of taxes. Because the income of the top 10% of earners is tied closely to business profits and capital gains, slow growth now decimates federal revenues.
It's a little unclear what he's calculating precisely, but I think that he's referring to a metric of taxes paid on GDP per capita basis. I'm also presuming that he's factoring in all tax burdens, including sales/VAT taxes, and not just looking at income/capital gains taxes. Regardless, this raises the interesting question of how much more in taxes do rich people really need to pay in this country given their current tax burden relative to the rest of the population. This also lays bear the reality drastically increasing government tax revenue to pay for things like Medicare for all or the Green New Deal is going to have come through broad-based revenue streams that have regressive impacts upon the population.
|
On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:31 nojok wrote:On March 06 2019 01:20 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 01:18 PoulsenB wrote:
USA has a long history of ignoring the atrocities committed by their allies, them turning a blind eye to what Israel is doing in Palestinian territory is not surprising at all. Bastards, but our bastards, eh? Why is it in the American interest to support Palestine at all? What do they do for the US? Your country is spending hundreds of billions every year to do pointless wars in this area of the world, it would certainly help to stop humiliating Palestinians, unless of course you're a big weapon seller which is not the case of the immense majority of Americans. Of course you have a few choosen families which benefit from it, like the Bush family. I'm in favor of reining in American adventurism, as are most Trump supporters. Democrats and neocons (not always two different things) are the ones who are in favor of continuing it. But as for Palestine specifically, the Palestinians will never be friends of America. They are already hostile to our interests and values. There is no reason to give them aid or otherwise support them rather than Israel. This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you. Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this.
It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is.
"There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us."
No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one.
Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you.
Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal.
|
On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Do I really need to explain why poor people from a third world country in chaos in an arab world that has built up isreal to be the scapegoat of all their problems blame the jews living in said isreal for their problems? Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? I'm not saying that ilhan omar is anti semenic. I'm saying the stain of anti-Semitism is on her from parts of her community being anti semetic. Half the responses to my post the other day were either nebs incoherent ramblings or wildly confusing misunderstandings of my post that I didn't have the patience to clarify every part of at the time. So I guess that gives me the stink of "ignoring the questions" even though we were told to ignore posts we didn't feel the need to respond to. Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I want Israel to be taken down a notch, but having someone from Somalia as our party's messenger is absolute madness. The optics are terrible. I don't think being from Somalia makes you racist, but it does make it easy for other people to disregard it as antisemitism I mean sherpa derp when mohdoo understands what I ment and agrees with me without an issue.
You appear to have missed Plansix's point to understand a person based on the person. This appears to be a foreign concept to you, which is why you continue to argue on the notion that to understand a person is based on their race.
|
On March 06 2019 04:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 04:01 Sermokala wrote:On March 06 2019 03:49 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2019 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On March 06 2019 03:34 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Do I really need to explain why poor people from a third world country in chaos in an arab world that has built up isreal to be the scapegoat of all their problems blame the jews living in said isreal for their problems? Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? I'm not saying that ilhan omar is anti semenic. I'm saying the stain of anti-Semitism is on her from parts of her community being anti semetic. Half the responses to my post the other day were either nebs incoherent ramblings or wildly confusing misunderstandings of my post that I didn't have the patience to clarify every part of at the time. So I guess that gives me the stink of "ignoring the questions" even though we were told to ignore posts we didn't feel the need to respond to. This approach is fine, I guess. I also means that we can freely associate all US Conservatives with the KKK and white supremacists without worrying about painting with a broad brush. A lack of conviction in your beliefs isn't funny. You can't say that painting with a broad brush is unacceptable and unthinkable in one breath and then completely flip yourself the other way in the next because someone confronts you that people associations shape them. It is painting with a broad brush to say that ilhan omar is anti-semetic. But even that analogy implies there's something near here to paint her that way. I would be impressed if you provided even a single scrap of evidence that people from the nation of Somalia have long standing culture prone to anti-Semitism equal to that of, I don't know, Poland or Russia. Like where do they fall on the scale of historically hating Jews? Because I feel that folks would justifiably question a statement about a Polish community being anti-Semitic without any further evidence beyond "well they are Polish and you know those Poles." I make a claim based on relatively recent anti-Isreal propaganda. You ignore said claim and decide I mean that they just hate jews. Then you for some reason bring the poles and Russians in for a "whataboutism" distraction. This is just ignoring my post and substituting what you want my post to be. There isn't anything to connect what you replied to. No. I'm demanding, like other are, for you to show your work. Ilhan Omar is from a specific community that has immigrants from Somalia. Does her community have a problem with anti-Semitism? Or do they not like the nation of Israel because of their current actions and forcing Palestinians to live what have become ghettos? Because most of her comments have been focused on the uncomfortable truth that Israel is not the same country we supported even 10 years ago and their actions a number of Americans uncomfortable. And frankly, I'm sort of tired of being quite about it too.
I'm tired of this more than you. Instead of people responding to what I post they decide to purposely misunderstand what I post and then assume the worst about what I might have posted. I don't get to argue or debate anything. Instead the thread gets slogged in the same bullshit "I'm going to assume the worst possible meanings to anything you say and asert thats exactly what you mean while asking why you mean this" games.
This is the worst of it. You assume I mean that they hate jews instead of isreal and then ask me why hating isreal must mean they hate jews. I'm not playing that game.
On March 06 2019 05:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Do I really need to explain why poor people from a third world country in chaos in an arab world that has built up isreal to be the scapegoat of all their problems blame the jews living in said isreal for their problems? Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? I'm not saying that ilhan omar is anti semenic. I'm saying the stain of anti-Semitism is on her from parts of her community being anti semetic. Half the responses to my post the other day were either nebs incoherent ramblings or wildly confusing misunderstandings of my post that I didn't have the patience to clarify every part of at the time. So I guess that gives me the stink of "ignoring the questions" even though we were told to ignore posts we didn't feel the need to respond to. On March 06 2019 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I want Israel to be taken down a notch, but having someone from Somalia as our party's messenger is absolute madness. The optics are terrible. I don't think being from Somalia makes you racist, but it does make it easy for other people to disregard it as antisemitism I mean sherpa derp when mohdoo understands what I ment and agrees with me without an issue. You appear to have missed Plansix's point to understand a person based on the person. This appears to be a foreign concept to you, which is why you continue to argue on the notion that to understand a person is based on their race.
Somali isn't a race. P6 wanted to distract from any argument I made and make it something else. I didn't miss what his point what I just refuse to let people redefine my arguments for their benifit. A persons culture and community is relevent to them.
|
On March 06 2019 05:25 Sermokala wrote:
This is the worst of it. You assume I mean that they hate jews instead of isreal and then ask me why hating isreal must mean they hate jews. I'm not playing that game.
On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people?
On March 06 2019 05:25 Sermokala wrote:
Somali isn't a race. P6 wanted to distract from any argument I made and make it something else. I didn't miss what his point what I just refuse to let people redefine my arguments for their benifit. A persons culture and community is relevent to them. No it is not. Replace his/her country of origin with "Germany". Replace his/her origin as "German". You would still be forming the opinion of someone's opinion based on their race. A persons culture and community irrelevant. In any case her culture and community is American. USA. She is a United States Representative, how can she be otherwise?
|
|
|
There's a lot of Somalis in London. None of them I've met have ever expressed any hatred of Jews; certainly less than the average British person. Other than a bit of good natured ribbing back when Somalian pirates was a thing, if they ever talk politics, they are mostly interested in British politics. Somalia is just a far away country they never been to or left a long time ago. If they are interested in politics, they are mostly interested in British politics. Call that selection bias if you will, as certainly I wouldn't have the opportunity to meet any who likely aren't, but it's certainly a more rooted view than Sermakola's approach of simply guessing a individual's thoughts from their race/country of origin/dog whistle/"culture".
|
On March 06 2019 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 05:25 Sermokala wrote:
This is the worst of it. You assume I mean that they hate jews instead of isreal and then ask me why hating isreal must mean they hate jews. I'm not playing that game.
Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 05 2019 23:03 Plansix wrote:
I too need further explanation why we are supposed to believe that folks from Somalia are predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Is Muslims hating jews really such a foreign concept to people? Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 05:25 Sermokala wrote:
Somali isn't a race. P6 wanted to distract from any argument I made and make it something else. I didn't miss what his point what I just refuse to let people redefine my arguments for their benifit. A persons culture and community is relevent to them. No it is not. Replace his/her country of origin with "Germany". Replace his/her origin as "German". You would still be forming the opinion of someone's opinion based on their race. A persons culture and community irrelevant. In any case her culture and community is American. USA. She is a United States Representative, how can she be otherwise?
My first sentence was that somali isn't a race. Germany isn't a race. German isn't a race. Don't insist I would do things beacuse of peoples race when I say nothing about race.
A persons culture and community is relevant. As much as I would love to hear how homophobic and racist she is because she is American I would like to say that the Somali culture exists in some fashion in the united states. As much as a German swedish polish russian mexican and chinese culture exists in america. Bold words I know.
|
This entire argument is grounded into buying into ethnic stereotypes and then assuming they fuel political motivations. What would go wrong?
|
On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:31 nojok wrote:On March 06 2019 01:20 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why is it in the American interest to support Palestine at all? What do they do for the US? Your country is spending hundreds of billions every year to do pointless wars in this area of the world, it would certainly help to stop humiliating Palestinians, unless of course you're a big weapon seller which is not the case of the immense majority of Americans. Of course you have a few choosen families which benefit from it, like the Bush family. I'm in favor of reining in American adventurism, as are most Trump supporters. Democrats and neocons (not always two different things) are the ones who are in favor of continuing it. But as for Palestine specifically, the Palestinians will never be friends of America. They are already hostile to our interests and values. There is no reason to give them aid or otherwise support them rather than Israel. This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you. Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal.
Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”.
|
On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:31 nojok wrote:
[quote]
Your country is spending hundreds of billions every year to do pointless wars in this area of the world, it would certainly help to stop humiliating Palestinians, unless of course you're a big weapon seller which is not the case of the immense majority of Americans. Of course you have a few choosen families which benefit from it, like the Bush family. I'm in favor of reining in American adventurism, as are most Trump supporters. Democrats and neocons (not always two different things) are the ones who are in favor of continuing it. But as for Palestine specifically, the Palestinians will never be friends of America. They are already hostile to our interests and values. There is no reason to give them aid or otherwise support them rather than Israel. This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you. Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”.
More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest.
|
On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm in favor of reining in American adventurism, as are most Trump supporters. Democrats and neocons (not always two different things) are the ones who are in favor of continuing it. But as for Palestine specifically, the Palestinians will never be friends of America. They are already hostile to our interests and values. There is no reason to give them aid or otherwise support them rather than Israel. This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you. Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest.
Yeah, as if any country could be self sufficient in today's world. If everything crashes and burns around you, where/who are you going to sell/manufacture/buy/harvest your products to/from in order to grow ?
There have to be winners and losers, but be careful they don't lose TOO bad. It's a very fine line to walk.
America alone is not going to work, America against all others neither, only up to a point. The US military is pushing that point further, but again, it can't last forever.
If at some point, the US regime of sanctions is no longer followed, since countries feel they could make do without America contracts, then the US is going to go downhill, very fast. So upholding the world order, being involved in the world (diplomatically, economically, aid to developing countries), anything able to further the US's standing is going to have benefits down the line. It's money well invested. Trump does not get that. The most recent examples are the SK/US joint exercises, or leaving UNESCO (to save Israel's face), etc etc.
|
On March 06 2019 07:30 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you.
Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest. Yeah, as if any country could be self sufficient in today's world. If everything crashes and burns around you, where/who are you going to sell/manufacture/buy/harvest your products to/from in order to grow ? There have to be winners and losers, but be careful they don't lose TOO bad. It's a very fine line to walk. America alone is not going to work, America against all others neither, only up to a point. The US military is pushing that point further, but again, it can't last forever. If at some point, the US regime of sanctions is no longer followed, since countries feel they could make do without America contracts, then the US is going to go downhill, very fast. So upholding the world order, being involved in the world (diplomatically, economically, aid to developing countries), anything able to further the US's standing is going to have benefits down the line. It's money well invested. Trump does not get that. The most recent examples are the SK/US joint exercises, or leaving UNESCO (to save Israel's face), etc etc.
Consider the following: my position as stated above is not only a prescription for America, but also an empirical observation as to how virtually every nation on the planet de facto operates. Understanding this, do you care to amend your post?
|
Also, supporting nations that systematically abuse other groups/people is not in the long term interests of the US. The damage done lasts well beyond the current generation. The sins of our past in the Middle East have come back to haunt us several times already. We cannot predict the future or how our current actions could come back to bite us in the ass.
|
On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I want Israel to be taken down a notch, but having someone from Somalia as our party's messenger is absolute madness. The optics are terrible. I don't think being from Somalia makes you racist, but it does make it easy for other people to disregard it as antisemitism I mean sherpa derp when mohdoo understands what I ment and agrees with me without an issue.
lol what's that supposed to mean. I actually find myself agreeing with you pretty often.
|
On March 06 2019 07:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:30 Nouar wrote:On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest. Yeah, as if any country could be self sufficient in today's world. If everything crashes and burns around you, where/who are you going to sell/manufacture/buy/harvest your products to/from in order to grow ? There have to be winners and losers, but be careful they don't lose TOO bad. It's a very fine line to walk. America alone is not going to work, America against all others neither, only up to a point. The US military is pushing that point further, but again, it can't last forever. If at some point, the US regime of sanctions is no longer followed, since countries feel they could make do without America contracts, then the US is going to go downhill, very fast. So upholding the world order, being involved in the world (diplomatically, economically, aid to developing countries), anything able to further the US's standing is going to have benefits down the line. It's money well invested. Trump does not get that. The most recent examples are the SK/US joint exercises, or leaving UNESCO (to save Israel's face), etc etc. Consider the following: my position as stated above is not only a prescription for America, but also an empirical observation as to how virtually every nation on the planet de facto operates. Understanding this, do you care to amend your post?
No, all nations don't operate like that, at least openly. There is at least a facade of cooperation, and most countries try to improve while not necessarily dumping the others in the gutter. So you could amend your statement by removing the "amoral" bit.
Do I care to amend mine ? No I don't, as to my mind, that's how you go back to the era of countless open wars and bloodshed we had in the past centuries. So while when I turn on my analytical, scientific mind, I don't believe there is a clean exit from the way the world is going (overpopulation, destroying earth as we know it, 6th mass extinction etc) save from a massive war shaving a good chunk of humanity (just look at what 70years of peace brought : everybody already forgot everything and is starting the hate train again...), I still find as a human, that we should try not to be selfish assholes only interested in our own country's interest, at the expense of everyone else. That's how invasive critters (that the earth should consider we are if it had a mind) behave.
|
On March 06 2019 08:02 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:30 Nouar wrote:On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:
[quote]
I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest. Yeah, as if any country could be self sufficient in today's world. If everything crashes and burns around you, where/who are you going to sell/manufacture/buy/harvest your products to/from in order to grow ? There have to be winners and losers, but be careful they don't lose TOO bad. It's a very fine line to walk. America alone is not going to work, America against all others neither, only up to a point. The US military is pushing that point further, but again, it can't last forever. If at some point, the US regime of sanctions is no longer followed, since countries feel they could make do without America contracts, then the US is going to go downhill, very fast. So upholding the world order, being involved in the world (diplomatically, economically, aid to developing countries), anything able to further the US's standing is going to have benefits down the line. It's money well invested. Trump does not get that. The most recent examples are the SK/US joint exercises, or leaving UNESCO (to save Israel's face), etc etc. Consider the following: my position as stated above is not only a prescription for America, but also an empirical observation as to how virtually every nation on the planet de facto operates. Understanding this, do you care to amend your post? No, all nations don't operate like that, at least openly. There is at least a facade of cooperation, and most countries try to improve while not necessarily dumping the others in the gutter. So you could amend your statement by removing the "amoral" bit.
I like your hedging. Have you considered the possibility that this "facade of cooperation" exists for self-interested reasons?
And no, I'm not removing the "amoral" bit. No nation acts purely on charity. Every nation that has acted in a meaningful way on the global stage has and continues to do things that are "bad" morally (ironically, the US is by far the most benevolent superpower that has existed on the global stage), whether it be outright military intervention or unfair trade deals. Regardless of stated intentions, nations clearly are operating without regards to morality when it comes to their own national self-interest. Hence, the "amoral" adjective is useful and accurate.
Do I care to amend mine ? No I don't, as to my mind, that's how you go back to the era of countless open wars and bloodshed we had in the past centuries. So while when I turn on my analytical, scientific mind, I don't believe there is a clean exit from the way the world is going (overpopulation, destroying earth as we know it, 6th mass extinction etc) save from a massive war shaving a good chunk of humanity (just look at what 70years of peace brought : everybody already forgot everything and is starting the hate train again...), I still find as a human, that we should try not to be selfish assholes only interested in our own country's interest, at the expense of everyone else. That's how invasive critters (that the earth should consider we are if it had a mind) behave.
While this kind of idealism is admirable, it must be combined with some pragmatism to actually see it realized. For example, why gut the West economically in pursuit of green policies when China, India, and developing nations are the largest polluters who simply will not abide by whatever pact that the West enters into? What happens after the West commits economic suicide, and the third world becomes ascendant and more influential on the world stage?
|
On March 06 2019 07:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 03:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 06 2019 00:49 Mohdoo wrote:
I want Israel to be taken down a notch, but having someone from Somalia as our party's messenger is absolute madness. The optics are terrible. I don't think being from Somalia makes you racist, but it does make it easy for other people to disregard it as antisemitism I mean sherpa derp when mohdoo understands what I ment and agrees with me without an issue. lol what's that supposed to mean. I actually find myself agreeing with you pretty often.
Sherpa derp is....odd. Is this a proper sherpa that helps you up the mountian? And does that mean its a stupid sherpa?
|
United States24579 Posts
On March 06 2019 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2019 07:03 Ryzel wrote:On March 06 2019 05:02 Simberto wrote:On March 06 2019 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 03:09 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:50 IyMoon wrote:On March 06 2019 02:45 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2019 02:44 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2019 02:39 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'm in favor of reining in American adventurism, as are most Trump supporters. Democrats and neocons (not always two different things) are the ones who are in favor of continuing it. But as for Palestine specifically, the Palestinians will never be friends of America. They are already hostile to our interests and values. There is no reason to give them aid or otherwise support them rather than Israel. This is quite some revisionist history. If you hadn't treated them like trash for the last 20 years and been all buddy buddy with Bibi, they might not hate you. Although I do agree with you that given that you're the bully that keeps punching them in the face and stealing their lunch money, even if you stop punching them, they won't suddenly like you. So might as well go on punching. Amirite? I find it hilarious that you think that my post is "revisionist history" when there's no history in it at all. In fact, every sentence is in present or future tense. I think he is pointing out how you left out WHY Palestine might not like the US, as it is just born in them and not something we contributed too Yes, curious that I left the “why” out. Why might that be? Could it possibly be because that I find it irrelevant to then forward-looking point that I made? Regardless, accusing me of “revisionist history” when there is no history is yet another example of why I rag on most posters in the thread for failing to read my posts and opting instead to relentlessly strawman me. We already have two good examples of this today, and it is not even noon yet where I am. Why do you think the cause of strife is irreverent? The first way to mend a broken relationship is to figure out what broke it in the first place. That and having will to fix it American treatment of the Palestinians fundamentally doesn't matter to my forward-looking prescription because the Palestinians and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis, will not accept peaceful coexistence. This means we have to choose a side. Throw in Palestinian incompatibility with and rejection of Western values as well as the deep-rooted hatred that Palestinians now have for Americans (regardless of whether it's deserved), and it becomes apparent that the only rational position for the US to take is to support Israel. Also, probably a less dickish way to get your point across As usual, I didn't throw the first punch. Feel free to call out the offending parties who started this. It is amazing that you cannot see just how scary this is. "There are two groups of people, one of which likes us, which are in a conflict. We should support the ones who like us in utterly eradicating their enemies, who do not like us." No ethics, no morals, no attempt at actually bettering the situation. Just pure psychopathic pragmatism. And not even well thought-out one. Because even if you are utterly pragmatic and do not care about ethics at all, it still sounds like a bad move to make a group of completely desperate people and everyone who likes them completely hate you. At some point in the future, some of them might have some power over you, or a way to influence you. Your logic only works if you are always on top. You use the logic of an abusive empire. And no empire is eternal. Just to save you some trouble, xDaunt’s elaborated on his foreign policy views in the other thread, and (please correct me if I’m wrong) can be neatly summed up with the phrase “America First”. More generally, nations should act in their own amoral rational self-interest.
Does this advice apply to individuals as well, or only nations? I ask because if your claim is that people, too, should act in their own amoral rational self-interest, then it's pretty easy to just simply say we'll agree to disagree and move on... no amount of discussion on that topic would change anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
