|
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 June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially.
You basically just said a whole lot of nothing. "I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office" Yes, that is what an approval rating is. We're discussing why people are approving of him, not what the definition is.
|
On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially.
The tax cuts are only an indirect cause of deaths, in that they are used to justify cuts to social programs which do actually keep people alive.
The deaths from decisions related to global warming tend be substantially offset from when those decisions were made. It will be Millenials' children and grandchildren that see a lower life expectancy from pulling out of the Paris accords.
As for the net neutrality, do you have any idea how much of the increased suicide rate is because people couldn't deal with their videos taking longer to download or buffering more frequently? (This is a joke. I'm pretty sure the net neutrality changes only really took effect last week, we haven't had time for millions of deaths yet. Also, this joke was in bad taste, but not nearly as in bad taste as putting net neutrality next to the tax cuts and Paris accords as though they are comparable in scale or impact.)
Also, where did you get the idea that Americans approve of how Trump's been doing, generally or otherwise, when job approval polls have had an outright majority disapproving of the job he's been doing since he took office?
|
On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially.
Having a few layers of removal between one of Trump's shitty policies and someone's death doesn't mean it didn't play its part. Honestly, this is just hilarious. If you're gonna support this buffoon and his policies, at least own up to supporting their consequences.
|
On June 18 2018 07:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. Having a few layers of removal between one of Trump's shitty policies and someone's death doesn't mean it didn't play its part. Honestly, this is just hilarious. If you're gonna support this buffoon and his policies, at least own up to supporting their consequences.
The same logic is applicable to literally any policy the US federal government adopts? "Iran obtained funds from the JPCOA sanctions relief and stepped up its proxy wars in Yemen and Syria. Obama and his voters are therefore murders and should own that."
The reason these arguments aren't typically brought up is because they're horrible arguments. Any policy the US federal government adopts is probably going to result in some deaths and some lives saved. Estimating the amount of either after several layers of removal is basically impossible and consequently highly uncertain (not least of which because the policy is one of hundreds/thousands of factors that each have a small effect on "one's death"). Moreover, measuring policy solely on "number of deaths" (if it were even possible) is an idiotic way of assessing policy because it neglects the "number of people saved" side of the equation. And, probably most baffling of all, God help me understand why we've somehow reduced policy analysis into a simplistic count of lives saved and lives ended anyway. As if all existence is somehow equal as long as one is "not dead."
In my honest opinion, there's so many dimensions of retardation in this line of discussion it should be immediately obvious to anyone reading (or considering it) and I'm thankful the mods actioned it last time. It's a cancer to the thread. If you're truly interested in a critique of Trump's healthcare policies (rather than making tribal warcries), there are much more convincing lines of attack.
|
Nowhere did I say that if you voted for them, you necessarily support everything they do. What I am saying is that when you scoff as Danglars does, and scornfully go "despite all these deaths people keep talking about", you very clearly don't get that those are very real consequences of your leader's policy decisions. And if you're willing to argue without even understanding that, I have the right to say that you don't know what you're talking about, and that I'm not taking you seriously. It's not about whether you support a leader that has a perfect record, it's about whether you can even accept the reality that not everything they do is a positive in all ways.
|
On June 18 2018 06:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. You basically just said a whole lot of nothing. "I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office" Yes, that is what an approval rating is. We're discussing why people are approving of him, not what the definition is.
You slid too close to justification after the fact. "People are dumb enough to think" and "this is because of propaganda" "conspiracy theories" "unbelievably easy to manipulate." Presumably, had public polling dropped precipitously, suddenly all these things aren't true, and Americans aren't so dumb after all! I called attention to how your argument can be turned on it's head. If Trump's steady 40s approval rating through this stretch are an indictment of Americans, Obama's higher approval ratings are even more a reflection of your dumb Americans premise!
On June 18 2018 06:40 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. The tax cuts are only an indirect cause of deaths, in that they are used to justify cuts to social programs which do actually keep people alive. The deaths from decisions related to global warming tend be substantially offset from when those decisions were made. It will be Millenials' children and grandchildren that see a lower life expectancy from pulling out of the Paris accords. As for the net neutrality, do you have any idea how much of the increased suicide rate is because people couldn't deal with their videos taking longer to download or buffering more frequently? (This is a joke. I'm pretty sure the net neutrality changes only really took effect last week, we haven't had time for millions of deaths yet. Also, this joke was in bad taste, but not nearly as in bad taste as putting net neutrality next to the tax cuts and Paris accords as though they are comparable in scale or impact.) Also, where did you get the idea that Americans approve of how Trump's been doing, generally or otherwise, when job approval polls have had an outright majority disapproving of the job he's been doing since he took office?
He explained the lack of a heavy drop to be an indictment of Americans.
On June 18 2018 07:13 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. Having a few layers of removal between one of Trump's shitty policies and someone's death doesn't mean it didn't play its part. Honestly, this is just hilarious. If you're gonna support this buffoon and his policies, at least own up to supporting their consequences.
Ok. Let me know when you accept the part Obama played in millions of deaths at home and overseas. I will ridicule anybody that wants to draw out abstract death tolls from opportunity cost or flawed metrics. Mozoku brought up the excellent point and all of your responses failed to assign Obama any murders from JCPOA. Well? Do you only apply the "played a part" in death if the leader is Republican?
|
On June 18 2018 10:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:39 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. You basically just said a whole lot of nothing. "I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office" Yes, that is what an approval rating is. We're discussing why people are approving of him, not what the definition is. You slid too close to justification after the fact. "People are dumb enough to think" and "this is because of propaganda" "conspiracy theories" "unbelievably easy to manipulate." Presumably, had public polling dropped precipitously, suddenly all these things aren't true, and Americans aren't so dumb after all! I called attention to how your argument can be turned on it's head. If Trump's steady 40s approval rating through this stretch are an indictment of Americans, Obama's higher approval ratings are even more a reflection of your dumb Americans premise! Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 06:40 Kyadytim wrote:On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. The tax cuts are only an indirect cause of deaths, in that they are used to justify cuts to social programs which do actually keep people alive. The deaths from decisions related to global warming tend be substantially offset from when those decisions were made. It will be Millenials' children and grandchildren that see a lower life expectancy from pulling out of the Paris accords. As for the net neutrality, do you have any idea how much of the increased suicide rate is because people couldn't deal with their videos taking longer to download or buffering more frequently? (This is a joke. I'm pretty sure the net neutrality changes only really took effect last week, we haven't had time for millions of deaths yet. Also, this joke was in bad taste, but not nearly as in bad taste as putting net neutrality next to the tax cuts and Paris accords as though they are comparable in scale or impact.) Also, where did you get the idea that Americans approve of how Trump's been doing, generally or otherwise, when job approval polls have had an outright majority disapproving of the job he's been doing since he took office? He explained the lack of a heavy drop to be an indictment of Americans. Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 07:13 NewSunshine wrote:On June 18 2018 06:19 Danglars wrote:On June 18 2018 04:05 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:37 sc-darkness wrote:On June 18 2018 01:35 Excludos wrote:On June 18 2018 01:21 sc-darkness wrote:
Is there a poll or incoming one about Trump's approval rating after tariffs on the EU, G7 and trade war with China? Are people protesting? If not, when will they have enough of him? I just don't understand. According to Gallup his approval rating is increasing. Up to 42% now (Has been as low as 35%). It's not much to understand. People are dumb enough to think "he's just being tough", not understanding a lick of economy, international relationship, or even just basic math or logical deduction. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you could make money by just bullying other countries with no repercussion, everyone would be doing it. If this is true, then it's really sad. I thought his low rating will be even lower... I guess 2.5 more years or whatever it is. There's a very good chance that this is because fox news propaganda and the "fake news" stories are starting to work. There was a pool showing that increasingly many people are getting sceptical to the Mueller investigation and wants to shut it down..despite the fact that he's gotten several guilty pleas and indictments! (Which, as it turns out, most people don't even know about). Trump is just yelling "Witch hunt" over and over, while Fox does their damnest to push conspiracy theories, and it's working. People are, if nothing else, unbelievably easy to manipulate. And Obama’s high approval ratings were due to “propaganda” and “people se unbelievably easy to manipulate.” I tend to think Americans are complacent or approve of (generally) how Trumps been doing in office. This is all despite the millions of deaths from tax cuts, Paris accords, and net neutrality. It might change when the next round of tariff counter-tariff starts and prices rise substantially. Having a few layers of removal between one of Trump's shitty policies and someone's death doesn't mean it didn't play its part. Honestly, this is just hilarious. If you're gonna support this buffoon and his policies, at least own up to supporting their consequences. Ok. Let me know when you accept the part Obama played in millions of deaths at home and overseas. I will ridicule anybody that wants to draw out abstract death tolls from opportunity cost or flawed metrics. Mozoku brought up the excellent point and all of your responses failed to assign Obama any murders from JCPOA. Well? Do you only apply the "played a part" in death if the leader is Republican?
Not at all dude. Take your partisan blinders off, and stop trying to put them on me. If you want to make this about Obama, then I'd say I don't support that either. As a leader in general, I support a lot of what he did, but that doesn't mean I give every decision of his a pass, particularly ones that resulted in deaths like that. I know he wasn't perfect. But this isn't about what I think of a leader who finished his term 2 years ago, this is about the way you treat people who criticize the impact of your president's decisions. The damage he's causing doesn't become okay just because he's a Republican.
|
Paul Krugman and the Romans:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/opinion/what-did-the-romans-ever-do-for-us.html?mabReward=ACBMG2&recid=16AYFzPXHMmY72WKxxhYmk3406H&recp=0&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine
How did they manage that? The secret, as I read the new literature, is that Rome actually exerted a lot of soft power. Local elites were offered a good life, with attractive Roman values – Amphitheaters! Bathhouses! Wine! Stuffed dormice! — and the imperial system was open enough that especially able and ambitious provincials could aspire to move to the center of things. And that thriving, interdependent economy rewarded those who adopted Roman values and assimilated with the Roman system.
Or to put it another way, Rome did so well for so long by not being too greedy, by limiting short-sighted exploitation of its power in favor of long-term system-building.
…
Still, our sort-of empire, like Rome’s, has been held together mainly by soft power rather than violence. Even when America was an overwhelmingly dominant economic and military power, it generally exercised restraint, getting its allies to buy in to our system rather than resorting to raw compulsion.
And it worked really well. Not perfectly, of course, but we gave the world – and ourselves – an era that was incredibly benign compared with the modern Thirty Years War that came before.
But now a barbarian invasion seems likely to tear it all down.
He seems to be on the Dauntless side of the Western (political) culture argument, saying we need strong institutions held together by a common culture. Of course then he slams Trump for being a barbarian, but what do you expect?
|
United States42009 Posts
Any scholar of ancient history would happily remind Krugman that for much of Europe Roman conquest meant genocide. Gaul wasn't Romanized by Caesar, it was simply depopulated and then settled, much like the American west.
|
On June 18 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:
Any scholar of ancient history would happily remind Krugman that for much of Europe Roman conquest meant genocide. Gaul wasn't Romanized by Caesar, it was simply depopulated and then settled, much like the American west.
It is an extremely effective way to have a unified culture. You just need to not ascribe to the theory that all human life has value and then you are off to the races.
|
On June 18 2018 10:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:
Any scholar of ancient history would happily remind Krugman that for much of Europe Roman conquest meant genocide. Gaul wasn't Romanized by Caesar, it was simply depopulated and then settled, much like the American west. It is an extremely effective way to have a unified culture. You just need to not ascribe to the theory that all human life has value and then you are off to the races.
Or, you could subscribe to the theory that future human life has near infinite value, by virtue of its very very lengthy potential duration and scope, and that we should do everything to maximize future life as quickly possible, even if that means clearing the way for a great civilization like that of the Romans.
|
On June 18 2018 10:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 10:37 Plansix wrote:On June 18 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:
Any scholar of ancient history would happily remind Krugman that for much of Europe Roman conquest meant genocide. Gaul wasn't Romanized by Caesar, it was simply depopulated and then settled, much like the American west. It is an extremely effective way to have a unified culture. You just need to not ascribe to the theory that all human life has value and then you are off to the races. Or, you could subscribe to the theory that future human life has near infinite value, by virtue of its very very lengthy potential duration and scope, and that we should do everything to maximize future life as quickly possible, even if that means clearing the way for a great civilization like that of the Romans.
A civilization cannot be designed to value future human life on a foundation of justifying horrific acts to create cultural unity. Your future Romans will be farming on tainted land.
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 10:43 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 10:37 Plansix wrote:On June 18 2018 10:33 KwarK wrote:
Any scholar of ancient history would happily remind Krugman that for much of Europe Roman conquest meant genocide. Gaul wasn't Romanized by Caesar, it was simply depopulated and then settled, much like the American west. It is an extremely effective way to have a unified culture. You just need to not ascribe to the theory that all human life has value and then you are off to the races. Or, you could subscribe to the theory that future human life has near infinite value, by virtue of its very very lengthy potential duration and scope, and that we should do everything to maximize future life as quickly possible, even if that means clearing the way for a great civilization like that of the Romans.
This argument was last used with regard to creating a 1000 year Reich. The future isn't certain, they did a lot of clearing away only to find their Reich cut short 988 years early.
Without the ability to accurately predict the future it is difficult to make a greater good argument based on the additional future lives.
|
Seems quite easy to make an argument to me actually. I think the better route here would be to qualify what you mean by "human life."
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 11:07 IgnE wrote:
Seems quite easy to make an argument to me actually. I think the better route here would be to qualify what you mean by "human life."
If you say that killing a million today will allow for an extra 5 million in a hundred years so you want permission to kill the million then all I have to do is say "prove it". You can't prove it, it's the future, nobody can. And if you don't think there is a need to prove it then I can provide a number of cases where the belief in the greater future after the ethnic cleansing was poorly founded, such as the already mentioned 1000 year Reich which ended very early.
|
On June 18 2018 05:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 18 2018 03:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On June 18 2018 02:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Can someone explain to me the moral difference between Hillary arguing kids crossing the border should be used to send a message to their parents and the Trump administrations agreement on that?
I keep seeing this is a "Republican" problem but last I checked several Democrats hadn't signed on to the legislation (that probably wouldn't fix it but is the best Democrats have) being proposed, Manchin backs Trump on immigration, and Hillary wanted to use kids escaping practical warzones to send a message.
Sure looks like a US problem to me. I'm assuming this is the quote you're referring to: In the exchange with CNN host and reporter Christiane Amanpour, Clinton was not speaking specifically about “dreamers,” children who were brought to the United States by their parents and until recently have been allowed to remain and work in the country, but children who were coming along borders on their own.
“We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” the former secretary of state said. “So, we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.”
Amanpour then asked: “So, you’re saying they should be sent back now?
“Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back,” Clinton responded. “But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families.” Agree or disagree with the statement and the intent, but there's a fairly massive difference between families at the border being separated and detained, and children who crossed the border on their own being sent back to their families. There is no assurance they end up back with their families. Just not in this country and back to one they existed in previously. I don't see the moral difference. The Republican one is just more expensive and keeps them in the US longer. Also there's the whole not even Democrats are united against Trump and his immigration policy. EDIT: Just to be clear, the objection isn't over using child victims to send messages, just over what the message is? There is an inarguable difference that you refuse to see because you get a bizarre hard-on for criticizing Dems. It's like you think you're some kind of special "woke" snowflake for being liberal and yet criticizing the Democrats. And stop bringing up Manchin. The dude's a conservative Democrat from a very conservative state. No one gives a crap.
I saw the difference people were making. It's just not one I would care much to make as I think how Obama was handling it was unacceptably inhumane as well. Democrats/the people that opined here don't. That's what I was trying to understand.
As for Manchin, so long as he's still welcome in the Democratic party I'm going to point out how absurdly stupid it is to support him (a Trump supporter) and not Bernie's policy direction as a party.
It's at the core of why Democrats are going to underperform early expectations in 2018 and lose 2020 if they get their way.
EDIT: I've been out all day so I haven't checked recently but several Democrats haven't even signed on to the legislation to stop the separations as Trump's been doing them, Manchin (made an ad saying he supports Trump's immigration plan) of course being one of them.
Which is what I was getting at with the "This isn't a Republican problem, but a US problem".
|
On June 18 2018 11:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 11:07 IgnE wrote:
Seems quite easy to make an argument to me actually. I think the better route here would be to qualify what you mean by "human life." If you say that killing a million today will allow for an extra 5 million in a hundred years so you want permission to kill the million then all I have to do is say "prove it". You can't prove it, it's the future, nobody can. And if you don't think there is a need to prove it then I can provide a number of cases where the belief in the greater future after the ethnic cleansing was poorly founded, such as the already mentioned 1000 year Reich which ended very early.
Dude you can't prove the negative any more than I can prove the positive. External forces conspired against the 1000 year Reich. We don't know what kind of world we would have if the rest of the world hadn't stopped the Nazis. So what are we left with? Utilitarian presuppositions about what kind of life we are living, whether the Germans can thrive with Jews in their midst, whether everyone can get along, whether we should have birth control, etc.
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 12:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2018 11:37 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2018 11:07 IgnE wrote:
Seems quite easy to make an argument to me actually. I think the better route here would be to qualify what you mean by "human life." If you say that killing a million today will allow for an extra 5 million in a hundred years so you want permission to kill the million then all I have to do is say "prove it". You can't prove it, it's the future, nobody can. And if you don't think there is a need to prove it then I can provide a number of cases where the belief in the greater future after the ethnic cleansing was poorly founded, such as the already mentioned 1000 year Reich which ended very early. Dude you can't prove the negative any more than I can prove the positive. External forces conspired against the 1000 year Reich. We don't know what kind of world we would have if the rest of the world hadn't stopped the Nazis. So what are we left with? Utilitarian presuppositions about what kind of life we are living, whether the Germans can thrive with Jews in their midst, whether everyone can get along, whether we should have birth control, etc.
The argument that it is a good idea to reopen the gas chambers requires extraordinary evidence. The argument that it is not a good idea to reopen the gas chambers does not require the same degree of evidence. This should be evident.
It's very easy for me to prove that you killing millions of people will result in millions of deaths. The obligation is on you, the individual proposing the genocide, to show that it will cause even more millions of lives in the future. The duty to prove the claim is much higher for an individual asking for permission to commit genocide than the duty to disprove the claim for the individual who thinks genocide isn't such a good idea.
|
I can prove that birth control results in less human life.
|
United States42009 Posts
On June 18 2018 12:57 IgnE wrote:
I can prove that birth control results in less human life.
I'm not trying to maximize human lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
