|
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 February 04 2023 19:46 gobbledydook wrote:
In other news, a Chinese spy balloon has been found flying over the U.S.
The Biden administration's response is to watch it fly past military installations, instead of destroying it like you would an invading object from an enemy nation.
According to this:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-tracked-suspected-chinese-spy-balloon-over-canadian-airspace-since-last-weekend-sources-1.6259770
Canadian officials have not publicly stated whether the massive high-altitude balloon entered Canadian airspace. But sources told CTV News it had passed over the Canadian Arctic, Alberta and Saskatchewan before it was spotted over Montana on Thursday, as it flew over a nuclear launch site. Sources told CTV News it was tracked the entire time it was in Canadian airspace.
Canada's been aware of it ever since it entered Canadian airspace, before it entered the USA. If it's still up there, it's because they decided to let it go there.
|
On February 04 2023 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 14:56 BlackJack wrote:On February 04 2023 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve. The fed's been pretty clear that they are intentionally trying to undermine labor's minimal wage gains (which often net out to losses with the inflation on things they consume/need to survive anyway) and generally weaken labor's bargaining positions. As you mentioned, even Biden got in on it with rail workers of all people. The US needs more desperate people willing to work in exchange for far less than their labor generates and a "soft landing" is designed to assist US corporations in fulfilling that need while limiting the risk to their bottom line from the slow down. It's not some wild conspiracy, it's just basic capitalism/capitalist economics. What exactly is your reasoning behind your “the man is keeping us down” theory? As you pointed out wages are increasing more rapidly than they have in decades but it’s offset by currently high inflation. Which part is being manufactured and why and how? Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has been pretty outspoken that he thinks workers have too much buying power and bargaining power and unemployment is too low, and that the goal was to get wages down.
Interesting, could you point me to a source for the original quote?
|
Canada11592 Posts
On February 04 2023 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 17:10 Falling wrote:On February 04 2023 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 22:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2023 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 20:55 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 20:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 19:54 Slydie wrote:On February 03 2023 19:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 03 2023 18:44 RvB wrote:
[quote]
One that I think you are missing is that in countries where there are relatively free and fair elections a revolution is not democratic. If your ideas are popular enough you can just win at the ballot box. Requiring a revolution to implement your new society is admitting that your policies are not popular enough. Does that not pretty squarely fall under 2? No, it falls under your 1. The objection itself ("revolution is not democratic") seems to me to fall under 2. Basically that US democracy is adequate to implement socialist ideas/policy worth having within US democracy's own parameters. Socialist ideas losing at the ballot box is certainly a reference to 1, but the objection itself is 2 as I read it. On February 03 2023 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
3 and 5 cover it somewhat but with a focus on lives and livelihoods, not comfort and status. Some people losing status / a change in what grants status would be a net positive . Are you comfortable saying I didn't miss any objections you're readily aware of? If your revolutionary ideas don't win elections, then it does not have enough support=1. I don't think is fair to assume that a lot of people "really" support your agenda but don't dare to for whatever reason. I don't see the assumption you're describing. Just so it's clear what I'm saying: Even if we assume that everyone that votes against socialist policy conscientiously falls under 1. What I'm saying is that people whose objection to socialist revolution in the US is based on it circumventing US democracy and "that is not democratic" (which was the objection as I understood it) fall under 2. 1 and 2 aren't mutually exclusive objections/groups/beliefs fwiw though. Regardless, we can agree the objections are covered under my list. Are there objections that you are readily aware of that aren't covered under my list? Maybe one from first principles? Doubt it's a very often-used one, but you could argue from first principles that any revolution is immoral. For instance, because a revolution requires the use of violence and the use of violence is immoral, even to stop greater violence on behalf of someone else. There may be other religious or ethical grounds on which people might oppose any revolution. But I think you cover almost all objections in your points 1-5. Ahhh, like Quakers or something? I think we could fit them under 2 since principled nonviolence at least ostensibly operates within the parameters of US democracy and capitalism. Sound reasonable? Principled non-violence doesn't just exist within the parameters of democracy or capitalism. It existed under both Prussian and Russian monarchies and then for a little while during the Soviet Revolution. That's a fairly wide range of freedoms from Catherine the Great to modern US democracy, so I think it says very little about their views on to what degree US society needs modifying. The society only needs to be sufficiently tolerable/ communities left to their own devices for such communities to exist. The solution for such communities if things become too oppressive is to flee the country, cave to the ideology of the day as a survival mechanism, or get rounded up into the gulags. And as they are not currently fleeing the US... In other words, there's no amount of non-optimalness in the status quo combined with a despair of any true modifications that should move a principled non-violent community into revolution. Such conditions generally leads to flight, not fight. Seems like you put thought and effort into that post, so I don't mean this dismissively, but I don't think I know what you're talking about. My best interpretation is that you think "principled nonviolence" should have it's own number? I'm not especially opposed to it, but principled nonviolence doesn't negate the potential to support socialist revolution in and of itself. They oppose violence, so if they oppose a socialist revolution because they oppose it relying on any violence, they really fall into 3. Like people with just a generic aversion to violence, they are opposing based on the fear that the revolution will have to use violence and do harm to people. Just to reiterate something, 1-5 are not mutually exclusive divisions. Nonviolence adherents that oppose socialist revolution could/would have their objections likely fall under any or all 5, but none of them are outside of the already listed 5 as far as I can tell.
I do think it falls under another number. It cannot be #3 either because the same non-violent communities were also willing to give up comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc for the sake of the principle of non-violence. I know of one village where they told the commissar, you either come with us or report back to your bosses that you let a whole village go... and then at night the village packed what they could in sledges and fled east out of Russia and into China, leaving everything else behind. Others fled behind the retreating German army with whatever they could carry.
Even in Prussia, they were fairly well integrated and when the exception for military service was revoked, many fled to North America or Russia, leaving behind technical trades and engineering positions. Enough left that the Prussians eventually backed off as they were experiencing the 1700s equivalent of brain-drain from the number technical trade workers leaving. I don't know if these communities are as principled any more; however, historically they were very willing to leave behind all security, social status, and livelihoods and start from scratch and all so they could find a country that would allow them to practice non-violence, away from any mandatory draft. Alternative service in Russia and Canada was basically created as middle way for these groups (so willing to join the Russian medical corps, but not hold a gun, as it was more separate in those days.)
All to say, I do not think #3 covers these groups either. The principle of non-violence is the core motivation for these groups.
|
On February 05 2023 04:05 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 15:32 Kyadytim wrote:On February 04 2023 14:56 BlackJack wrote:On February 04 2023 09:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if corporate America is looking forward to a mild recession as a way to get their hands back firmly on the reins of the labor movement. Nothing scarier to those ghoulish pricks than workers who know how to demand what they deserve. The fed's been pretty clear that they are intentionally trying to undermine labor's minimal wage gains (which often net out to losses with the inflation on things they consume/need to survive anyway) and generally weaken labor's bargaining positions. As you mentioned, even Biden got in on it with rail workers of all people. The US needs more desperate people willing to work in exchange for far less than their labor generates and a "soft landing" is designed to assist US corporations in fulfilling that need while limiting the risk to their bottom line from the slow down. It's not some wild conspiracy, it's just basic capitalism/capitalist economics. What exactly is your reasoning behind your “the man is keeping us down” theory? As you pointed out wages are increasing more rapidly than they have in decades but it’s offset by currently high inflation. Which part is being manufactured and why and how? Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has been pretty outspoken that he thinks workers have too much buying power and bargaining power and unemployment is too low, and that the goal was to get wages down. Interesting, could you point me to a source for the original quote?
The fed speaks in jargon and euphemisms. The speech most of the stories explaining this is what he's saying is here.
A specific quote that requires minimal translation from Fed speak would be:
Take, for example, in the labor market. So you have two job vacancies, essentially, for every person actively seeking a job, and that has led to a real imbalance in wage negotiating. www.federalreserve.gov
The imbalance he's trying to correct is workers having too much bargaining leverage over employers (laughably ridiculous on its face). It's about as straightforward as the Fed gets.
Another quote to this effect would be: So in principle, it seems as though, by moderating demand, we could see vacancies come down, and as a result... I think put supply and demand at least closer together than they are, and that that would give us a chance... to get wages down
www.wsj.com
@Falling Perhaps it's unclear, but 3 doesn't mean they have to object because of people losing their comfort, it just includes them. As far as they are specifically objecting to the use of violence, they fall under 3.
EDIT: @Falling continued. + Show Spoiler +To elaborate a bit, I think I understand your point in that you read 3 as "...fear of people personally losing their...". While it includes those objections, it's also talking about people objecting because they believe a socialist revolution will necessitate violence and they oppose violence under any circumstances. In addition it's describing objections from people with less stringent nonviolent beliefs. 3. ...fear of people losing their comfort, social status, livelihoods, lives, etc. The objection is 3 through violence. They object to violence being used to achieve the aims of the revolution because violence harms people. Put another way, 3 includes people that if a wand could be waved to make the transition to socialism require 0 violence, it would overrule their objection. That would include adherents to nonviolence whose objection to a socialist revolution is the requirement of any violence perpetrated on its behalf, including self-defense.
|
The spy balloon was shot down over the Atlantic. Rumored to be an f-22 but honestly probably just a regular f-15.
It's that weird thing that responsible president's do to do normal things and not turn it into a media circus.
|
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission?
|
United States44238 Posts
On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission?
What was its mission that it had performed?
|
On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission?
What was its mission? Do you think the US didn't take proper precautions when they were made aware of its presence in Canada before it entered US airspace? Why are you complaining about the US not shooting it down until now and not complaining about Canada not shooting it down in the Canada politics thread? How am I supposed to take your complaint seriously when you don't care about the one flying in South America and you didn't care about this one when it was flying over Canada? How am I not supposed to assume this is bad faith faux outrage based on your behavior?
|
This is the US politics thread Not the South American one or the Canadian one.
|
On February 05 2023 07:25 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission? What was its mission? Do you think the US didn't take proper precautions when they were made aware of its presence in Canada before it entered US airspace? Why are you complaining about the US not shooting it down until now and not complaining about Canada not shooting it down in the Canada politics thread? How am I supposed to take your complaint seriously when you don't care about the one flying in South America and you didn't care about this one when it was flying over Canada? How am I not supposed to assume this is bad faith faux outrage based on your behavior?
What is this argument? People have to care equally about espionage on other countries as they do espionage on the US for you to take them seriously?
|
In any case the mission is two fold:
1. See how the Americans respond to an intruding threat militarily. Including what assets are activated, how they track the threat, what action they take, what weapons they use to destroy it, and so on. Also, collect information using the onboard sensors, including information related to military bases.
2. See how the Americans respond politically.
I would argue that in both cases leaving the balloon flying across the entire U.S. is detrimental to U.S. interests. It lets the Chinese collect more data along its entire trip for point 1, and it shows American weakness for point 2.
|
On February 05 2023 07:38 gobbledydook wrote:
This is the US politics thread Not the South American one or the Canadian one.
That's my point. Why didn't you post in those threads about their balloons? Did you read my questions?
|
On February 05 2023 07:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 07:25 StasisField wrote:On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission? What was its mission? Do you think the US didn't take proper precautions when they were made aware of its presence in Canada before it entered US airspace? Why are you complaining about the US not shooting it down until now and not complaining about Canada not shooting it down in the Canada politics thread? How am I supposed to take your complaint seriously when you don't care about the one flying in South America and you didn't care about this one when it was flying over Canada? How am I not supposed to assume this is bad faith faux outrage based on your behavior? What is this argument? People have to care equally about espionage on other countries as they do espionage on the US for you to take them seriously?
It's just really convenient the conservative posters on here never seem to care about the same things happening outside the US. How do I take this shit seriously when there is no consistency applied?
|
United States44238 Posts
On February 05 2023 07:44 gobbledydook wrote:
In any case the mission is two fold:
1. See how the Americans respond to an intruding threat militarily. Including what assets are activated, how they track the threat, what action they take, what weapons they use to destroy it, and so on. Also, collect information using the onboard sensors, including information related to military bases.
2. See how the Americans respond politically.
I would argue that in both cases leaving the balloon flying across the entire U.S. is detrimental to U.S. interests. It lets the Chinese collect more data along its entire trip for point 1, and it shows American weakness for point 2.
Can you provide the classified PRC mission briefing documents that you have access to?
|
On February 05 2023 07:44 gobbledydook wrote:
In any case the mission is two fold:
1. See how the Americans respond to an intruding threat militarily. Including what assets are activated, how they track the threat, what action they take, what weapons they use to destroy it, and so on. Also, collect information using the onboard sensors, including information related to military bases.
2. See how the Americans respond politically.
I would argue that in both cases leaving the balloon flying across the entire U.S. is detrimental to U.S. interests. It lets the Chinese collect more data along its entire trip for point 1, and it shows American weakness for point 2.
Do you think how the US responds to a balloon is enough for China to assess how the US will respond to a real military threat in its airspace?
EDIT: Also, information related to military bases? You mean that info their satellites already collect every day?
|
On February 05 2023 07:49 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 07:42 BlackJack wrote:On February 05 2023 07:25 StasisField wrote:On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission? What was its mission? Do you think the US didn't take proper precautions when they were made aware of its presence in Canada before it entered US airspace? Why are you complaining about the US not shooting it down until now and not complaining about Canada not shooting it down in the Canada politics thread? How am I supposed to take your complaint seriously when you don't care about the one flying in South America and you didn't care about this one when it was flying over Canada? How am I not supposed to assume this is bad faith faux outrage based on your behavior? What is this argument? People have to care equally about espionage on other countries as they do espionage on the US for you to take them seriously? It's just really convenient the conservative posters on here never seem to care about the same things happening outside the US. How do I take this shit seriously when there is no consistency applied?
Do the left-wing posters in the thread care as much about abortion rights or gun control in Latin America as they do the US?
|
On February 05 2023 08:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 07:49 StasisField wrote:On February 05 2023 07:42 BlackJack wrote:On February 05 2023 07:25 StasisField wrote:On February 05 2023 06:47 gobbledydook wrote:
Sure, shoot it down after it's done collecting data and leaving.
Or like, shoot it down before it has a chance to perform its mission? What was its mission? Do you think the US didn't take proper precautions when they were made aware of its presence in Canada before it entered US airspace? Why are you complaining about the US not shooting it down until now and not complaining about Canada not shooting it down in the Canada politics thread? How am I supposed to take your complaint seriously when you don't care about the one flying in South America and you didn't care about this one when it was flying over Canada? How am I not supposed to assume this is bad faith faux outrage based on your behavior? What is this argument? People have to care equally about espionage on other countries as they do espionage on the US for you to take them seriously? It's just really convenient the conservative posters on here never seem to care about the same things happening outside the US. How do I take this shit seriously when there is no consistency applied? Do the left-wing posters in the thread care as much about abortion rights or gun control in Latin America as they do the US?
The balloon being in Canada first was posted in this thread. If we talked about a shooting in El Paso and then someone posted about how the shooting actually started in Juarez and then carried on into El Paso it would be very weird if no one from the left commented on it.
But no one from the right seemed interested in engaging in that fact or questioning why the Canadian government let it be the US' problem. Weird.
|
On February 05 2023 07:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 07:44 gobbledydook wrote:
In any case the mission is two fold:
1. See how the Americans respond to an intruding threat militarily. Including what assets are activated, how they track the threat, what action they take, what weapons they use to destroy it, and so on. Also, collect information using the onboard sensors, including information related to military bases.
2. See how the Americans respond politically.
I would argue that in both cases leaving the balloon flying across the entire U.S. is detrimental to U.S. interests. It lets the Chinese collect more data along its entire trip for point 1, and it shows American weakness for point 2. Can you provide the classified PRC mission briefing documents that you have access to?
No, and that's a ridiculous argument.
All of us are analysing this as laymen.
|
A weather balloon launched from China that you have basically no control over and just hope that the air currents take over a military base that has secrets worth looking at the moment you pass over it after a 7-8000 mile flight seems like a bit of a stretch.
|
On February 05 2023 08:09 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2023 07:50 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2023 07:44 gobbledydook wrote:
In any case the mission is two fold:
1. See how the Americans respond to an intruding threat militarily. Including what assets are activated, how they track the threat, what action they take, what weapons they use to destroy it, and so on. Also, collect information using the onboard sensors, including information related to military bases.
2. See how the Americans respond politically.
I would argue that in both cases leaving the balloon flying across the entire U.S. is detrimental to U.S. interests. It lets the Chinese collect more data along its entire trip for point 1, and it shows American weakness for point 2. Can you provide the classified PRC mission briefing documents that you have access to? No, and that's a ridiculous argument. All of us are analysing this as laymen.
Exactly. You don't know why the balloon is there. You don't know why our military left it in the air as long as they did. You don't know if the balloon retrieved anything useful. You don't know why you're upset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
