|
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 August 02 2018 04:41 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 04:10 Plansix wrote:
California has the largest state economy in the country. It is larger than most nations. They have no problem covering their bills and are likely in the black when it comes to paying out to the federal government vs federal aid. Now rural, Middle America, that is a place that is taking more than it is contributing. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3531/2California does receives below average federal money. something like They also receive below average federal money in comparison to taxes paid. You are correct, they are "in the black" What do you mean by Middle America? Here are the States that receive the most federal money, in order. Virginia, Maryland, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island. Here are the States the receive the least federal money, in order. Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota California is number 11.
I was simply pointing out that CA likely generates more federal tax dollars due to its large economy and that offsets any money they might receive for those illegal immigrants. That has often been a vector for attack by some conservatives who dislike CA power in the country, even those that power is backed up by voters and state economy.
Middle America is fly over country. All those square states in the center of the US. It’s a really common term that anyone would have heard by simply existing in the US.
But the existence of states isn’t a meritocracy. They became part of the Union and the Union accepted them. So which state requires the most support from the Federal government shouldn’t really be a concern beyond avoiding waste and corruption. As Americans we all agreed to assist and support the other states in the Union, so that is what has to happen.
|
So this is going to be a funny race - both candidates are named Ron Estes. The incumbent is a pretty rank and file Republican. The other one is pretty moderate (might even call him progressive based on his abortion and healthcare stances), and I almost wonder if he's trying to ratfuck the race.
Also this is Pompeo's old seat. Incumbent Ron got it in a special election (which had some coverage IIRC) 52-46. The Democratic candidate from then is running again as well.
One thing is certain. Ron Estes is going to win the Republican primary in the 4th Congressional District in Kansas.
That’s because both candidates on the Aug. 7 ballot are named Ron Estes.
On one side you have incumbent Rep. Ron G. Estes, who was the state treasurer before winning a special election to go to Washington last year.
Opposing him is Ron M. Estes, an aerospace engineer who helped piece together the International Space Station.
https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article215663700.html
|
On August 02 2018 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:So this is going to be a funny race - both candidates are named Ron Estes. The incumbent is a pretty rank and file Republican. The other one is pretty moderate (might even call him progressive based on his abortion and healthcare stances), and I almost wonder if he's trying to ratfuck the race. Also this is Pompeo's old seat. Incumbent Ron got it in a special election (which had some coverage IIRC) 52-46. The Democratic candidate from then is running again as well. Show nested quote +One thing is certain. Ron Estes is going to win the Republican primary in the 4th Congressional District in Kansas.
That’s because both candidates on the Aug. 7 ballot are named Ron Estes.
On one side you have incumbent Rep. Ron G. Estes, who was the state treasurer before winning a special election to go to Washington last year.
Opposing him is Ron M. Estes, an aerospace engineer who helped piece together the International Space Station. https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article215663700.html
You know, you could probably win quite a few races (especially state level) just legally changing your name to one popular politically in the area and plastering lawn signs everywhere.
|
On August 02 2018 04:41 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 04:10 Plansix wrote:
California has the largest state economy in the country. It is larger than most nations. They have no problem covering their bills and are likely in the black when it comes to paying out to the federal government vs federal aid. Now rural, Middle America, that is a place that is taking more than it is contributing. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3531/2California does receives below average federal money. something like They also receive below average federal money in comparison to taxes paid. You are correct, they are "in the black" What do you mean by Middle America? Here are the States that receive the most federal money, in order. Virginia, Maryland, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island. Here are the States the receive the least federal money, in order. Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota California is number 11.
Edit: The article you linked makes the same point I did, but what you said was pretty misleading.
The 2nd table in your article says a lot more, since it compares federal money in vs. money out per state.
The states that are "in the red" the most are overwhelmingly southern, rural, conservative, and poor.
|
On August 02 2018 07:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 04:41 basedFinn wrote:On August 02 2018 04:10 Plansix wrote:
California has the largest state economy in the country. It is larger than most nations. They have no problem covering their bills and are likely in the black when it comes to paying out to the federal government vs federal aid. Now rural, Middle America, that is a place that is taking more than it is contributing. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3531/2California does receives below average federal money. something like They also receive below average federal money in comparison to taxes paid. You are correct, they are "in the black" What do you mean by Middle America? Here are the States that receive the most federal money, in order. Virginia, Maryland, Alaska, Hawaii, Connecticut, Alabama, West Virginia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island. Here are the States the receive the least federal money, in order. Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota California is number 11. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/This article is a little more accurate concerning the point at hand. It's not fair to compare absolute numbers when California has a lot more people/space/etc. that would need more federal dollars. A better comparison is how much they pay in taxes compared to how much they received, or comparing amount of money received per person. Basically any metric shows that southern, rural, conservative states are overwhelmingly the biggest sinkholes for federal money.
Last I checked the single most extreme example being an almost exclusively white and Republican town (Owsley, Ky).
|
On August 02 2018 07:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 07:16 ticklishmusic wrote:So this is going to be a funny race - both candidates are named Ron Estes. The incumbent is a pretty rank and file Republican. The other one is pretty moderate (might even call him progressive based on his abortion and healthcare stances), and I almost wonder if he's trying to ratfuck the race. Also this is Pompeo's old seat. Incumbent Ron got it in a special election (which had some coverage IIRC) 52-46. The Democratic candidate from then is running again as well. One thing is certain. Ron Estes is going to win the Republican primary in the 4th Congressional District in Kansas.
That’s because both candidates on the Aug. 7 ballot are named Ron Estes.
On one side you have incumbent Rep. Ron G. Estes, who was the state treasurer before winning a special election to go to Washington last year.
Opposing him is Ron M. Estes, an aerospace engineer who helped piece together the International Space Station. https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article215663700.html You know, you could probably win quite a few races (especially state level) just legally changing your name to one popular politically in the area and plastering lawn signs everywhere.
Another thing that works is changing your name to start with A - In places where ballots have choices listed in alphabetical order, a disproportionate amount of people with names starting at the beginning of the alphabet win.
|
On August 02 2018 04:18 basedFinn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 03:54 zlefin wrote:On August 02 2018 03:41 basedFinn wrote:
Pew research center has an estimate of 2.4 million illegal immigrants in California. That makes up 6.3 percent of the state's total population.
Total foreign born residents in California is around 10 million and non citizen around 5 million, according to a lawsuit filed by California attorney general. The lawsuit states you cannot ask citizenship on a census. If this question is asked, California could lose up to 10 electoral college votes.
Just curious what you all think about foreign born (stated as green card holders) and non citizens (illegally immigrated), accounting for 10 electoral college votes in California.
I personally do not think green card holders and illegal immigrants should count towards the electoral college, but should still be counted in a census, so it makes sense that this question would be asked. If people wanna change the electoral college to only count citizens, I wouldn't have a great deal of objection. really we should just scrap the entire electoral college though, just have a national popular vote for the presidency. the electoral college doesn't serve much of a purpose atm, and not a good one at any rate. but I'd say the census should still avoid asking questions that would cause people to not respond. it's really helpful to know how many people actually live in an area. interesting fact, the electoral college has had 700 attempts to change it. None have worked. In order to change it, I feel the nation would have to change it's approach from being a republic, to being a democracy, that stretches the entire country. This would more reflect what you are talking about. I like the approach of the electoral college, it allows for state's to have entirely different views on a national election, and still have an influence. I'm not so concerned with population, but with the opinions held within each state. We have extremely liberal states, and extremely conservative states, and everything in between. I believe it is our strength as a nation, and the reason why we have been the world super power for so long.
that has nothing to do with why we're a superpower. Every nation has its variations in liberal to conservative areas; it's not in any way unique to the US.
The US is a superpower because it's very big, has lots of natural resources, and a high level of development. (and because it spends a lot on the military)
if the presidency was a direct vote, it'd still be the case that every states views would have an influence. so that doesn't favor the electoral college at all.
|
On August 02 2018 08:34 zlefin wrote:
The US is a superpower because it's very big, has lots of natural resources, and a high level of development. (and because it spends a lot on the military)
Those smiling workers in history books
They're not picking coffee at all
They're busy with bricks and mortar
Building the company wall
That's why we're rich.
|
On August 02 2018 09:15 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 08:34 zlefin wrote:
The US is a superpower because it's very big, has lots of natural resources, and a high level of development. (and because it spends a lot on the military) Those smiling workers in history books They're not picking coffee at all They're busy with bricks and mortar Building the company wall That's why we're rich.
It did conveniently leave out any direct reference to the exploitation of people's labor, most egregiously the foundational exploitation, without which none of this great wealth would have been possible. Namely, genocide and slavery.
|
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while.
|
On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while.
A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today.
|
On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today.
And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character.
In other words, plenty of countries have done plenty of bad shit to people without becoming nearly as wealthy as the United States, and zlefin was arguing that the primary difference between the United States and those other countries is the size and natural resources of the US, as opposed to some conjecture relating to the structure of the Electoral College or what not.
|
On August 02 2018 14:00 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today. And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character.
But systematically exterminating and exploiting the people who utilized those resources before them then kidnapping and forcing a bunch of people to build the foundation of the country, followed by the exploitation of millions of workers for hundreds of years would be more honest.
As it's not as if it just tripped and landed on a land of plentiful resources and sprung into a "high level of development" as a result.
The euphemism of "spends a lot on the military" doesn't really capture the horrors the US has committed to ensure it's place of power.
In other words, plenty of countries have done plenty of bad shit to people without becoming nearly as wealthy as the United States, and the primary difference between the United States and those other countries is the size and natural resources of the US.
Africa's (I know it's a continent, but there are several large resource rich countries inside of it) huge with tons of natural resources, yet it's not wealthy. In no small part due to the "wealth building" of other nations. Due to being on the receiving end of the very exploitation that was left out of zlefin's summation.
Which again, without the exploitation the resources and size wouldn't mean nada.
|
On August 02 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 14:00 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today. And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character. But systematically exterminating and exploiting the people who utilized those resources before them then kidnapping and forcing a bunch of people to build the foundation of the country, followed by the exploitation of millions of workers for hundreds of years would be more honest. As it's not as if it just tripped and landed on a land of plentiful resources and sprung into a "high level of development" as a result. The euphemism of "spends a lot on the military" doesn't really capture the horrors the US has committed to ensure it's place of power.
I don't substantially disagree with this and I doubt zlefin does either. That doesn't mean zlefin deserves censure or even commentary for deciding not to recite it in a context where it was irrelevant.
|
On August 02 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2018 14:00 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today. And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character. But systematically exterminating and exploiting the people who utilized those resources before them then kidnapping and forcing a bunch of people to build the foundation of the country, followed by the exploitation of millions of workers for hundreds of years would be more honest. As it's not as if it just tripped and landed on a land of plentiful resources and sprung into a "high level of development" as a result. The euphemism of "spends a lot on the military" doesn't really capture the horrors the US has committed to ensure it's place of power. I don't substantially disagree with this and I doubt zlefin does either. That doesn't mean zlefin deserves censure or even commentary for deciding not to recite it in a context where it was irrelevant.
It's always relevant, and does deserve to get called out. If the US habitually overcompensated for it's erasure of the parts of it's history it doesn't like it might be different, but ya know.
Particularly when it's not even really accurate. Perhaps 'natural resources" played a significant role in our current positioning but our size is has no statistical significance on our wealth.
That would be to say that "We are wealthy because we have a large amount of natural wealth" isn't saying anything without the context of how it was obtained.
That the people who had been using it were systematically exterminated isn't an irrelevant detail, it's an immutable characteristic of our wealth. As is the exploitation it took to turn it from shit on/in the ground into more familiar measures of wealth.
|
It's American exceptionalism hard at work. Like that time when Plansix appeared to unironically suggest that the reason the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan was "to save American lives". It's both laughable and horrific that this is the common thought amongst Americans.
Plus the United States and Europe (and now also China) take a shitton of resources from other places on the Earth, thereby effectively depleting their chances for ever building up a "peaceful wealthy society" like ours. Especially now that climate change is going to make the countries around the equator unlivable.
Incidentally, a lot of those countries - like Venezuala, Yemen, Syria, Libya - DEPEND on importing grain and other foodstuff. They sell oil in order to be able to import food so they can allow their citizens to buy food at reasonable prices. Interestingly, both Russia and the US export grain. Obviously just a coincidence. My tiny country exports a shitton of potatoes by growing them with technology that we've obtained by 300 years of stealing resources which enabled our elites to live in luxury to come up with all that stuff -- that's the key for me, we got a small technological advantage, and then used that advantage to expand our influence and dominate the world in the most brutal fashion imaginable. And now all this financial stuff with loans and the IMF and such, it's just an extension of that same scheme from the same kind of people who came up with capitalism and colonialism, let alone the "unintended" climate change problem. I'm not so sure how unintended they are at this point -- Bannon (who has ties to Mercer, the epitome of a "white supremacist banker") was some higher up at a climate research company for a decade and is now seeking an alliance between the US, EU and Russia... I think he knows perfectly well what's coming despite his public denials and wants to just gun down refugees at the border as climate change chaos erupts over the next 50-100 years.
I guess nothing bad can happen from the fact that we're going to reduce the oil we need in the next couple of decades while the deserts keep getting more unlivable though. Honestly, if we had any sense, we'd invest in building vertical farms in those regions and we (the people) should seize control of GMO patents and research so that those countries can use such technology without submitting to Western corporations -- that is, of course, if we managed to get some actual moral people in charge of our governments, because otherwise it would be exactly the same as what Noam Chomksy is saying here between 11:36 and 14:56 -- specifically the financial and "giving away weapons" stuff he mentions shortly after 13:30.
On another note, considering the fact that David Howoritz has "disciples" such as Stephen Miller in the White House, am I allowed to refer to his "Freedom Center" funding the far-right in my country as "US government interference"? Because that's what seems to happen when it comes to Russian oligarchs buying Facebook ads. Oh, please do tell me more how it is not the same!
Here's something else I wanted to point out before I inevitably get banned again (we're labeled, locked-away, iconoclastic). Maybe it's been posted before, but I don't check this thread as often as I used to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/us/politics/facebook-political-campaign-midterms.html
WASHINGTON — Facebook said on Tuesday that it had identified a political influence campaign that was potentially built to disrupt the midterm elections, with the company detecting and removing 32 pages and fake accounts that had engaged in activity around divisive social issues.
The company did not definitively link the campaign to Russia. But Facebook officials said some of the tools and techniques used by the accounts were similar to those used by the Internet Research Agency, the Kremlin-linked group that was at the center of an indictment this year alleging interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Facebook said it had discovered coordinated activity around issues like a sequel to last year’s deadly “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va. Activity was also detected around #AbolishICE, a left-wing campaign on social media that seeks to end the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
“At this point in our investigation, we do not have enough technical evidence to state definitively who is behind it,” said Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy. “But we can say that these accounts engaged in some similar activity and have connected with known I.R.A accounts.”
As it turns out, the lefties were just genuine people:
Or maybe people like Kim Kelly and Adam H. Johnson are the Russian agents who are engaged in what has to be the most sophisticated cyber warfare operation that I've ever seen.
There's also that "connection" thing again. I mean, I was on Twitter during the last week and I talked to Stanley Cohen, who apparently represented a family member of Osama Bin Laden. Am I now also "connected to terrorists" in some database? I wouldn't be surprised if my reddit account has been tagged considering how many threats of retaliation I get.
Incidentally, I am now officially a hostile foreign agent funding political groups in the United States that seek to overthrow the US government reporters that "lean slightly towards the left." I've even been on Twitter, specifically targeting people living in swing states to try and influence them so they vote for anti-war socialists. Suck my balls, Mueller.
|
On August 02 2018 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2018 14:00 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today. And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character. But systematically exterminating and exploiting the people who utilized those resources before them then kidnapping and forcing a bunch of people to build the foundation of the country, followed by the exploitation of millions of workers for hundreds of years would be more honest. As it's not as if it just tripped and landed on a land of plentiful resources and sprung into a "high level of development" as a result. The euphemism of "spends a lot on the military" doesn't really capture the horrors the US has committed to ensure it's place of power. I don't substantially disagree with this and I doubt zlefin does either. That doesn't mean zlefin deserves censure or even commentary for deciding not to recite it in a context where it was irrelevant. It's always relevant, and does deserve to get called out. If the US habitually overcompensated for it's erasure of the parts of it's history it doesn't like it might be different, but ya know. Particularly when it's not even really accurate. Perhaps 'natural resources" played a significant role in our current positioning but our size is has no statistical significance on our wealth. That would be to say that "We are wealthy because we have a large amount of natural wealth" isn't saying anything without the context of how it was obtained. That the people who had been using it were systematically exterminated isn't an irrelevant detail, it's an immutable characteristic of our wealth. As is the exploitation it took to turn it from shit on/in the ground into more familiar measures of wealth.
Well, I think from here people can make their own decision as to whether they think you're picking a fight with zlefin for the sake of it or not. I'll take my leave.
|
On August 02 2018 14:23 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2018 14:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2018 14:10 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 14:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 02 2018 14:00 Aquanim wrote:On August 02 2018 12:32 reincremate wrote:On August 02 2018 12:16 Aquanim wrote:
If zlefin had listed every single condition for the prosperity of the United States, including those not directly related to the point he was making, we would likely have been waiting for a while. A laundry list of all the specific advantages a nation has would not be as revealing as simply pointing out that the U.S. is mainly wealthy for the same reason other nations are wealthy: centuries of doing really bad shit to people. Oh, and also hard work and all that. "Worked super hard to get where we are today" is a great way to negate all the horrible exploitation and mass killing that had to happen in order to produce the balance of wealth and power in the world today. And if zlefin had been saying "The US is particularly wealthy because its people worked super hard to get where we are today" you'd have a point. "The US is particularly wealthy because it's big and has a lot of natural resources" does not have the same character. But systematically exterminating and exploiting the people who utilized those resources before them then kidnapping and forcing a bunch of people to build the foundation of the country, followed by the exploitation of millions of workers for hundreds of years would be more honest. As it's not as if it just tripped and landed on a land of plentiful resources and sprung into a "high level of development" as a result. The euphemism of "spends a lot on the military" doesn't really capture the horrors the US has committed to ensure it's place of power. I don't substantially disagree with this and I doubt zlefin does either. That doesn't mean zlefin deserves censure or even commentary for deciding not to recite it in a context where it was irrelevant. It's always relevant, and does deserve to get called out. If the US habitually overcompensated for it's erasure of the parts of it's history it doesn't like it might be different, but ya know. Particularly when it's not even really accurate. Perhaps 'natural resources" played a significant role in our current positioning but our size is has no statistical significance on our wealth. That would be to say that "We are wealthy because we have a large amount of natural wealth" isn't saying anything without the context of how it was obtained. That the people who had been using it were systematically exterminated isn't an irrelevant detail, it's an immutable characteristic of our wealth. As is the exploitation it took to turn it from shit on/in the ground into more familiar measures of wealth. Well, I think from here people can make their own decision as to whether they think you're picking a fight with zlefin for the sake of it or not. I'll take my leave.
I'm certainly not picking a fight with zlefin, he's got me muted and doesn't read my posts. I wasn't even the person who pointed it out. I just clarified for people who might not have understood the point (I can think of one in particular).
|
Oh right, I forget he has me muted too, hahahaha
|
On August 02 2018 14:29 a_flayer wrote:
Oh right, I forget he has me muted too, hahahaha
Oh, so you were picking a fight with zlefin, and GH just tagged along for funsies. My bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
