|
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 |
Didn't see anybody talk about this in the past couple of pages, but Rick Gates just plead guilty to committing crimes under Paul Manafort. The affects of Mueller and his investigation seem to be having some action now. He says 15 foreign agents aren't registered. This must be part of his plea deal he took back in February.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/paul-manafort-trial-rick-gates-donald-trump/index.html
Rick Gates, the key prosecution witness in the tax and fraud trial of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, told jurors Monday he had committed crimes alongside -- and at the direction of -- his former partner.
Gates stated he and Manafort had 15 foreign accounts they did not report to the federal government, and knew it was illegal. Gates said he did not submit the required forms "at Mr. Manafort's direction."
The testimony from Gates, a former adviser to Donald Trump, comes after reaching a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller earlier this year to testify against his former partner in a lucrative international political consulting firm.
Manafort stared directly at Gates as he read aloud the details of his plea agreement, which could see him receive a reduced sentence, at the direction of a prosecution lawyer.
Gates did not make eye contact with Manafort as he took the stand wearing a yellow tie and navy blue suit.
As well as serving as Manafort's right-hand man in their multimillion-dollar business, Gates was also Manafort's deputy on the Trump campaign.
His testimony represents the biggest test yet for Mueller's investigation even though this case does not directly play into the issue of alleged cooperation by the Trump campaign in Russian election interference.
|
On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets
Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric.
|
On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric.
renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does
|
On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:
[quote]
Australia has a free trade agreement with China.
[quote]
Jerusalem. Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that? The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does
That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal.
|
On August 07 2018 08:01 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that?
The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd. Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal.
ah right of course. all this talk ive heard in the news about "tariffs" is actually freer trade.
like fuck dude what are you even arguing about? do you also think that conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists who have no concept at all of how economics works?
|
On August 07 2018 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 08:01 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal. ah right of course. all this talk ive heard in the news about "tariffs" is actually freer trade. like fuck dude what are you even arguing about? do you also think that conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists who have no concept at all of how economics works?
Just to clarify: I don't think all conservatives are conspiracy theorists. I think they're either myopic in their analysis of international trade, or seem to have to resort to some sort of conspiracism to reconcile the movement of international capital with the actions of individuals (even if that conspiracism is couched in the language of patriotism rather than, say, international cabals). I do not see how you can coherently believe that, for example, there are those in intelligence agencies directly placing global interests ABOVE American interests (rather than just thinking that the 'liberal international order' helps preserve American security and should therefore be maintained).
Undoubtedly there are those that are 'ethical' globalists, who see America as having a responsibility to uphold liberty and democracy throughout the world. But realistically this ethical component has never been divorced from either the interests of capital or blatant national self-interest, and the idea that these (almost always centrist, liberal) thinkers are within intelligence agencies trying to undermine Trump due to ethical objections is absurd. Any resistance to Trump from intelligence agencies can only be because he seeks, in their eyes, to undermine American national interests - whether those interests are right or wrong, solely the interests of capital, entirely irrational or whatever. The conspiracism enters in the idea that the objection of intelligence agencies is somehow not an authentically American objection and instead rooted in the intelligence community being globalists before Americans, which is ridiculous. xDaunt is not only talking about trade when he refers to globalists, and this is where the concept becomes either incoherent or conspiracist (or both).
|
On August 07 2018 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 08:01 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal. ah right of course. all this talk ive heard in the news about "tariffs" is actually freer trade. like fuck dude what are you even arguing about? do you also think that conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists who have no concept at all of how economics works?
That's very much xDaunt's argument, btw. That the tariffs are a strategy to get us to freer trade.
Nobody said conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists. The main conservative position on economics is neither economic nationalism nor the weird mix between that and free trade that xDaunt is doing.
|
On August 07 2018 08:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 08:01 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 01:08 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Nailed it. Excellent post. look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal. ah right of course. all this talk ive heard in the news about "tariffs" is actually freer trade. like fuck dude what are you even arguing about? do you also think that conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists who have no concept at all of how economics works?
Here you go:
On July 29 2018 22:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 22:00 JimmiC wrote:
Does anyone else think it is odd that the "right" hates free trade and the "left" is fighting for it. This is opposite world. This is a bit of a misnomer. It’s not that the right generally hates free trade so much as it sees the current regime of trade treaties as being unfair trade deals that soak America. What we have now is not “free trade.”
On July 03 2018 00:16 xDaunt wrote:
As for the trade war, I'm not sure why you're so sure that Trump can't win it. Let's just take China as an example. China is hugely dependent upon its multi-hundred billion dollar trade surplus with the US to support its domestic growth and maintain domestic stability. China has very deliberately structured its protectionist trade policies to foster and grow that trade imbalance (and that's before we even get into issues of IP theft). The American market is not currently replaceable for China. For these reasons, now is as good of a time as any to address China's predatory trading practices. Yeah, it won't be pleasant for the US, but we currently have the leverage.
There's more but I can't be arsed to search for you if you're gonna lose your temper over something so insignificant that he's been so clear about. Yes that talk of leverage and tariffs is about freer trade, or at least stopping 'predatory practices'. I'm not interested in the conspiracy theory discussion, but why would you ask me that other than to do exactly what you criticized Kwark of doing?
|
5930 Posts
Does the US really have all that much leverage? I dunno, the tariffs are still absurdly poorly planned by scrub tier economists. China could fold I guess but I suspect they'd just eat the losses since they're a command economy and can run on the fumes of ethnonationalism for a while if required. US businesses still their production capability and everyone knows tariffs are a tax paid by importers which are always passed onto businesses and consumers. The only result are either businesses going out of business and stuff getting more expensive. See: Caselabs' recent price hikes by 10%.
There's a strange side effect when it comes to these tariffs. Economies and investors like stability and Trump is anything but that. So Trump's trying to cut the trade deficit with tariffs but that pushes investors into buying safe US bonds. Which increases the strength of the US dollar, which encourages importing. Which widened the trade deficit by 7.4% in June.
The Chinese have been trying to tank the RMB for ages, much in the same way Japan consistently tries to tank the JYP. In the recent months, the tariffs have tanked the RMB by quite a bit against the US dollar.
|
It doesn’t and you can’t leverage another nation of equal economic power. They just find new trading partners. China is not addicted to its US trade surplus. It can have this trade surplus with any nation, we just happen to be their trading partner.
|
On August 07 2018 08:26 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 08:14 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 08:01 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 07:39 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 06:58 Dan HH wrote:On August 07 2018 04:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 04:12 Nebuchad wrote:On August 07 2018 03:49 IgnE wrote:On August 07 2018 02:41 kollin wrote:On August 07 2018 02:25 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
look, if you are an isolationist-leaning conservative who thinks the US spends too much money protecting the rest of the world (for privileged monied interests?) then its not completely non-sensical to think that governmental institutions have been staffed w internationalists who "dont look out for america's interests." if anything is non-sensical it is the reference to "x-nation's interests," something that really only takes on firm meaning in a self-sacrificing nationalist framework
Privileged monied interests is only meaningful if you're able to mount a sustained critique of capitalism, which very few conservatives seem able to do, or if your referring to, more or less, the Jews. And of course national interest only takes on meaning within a nationalist framework, but this is the framework through which most countries conduct foreign policy regardless, and which the US undeniably has done so for most of its existence. Truman turning away an initial draft of the Marshall Plan for looking too much like an investment prospectus has always stuck with me as exemplary of the tense relationship between US foreign policy and the interests of capital. You can understand American foreign policy along 3 main axes: 'nationalist'/security interest, capitalist interest, and a moral interest (which is usually used to justify one of the other two interests). Trumpian critiques of past policy tend to do away with the capitalist element, and couch the debate in terms of patriotism. Therefore, those that want to uphold the 'liberal international order' or whatever don't hold that belief because they think that is in America's national interest, and ontologically can't hold that belief because they are rabid free marketeers or whatever. All that is left is the idea that they are seeking to undermine Trump because they're 'globalists', which without the foundational critique of capitalism behind it is an accusation of conspiracism along the lines of a global Jewish conspiracy. The idea that security agencies might want to undermine an elected leader is not insane, and there are numerous historical examples, even in the US and UK. the idea they are doing it out of anything but adherence to what they perceive to be national interest (and the extent to which that is tied up with the interests of capital, which doesn't usually want the boat rocked too much) is incoherent without resorting to conspiracy - and when that conspiracy is founded on an international group of 'globalists' insistent on pushing globalisation on unconsenting communities, without even acknowledging capitalism's role, it is a very small step to accusing people of cultural Bolshevism. obviously i agree a critique of capitalism is the only way to approach the topic coherently and have argued as such, at length, against xdaunt in particular but there are conspiracies and then there are conspiracies. watergate did happen after all what i disagree with is the line of reasoning where because i have a critique of capital and understand the abstract unfolding of capital circuits and how they interface w governmental institutions im not a conspiracy theorist, but the other guys who dont have a critique of capital, despite wanting some of the same broader goals i do, must be conspiracy theorists rather than having some more nuanced understanding of how institutions hire like-minded thinkers who share certain assumptions and therefore work towards certain shared goals etc. etc. it doesnt have to be this evil top-down conspiracy, even if you are more conservative than steve bannon in other words, its far more productive to steel-man the opposition than to straw-man it. Why do you disagree with it though? It seems like a fairly logical conclusion. If you're annoyed by this globalization of markets, but don't have a criticism for what's factually causing this globalization of markets - economic (neo)liberalism working as intended - then surely you must think the cause is something else. I'm also amused that you encouraged people to steelman in the same general conversation where you characterized KwarK as saying that everyone who disagrees with him is a nazi, but that's a sidenote. its not a logical conclusion to think that just because someone has not identified the same exact cause as you that the "something else" must therefore be a conspiracy run by an evil cabal. futhermore i dont see why you keep referring to neoliberal economic markets as if renegotiating free trade agreements did not implicitly include a criticism of neoliberal economic markets Renegotiating trade agreements does not imply a criticism of neoliberal economics. It merely implies a criticism of the administrations that made those agreements, which either out of sheer incompetence or bleeding-heart selflessness (neither of which are requirements of neoliberalism) made deals that favor their trade partners to the detriment of the US. That has been the argument since the start of the 'US is being taken advantage of' rhetoric. renegotiating free trade agreements to be less free does That's not what's happening though, is it? Trump came out of the discussions with Juncker promising freer trade and it went down well with his base. The complaints from that side weren't that the current agreements are too free but that they aren't fair, that other countries are freer to sell their goods to the US than the US is to sell its goods to them (see the auto discussion). Trump's tariff threats have been repeatedly praised here by his supporters as being good use of leverage rather than the end goal. ah right of course. all this talk ive heard in the news about "tariffs" is actually freer trade. like fuck dude what are you even arguing about? do you also think that conservatives must necessarily be conspiracy theorists who have no concept at all of how economics works? Here you go: Show nested quote +On July 29 2018 22:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 29 2018 22:00 JimmiC wrote:
Does anyone else think it is odd that the "right" hates free trade and the "left" is fighting for it. This is opposite world. This is a bit of a misnomer. It’s not that the right generally hates free trade so much as it sees the current regime of trade treaties as being unfair trade deals that soak America. What we have now is not “free trade.” Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 00:16 xDaunt wrote:
As for the trade war, I'm not sure why you're so sure that Trump can't win it. Let's just take China as an example. China is hugely dependent upon its multi-hundred billion dollar trade surplus with the US to support its domestic growth and maintain domestic stability. China has very deliberately structured its protectionist trade policies to foster and grow that trade imbalance (and that's before we even get into issues of IP theft). The American market is not currently replaceable for China. For these reasons, now is as good of a time as any to address China's predatory trading practices. Yeah, it won't be pleasant for the US, but we currently have the leverage. There's more but I can't be arsed to search for you if you're gonna lose your temper over something so insignificant that he's been so clear about. Yes that talk of leverage and tariffs is about freer trade, or at least stopping 'predatory practices'. I'm not interested in the conspiracy theory discussion, but why would you ask me that other than to do exactly what you criticized Kwark of doing?
the proposition is a fairly simple one: if you talk about trade like a "war" you are probably not a "neoliberal." i dont fee particularly compelled to continue this discussion line because we probably agree on the more important things. but surely you can see a difference between an obama/clinton approach to trade and a trump approach to trade, regardless of whether the goal is ultimately "free trade"
|
|
|
As always the problem for bigger companies is that they are multi-continental. Take something like Volkswagen, they have around 10 brands below them. The majority of which does business in the US even though their highest volumes aren't there. They can't break a US sanction since currently the US is more important than Iran.
Though if the split keeps happening with more nations there could come a point where mainly EU focused companies can compare the market size of the US with all its sanctions. Then decide the profit is bigger in the sanction areas.
For companies with no business in the US it will be interesting since some of their sub-suppliers is bound to have trade with the US. Interesting to see if that is ever made into an issue.
|
On August 07 2018 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm just wondering where the chorus of "you'll never change minds like that" are for Kwark. Suddenly calling xDaunt a Nazi (I see IgnE's point on this, yes that should confuse you) isn't overbearingly counterproductive.
The whole "you gotta be patient and polite with racists else you'll just push them farther away" seems to just be something liberals tell POC to make them be nicer to them.
(From website feedback thread)
There's a huge difference between targeting xDaunt with this kind of language, like this, and targeting everyone who isn't a communist/all democrat voters/all white people.
You aren't going to win xdaunt over, so its not really counterproductive because the goal is simply to get him angry (I assume).
|
My guess is this has more to do with who is at the receiving end and who isn't.
|
On August 07 2018 17:44 Nebuchad wrote:
My guess is this has more to do with who is at the receiving end and who isn't.
It surely does, but the situations aren't comparable.
|
On August 07 2018 18:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 17:44 Nebuchad wrote:
My guess is this has more to do with who is at the receiving end and who isn't. It surely does, but the situations aren't comparable.
Why do you think MLK jr. began to believe it was moderates and not KKK members who were the greatest obstacle for Black people?
|
Again I have to imagine sooner or later state and then the federal government is going to tell homeowners and companies that if you build in a certain area during natural disasters you will not be saved or able to recoup your losses as a result.
Plumes of smoke towered over flame-engulfed mountains in northern California on Monday as firefighters grappled with the largest wildfire in state history.
At a community hall in a small farming community 121 miles north-east of San Francisco, Renato Lira, an American Red Cross disaster services worker, looked through photos on his phone of the fire he had just driven through to set up an evacuation center. As he flicked, his screen turned red.
“It’s not stopping,” Lira said of the blaze. “People thought this year was going to be a break.”
At 443.4 square miles and growing, the blaze is already larger than New York and approaching the size of Los Angeles. The fire surpassed this size of the Thomas Fire, which broke out in 2017.
As of Monday afternoon, the Mendocino Complex fire had destroyed a total of 87 residences and 82 other structures. News agencies have reported seven deaths so far in blazes across California.
The images on Lira’s phone are a testament to the forbidding atmosphere in a region that has seen repeated blazes over the past four years, threatening the local economy and leading residents to question fire prevention strategies.
Blazes throughout the state have disrupted summer routines, with much of Yosemite national park closed due to fire activity. Air quality around the park is poor amid thick smoke and falling ash.
About 14,000 firefighters, including inmate volunteers, are battling 18 major blazes burning thousands of square miles. Firefighting costs have more than tripled from $242 million in the 2013 fiscal year to $773 million in the 2018 fiscal year that ended on 30 June, according to Cal Fire.
The fire conditions have drawn unusual commentary from Donald Trump, who tweeted that the blazes had been caused by policies that require the state’s water managers to divert water from reservoirs into rivers and streams. Among other things, the policies are meant to protect struggling fish species and prevent salinity in waterways.
“Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean,” Trump tweeted on Monday.
Though Trump’s logic is sure to be questioned by hydrologists, the water diversion policies have long been a target of conservative farmers in the region, who argue that water should be stored for their use rather than flowing out to sea.
Tricia Austin, a spokesperson for CalFire, the state firefighting agency, said the fire was eating through the region’s diverse topography, where remote homes and small towns are interspersed through an arid region of pines, oak woodlands and parched grass pastures.
“All the fuels are receptive and the fire is being pushed erratically,” Austin said. “They’re dry and it’s hot and we’ve got low humidities.”
At the evacuation center in Colusa, the Red Cross worker Dene Shaver said the repeated cycles of fire, home destruction and evacuation had begun to take a psychological toll on residents and caused them to question the future of living in this region, which has been a haven for retirees and others priced out of the Bay Area.
“The California people are sort of over it,” Shaver said. “They want to know why this keeps happening.”
The frequent fires through this region, which have seen less national media attention than those that have burned-through communities such as Redding and Santa Rosa, have hampered the local economy, with businesses struggling to stay staffed while employees endure repeated evacuations.
“It’s extremely challenging financially,” said Melissa Fulton, CEO of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce. “Our county is suffering quite a bit because of the revenue in tourism and property tax.”
A CalFire spokesperson, Marco De Anza, said the fire highlighted the need for a more comprehensive fire strategy, which could help communities in northern California stay safe in a time of prolonged drought and hotter days.
Source
|
On August 07 2018 18:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again I have to imagine sooner or later state and then the federal government is going to tell homeowners and companies that if you build in a certain area during natural disasters you will not be saved or able to recoup your losses as a result. Show nested quote +Plumes of smoke towered over flame-engulfed mountains in northern California on Monday as firefighters grappled with the largest wildfire in state history.
At a community hall in a small farming community 121 miles north-east of San Francisco, Renato Lira, an American Red Cross disaster services worker, looked through photos on his phone of the fire he had just driven through to set up an evacuation center. As he flicked, his screen turned red.
“It’s not stopping,” Lira said of the blaze. “People thought this year was going to be a break.”
At 443.4 square miles and growing, the blaze is already larger than New York and approaching the size of Los Angeles. The fire surpassed this size of the Thomas Fire, which broke out in 2017.
As of Monday afternoon, the Mendocino Complex fire had destroyed a total of 87 residences and 82 other structures. News agencies have reported seven deaths so far in blazes across California.
The images on Lira’s phone are a testament to the forbidding atmosphere in a region that has seen repeated blazes over the past four years, threatening the local economy and leading residents to question fire prevention strategies.
Blazes throughout the state have disrupted summer routines, with much of Yosemite national park closed due to fire activity. Air quality around the park is poor amid thick smoke and falling ash.
About 14,000 firefighters, including inmate volunteers, are battling 18 major blazes burning thousands of square miles. Firefighting costs have more than tripled from $242 million in the 2013 fiscal year to $773 million in the 2018 fiscal year that ended on 30 June, according to Cal Fire.
The fire conditions have drawn unusual commentary from Donald Trump, who tweeted that the blazes had been caused by policies that require the state’s water managers to divert water from reservoirs into rivers and streams. Among other things, the policies are meant to protect struggling fish species and prevent salinity in waterways.
“Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean,” Trump tweeted on Monday.
Though Trump’s logic is sure to be questioned by hydrologists, the water diversion policies have long been a target of conservative farmers in the region, who argue that water should be stored for their use rather than flowing out to sea.
Tricia Austin, a spokesperson for CalFire, the state firefighting agency, said the fire was eating through the region’s diverse topography, where remote homes and small towns are interspersed through an arid region of pines, oak woodlands and parched grass pastures.
“All the fuels are receptive and the fire is being pushed erratically,” Austin said. “They’re dry and it’s hot and we’ve got low humidities.”
At the evacuation center in Colusa, the Red Cross worker Dene Shaver said the repeated cycles of fire, home destruction and evacuation had begun to take a psychological toll on residents and caused them to question the future of living in this region, which has been a haven for retirees and others priced out of the Bay Area.
“The California people are sort of over it,” Shaver said. “They want to know why this keeps happening.”
The frequent fires through this region, which have seen less national media attention than those that have burned-through communities such as Redding and Santa Rosa, have hampered the local economy, with businesses struggling to stay staffed while employees endure repeated evacuations.
“It’s extremely challenging financially,” said Melissa Fulton, CEO of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce. “Our county is suffering quite a bit because of the revenue in tourism and property tax.”
A CalFire spokesperson, Marco De Anza, said the fire highlighted the need for a more comprehensive fire strategy, which could help communities in northern California stay safe in a time of prolonged drought and hotter days. Source
Yeah this is a problem. When I lived in California i was blown away by all the building in fire prone areas. Combined with the lack of controlled burns and global warming, this problem isn't going away. At some point you got to change something, right?
A similarly stupid thing im seeing is the huge influx of people to Tucson and Phoenix. WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH WATER. Stop building new houses for fucks sake. NPR said Phoenix has the highest water usage for golf in the country. What a joke.
|
On August 07 2018 21:04 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2018 18:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Again I have to imagine sooner or later state and then the federal government is going to tell homeowners and companies that if you build in a certain area during natural disasters you will not be saved or able to recoup your losses as a result. Plumes of smoke towered over flame-engulfed mountains in northern California on Monday as firefighters grappled with the largest wildfire in state history.
At a community hall in a small farming community 121 miles north-east of San Francisco, Renato Lira, an American Red Cross disaster services worker, looked through photos on his phone of the fire he had just driven through to set up an evacuation center. As he flicked, his screen turned red.
“It’s not stopping,” Lira said of the blaze. “People thought this year was going to be a break.”
At 443.4 square miles and growing, the blaze is already larger than New York and approaching the size of Los Angeles. The fire surpassed this size of the Thomas Fire, which broke out in 2017.
As of Monday afternoon, the Mendocino Complex fire had destroyed a total of 87 residences and 82 other structures. News agencies have reported seven deaths so far in blazes across California.
The images on Lira’s phone are a testament to the forbidding atmosphere in a region that has seen repeated blazes over the past four years, threatening the local economy and leading residents to question fire prevention strategies.
Blazes throughout the state have disrupted summer routines, with much of Yosemite national park closed due to fire activity. Air quality around the park is poor amid thick smoke and falling ash.
About 14,000 firefighters, including inmate volunteers, are battling 18 major blazes burning thousands of square miles. Firefighting costs have more than tripled from $242 million in the 2013 fiscal year to $773 million in the 2018 fiscal year that ended on 30 June, according to Cal Fire.
The fire conditions have drawn unusual commentary from Donald Trump, who tweeted that the blazes had been caused by policies that require the state’s water managers to divert water from reservoirs into rivers and streams. Among other things, the policies are meant to protect struggling fish species and prevent salinity in waterways.
“Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean,” Trump tweeted on Monday.
Though Trump’s logic is sure to be questioned by hydrologists, the water diversion policies have long been a target of conservative farmers in the region, who argue that water should be stored for their use rather than flowing out to sea.
Tricia Austin, a spokesperson for CalFire, the state firefighting agency, said the fire was eating through the region’s diverse topography, where remote homes and small towns are interspersed through an arid region of pines, oak woodlands and parched grass pastures.
“All the fuels are receptive and the fire is being pushed erratically,” Austin said. “They’re dry and it’s hot and we’ve got low humidities.”
At the evacuation center in Colusa, the Red Cross worker Dene Shaver said the repeated cycles of fire, home destruction and evacuation had begun to take a psychological toll on residents and caused them to question the future of living in this region, which has been a haven for retirees and others priced out of the Bay Area.
“The California people are sort of over it,” Shaver said. “They want to know why this keeps happening.”
The frequent fires through this region, which have seen less national media attention than those that have burned-through communities such as Redding and Santa Rosa, have hampered the local economy, with businesses struggling to stay staffed while employees endure repeated evacuations.
“It’s extremely challenging financially,” said Melissa Fulton, CEO of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce. “Our county is suffering quite a bit because of the revenue in tourism and property tax.”
A CalFire spokesperson, Marco De Anza, said the fire highlighted the need for a more comprehensive fire strategy, which could help communities in northern California stay safe in a time of prolonged drought and hotter days. Source Yeah this is a problem. When I lived in California i was blown away by all the building in fire prone areas. Combined with the lack of controlled burns and global warming, this problem isn't going away. At some point you got to change something, right? A similarly stupid thing im seeing is the huge influx of people to Tucson and Phoenix. WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH WATER. Stop building new houses for fucks sake. NPR said Phoenix has the highest water usage for golf in the country. What a joke.
Maybe ask Trump to build a wall around those cities  ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
