|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41117 Posts
The key insight from a week of gobsmacking revelations is not that the Russia scandal may finally have an underlying crime but that, as David Brooks suggests, “over the past few generations the Trump family built an enveloping culture that is beyond good and evil.” (Remember when the media collectively oohed and ahhed that, “Say what you will about Donald Trump, but his kids are great!”? Add that to the heap of inane media narratives that helped normalize Trump to the voters.) We now see that, sure enough, the Trump legal team (the fastest-growing segment of the economy) has trouble restraining its clients, explaining away initial, false explanations and preventing self-incriminating statements. (The biggest trouble, of course, is that the president lied that this is all “fake news” and arguably committed obstruction of justice to hide his campaign team’s misdeeds.)
Let me suggest the real problem is not the Trump family, but the GOP. To paraphrase Brooks, “It takes generations to hammer ethical considerations out of a [party’s] mind and to replace them entirely with the ruthless logic of winning and losing.” Again, to borrow from Brooks, beyond partisanship the GOP evidences “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code.”
Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America.
Indeed, for decades now, demonization — of gays, immigrants, Democrats, the media, feminists, etc. — has been the animating spirit behind much of the right. It has distorted its assessment of reality, giving us anti-immigrant hysteria, promulgating disrespect for the law (how many “respectable” conservatives suggested disregarding the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage?), elevating Fox News hosts’ blatantly false propaganda as the counterweight to liberal media bias and preventing serious policy debate. For seven years, the party vilified Obamacare without an accurate assessment of its faults and feasible alternative plans. “Obama bad” or “Clinton bad” became the only credo — leaving the party, as Brooks said of the Trump clan, with “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code” — and no coherent policies for governing.
We have always had in our political culture narcissists, ideologues and flimflammers, but it took the 21st-century GOP to put one in the White House. It took elected leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican National Committee (not to mention its donors and activists) to wave off Trump’s racists attacks on a federal judge, blatant lies about everything from 9/11 to his own involvement in birtherism, replete evidence of disloyalty to America (i.e. Trump’s “Russia first” policies), misogyny, Islamophobia, ongoing potential violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause (along with a mass of conflicts of interests), firing of an FBI director, and now, evidence that the campaign was willing to enlist a foreign power to defeat Clinton in the presidential election.
Out of its collective sense of victimhood came the GOP’s disdain for not just intellectuals but also intellectualism, science, Economics 101, history and constitutional fidelity. If the Trump children became slaves to money and to their father’s unbridled ego, then the GOP became slaves to its own demons and false narratives. A party that has to deny climate change and insist illegal immigrants are creating a crime wave — because that is what “conservatives” must believe, since liberals do not — is a party that will deny Trump’s complicity in gross misconduct. It’s a party as unfit to govern as Trump is unfit to occupy the White House. It’s not by accident that Trump chose to inhabit the party that has defined itself in opposition to reality and to any “external moral truth or ethical code.”
Source
|
On July 15 2017 19:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The key insight from a week of gobsmacking revelations is not that the Russia scandal may finally have an underlying crime but that, as David Brooks suggests, “over the past few generations the Trump family built an enveloping culture that is beyond good and evil.” (Remember when the media collectively oohed and ahhed that, “Say what you will about Donald Trump, but his kids are great!”? Add that to the heap of inane media narratives that helped normalize Trump to the voters.) We now see that, sure enough, the Trump legal team (the fastest-growing segment of the economy) has trouble restraining its clients, explaining away initial, false explanations and preventing self-incriminating statements. (The biggest trouble, of course, is that the president lied that this is all “fake news” and arguably committed obstruction of justice to hide his campaign team’s misdeeds.)
Let me suggest the real problem is not the Trump family, but the GOP. To paraphrase Brooks, “It takes generations to hammer ethical considerations out of a [party’s] mind and to replace them entirely with the ruthless logic of winning and losing.” Again, to borrow from Brooks, beyond partisanship the GOP evidences “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code.”
Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America.
Indeed, for decades now, demonization — of gays, immigrants, Democrats, the media, feminists, etc. — has been the animating spirit behind much of the right. It has distorted its assessment of reality, giving us anti-immigrant hysteria, promulgating disrespect for the law (how many “respectable” conservatives suggested disregarding the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage?), elevating Fox News hosts’ blatantly false propaganda as the counterweight to liberal media bias and preventing serious policy debate. For seven years, the party vilified Obamacare without an accurate assessment of its faults and feasible alternative plans. “Obama bad” or “Clinton bad” became the only credo — leaving the party, as Brooks said of the Trump clan, with “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code” — and no coherent policies for governing.
We have always had in our political culture narcissists, ideologues and flimflammers, but it took the 21st-century GOP to put one in the White House. It took elected leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican National Committee (not to mention its donors and activists) to wave off Trump’s racists attacks on a federal judge, blatant lies about everything from 9/11 to his own involvement in birtherism, replete evidence of disloyalty to America (i.e. Trump’s “Russia first” policies), misogyny, Islamophobia, ongoing potential violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause (along with a mass of conflicts of interests), firing of an FBI director, and now, evidence that the campaign was willing to enlist a foreign power to defeat Clinton in the presidential election.
Out of its collective sense of victimhood came the GOP’s disdain for not just intellectuals but also intellectualism, science, Economics 101, history and constitutional fidelity. If the Trump children became slaves to money and to their father’s unbridled ego, then the GOP became slaves to its own demons and false narratives. A party that has to deny climate change and insist illegal immigrants are creating a crime wave — because that is what “conservatives” must believe, since liberals do not — is a party that will deny Trump’s complicity in gross misconduct. It’s a party as unfit to govern as Trump is unfit to occupy the White House. It’s not by accident that Trump chose to inhabit the party that has defined itself in opposition to reality and to any “external moral truth or ethical code.” Source
Splendidly written.
It won't matter to those in this thread who know more about the machinations on Capitol Hill though.
|
United States41117 Posts
|
If the GOP's plan to garner governor support for the Senate's healthcare bill amounts to lying about what's happening in their respective states, I daresay such a plan will not turn out as expected.
|
On July 15 2017 19:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The key insight from a week of gobsmacking revelations is not that the Russia scandal may finally have an underlying crime but that, as David Brooks suggests, “over the past few generations the Trump family built an enveloping culture that is beyond good and evil.” (Remember when the media collectively oohed and ahhed that, “Say what you will about Donald Trump, but his kids are great!”? Add that to the heap of inane media narratives that helped normalize Trump to the voters.) We now see that, sure enough, the Trump legal team (the fastest-growing segment of the economy) has trouble restraining its clients, explaining away initial, false explanations and preventing self-incriminating statements. (The biggest trouble, of course, is that the president lied that this is all “fake news” and arguably committed obstruction of justice to hide his campaign team’s misdeeds.)
Let me suggest the real problem is not the Trump family, but the GOP. To paraphrase Brooks, “It takes generations to hammer ethical considerations out of a [party’s] mind and to replace them entirely with the ruthless logic of winning and losing.” Again, to borrow from Brooks, beyond partisanship the GOP evidences “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code.”
Let’s dispense with the “Democrats are just as bad” defense. First, I don’t much care; we collectively face a party in charge of virtually the entire federal government and the vast majority of statehouses and governorships. It’s that party’s inner moral rot that must concern us for now. Second, it’s simply not true, and saying so reveals the origin of the problem — a “woe is me” sense of victimhood that grossly exaggerates the opposition’s ills and in turn justifies its own egregious political judgments and rhetoric. If the GOP had not become unhinged about the Clintons, would it have rationalized Trump as the lesser of two evils? Only in the crazed bubble of right-wing hysteria does an ethically challenged, moderate Democrat become a threat to Western civilization and Trump the salvation of America.
Indeed, for decades now, demonization — of gays, immigrants, Democrats, the media, feminists, etc. — has been the animating spirit behind much of the right. It has distorted its assessment of reality, giving us anti-immigrant hysteria, promulgating disrespect for the law (how many “respectable” conservatives suggested disregarding the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage?), elevating Fox News hosts’ blatantly false propaganda as the counterweight to liberal media bias and preventing serious policy debate. For seven years, the party vilified Obamacare without an accurate assessment of its faults and feasible alternative plans. “Obama bad” or “Clinton bad” became the only credo — leaving the party, as Brooks said of the Trump clan, with “no attachment to any external moral truth or ethical code” — and no coherent policies for governing.
We have always had in our political culture narcissists, ideologues and flimflammers, but it took the 21st-century GOP to put one in the White House. It took elected leaders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and the Republican National Committee (not to mention its donors and activists) to wave off Trump’s racists attacks on a federal judge, blatant lies about everything from 9/11 to his own involvement in birtherism, replete evidence of disloyalty to America (i.e. Trump’s “Russia first” policies), misogyny, Islamophobia, ongoing potential violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause (along with a mass of conflicts of interests), firing of an FBI director, and now, evidence that the campaign was willing to enlist a foreign power to defeat Clinton in the presidential election.
Out of its collective sense of victimhood came the GOP’s disdain for not just intellectuals but also intellectualism, science, Economics 101, history and constitutional fidelity. If the Trump children became slaves to money and to their father’s unbridled ego, then the GOP became slaves to its own demons and false narratives. A party that has to deny climate change and insist illegal immigrants are creating a crime wave — because that is what “conservatives” must believe, since liberals do not — is a party that will deny Trump’s complicity in gross misconduct. It’s a party as unfit to govern as Trump is unfit to occupy the White House. It’s not by accident that Trump chose to inhabit the party that has defined itself in opposition to reality and to any “external moral truth or ethical code.” Source
The Trumps are awful, but what they managed to do, because of that, was be the perfect figurehead for the juvenile(or is it senile?) Republican party. That third paragraph is particularly important.
|
United States41117 Posts
Donald Trump regrets the “bizarre mistake” of withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Sir Richard Branson has said. The British billionaire also urged the president to help phase out the ailing US coal industry.
Speaking in Brooklyn on Friday, the Virgin Group founder said businesses and cities were firmly behind a transition to low-carbon energy, which made Trump’s decision to exit the Paris deal “very, very strange”.
“With climate change, it’s America first and our beautiful globe last, and that seems incredibly said,” said Branson. “I’ve got a feeling that the president is regretting what he did. Maybe his children and son in law [adviser Jared Kushner] are saying, ‘Look, I told you so.’ Hopefully there is a positive change of mind.”
The US is set to become one of only three sovereign nations in the world not to be part of the Paris accord, which aims to stem dangerous global warming. Of the other two, Nicaragua feels the agreement does not go far enough, and Syria is mired in a disastrous civil war.
Branson said his companies would join the “We are still in” campaign – a coalition of hundreds of businesses, cities and universities committed to keeping to the US’s emissions reduction goals. Companies from Apple and Facebook to oil giants Exxon and BP urged Trump to stick with the Paris agreement, only for the president to fulfill his election pledge to jettison the pact.
“Trump had hundreds of the most influential business leaders in the world speaking to him and he ignored them, so there’s no guarantee that he’ll change his mind,” Branson said.
“Who knows what goes in there,” he added, pointing to his head. “The Paris decision was a bizarre mistake.
“You have people in America who believe the world was made 5,000 years ago. There are some strange people out there who have got into heady positions in the American government. You have the strange position of a cabal of people with very influential positions in America making these decisions.”
Branson admitted that he was unlikely to sway Trump, given his previous criticism of the president. In October, the British entrepreneur recalled a one-on-one lunch several years ago during which the future president explained how he was going to destroy five people who were unwilling to help him after one of his bankruptcies.
Branson said the lunch was “bizarre” and showed Trump’s “vindictive streak”. However, he said he would advise Trump to drop his pro-fossil fuels stance and help transition coal miners into new work.
“Coal mining is not the nicest of jobs,” Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs “far more pleasant, far less dangerous and far better for their health.
“I’d suggest that the government should help coal miners move into alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean energy needs hundreds of thousands of people. That would be good for the coal miners, good for America and good for the world.
“Now is the time to get massive investments into alternative energies. The vast majority of governments in the world are all still going in the right direction and companies in America are stepping into the breach.”
Branson was joined in a panel discussion by Andrew Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical and part of a group that advises the White House on manufacturing. Liveris said chemicals companies have moved on from “full frontal denial” of climate change and that businesses now grasp the seriousness of global warming.
Source
|
On July 16 2017 00:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump regrets the “bizarre mistake” of withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Sir Richard Branson has said. The British billionaire also urged the president to help phase out the ailing US coal industry.
Speaking in Brooklyn on Friday, the Virgin Group founder said businesses and cities were firmly behind a transition to low-carbon energy, which made Trump’s decision to exit the Paris deal “very, very strange”.
“With climate change, it’s America first and our beautiful globe last, and that seems incredibly said,” said Branson. “I’ve got a feeling that the president is regretting what he did. Maybe his children and son in law [adviser Jared Kushner] are saying, ‘Look, I told you so.’ Hopefully there is a positive change of mind.”
The US is set to become one of only three sovereign nations in the world not to be part of the Paris accord, which aims to stem dangerous global warming. Of the other two, Nicaragua feels the agreement does not go far enough, and Syria is mired in a disastrous civil war.
Branson said his companies would join the “We are still in” campaign – a coalition of hundreds of businesses, cities and universities committed to keeping to the US’s emissions reduction goals. Companies from Apple and Facebook to oil giants Exxon and BP urged Trump to stick with the Paris agreement, only for the president to fulfill his election pledge to jettison the pact.
“Trump had hundreds of the most influential business leaders in the world speaking to him and he ignored them, so there’s no guarantee that he’ll change his mind,” Branson said.
“Who knows what goes in there,” he added, pointing to his head. “The Paris decision was a bizarre mistake.
“You have people in America who believe the world was made 5,000 years ago. There are some strange people out there who have got into heady positions in the American government. You have the strange position of a cabal of people with very influential positions in America making these decisions.”
Branson admitted that he was unlikely to sway Trump, given his previous criticism of the president. In October, the British entrepreneur recalled a one-on-one lunch several years ago during which the future president explained how he was going to destroy five people who were unwilling to help him after one of his bankruptcies.
Branson said the lunch was “bizarre” and showed Trump’s “vindictive streak”. However, he said he would advise Trump to drop his pro-fossil fuels stance and help transition coal miners into new work.
“Coal mining is not the nicest of jobs,” Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs “far more pleasant, far less dangerous and far better for their health.
“I’d suggest that the government should help coal miners move into alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean energy needs hundreds of thousands of people. That would be good for the coal miners, good for America and good for the world.
“Now is the time to get massive investments into alternative energies. The vast majority of governments in the world are all still going in the right direction and companies in America are stepping into the breach.”
Branson was joined in a panel discussion by Andrew Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical and part of a group that advises the White House on manufacturing. Liveris said chemicals companies have moved on from “full frontal denial” of climate change and that businesses now grasp the seriousness of global warming. Source
Branson just called a large chunk of the country morons and crazy in this. Can't expect too much going forward now.
|
On July 16 2017 00:47 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 00:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Donald Trump regrets the “bizarre mistake” of withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, Sir Richard Branson has said. The British billionaire also urged the president to help phase out the ailing US coal industry.
Speaking in Brooklyn on Friday, the Virgin Group founder said businesses and cities were firmly behind a transition to low-carbon energy, which made Trump’s decision to exit the Paris deal “very, very strange”.
“With climate change, it’s America first and our beautiful globe last, and that seems incredibly said,” said Branson. “I’ve got a feeling that the president is regretting what he did. Maybe his children and son in law [adviser Jared Kushner] are saying, ‘Look, I told you so.’ Hopefully there is a positive change of mind.”
The US is set to become one of only three sovereign nations in the world not to be part of the Paris accord, which aims to stem dangerous global warming. Of the other two, Nicaragua feels the agreement does not go far enough, and Syria is mired in a disastrous civil war.
Branson said his companies would join the “We are still in” campaign – a coalition of hundreds of businesses, cities and universities committed to keeping to the US’s emissions reduction goals. Companies from Apple and Facebook to oil giants Exxon and BP urged Trump to stick with the Paris agreement, only for the president to fulfill his election pledge to jettison the pact.
“Trump had hundreds of the most influential business leaders in the world speaking to him and he ignored them, so there’s no guarantee that he’ll change his mind,” Branson said.
“Who knows what goes in there,” he added, pointing to his head. “The Paris decision was a bizarre mistake.
“You have people in America who believe the world was made 5,000 years ago. There are some strange people out there who have got into heady positions in the American government. You have the strange position of a cabal of people with very influential positions in America making these decisions.”
Branson admitted that he was unlikely to sway Trump, given his previous criticism of the president. In October, the British entrepreneur recalled a one-on-one lunch several years ago during which the future president explained how he was going to destroy five people who were unwilling to help him after one of his bankruptcies.
Branson said the lunch was “bizarre” and showed Trump’s “vindictive streak”. However, he said he would advise Trump to drop his pro-fossil fuels stance and help transition coal miners into new work.
“Coal mining is not the nicest of jobs,” Branson said, adding that in Britain miners have largely moved into jobs “far more pleasant, far less dangerous and far better for their health.
“I’d suggest that the government should help coal miners move into alternative jobs, such as clean energy. Clean energy needs hundreds of thousands of people. That would be good for the coal miners, good for America and good for the world.
“Now is the time to get massive investments into alternative energies. The vast majority of governments in the world are all still going in the right direction and companies in America are stepping into the breach.”
Branson was joined in a panel discussion by Andrew Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical and part of a group that advises the White House on manufacturing. Liveris said chemicals companies have moved on from “full frontal denial” of climate change and that businesses now grasp the seriousness of global warming. Source Branson just called a large chunk of the country morons and crazy in this. Can't expect too much going forward now.
When it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and talks like a duck but your not allowed to call it a duck because people get offended.
The evidence is right in front of you. They elected Trump, despite the glowing neon warning signs.
|
Trust me, I know. I'm just saying that if he wanted to try and get trump to change his mind on this, this isn't going to help. This whole administration is hell bent on undoing everything the Obama administration did out of spite.
|
Conway: Yeah well we aren't complete traitors yet so this is fine
Here's what Conway said on “Fox and Friends” on Friday morning:
Even the goal posts have been moved. We were promised systemic — hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion that not only interfered with our election process but indeed dictated the electoral outcome.
Yes, I know: Conway was actually accusing others of moving the goal posts. But these two sentences, in truth, represent her own effort to do just that. If this is truly the White House's stance going forward — and I remain unconvinced that Conway is truly leading the White House's messaging here or elsewhere — it's tantamount to an admission of guilt for Donald Trump Jr. but a promise that it wasn't part of a larger effort.
Conway seems to be suggesting a little bit of collusion or attempted collusion might have been okay. She is setting the standard at “hard evidence of systemic, sustained, furtive collusion.” But this is quite a bit different from the White House's repeated promises that there was no collusion, period — dozens of them in total, according to some counts. This is a statement that has been made over and over again, and never qualified in the way Conway just did. A sampling:
“There is no collusion — certainly myself and my campaign — but I can always speak for myself and the Russians — zero.” — Trump in May
“The Russia-Trump collusion story is a total hoax, when will this taxpayer funded charade end?” — Trump tweet in May
“There has been no collusion. There has been leaking by Comey. But there’s been no collusion, no obstruction and virtually everybody agrees to that.” — Trump last month
“Again, the story that there was collusion between the Russians & Trump campaign was fabricated by Dems as an excuse for losing the election.” Trump tweet in May
“There was simply no collusion that they keep trying to create that there was” — Deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Monday
“Zero collusion” and “simply no collusion” is apparently creeping into “no systemic or sustained collusion.” Conway seems to be saying, yes, this meeting was yucky and probably a bad idea, but it wasn't part of anything bigger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/14/kellyanne-conway-just-set-the-modern-record-for-political-spin/
|
United States41117 Posts
|
I'm simply amazed that every time they touch their health bill, they manage to make it worse. And that Cruz was in the running to be President.
|
The Cruz amendment also allows insurers to bypass the marketplace requirements if they sell plans that do meet the marketplace requirements, making it more likely for people not to have adequate coverage for developed conditions despite having a plan. I don't really understand what it's meant to do besides screw people over (even insurers don't like it!).
|
Well yeah, ofcourse thats how it works.
Else you would buy the cheapest possible plan (that is only allowed because of the amendment) that doesnt cover anything really. And then upgrade to a 'good' plan when you get sick.
The situation is not strange or bad in and of itself. It just shows why allowing insufficient coverage plans while also covering pre-existing conditions is stupid.
On July 16 2017 01:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The Cruz amendment also allows insurers to bypass the marketplace requirements if they sell plans that do meet the marketplace requirements, making it more likely for people not to have adequate coverage for developed conditions despite having a plan. I don't really understand what it's meant to do besides screw people over (even insurers don't like it!).
Republicans like to provide the tools to people but add pitfalls that allow 'dumb' people to get trapped in horrible situations.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 16 2017 01:52 NewSunshine wrote:
I'm simply amazed that every time they touch their health bill, they manage to make it worse. And that Cruz was in the running to be President.
I wouldn't call Cruz's ill-fated campaign to really be "in the running." He was just this cycle's Rick Santorum.
|
On July 15 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle.
If you're serious about this, this kind of anti-technological approach is pretty bad. The fact that I can order something on amazon and it arrives at my house a day later is actually a good thing. We shouldn't complain about technology having liberated us from having half of the population run menial store jobs any more than we complain about technology in agriculture.
The problem is the inequality, not the technology.
|
On July 16 2017 02:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle. If you're serious about this, this kind of anti-technological approach is pretty bad. The fact that I can order something on amazon and it arrives at my house a day later is actually a good thing. We shouldn't complain about technology having liberated us from having half of the population run menial store jobs any more than we complain about technology in agriculture. The problem is the inequality, not the technology.
Society doesn't have the ability to sustain a large, pervasive Amazon. Amazon will reach that point before society changes.
|
On July 16 2017 02:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 02:33 Nyxisto wrote:On July 15 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle. If you're serious about this, this kind of anti-technological approach is pretty bad. The fact that I can order something on amazon and it arrives at my house a day later is actually a good thing. We shouldn't complain about technology having liberated us from having half of the population run menial store jobs any more than we complain about technology in agriculture. The problem is the inequality, not the technology. Society doesn't have the ability to sustain a large, pervasive Amazon. Amazon will reach that point before society changes.
The problem is that America is to busy trying to get coal jobs back rather then seek how to handle a changing world.
Trials are already being run on how to deal with large portions of the populations not having a job because menial labor has been automated away. Its called Basic Income and while far from perfect its atleast an attempt at finding a solution.
|
On July 16 2017 01:10 Gorsameth wrote:
When it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and talks like a duck but your not allowed to call it a duck because people get offended.
Isn't that what Republicans are always complaining about (i.e. political correctness)? Or are you aligned with the Republicans on that one?
The evidence is right in front of you. They elected Trump, despite the glowing neon warning signs.
The Trump scenario is as plausible for the Democrats as it was for Republicans. It's not far-fetched at all to imagine that a lunatic celebrity populist outsider running a campaign primarily based on aggressive personal attacks against Wall Street, Trump, and the Democratic establishment coupled with some left-wing conspiracy theorist dog-whistling and support for reparations for blacks winning plurality support (~30%) in a Democratic primary if (s)he promised nationalized healthcare, prison reform, and took other generic Democrat policy positions. Especially when the primary is contested by 12 candidates that are mostly out of touch with what the party's base wants.
After you win the primary, tribalism and FPTP takes over. Democrats have mostly convinced themselves that the majority of Republicans are evil racist idiots already.
There will probably be Trump-driven demagogue fatigue preventing this for 2020, but Democrats who believe their self-supposed moral superiority (or whatever) would stop Trump-like candidates from winning in their party during a political environment as polarized as this are kidding themselves
If Democrats continue to feed their extremists and foster their echo chamber by milking "The Resistance" for another three years (i.e. basically the Republican strategy during Obama era), I'm willing to bet you might see some interesting candidates in the 2020 primary.
|
On July 16 2017 02:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 02:33 Nyxisto wrote:On July 15 2017 14:35 IgnE wrote:
I for one think we should break up Amazon and suspend internet shopping. It's killing the little brick and mortar stores that used to be the American lifeblood. Remember when everyone's family owned a store in town? Now it's just Amazon, Chili's, and Chipotle. If you're serious about this, this kind of anti-technological approach is pretty bad. The fact that I can order something on amazon and it arrives at my house a day later is actually a good thing. We shouldn't complain about technology having liberated us from having half of the population run menial store jobs any more than we complain about technology in agriculture. The problem is the inequality, not the technology. Society doesn't have the ability to sustain a large, pervasive Amazon. Amazon will reach that point before society changes.
The world also will not put technological progress back in the closet though. We cannot sustain the world either if we make things "small", because we lose efficacy while we do so. The thing we need to figure out is how we scope with the scale and the effects that technology or business like Amazon produces, rather than trying to fall back to a sort of 'localism', where the answer to everything is just to go back to small communities and so forth. It's not happening and it wouldn't be desirable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
