Murrica: fuck yeah

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11451 by Dog » Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:50 pm

Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:I was talking about the potus. Litterally, we were talking about « would americans learn anything new if a tape surfaced with Trump making racial slurs ». Then Jester replied that some people seem to really need to have it spelled out for them before they recognize racism. Then Slick posted some off-the-wall stuff from an asian chick. Then we were all like wtf are you talking about? Then he was like, SJWs suck! Then we were like, wtf are you talking about!

You guys were talking about incels?

:why:


to be honest a barely read those posts and really just focused on this sentence:

have a narrow understanding of racism. It needs to be really explicit before they'll grasp it.


which I quoted.


He was talking about people still blind to Trump’s racism. People that would have to hear him say explicit horrific shit on tape to see it. He wasn’t talking about Norwegian sushi shops.

Do you consider Trump a racist, Nick?
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9229
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1087 times
Received rep: 670 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11452 by Slick Nick » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:28 am

Dog wrote:
Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:I was talking about the potus. Litterally, we were talking about « would americans learn anything new if a tape surfaced with Trump making racial slurs ». Then Jester replied that some people seem to really need to have it spelled out for them before they recognize racism. Then Slick posted some off-the-wall stuff from an asian chick. Then we were all like wtf are you talking about? Then he was like, SJWs suck! Then we were like, wtf are you talking about!

You guys were talking about incels?

:why:


to be honest a barely read those posts and really just focused on this sentence:

have a narrow understanding of racism. It needs to be really explicit before they'll grasp it.


which I quoted.


He was talking about people still blind to Trump’s racism. People that would have to hear him say explicit horrific shit on tape to see it. He wasn’t talking about Norwegian sushi shops.

Do you consider Trump a racist, Nick?


As I said, I didn't read the stream of posts. Sometimes I just want to strip up some talk, I find it amusing.

I think Trump says a lot of putrid things but I don't think he's the hardcore racist some try to portray him to be...

he likes Russians too, the most vilified race on this planet.. pretty open guy in the end.

:trump:
User avatar
chicpea
Registered Broad
Posts: 17936
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: lagoons or ditches
Has given rep: 721 times
Received rep: 393 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11453 by chicpea » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:16 am

Don't worry. You won't get beheaded.

User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11454 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:33 am

Slick Nick wrote:I think Trump says a lot of putrid things but I don't think he's the hardcore racist some try to portray him to be...


He’s always struck me as more of a sociopathic opportunist than anything else. Not really an ideologue. More of a massive manipulative cunt. Along with the “Muslim travel ban” designed to set the tone to start his admin and throw red meat to that faction of the populace, his first official visit was to Saudi Arabia...

Thing is, I don’t think that matters that much (whether he’s an ideologue racist vs opportunistic putrid human). I think it’s crystal clear that a central part of his “strategy” is race baiting -fanning and preying on people’s fears and prejudices of minorities to gain/consolidate support. It’s not new, it’s always ugly to me when done, but he’s taken it to a whole new level -at least by post WWII western standards. Albeit he may not himself be of the hardcore ideologue variety, prominent members of his staff seem to be - notably Stephan Miller.

Trump started his political ascendency by becoming the chief spokesperson for the profoundly racist birther movement, made hyperbolic statements to stoke fears of and dehumanize southern american migrants and muslims - notably, his central themes of portraying migrants as principally murderers, rapists and other assorted dangerous low lives, his repeated rallying cry for a Wall (that’s more a rallying cry/symbolism than an actual practical thing), cumulating, so far, in that cynical and absolutely outrageous policy of child separation.

I think a discussion on immigation is important and legitimate. That’s not the issue. The issue is how he frames the debate -it is very clearly framed in an overtly racist manner. Whether that’s out of personal conviction or cynical political opportunism, to me, is not that important. His administration, in its words and deeds, is racist and it is so in an inflammatory manner. As to his own personal convinctions, I think that it’s the same as for most of his positions -incoherent and inconsistent.
User avatar
chicpea
Registered Broad
Posts: 17936
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: lagoons or ditches
Has given rep: 721 times
Received rep: 393 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11455 by chicpea » Mon Aug 13, 2018 11:48 am

Dog wrote:words I agree with



This is someone I can get behind. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-tim-ka ... king-them/
User avatar
mcphee
Registered Broad
Posts: 36777
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:27 am
Has given rep: 170 times
Received rep: 424 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11456 by mcphee » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:13 pm

I don’t think Trump is a racist but how I’d define it . I don’t think he sees or thinks about race in any detailed manner other than how taking a position reflects on him. I think people forget that. He seems to see everything by his own reflection.

The old Hitler line about ‘well he kept the trains on time’ relates to him. Any murderous dictator is judged by ‘well, he’s always been nice to me,

Now, he’s used by many who have deep down racial issues, but Trump doesn’t like anyone unless they benefit him. He’ll say racially insensitive shit but I doubt he understands it
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39643
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 419 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11457 by Craig » Mon Aug 13, 2018 12:16 pm

Trump's Dad was an oldschool, hardcore racist. It's hard for me to believe that a guy who has led that insular a life has that different a world view.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11458 by jester » Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:26 pm

Dog wrote:
Slick Nick wrote:I think Trump says a lot of putrid things but I don't think he's the hardcore racist some try to portray him to be...


He’s always struck me as more of a sociopathic opportunist than anything else. Not really an ideologue. More of a massive manipulative cunt. Along with the “Muslim travel ban” designed to set the tone to start his admin and throw red meat to that faction of the populace, his first official visit was to Saudi Arabia...

Thing is, I don’t think that matters that much (whether he’s an ideologue racist vs opportunistic putrid human). I think it’s crystal clear that a central part of his “strategy” is race baiting -fanning and preying on people’s fears and prejudices of minorities to gain/consolidate support. It’s not new, it’s always ugly to me when done, but he’s taken it to a whole new level -at least by post WWII western standards. Albeit he may not himself be of the hardcore ideologue variety, prominent members of his staff seem to be - notably Stephan Miller.

Trump started his political ascendency by becoming the chief spokesperson for the profoundly racist birther movement, made hyperbolic statements to stoke fears of and dehumanize southern american migrants and muslims - notably, his central themes of portraying migrants as principally murderers, rapists and other assorted dangerous low lives, his repeated rallying cry for a Wall (that’s more a rallying cry/symbolism than an actual practical thing), cumulating, so far, in that cynical and absolutely outrageous policy of child separation.

I think a discussion on immigation is important and legitimate. That’s not the issue. The issue is how he frames the debate -it is very clearly framed in an overly racist manner. Whether that’s out of personal concinction or cynical political opportunism, to me, is not that inportant. His administration, in its words and deeds, is racist and it is so in an inflammatory manner. As to his own personal convinctions, I think that it’s the same as for most of his positions -incoherent and inconsistent.


Wealthy folks have generally remained aloof from public presentations of virulent racism simply because their wealth shielded them from the rough edges of racial interaction. If your country club doesn't let blacks or Jews in, you don't need to talk about how you don't like Jews and blacks. Why be uncivil? They were still racist.

At some point his rhetoric and actions (over years) are what they are. This is particularly true when you are an executive overseeing policies with racist overtones, and ran a campaign with numerous baldly racist pronouncements (including its announcement!).

At some point you lose the benefit of the doubt. Whether that's due to personal ideology or moral failing, it doesn't matter.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11459 by jester » Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:30 pm

Craig wrote:Trump's Dad was an oldschool, hardcore racist. It's hard for me to believe that a guy who has led that insular a life has that different a world view.


Yeah, people forget this ... and he has some definite dad issues if you ever see a personal profile that touches on his relationship with the man. Moreover, he's had *numerous* opportunities to to demonstrate that he isn't racist and failed to do so. I mean, seriously, whenever he has to clean up his racist comments (post Charlottesville, for example) it looks like a hostage video. Some of that is clearly his inability to apologize/admit error ... but there's insincerity there, too.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11460 by AD » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:42 pm

Dog wrote:
Slick Nick wrote:I think Trump says a lot of putrid things but I don't think he's the hardcore racist some try to portray him to be...


He’s always struck me as more of a sociopathic opportunist than anything else. Not really an ideologue. More of a massive manipulative cunt. Along with the “Muslim travel ban” designed to set the tone to start his admin and throw red meat to that faction of the populace, his first official visit was to Saudi Arabia...

Thing is, I don’t think that matters that much (whether he’s an ideologue racist vs opportunistic putrid human). I think it’s crystal clear that a central part of his “strategy” is race baiting -fanning and preying on people’s fears and prejudices of minorities to gain/consolidate support. It’s not new, it’s always ugly to me when done, but he’s taken it to a whole new level -at least by post WWII western standards. Albeit he may not himself be of the hardcore ideologue variety, prominent members of his staff seem to be - notably Stephan Miller.

Trump started his political ascendency by becoming the chief spokesperson for the profoundly racist birther movement, made hyperbolic statements to stoke fears of and dehumanize southern american migrants and muslims - notably, his central themes of portraying migrants as principally murderers, rapists and other assorted dangerous low lives, his repeated rallying cry for a Wall (that’s more a rallying cry/symbolism than an actual practical thing), cumulating, so far, in that cynical and absolutely outrageous policy of child separation.

I think a discussion on immigation is important and legitimate. That’s not the issue. The issue is how he frames the debate -it is very clearly framed in an overly racist manner. Whether that’s out of personal concinction or cynical political opportunism, to me, is not that inportant. His administration, in its words and deeds, is racist and it is so in an inflammatory manner. As to his own personal convinctions, I think that it’s the same as for most of his positions -incoherent and inconsistent.





Come on dog... that's way too long of an analysis to say "Racist is as racist does".

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... pid%20does
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11461 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:53 pm

Yeah, but...on the other hand (fucking lawyers, man), I don’t think we should dismiss the rise of western right wing populism as just “racists being racist”.

Populism offers no sustainable solutions, but its rise clearly signals that a large portion of the population feels its concerns aren’t being heard. Principally, that seems to be in relation to immigration and free trade.

I think both need addressing. The winners and the losers aren’t the same....and that needs to be recognized and the losers need to be compensated. Immigration policy needs to be a balance of economic amd demographic need and humanitarian and family considerations. The demographic decline most Western nations will experience and the economic impact of that needs to be broadly explained. At the same time, we need better understanding of the effects of automation on labour forces and have plans to compensate losers. Same with trade. The effects of trade and automation are largely the same -greater efficiency and overall wealth at the cost of greater inequality.

I think we are in a period of important transition and that’s creating all the reactions. Shifting from industrial to post-industrial economies. Geopolitical rebalancing as regional powers assert themselves and challenge the US (especially in Asia). And, I think most importantly, the continued effect of technological progress and broader distribution/commodification of transportation and communications. It’s a tired saying, but the world is continuously shrinking under market and technological forces. That fuels nationalistic pushback. But, you can’t turn back the clock on those forces.

When a crisis hits, migrants show up at your door. That will continue to accelerate. You can’t build walls tall enough to effectively deal with this long term. You need to primarily address it at the source. Development aid should be seen as a top national security concern. Trade and immigration enlarge markets and boost productivity. Overall, we get wealthier. Both, however, to varrying degrees, benefit some to the detriment of others. That needs to be addressed. Much more investment in retraining and redistributive measures.

I think that the post WWII liberal world order is being questioned and challenged. From the inside. That’s what this is. It’s a fair thing to challenge. Conditions in 1945 and 1990 aren’t the same as today. Do the tenents of ever enlarging markets, multicultural immigration and liberal principles still make sense today. I think they do. But the benefits need to be sold again and the losers recognized and compensated.

I also think that important transitions and reallignments won’t happen without destabilization and conflict. Think we’re in for a bumpy ride regardless. But shouldn’t shy away from substantive debate on best course of action. Overlooking the concerns (legitimate or otherwise) of large portions of the population can lead to populist uprisings that end up making it worse for everybody.

Of course, non of the above addresses the concerns of the most vulnerable. The minorities. Yet, those interests won’t get addressed until the majority gets onboard and has its concerns sufficiently addressed.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11462 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:53 pm

Lemme write maw stories, people.

:crossarms:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11463 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:02 pm

So basically, I’m pro trade, pro taxation and redistribution, pro immigration but tying it to rational economic and demographic needs and pro substantial foreign aid and cooperation. Not a fan of national lines putting up inefficient barriers, but recognize you need a certain level of social cohesion and to manage people’s ability to digest change.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11464 by jester » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:27 pm

It would help greatly if politicians of all stripes got serious about some of the core elements here, and stopped spewing sugary BS. For example, we need to accept that the US economy c. 1950 is gone and never coming back. Both Bernie and Trump were very guilty of appealing to that bit of delusion, but they are far from alone.

This is a dynamic of great importance to Western economies where the population has grown accustomed to the spoils of the last three centuries. Future looks very different than that.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22068
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 137 times
Received rep: 391 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11465 by Dr_Chimera » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:41 pm

jester wrote:It would help greatly if politicians of all stripes got serious about some of the core elements here, and stopped spewing sugary BS. For example, we need to accept that the US economy c. 1950 is gone and never coming back. Both Bernie and Trump were very guilty of appealing to that bit of delusion, but they are far from alone.


Jester, you never fail to be utterly vacuous.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11466 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:14 pm

jester wrote:This is a dynamic of great importance to Western economies where the population has grown accustomed to the spoils of the last three centuries. Future looks very different than that.


I actually think the future holds more plenty, created by continuing tech progress and greater specialization and efficiency gains. It’s just unlikely to be spread evenly, unless we come upon some other well paid large endeavour that’s very labour intensive. Otherwise, we kinda just need to share better if we are headed towards lower workforce requirements. Of course, the end of work has been prophecized for centuries and hasn’t come to pass, but if production (and service providing) capacity gets less labour intensive and the middle gets progressively hollowed, we’ll need to share. Which really is kinda ok if machines do most of the work. Of course, in reality, we’ll all try to kill each other until, exhausted, the survivors will come to agreement on a new system.

:danson:
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11467 by jester » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:01 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:It would help greatly if politicians of all stripes got serious about some of the core elements here, and stopped spewing sugary BS. For example, we need to accept that the US economy c. 1950 is gone and never coming back. Both Bernie and Trump were very guilty of appealing to that bit of delusion, but they are far from alone.


Jester, you never fail to be utterly vacuous.


You up to date on media coverage of US healthcare yet?
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11468 by jester » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:05 pm

Dog wrote:
jester wrote:This is a dynamic of great importance to Western economies where the population has grown accustomed to the spoils of the last three centuries. Future looks very different than that.


I actually think the future holds more plenty, created by continuing tech progress and greater specialization and efficiency gains. It’s just unlikely to be spread evenly, unless we come upon some other well paid large endeavour that’s very labour intensive. Otherwise, we kinda just need to share better if we are headed towards lower workforce requirements. Of course, the end of work has been prophecized for centuries and hasn’t come to pass, but if production (and service providing) capacity gets less labour intensive and the middle gets progressively hollowed, we’ll need to share. Which really is kinda ok if machines do most of the work. Of course, in reality, we’ll all try to kill each other until, exhausted, the survivors will come to agreement on a new system.

:danson:


Let's talk about how that is spread, though. China, for example, is going to have a bigger chunk of global wealth in the future. So, yeah, I would expect standard of living to improve generally, but where wealth settles (at the macro level) is going to shift.

The developing world is ... developing, and the developed world is slowing down.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29903
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 362 times
Received rep: 171 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11469 by mayoradamwest » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:16 pm

Dog wrote:Lemme write maw stories, people.

:crossarms:


You told me those were off the record.

At least you kept the pics to yourself. :hugs:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11470 by Dog » Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:33 pm

jester wrote:
Dog wrote:
jester wrote:This is a dynamic of great importance to Western economies where the population has grown accustomed to the spoils of the last three centuries. Future looks very different than that.


I actually think the future holds more plenty, created by continuing tech progress and greater specialization and efficiency gains. It’s just unlikely to be spread evenly, unless we come upon some other well paid large endeavour that’s very labour intensive. Otherwise, we kinda just need to share better if we are headed towards lower workforce requirements. Of course, the end of work has been prophecized for centuries and hasn’t come to pass, but if production (and service providing) capacity gets less labour intensive and the middle gets progressively hollowed, we’ll need to share. Which really is kinda ok if machines do most of the work. Of course, in reality, we’ll all try to kill each other until, exhausted, the survivors will come to agreement on a new system.

:danson:


Let's talk about how that is spread, though. China, for example, is going to have a bigger chunk of global wealth in the future. So, yeah, I would expect standard of living to improve generally, but where wealth settles (at the macro level) is going to shift.

The developing world is ... developing, and the developed world is slowing down.


I think that will depend on the mid/long term effects of automation. I think trade is the issue of the 80s and 90s. Now, it’s done. What was efficient to have moved out of the developped world has already moved. Automation, however, is still developping. It will push production to either even lower cost centers (perhaps Africa -look at China’s play there) or get replaced by more machines/automated processes. It hollows the middle. Jobs will continue to cluster towards the high skill/high personal contact required work and the very shitty work not worth automating (or done by ever cheaper labour). Repetitive work will likely continue in its decline, with the decline spreading to places such as China. They are stuck in a trap. Cheap manufacturing enabled growing wealth but as the economy develops and wages rise -they hit a wall. Especially with automation continuing and becoming more efficient. With higher wages, they face competition from lower labour cost centers and further automation. I’m not bullish on China. The’re coming on their own as an industrial power at the age of decline of industry based economies. Better placed are the leading technological societies. The ones already in the pains of transition out of industry based economies. The problem with tech/skill based economies, though, is not that they don’t get richer, it’s that it’s unevenly distributed. Relatively few skilled workers get most of the good wages. Those fields are already global to a good extent. The capital will reside where those firms reside and that will be closer to the developed nations.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17532
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 105 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11471 by jester » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:43 am

Dog wrote:
jester wrote:
Dog wrote:
I actually think the future holds more plenty, created by continuing tech progress and greater specialization and efficiency gains. It’s just unlikely to be spread evenly, unless we come upon some other well paid large endeavour that’s very labour intensive. Otherwise, we kinda just need to share better if we are headed towards lower workforce requirements. Of course, the end of work has been prophecized for centuries and hasn’t come to pass, but if production (and service providing) capacity gets less labour intensive and the middle gets progressively hollowed, we’ll need to share. Which really is kinda ok if machines do most of the work. Of course, in reality, we’ll all try to kill each other until, exhausted, the survivors will come to agreement on a new system.

:danson:


Let's talk about how that is spread, though. China, for example, is going to have a bigger chunk of global wealth in the future. So, yeah, I would expect standard of living to improve generally, but where wealth settles (at the macro level) is going to shift.

The developing world is ... developing, and the developed world is slowing down.


I think that will depend on the mid/long term effects of automation. I think trade is the issue of the 80s and 90s. Now, it’s done. What was efficient to have moved out of the developped world has already moved. Automation, however, is still developping. It will push production to either even lower cost centers (perhaps Africa -look at China’s play there) or get replaced by more machines/automated processes. It hollows the middle. Jobs will continue to cluster towards the high skill/high personal contact required work and the very shitty work not worth automating (or done by ever cheaper labour). Repetitive work will likely continue in its decline, with the decline spreading to places such as China. They are stuck in a trap. Cheap manufacturing enabled growing wealth but as the economy develops and wages rise -they hit a wall. Especially with automation continuing and becoming more efficient. With higher wages, they face competition from lower labour cost centers and further automation. I’m not bullish on China. The’re coming on their own as an industrial power at the age of decline of industry based economies. Better placed are the leading technological societies. The ones already in the pains of transition out of industry based economies. The problem with tech/skill based economies, though, is not that they don’t get richer, it’s that it’s unevenly distributed. Relatively few skilled workers get most of the good wages. Those fields are already global to a good extent. The capital will reside where those firms reside and that will be closer to the developed nations.


I'm not sure I fully by that, but I also think you are underappreciated how poor "The Rest" have been compared to "The West." That dynamic just won't hold going forward. India, China, etc. are going to own a larger piece of the pie, and if we assume people think comparatively ... they will notice that shift.
User avatar
shredz
Registered Broad
Posts: 6875
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: The White House
Has given rep: 1503 times
Received rep: 877 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11472 by shredz » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:51 am

chicpea wrote:Don't worry. You won't get beheaded.




"You bite, you have him." :donger:
User avatar
shredz
Registered Broad
Posts: 6875
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: The White House
Has given rep: 1503 times
Received rep: 877 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11473 by shredz » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:01 am



It's a little dry. It's a little dry but I get the idea. :rudy: :rudy:
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11474 by AD » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:41 am

Dog wrote:Yeah, but...on the other hand (fucking lawyers, man), I don’t think we should dismiss the rise of western right wing populism as just “racists being racist”.

...a lot more words...)



What is wrong with you?

Also, that is not what "Stupid is as stupid does" means.

That means stupidity can be shown by the actions, not by the thought process or lack thereoff.

I elegantly used that Forrest Gump reference to say that your in depth analysis of the racist or not intentions of Trump and then in depth analysis of the undertones of his policies is rather irrelevant. His actions and policies are racist. Ergo, he's a racist.


5 words.

5.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11475 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:23 pm

AD wrote:What is wrong with you?

Also, that is not what "Stupid is as stupid does" means.

That means stupidity can be shown by the actions, not by the thought process or lack thereoff.

I elegantly used that Forrest Gump reference to say that your in depth analysis of the racist or not intentions of Trump and then in depth analysis of the undertones of his policies is rather irrelevant. His actions and policies are racist. Ergo, he's a racist.


5 words.

5.


I know. Why are you repeating with a hundred words what you already said with 5 words...which was 5 extra words as I had already said the same (in my own endearing style). We must exercise caution to keep the overall word counts low. I simply moved on from racism to other contributing causes to the rise of the populists.
User avatar
chicpea
Registered Broad
Posts: 17936
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: lagoons or ditches
Has given rep: 721 times
Received rep: 393 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11476 by chicpea » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:34 pm

Apparently Don wanted to be sworn into office using The Art of the Deal instead of the Bible. susfs.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11477 by AD » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:35 pm

Dog wrote:I know. Why are you repeating with a hundred words what you already said with 5 words....


Because you started your post with: "Yeah, but...on the other hand..."

That doesn't signify: "yes, I agree, and in addition..."
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11478 by AD » Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:54 pm

:colbert:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11479 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:03 pm

AD wrote:
Dog wrote:I know. Why are you repeating with a hundred words what you already said with 5 words....


Because you started your post with: "Yeah, but...on the other hand..."

That doesn't signify: "yes, I agree, and in addition..."


but, on the other hand, I said “I don’t think we should dismiss the rise of western right wing populism as just “racists being racist”.”

You just rephrased what I said. I tend to agree with what I said. But added additional causes. Said “it’s not just racism” (ie. in addition to racism, there is more). It’s Racism+
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11480 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:11 pm

Dog wrote:Racism+


One word and one mathematical symbol.

All essence.
User avatar
chicpea
Registered Broad
Posts: 17936
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: lagoons or ditches
Has given rep: 721 times
Received rep: 393 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11481 by chicpea » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:27 pm

I found this amusing. Little off-topic. Sorry.

User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11482 by AD » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:37 pm

Dog wrote: as just “racists being racist”.”


But that's not at all what I said. Not even close. Neither "as" nor "as just" work here.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11483 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:00 pm

AD wrote:
Dog wrote: as just “racists being racist”.”


But that's not at all what I said. Not even close. Neither "as" nor "as just" work here.


You were silent on the matter. That can imply you either thought there are other significant causes or that there are none. So, I clarified.

All I’m trying to do is bring light to the world.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11484 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:02 pm

And, frankly, I don’t understand why you keep insisting that somebody saying we should not just think it’s all racism is bad. Why? Do you think it is just racism? Are you taking exception because I called you out on YOUR BULLSHIT??!
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11485 by AD » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:42 pm

Typical sjw attacking a strawman. I wasn't talking about causes. I was talking about qualifiers.

Just like Donald and Ivanka, I condemn all forms of intolerance.

:colbert:

I'm done with you, cuck.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7748
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 259 times
Received rep: 415 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11486 by senate » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:51 pm

User avatar
chicpea
Registered Broad
Posts: 17936
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: lagoons or ditches
Has given rep: 721 times
Received rep: 393 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11487 by chicpea » Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:59 pm

In percentage, what are your guesses on Manafort being pardoned after this or his second trial, which will focus far more heavily on Russia? His lawyers today offered no defence. He hasn't copped a deal. Mind you, he may when he's sentenced to life in prison.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11488 by Dog » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:05 pm

I’d say a good 97%-98%?

:dunno:
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37670
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 138 times
Received rep: 398 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11489 by PredsFan77 » Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:30 pm

depends how badly the repubs get hammered at the midterms. might circle the wagons if they do decently or revolt if trump tanks them all. outside chance the dems take control of one of the chambers and we start getting impeachment proceedings
CDX.NA.IG.9









[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7748
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 259 times
Received rep: 415 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11490 by senate » Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:26 pm

0%. Manafort is the fall guy. Any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, even if it occured after Manafort was fired, was all done by Manafort. In fact, Trump fired him because he suspected the collusion. because Trump is so smart and a good judge of character and he is a patriot who will make America great again. Any testimony that Manafort may give to say otherwise is a lie because Manafort is a convicted criminal. Also, Manafort probably has ties to the Clintons, who are the real criminals that colluded with Russia. In conclusion, WITCH HUNT!
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11491 by Dog » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:18 pm

jester wrote:India, China, etc. are going to own a larger piece of the pie, and if we assume people think comparatively ... they will notice that shift.


Absolutely, growth in the developing world will continue to outpace growth the developed countries. In absolute terms, that will continue to reequilibrate economic and geopolitical power dynamics. We will continue to evolve towards a more multipolar world.

However, what I mean is that developing economies (China most notably) will have to successfully undergo very substantial economic transitions and they are unlikely to be in position to catch up to and effectively compete with the advanced economies in post-industrial (and to some extent post services) knowledge economies.

China’s growth is slowing considerably. Its hit its peak as an exporter of manufactured goods. Manufacture exports from China have fallen substantially as a % of GDP from the mid 2000s and will continue to fall. They have become too expensive as a low skill manufacturing center and lost ground to other SE Asia economies, such as Vietnam. This will continue and accelerate. Growth based on low skill manufacturing can only go so far before rising wages make other lower labour cost centers cheaper and automation further drives down manufacturing costs. Trump and the trade deficit obsessed folks are literally fighting Chinese exports a decade or two too late.

China knows this and is very consciously shifting to a much more consumer demand based economy. In the era of Trump’s focus on protecting low skilled manufacturing jobs, China is shifting to a demand economy where US high tech exports are fast growing. China is becoming a market for advanced tech companies. Low skill manufacturing in china was fuelled by investment capital into relatively inefficient state companies. This results in a precarious corporate debt (bad government loans) situation. China is walking a tight line on this. Its debt to gdp ratio (incl SOE debt) is similar to those of the advanced economies, but China has reached comparable state and soe debt at much lower levels of consumer purchasing power. Consumer debt (which is very low) can fuel demand growth but this requires substantial cultural change and most likely greatly increase government spending on social services to give people confidence to spend. Additionally, China, as counter-intuitive as it seems, is also facing significant demographic challenges. The one child policy (which is now lifted, but birth rates haven’t really increased, likely because China has experienced “demographic transition” to low birth-low child mortality (and high cost of childrearing) like in the West) has created a demographic imbalance where old people outnumber younger people. And this is compounded by the fact that Chinese productivity remains a fraction of that of the most advanced economies.

Basically, China will continue to grow quicker than the West, but I’m far from certain that it is “better positioned” for the economy of the future. It’s days of growth as a cheap low skill manufacturing center have passed, that sector of its economy is now rapidly declining. Its growth has been largely fuelled by investment in relatively inefficient manufacturing and construction SOEs. It kept growth going by undertaking further massive investment in real estate development, which has also now largely reached its limits. China has reached the limits of its growth by government investment and exploiting mass cheap labour. It now has to transition into a consumer demand economy. China is becoming increasingly a market for Western firms -as its consumers demand for better Western tech is one of its fastest rising markers. The Chinese service sector has risen some, but mostly its share of gdp (which now surpasses manufacturing/industry) has grown more out of decline in manufacturing/industry than absolute growth.

China, in catching up with the advanced economies, encounters the same headwinds and lower growth than the later do as well. But, I believe it is at a significant technological and productivity deficit to the West and seems to have already capped out on direct government spending and export growth. They have to now transition to a “post-industrial” economy, but lag behind the West in their capacity to do so.

Their expenditures in R&D are actually pretty high (2% of GDP), in line with UK/Can/EU levels but still significantly being the tech leaders such as Germany, Japan and the US. Further, the spending is slightly inefficient. China based leading researchers, inventions, fundamental discoveries lags significantly most the advanced economies. They are catching up on technological execution, basically, not leading the way forward.

Anywho, long post again (feel free to ban me, greg), I think there are two things: 1) continued faster growth in the developing economies and corresponding rebalancing of macro economic/geopolitical power relations (more of a multipolar world) and 2) living conditions in the advanced economies (particularly those leading in knowledges based economies) will continue to be well ahead of the developing economies. I see the US, with its leading tech economy and no major demographic cliff ahead (that’s immigration!) as still the best positioned economy going forward. That’s followed by the Germany/Japan tranche of countries of high tech economies but demographic decline (probably leading to high wages/labour shortages/high tax burden to pay for all the old people) resulting in fairly flat growth/maintaining of living standards. The EU/Can/UK strata are in similar position to Ger/Japan but less tech/productivity advanced. China will become the largest market in the world, wielding major regional geopolitical power, but with living conditions well below the advanced economies. India/Brazil/Indonesia will all grow, perhaps more rapidly than China, but face even greater challenges in economic transition.

We’re in a time of transition and rebalancing of power dynamics, but I feel that the Western outlook is too doom and gloom. GDP growth isn’t end all be all. It will shift power to other poles, but living conditions in the advanced economies are unlikely to drop. What I think is a far greater risk is increasing income disparity. As economies become more knowledge/innovation/high skill based and as automation continues to progress and productivity increases, we’ll get on the whole more wealthy but with that wealth more and more concentrated in the hands of leading firms and (to a lesser extent) their high skill workforce. Truck drivers won’t fare so well.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11492 by Dog » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:18 pm

Jesus fuck, I write long posts.

:why:
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11493 by AD » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:34 pm

That last one with the desperate crawling smiley was short. I think many people will actually read it.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11494 by Dog » Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:39 pm

Dear diary,

I basically like to try to flesh out my thinking on here with input/challenges from others if they feel like. If not, I actually don’t mind. Fleshing it out makes me question it/structure it too. I mean, otherwise I wouldn’t bother to write in an e-diary.

Regards,
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11495 by Dog » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:06 pm

The one thing that gives me great solace and comfort in this world is the absolutely horrific and catastrophic destructive power of modern weaponry. It, solely, has prevented any large scale direct all out warfare between major powers since the end of WWII. Without it, I’d be quite frightened in times of geopolitical transition and instability. With it, protecting humanity from itself, I’m not very concerned. It’s a travesty that Obama has won a nobel peace prize for nothing, while the atomic and thermonuclear bomb, which has staved off another “all in” world war for over 70 years has not. Outrageous.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11496 by AD » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:24 pm

Data from this new study also suggests that 378,000 people worldwide died a violent death in war each year in 1985 to 1994


Since 2015:
Every minute, two people are killed in conflicts around the world.


(If you're keeping score at home ladies and germz, that's more than one million violent, direct, war related deaths per year)
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39643
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 419 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11497 by Craig » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:34 pm

What are your sources? I strongly suspect one number is combat deaths and the other includes non-combat deaths.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11498 by AD » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:38 pm

Craig wrote:What are your sources? I strongly suspect one number is combat deaths and the other includes non-combat deaths.


Uhm.. who cares?
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57888
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1824 times
Received rep: 1212 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11499 by Dog » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:40 pm

AD wrote:
Data from this new study also suggests that 378,000 people worldwide died a violent death in war each year in 1985 to 1994


Since 2015:
Every minute, two people are killed in conflicts around the world.


(If you're keeping score at home ladies and germz, that's more than one million violent, direct, war related deaths per year)


I said all out warfare between major powers, not peace on earth. 20 million people died during cold war conflicts in battlefront contries, but there was no WWIII. Europe, which could have sparked direct confrontation, also stayed peaceful. Likewise, you’ll likely never ever have a major confrontation between major powers in the future either.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69090
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 705 times
Received rep: 795 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11500 by AD » Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:42 pm

so.. yay…? not important humans die instead?

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests