Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2018-07-01, 2:29 PM #9841
Originally posted by Eversor:
Why?


Speculative overinvestment in infrastructure and bureaucracy throughout the developed world against contracting economies. In other words, they will have bigger fish to fry. Land wars for territorial conquest don't make much sense when you're already struggling to maintain control over your historical territory.
2018-07-01, 2:58 PM #9842
Originally posted by Reid:
I'm trying very hard not to get too philosophical because the other posters hate it. I'm also trying to not reply to everything for the same reasons.

I'm not really advocating incivility per se. My stance is more that people make it out to be way more big a deal than it is. Pretty much all complaints about civility are stupid hypocritical bull****. I hate the whole subject and wish people could stop with this meta-level stupid b.s.

Unless you have good ideas for how to actually improve civility and also fix political problems, maybe you should also stop being so preachy towards other people about how they choose to participate in politics.


This seems like a dodge peppered with an ad hominem attack. Look, I legitimately don't know when I was preachy. Even though I tried to present my own position on this matter, I didn't think I was terribly dogmatic, and I thought my general tone was inquisitive. In fact I even think I went out of my way to not insult you. If it wasn't, I suppose it's too bad that I struck the wrong tone, since I was genuinely interested what you had to say on this topic. But I guess I must've struck a nerve.

Originally posted by Reid:
Organized protest. Wildcat strikes. Shutting down the buildings of people who hold political and social power, like Occupy Wall Street. Things like that.


The thing that's unfortunate is that you could've responded to literally everything I wrote with only this and then maybe we could've had a civil conversation. Like, if you had only said this, my take away would've been: ok, we probably agree on about 70-80% on this topic.

Maybe the point was not to have a civil conversation? I don't know.

Originally posted by Reid:
You've pulled this strawman a few times already. When I advocate for something someone doesn't like, their first move is to claim I'm speaking about something legally. I'm not talking about the legal system. Think of it this way: if a guy who lives on your street sexually harassed your wife when she was walking home, you would be somewhat justified in kicking his ass for doing it. It certainly wouldn't be legal, moreover I wouldn't want it to be legal, but I don't think it would be an immoral thing to do so. There's a gap between what's moral and what should be legislated. I feel the same about punching people who are advocating racial violence.


It wasn't a strawman, it was a question. Anyway, you seem to be fine with vigilantism, so: there's that. I learned something about your position, perhaps despite you?

The benefit to kicking this guys ass seems to be that it would feel good - manly, even. It seems to accomplish less than calling his sexual assaulting ass on the cops and making him do hard time.

Originally posted by Reid:
Why should people be nice to their boss? I think that's stupid.


Because their boss is a human being, and it's generally good to be decent to human beings, and besides a boss-employer relationship isn't necessarily defined by antagonism? Maybe that's stupid, but I can't say that I thought so as I typed it out.

Originally posted by Reid:
In fact, I think that's morally repugnant.


Huh. Ok. I think you're missing something pretty fundamental here.

Originally posted by Reid:
The same argument molds perfectly into someone saying slaves should act civilly towards their masters.


Oooph. I look forward to seeing what happens when you ask for a raise from your slave master whom you've bravely struggled against.

Kids today. I really don't understand the complete lack of tact here. As Bob Dylan said, you gotta serve somebody. If you want to be a complete prick, go for it: doesn't mean you're doing yourself any favors.

Originally posted by Reid:
None of that will do a single thing. Yes, uncivil action will be far more productive. The wealthy doesn't care about online campaigns, but they ****ing panicked about Occupy Wall Street. Because OWS was actually threatening, which meant it was tangible political pressure.

Basically everything you're saying is perfectly mocked by this tweet:

[https://i.redd.it/ezg560qpv4711.jpg]


And you political position is equally as well summarized by this tweet:



which is to say: not very well, but sick burn, I guess? I don't know. Are you trying to be rude in order to make a point?

But leaving that aside, I think you overestimate how effective OWS was. It didn't produce any substantive change. I think it's largest achievement was that it made income inequality an issue that could be talked about without being dismissed as a "communist". For a while, it was even a bipartisan issue -- people talked about the faltering middle class. But I don't think it posed a real threat, even in the minds of the powerful, and, to be honest, I don't think it's goal was to be threatening. I thought it's goal was to demonstrate that if you try to create an alternative society based on moral principles, it works, and so you could disprove the people who dismissed optimism for a better world as pie-in-the-sky idealism. At least that's what I thought when I was hanging out in Zuccotti Park myself, back in 2011.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-01, 4:21 PM #9843
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Speculative overinvestment in infrastructure and bureaucracy throughout the developed world against contracting economies. In other words, they will have bigger fish to fry. Land wars for territorial conquest don't make much sense when you're already struggling to maintain control over your historical territory.


I mean, I think this is making some false assumptions about who the belligerents in future land wars might be, and who would initiate them. While the economies of developed countries may contract in the future, other countries are growing wealthier and closing the gap. You're describing a situation in which formerly powerful countries are quite vulnerable; up and comers may want to take advantage of that.

Turkey seems like a contender. It could be such a country. Turkey is already playing an aggressive role in Syria and Iraq. As it grows wealthier, if there's no longer the same security infrastructure in Europe, it's feasible that it could invade Bulgaria or Greece -- those territories are, after all, its "historical territory".
former entrepreneur
2018-07-01, 5:46 PM #9844
Originally posted by Eversor:
I mean, I think this is making some false assumptions about who the belligerents in future land wars might be, and who would initiate them. While the economies of developed countries may contract in the future, other countries are growing wealthier and closing the gap. You're describing a situation in which formerly powerful countries are quite vulnerable; up and comers may want to take advantage of that.

Turkey seems like a contender. It could be such a country. Turkey is already playing an aggressive role in Syria and Iraq. As it grows wealthier, if there's no longer the same security infrastructure in Europe, it's feasible that it could invade Bulgaria or Greece -- those territories are, after all, its "historical territory".


Turkey is interfering in Syria and Iraq to frustrate the Kurdish independence movement, something that is very much about maintaining their own sovereignty in the face of internal stressors of exactly the kind I’m talking about. Going from there to wars of conquest against Greece is quite a leap.
2018-07-01, 10:52 PM #9845
posting this for Jon`C, because I know he'll love it

Code:
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act".

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(l) The United States maintains an open market for goods, with relatively low tariffs, and has
long encouraged trading partners, both bilaterally and in multilateral fora, to liberalize their
markets;
(2) The United States is the world’s largest importer of goods;
(3) Trading partners of the United States in many instances impose significantly higher tariffs on
U.S. goods than the United States imposes on the same or similar goods imported from those
same countries;
(4) Trading partners of the United States in many instances impose significant nontariff barriers
that greatly undermine the value of negotiated tariff concessions;
(5) The lack of reciprocity in tariff levels and disproportionate use of ​nontariff​ barriers by ​U.S.
trading partners facilitates foreign imports, discourages U.S. exports, and puts U.S. producers,
farmers, and workers at a competitive disadvantage;
(6) The lack of reciprocity in tariff levels and nontariff barriers contributes to the large and
growing U.S. trade deficit in goods, which is a drag on economic growth and undermines
economic prosperity;
(7) To date a number of U.S. trading partners have been unwilling, including in multilateral
negotiations, to reduce tariff and eliminate nontariff barriers applied to U.S. exports; and
(8) The President of the United States should have a wide array of tools to open the markets of
U.S. trading partners and encourage participation in negotiations to liberalize trade in goods on a
fair and reciprocal basis, including the authority to adjust tariff rates to reciprocal levels.

 SEC. 3 DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Nᴏɴᴛᴀʀɪ
ʙᴀʀʀɪᴇʀ—The term "nontariff barrier" includes any government-imposed
measure or policy, other than a customs duty, that restricts, prevents, or impedes
international trade in goods, including import policies, sanitary and phytosanitary
measures,technical barriers to trade, government procurement, export subsidies, lack of
intellectual property protection, digital trade barriers, and government-tolerated
anticompetitive conduct of state owned or private firms; and
(2) Rᴀᴛᴇ ᴏ ᴅᴜᴛʏ—The term "rate of duty" means the rate of customs duty applied on
imports of a good, but does not include an antidumping or countervailing duty or a duty
applied under a preferential tariff arrangement.

SEC. 4 DETERMINATIONS AND AUTHORIZED ACTIONS.
(a) Dᴇᴛᴇʀᴍɪɴᴀᴛɪᴏɴ. If the President determines—
(1) that the rate of duty applied by a foreign country with respect to a particular good, when
imported from the United States, is significantly higher than the rate of duty imposed by
the United States on that good, when imported from that country; or
(2) that the nontariff barriers applied by a foreign country with respect to a particular good,
when imported from the United States, impose significantly higher burdens, alone or in
combination with any tariffs imposed by that country on that good, than the burdens of
the tariff and nontariff barriers, if any, imposed by the United States on that good, when
imported from that country,
the President may take action authorized under subsection (b).

 (b) Tᴀʀɪ

Aᴜᴛʜᴏʀɪᴛʏ

(1) If the President makes a determination described in subsection (a), the President may take
either or both of the following actions—
(A)

negotiate and enter into an agreement with the foreign country that commits that
country to reduce the rate of duty or eliminate nontariff barriers on the good that
is the subject of the determination in subsection (a); or

(B)

impose a rate of duty on imports of that good from that country that is equal to ​the
rate of duty applied by that country on that good, in the case of determination
described in subsection (a)(1), or the effective rate of duty imposed by the
nontariff barriers, or combination of tariff and nontariff barriers, on the good, in
the case of a ​determination described in subsection (a)(2).

(2) In taking action under paragraph (1), the President shall consider—
(A)

the tariff classification of the goods in the United States and the foreign country;

(B)

The respective applied rates of duty of the United States and the foreign country
with respect to the good;

(C)

the physical characteristics of the good;

(D)

the end uses and existence of a competitive relationship between the good, as
exported from the United States to the foreign country and as imported from that
country to the United States;

(E)

the foreign country’s exports of that good to the United States and to the world;

(F)

in the case of a determination described in subsection (a)(1), the extent to which
the foreign country’s tariff on the good is impeding or distorting trade;

(G)

in the case of a determination described in subsection (a)(2),

 (i)

the respective nontariff barriers applied by the United States and the
foreign country with respect to the good;

(ii)

the extent to which the country’s nontariff barriers, or combination of
tariff and nontariff banners, on the good are impeding or distorting trade;

(iii)

the identified purpose of the foreign country’s nontariff barriers on the
good, ifany, and the extent to which the nontariff barriers are more
restrictive than necessary to meet that purpose; and

(iv)

the degree of transparency in the process by which the foreign country
adopted the nontariff barriers; and

(H)

other factors. as the President determines appropriate.

(3) The President may impose a rate of duty lower than the rate described in paragraph
(l)(B), if the President determines that application of that lower rate of duty necessary and
appropriate.
(4) The U.S. Trade Representative, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury, the
Secretary of Commerce, and other relevant agency heads, shall advise the President in
determining the effective rate of duty imposed on the good in the case of a determination
in subsection (a)(2).
(5) If, following action under paragraph (1)(B), the foreign country increases its rate of duty
on the good that is the subject of such action, the President may further increase the rate
of duty on imports of the good that is subject of the determination to the rate that is equal
to the rate of duty applied by that country.
(6) The President shall terminate any increase in the rate of duty applied under this section
effective on the date that the President makes a determination—
(A)

that the foreign country is no longer applying a rate of duty that is significantly
higher than the rate of duty that was imposed by the United States prior to any
action taken under this section, or imposing nontariff barriers that were the
subject of ​a determination under subsection (a)(1); or

(B)

that the increased rate is not in the economic or public interest.

 

SEC. 5 NOTICE AND CONSULTATION
(a) Before imposing any increased rate of duty or entering into any agreement with a foreign
country under section 4(b)(1)(A), the President shall consult with the Committee on Finance of
the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House Representatives regarding the
proposed action.
(b) Before taking any action authorized under section 4(b)(l)(B) the President shall—
(1) not less than 30 days before an increase in the rate of duty is to take effect, publish a
notice of a determination, and the increase in the rare of duty, in the ​Federal Register;
and
(2) seek advice regarding the proposed action from the advisory committees established
under section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974.
(c) The President shall promptly publish in the ​Federal Register notice of any action taken
pursuant to section 4(b)(5) or 4(b)(6).
2018-07-01, 10:55 PM #9846
Ah yes, the US FaRT Act. Another work of brilliance from noted synapse-haver Peter Navarro.
2018-07-01, 11:14 PM #9847
Here's my five-minute analysis:

This is about quote-unquote "economist" Peter Navarro's raging hate-on for value-added taxes, which are basically sales taxes structured in such a way to incentivize exports. Navarro considers them non-tariff trade barriers. Or sometimes he considers them tariffs. He's not a terribly consistent or intelligent person.

The United States is one of the few places on earth moronic enough to use straight-up ****in' sales taxes (in all of their regressive, economy-suppressing glory) instead of using VATs like normal people would. You guys are the problem here, not the, uh, like, 160 countries that use a VAT instead of sales taxes. If you switched over to a harmonized VAT it would solve a lot of administrative and taxation problems for the US and tbh it might even drag you guys out of the stone age just a lil.

Some internets think FaRT is about leaving WTO. Uh, maybe, but I don't think so. This has Navarro's ****-crusted fingerprints all over it, and he's really mad about VATs, not so much the WTO rules per se. Regardless, I doubt it would ever pass, or that Trump likes Navarro enough to stick his neck out for the dip****'s pet project.

Edit: Krugman on why Navarro is a screaming imbecile. https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/border-tax-two-step-wonkish/
2018-07-01, 11:15 PM #9848
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Turkey is interfering in Syria and Iraq to frustrate the Kurdish independence movement, something that is very much about maintaining their own sovereignty in the face of internal stressors of exactly the kind I’m talking about. Going from there to wars of conquest against Greece is quite a leap.


Partially. It's also creating a buffer zone to stop the civil war from overflowing into its own borders by creating a military presence beyond them. It's also dealing with the refugee crisis by forcibly resettling Syrians in lands that its conquering, in part in order to frustrate Kurdish nationalism, but also in order to alleviate itself of the economic burden of housing refugees. Having failed state as its neighbor is incentivizing military conflict. One can imagine circumstances where such things happened in Europe. It's, at least, feasible.

Plus, there's the fact that Turkey has done this sort of thing in the recent past: when it invaded Cyprus. And it's doing it right now. There's some whiplash going on: just a few posts ago you were pointing out how the very thing that you are now claiming won't happen anymore (wars of land conquest) has not been unprecedented in the post-WWII era. I'm not asking this as a rhetorical "gotcha", I'm asking: What exactly is your argument?
former entrepreneur
2018-07-01, 11:16 PM #9849
But dude, VATs are Europe!
former entrepreneur
2018-07-01, 11:41 PM #9850
Originally posted by Eversor:
Partially. It's also creating a buffer zone to stop the civil war from overflowing into its own borders by creating a military presence beyond them. It's also dealing with the refugee crisis by forcibly resettling Syrians in lands that its conquering, in part in order to frustrate Kurdish nationalism, but also in order to alleviate itself of the economic burden of housing refugees. Having failed state as its neighbor is incentivizing military conflict. One can imagine circumstances where such things happened in Europe.

Plus, there's the fact that Turkey has done this sort of thing in the recent past: when it invaded Cyprus. And it's doing it right now. There's some whiplash going on: just a few posts ago you were pointing out how the very thing that you are now claiming won't happen anymore (wars of land conquest) has not been unprecedented in the post-WWII era. What exactly is your argument?


My argument, which I've consistently maintained, is that world governments aren't conflicting any more than they ever have. The world is safer and has less conflict than at pretty much any point in history, not discounting a relatively small and recent up-tick. You're extrapolating based on recent news stories to see the world as much more dangerous and full of conflict than it actually is.

Geopolitics isn't some Katamari Damacy **** where whoever amasses the largest territory wins. It takes resources to prosecute wars, defend territories, and subdue, exterminate, or displace the populace. You need good reasons to do these things, or you'll risk ending up like the Roman Empire, spread too thin with patricians who are sick of paying for it all. There's a good reason for Turkey to suppress or annex a nascent Kurdistan, and it wouldn't take a lot of resources to do so. There isn't a good reason for Turkey to invade Greece.

Originally posted by Eversor:
But dude, VATs are Europe!


not coincidentally, so is democracy.
2018-07-02, 6:24 AM #9851
Originally posted by Jon`C:
My argument, which I've consistently maintained, is that world governments aren't conflicting any more than they ever have.


Okay, but that's a totally trivial claim. I haven't claimed that there's something unprecedented about the current dangers. The question real point of difference between us (going back to my long post) is whether or not the situation in the late 2010s is different from other years since the fall of the USSR.

The reason why I posted the chart from that pew study, for example, wasn't to say that AfD voters' anxieties about migrants are based in legitimate concerns (I certainly don't think that, and never claimed it, but it's ok, because by now I'm used to being misread by you). It was to point out: there's actually a pretty significant difference between the situation now and other points since the fall of the USSR.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
The world is safer and has less conflict than at pretty much any point in history, not discounting a relatively small and recent up-tick. You're extrapolating based on recent news stories to see the world as much more dangerous and full of conflict than it actually is.


No I'm not. I think that the landscape of the international system is substantially different than it was, and there are systemic reasons why that is the case. Some fundamental components of the system that have produced stability -- particularly, the assertive role of the United States as the world's global super power -- are changing. One important one is that the US is pulling back, and that's producing the possibility for more conflict throughout the world. This is a favorite talking point amongst certain hawkish foreign policy people, but I think people underestimate the ways in which America's withdrawal is effecting different regions. This was a favorite slogan of Republicans during the Obama administration. But I think the substantial effects of the pullback is actually underreported.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
There isn't a good reason for Turkey to invade Greece.


That's not entirely true. Actually, this is an instance where domestic politics may drive military aggression (again, this right-wing populism isn't devoid of international significance). Maybe now that Erdogan has won reelection, tensions between Turkey and Greece will simmer a bit. But tensions have been brewing between Greece and Turkey, and analysts are see war as a real possibility. There are many reason for this. One is that Erdogan is trying to shore up domestic support: one is that Erdogan is advocating a kind of Neo-Ottomanism -- part of Turkey's interventions in the Middle East is that Turkey is pivoting away from the EU, and reasserting its former identity as the dominant imperial power of the Middle East. And another part Neo-Ottomanism is hostility towards Europe -- it's a civilizational conflict, pitting an Muslim country which sees itself as a power (and a rising one at that) with historical claims to European territory taking what its entitled to from a Christian power. For the past few months, Erdogan has been throwing a lot of heated rhetoric at Greece (and, Greece has been responding in kind, by the way). It's flown into fighter jets into Greek airspace. And Erdogan says that Turkey has claims to various islands in the Aegean that Greek recognizes as part of Greece. It also claims part of the Greek mainland is Turkish territory.

Incidentally, something like what's happening in the Aegean happened in the 90s too. But the US stepped in and stopped a confrontation just as it appeared to be immanent. What happens when the US stops stepping in to resolve regional conflicts like this? Hmm. Maybe we'll live in a world with more conflict and uncertainty than we have enjoyed in the past 30ish years...
former entrepreneur
2018-07-02, 12:03 PM #9852
I know it's easy to be all "the left is so dramatic" or whatever, but real talk, the amount of random people on the right who accidentally reveal what sort of online circles they participate in should raise some eyebrows. The latest from Ron Paul:

https://twitter.com/MildGiraffe/status/1013804053057417217

The comic features a common /pol/ antisemitic picture and other racist caricatures. This sort of thing just keeps happening. Maybe he wasn't aware that there's subtle not-so-subtle racism in the image, but even then it should be concerning why he's seeing this content to begin with.

I mean, a jew punching America in the face with cultural Marxism? Anyone should be able to tell there's something wrong with that..
2018-07-02, 2:47 PM #9853
It's almost as if the act of "memeing" belies all but the most superficial and cartoonish comprehension of language and the actual, reality-based things language describes.
2018-07-02, 3:07 PM #9854
At any rate, Ron Paul attracts a lot of racist supporters, so it's no surprise that one decided to work for him.

Actually, now with Trump bringing the alt. right into the mainstream, I imagine it will become increasingly difficult to run as a populist conservative and not also bring along huge numbers of openly racist supporters and staffers. Well, it was always this way, but they seem to be less ashamed of it now.
2018-07-02, 3:25 PM #9855
This article has been controversial amongst conservatives, apparently. I think it touches on that question: what are the elites of the party thinking, as the party becomes Trump's party? https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/
former entrepreneur
2018-07-02, 3:41 PM #9856
The weird thing is that Ron Paul and Donald Trump basically have the same supporters (minus Paul's anti-war left contingent), but the latter ended up being more successful than the former. I know that Trump is far more wealthy and widely known, but Ron Paul was pretty popular too. Politically, the main difference between the two seems to be that while Ron Paul attracted racists, Donald Trump openly stoked racism and embraced them.

Ron Paul was openly mocked by the conservative elites, but now in the case of Trump, they no longer have that option.
2018-07-02, 3:44 PM #9857
In other words,

2018-07-02, 3:50 PM #9858
Trump is Sarah Palin and Ron Paul's love child. Paul was also, like Trump, a Republican who attacked many of the GOP's sacred cows. He also had a weird relation with parts of the left, too. He had some crossover appeal. His isolationist foreign policy and his anti-establishmentarianism (I think) made him appealing to some of the more eccentric OWS people. It wasn't uncommon to see Ron Paul bumper stickers at Zuccotti Park, back in the day.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-02, 3:59 PM #9859
The weird thing is I considered voting for him over Barrack Obama in 2008, UNTIL it came out that he had some flamingly racist newsletters to his name going back decades. Whereas today, that's the kind of thing that might even help Trump, and that change of events is what's revolutionary about him in my mind. You're certainly right that there's an antecedent to Trump in that 2008 election in Sarah Palin, though, who just about everybody I know has always assumed to be bat**** insane or just plain ignorant.
2018-07-02, 4:03 PM #9860
What's really weird is that after the rise of Trump, I found myself throwing in with former neoconservatives like David Frum, just as a counterbalance, and perhaps wishful thinking for a return to normalacy. Yet as a Sanders supporter who had previously flirted with the Ron Paul crowd in the past, and absolutely hated Bush as a teenager, well, it felt a little weird at first to be adoring those 'evil neoconservatives'. But I guess that's all over now, with the 'never-Trumper's basically relegated to the ash heap of history.
2018-07-02, 4:08 PM #9861
I suppose there's also a similarity between Sanders and Paul too (in that they're both old guys who have an ability to connect with young voters especially).
former entrepreneur
2018-07-02, 4:08 PM #9862
Maybe then we could say that Trump's greatest accomplishment was to make racism mainstream again.

"Make America Great Again", I guess?
2018-07-02, 4:09 PM #9863
Originally posted by Eversor:
I suppose there's also a similarity between Sanders and Paul too (in that they're both old guys who have an ability to connect with young voters especially).


I think so. Their supporters definitely skew toward idealistic, even naive. Basically, the anti-Clinton (i.e., anti-establishment).
2018-07-02, 4:13 PM #9864
I mean, it's easy for somebody who knows very little about politics to come to the conclusion that Sanders (or Paul) are the only sensible candidates, whereas insiders draw the exact opposite conclusion. They were both 'gadfly' candidates, in the sense that their appeal was made possible by going outside the conventional assumptions that made politics seem boring and futile to so many people.

It's also why this meme started with Ron Paul, and was rehashed later with Bernie Sandars! Well, OK, Trump's in there too, so maybe the meme just spread to every candidate who made promises that couldn't be kept (take your pick: closing all military bases on foreign soil, building a wall, or free college and healthcare).
2018-07-02, 4:27 PM #9865
I think Ron Paul would probably have been the most disasterous, though, since anarcho-capitalist ideology is quite racist (among other things) in practice.

Really, Trump must be some kind of masochist to be riding this tide of racist populism openly. It must be some kind of psychological complex that makes him want to put himself out there like that to be whipped on a daily basis by anybody with half a brain. Maybe it's his whole anti-intellectual thing he's got going on: whereas Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders opposed the elite for very carefully worked out intellectual, ideologically-motivated reasons, Donald Trump basically is anti-intellectualism incarnate (i.e., he's an idiot, so he attracts idiotic supporters).
2018-07-02, 4:30 PM #9866
In retrospect, I'm not sure how comforting it is to think that idiocy and racism are more popular than libertarianism. True, libertarianism was always a fringe movement, while idiocy and racism have been mainstream since the dawn of civilization. ;)

What's really sad is that intelligence probably correlates inversely with libertarian ideology when you look at the higher-percentiles, but on the other hand, the dumbest supporters of all probably don't even know what libertarianism is. At least Ron Paul supporters were semi-literate.

Maybe then the corollary is that when you try to scale a flawed ideology (like libertarianism) up to the masses, the fastest path to growing your base is to say dumber rather than smarter things: intelligent people have already written you off on account of your flawed ideas, but there's plenty of room at the bottom.
2018-07-02, 4:44 PM #9867
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
It's almost as if the act of "memeing" belies all but the most superficial and cartoonish comprehension of language and the actual, reality-based things language describes.


And actually, going back to this, it makes perfect sense that the rise of memes in online media would channel support toward the idiot king. So maybe Americans didn't get more racist (although racists have become more connected to each other, and to idiots), but simply the proliferation of memes has dumbed down discourse, which indirectly helps racists and other social / economic outcasts. The Moron Is The Message.
2018-07-02, 4:49 PM #9868
Perhaps also we can say that over time, failed ideas like libertarianism, which might have garnered serious attention when they were newer (remember when anarcho-capitalism was an ostensiably intellectual movement, with people like Rothbard actually trying to legitimately justify it intellectually?), but now having been long since refuted, it seems to gain new life among the uneducated and dishonest, serving now at best as a mere shibboleth for far stronger unifying forces, like racism and economic suffering.

For example, my alt-right supporting friend loves Ron Paul memes, but he knows absolutely nothing about libertarianism or economics, and spends most of his time fuming over cultural issues.
2018-07-02, 8:03 PM #9869
Originally posted by Eversor:
Some fundamental components of the system that have produced stability -- particularly, the assertive role of the United States as the world's global super power -- are changing. One important one is that the US is pulling back, and that's producing the possibility for more conflict throughout the world. This is a favorite talking point amongst certain hawkish foreign policy people, but I think people underestimate the ways in which America's withdrawal is effecting different regions. This was a favorite slogan of Republicans during the Obama administration. But I think the substantial effects of the pullback is actually underreported.



That's not entirely true. Actually, this is an instance where domestic politics may drive military aggression (again, this right-wing populism isn't devoid of international significance). Maybe now that Erdogan has won reelection, tensions between Turkey and Greece will simmer a bit. But tensions have been brewing between Greece and Turkey, and analysts are see war as a real possibility. There are many reason for this. One is that Erdogan is trying to shore up domestic support: one is that Erdogan is advocating a kind of Neo-Ottomanism -- part of Turkey's interventions in the Middle East is that Turkey is pivoting away from the EU, and reasserting its former identity as the dominant imperial power of the Middle East. And another part Neo-Ottomanism is hostility towards Europe -- it's a civilizational conflict, pitting an Muslim country which sees itself as a power (and a rising one at that) with historical claims to European territory taking what its entitled to from a Christian power. For the past few months, Erdogan has been throwing a lot of heated rhetoric at Greece (and, Greece has been responding in kind, by the way). It's flown into fighter jets into Greek airspace. And Erdogan says that Turkey has claims to various islands in the Aegean that Greek recognizes as part of Greece. It also claims part of the Greek mainland is Turkish territory.

Incidentally, something like what's happening in the Aegean happened in the 90s too. But the US stepped in and stopped a confrontation just as it appeared to be immanent. What happens when the US stops stepping in to resolve regional conflicts like this? Hmm. Maybe we'll live in a world with more conflict and uncertainty than we have enjoyed in the past 30ish years...
Eh, fair enough. I guess I’ll concede the point that if the US continues withdrawing from international affairs there is more room for international conflict.

That said, even if there are rumblings today, I still think countries will need to be very choosey about which conflicts they pursue in the future. For example, a Turkey which is swamped by climate migrants, suppressing domestic (Turk) unrest, and trying to deal with a potentially successful and well armed Kurdistan on its borders would need to think twice about a land war with Greece, regardless of the historical self image Turkey has created for themselves.

That scenario isn’t a one-off, it’s gonna be the new normal for a lot of countries.
2018-07-02, 8:40 PM #9870
Originally posted by Eversor:
This article has been controversial amongst conservatives, apparently. I think it touches on that question: what are the elites of the party thinking, as the party becomes Trump's party? https://spectator.org/the-collapse-of-the-never-trump-conservatives/


"It's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven"?
2018-07-02, 10:35 PM #9871
Originally posted by Jon`C:
"It's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven"?


THE BOOT MAY TASTE WORSE BUT I'M NO PRIMA DONNA
2018-07-02, 11:58 PM #9872
Jacob Siegel's really good.

Quote:
Liberalism is caught in an irony it can’t escape. Since at least the early 1970s liberal-progressives have been consolidating their position within the American ruling class through domination of the universities, culture industries, and federal government, to the point where it is difficult to find anyone in such places who publicly doesn’t express allegiance to a common set of values and norms. As a result, the whole repertoire of formerly anti-establishment gestures, from flipping off the system to mocking its pieties, is now directed—from both left and right—at the values of a liberal status quo.

At the same time, the high value placed by the liberal-progressive elite on the status of the marginalized, which they position as a quasi-religious form of virtue, and utilize as a tradeable commodity (and a political weapon), has created an establishment power structure in deep denial of its own power, to a degree that has become quite visibly absurd, and hardly requires a degree from Oberlin to decode. And so, welcome to the new carnival of American life, in which a class of degenerate moralists on the alt-right claims the counterculture mantle to launch screeds against sexual immorality while clashing with a class of radical bureaucrats, supposedly representing the powerless, who enforce edicts about sexual behavior using the force of the state, brought to you by a new class of oligarchs who own the monopolistic digital platforms on which all of this excitement is processed and monetized.

A social order has evolved in which form betrays substance. A hard-won American ethos of tolerance and respect for the individual devolved into a progressive-plutocrat alliance that characterizes the worst of the neoliberal dispensation, and is loathed by much of the country. It produces a backlash.


https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/us/264786/anti-humanism-populism

He's written some very smart stuff about the alt-right, too.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-03, 7:35 AM #9873
I've noticed a constant mistake being made in analysis of liberalism. People think liberal-ism is the ideas advocated by liberal-s. Those two things are not the same. Liberalism is more intangible than that.

It's part of why I say blaming liberals is stupid. Liberalism is a bigger concept than anything you can point to in people who are self-titled liberals.
2018-07-03, 8:57 AM #9874
Originally posted by Reid:
I've noticed a constant mistake being made in analysis of liberalism. People think liberal-ism is the ideas advocated by liberal-s. Those two things are not the same. Liberalism is more intangible than that.


Surely that's true of any ideology with adherents.

It's further complicated, of course, by the fact that many people who embrace ideas associated with the "liberal tradition" actually don't identify with liberals. But that sort of thing also isn't exclusive to liberalism.

Originally posted by Reid:
It's part of why I say blaming liberals is stupid. Liberalism is a bigger concept than anything you can point to in people who are self-titled liberals.


In a way, isn't what liberals do (or what anyone does, for that matter) more important than some (for lack of a better word) academic discussion about liberalism? Curious if you think otherwise and why.
former entrepreneur
2018-07-03, 9:02 AM #9875
And, of course, it must be noteworthy when liberals - not leftists, but liberals - are being illiberal. Right?
former entrepreneur
2018-07-03, 9:06 AM #9876
Jones you've got to check out the Manifesto podcast I mentioned a few weeks ago. It's Jacob Siegel's podcast. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/manifesto/id1378418322?mt=2
former entrepreneur
2018-07-03, 9:15 AM #9877
Originally posted by Eversor:
Surely that's true of any ideology with adherents.

It's further complicated, of course, by the fact that many people who embrace ideas associated with the "liberal tradition" actually don't identify with liberals. But that's also not exclusive to liberalism.


Yes, it's true of all ideologies. I think it's in part why we misunderstand each other on conservatism. There's an abstract form of conservatism I can get behind, the kind of stuff Edmund Burke speaks about, or the ideas of various social reactionaries. When I say I don't like conservatism, I really should mean I don't like today's particular conservatives, and their particular ideas.

Originally posted by Eversor:
In a way, isn't what liberals do (or what anyone does, for that matter) more important than some (for lack of a better word) academic discussion about liberalism? Curious if you think otherwise and why.


Liberalism isn't even what liberals do. It's a social phenomenon. When people say "liberalism is failing", they don't mean the particular ideas of self-titled liberals are weak. Or that their actions are wrong. Liberalism failing also pertains to, for instance, economic choices made by the most conservative of conservatives.

Despite that, a huge amount of the articles on the topic write as though the beliefs of professors are somehow responsible for the rise of the alt-right. Such causal implications are utterly stupid. I mean, most won't say it like that, but the way people write imply that's how they see this working, and it's really dumb.
2018-07-03, 9:55 AM #9878
Originally posted by Reid:
Liberalism isn't even what liberals do.


This might be unclear. What I'm saying is "liberalism isn't just the words/actions of self-described liberals".
2018-07-04, 6:26 AM #9879
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-caused-the-1968-riots/2018/04/03/6780e8f2-3770-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html?utm_term=.b03a207579b1

Shoot me. Social reactionaries are morons.
2018-07-04, 7:42 AM #9880
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/the-rhode-island-democratic-party-may-have-endorsed-a-trump-supporter.html

So a progressive won an upset in Rhode Island in 2016. This year, the Rhode Island DNC endorsed a Trump supporter, alt-right guy over her in that district.

Looks like we know what "centrism" means in the eyes of the DNC.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!