192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:26 pm
@Setanta,
You're going to correct my French now??? :-))

Who said "you can't beat this place for entertainment", again?

On essaye? Balance moi deux ou trois phrases en français, histoire de rigoler...
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:27 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
China developed their industries by having access to nigh-upon infinite amounts of cheap, uneducated labor and a total willingness to **** up their environment to the maximum degree possible in the name of profits.


I feel like there are some in the US that hope for exactly this sort of situation here.

Indeed, that's not very different from what the US has done.
BillW
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:28 pm
@thack45,
That is explained by the Republican tax plan. They would prefer slave labor, but, the more you get wages to approach zero, the better they like it. Add to that the desire to take health and education away and you reach a utopian Republican society! The party of the rich want everything and truly believe the slaves lived better than the poor of today......

thack45 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
China developed their industries by having access to nigh-upon infinite amounts of cheap, uneducated labor and a total willingness to **** up their environment to the maximum degree possible in the name of profits.


I feel like there are some in the US that hope for exactly this sort of situation here.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:29 pm
@BillW,
Quote:
Your not American, are you? Our Constitution favors a 2 party system.

That's exactly what I am saying.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:31 pm
@oralloy,
Collusion may not be a statutory crime but it is a political one.

If Mueller can make the case that Trump was all in on working with Russians (I doubt he can) then Trump is political toast. The GOP will leave him like rats on a sinking ship.

Blanket pardons and firing Mueller may seem smart and on a DC Politics boardgame, the right move to make, but they won't work unless Trump is prepared to go dictator and I don't think he is.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Well, I wouldn't call myself your everyday accountant, but you seem to be full of assumptions about people and their beliefs, so maybe you should revisit your pre-conceived notions of how an accountant thinks about things and speaks.

I for one like reading your long posts and have even agreed with many things you've posted. I appreciate you and others that I disagree with taking the time to do so. It's boring to simply sit around and listen to people who agree with each other all the time, and you often learn things from what's written and posted by other people. My personal example was getting into prolonged discussion/arguments with BillOB, who changed my opinion on illegal immigration through the power of what he wrote and the data he cited.

What I don't like are toss-off declarations that are untrue, that are unanswered when challenged with facts and sources. When I write something that's untrue and I'm challenged on it, it's my duty to either back it up with a source or to admit that I don't have one. Intellectual honesty demands it. If there is any point to us having these discussions online at all, there must be a minimum level of honesty between interlocutors and yes that does mean things take extra time and effort.

It's up to you whether you want to put that effort in, you just shouldn't be surprised when others call you out on failing to do so. It's the reason why I and others don't take Lash seriously, she doesn't give a **** and will post anything she feels like with no shame whatsoever. Your choice whether you want to be lumped in with that crowd or not. But I hope not, because your opinion is a valid one and your voice is worth hearing in this and other threads.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:32 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

thack45 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
China developed their industries by having access to nigh-upon infinite amounts of cheap, uneducated labor and a total willingness to **** up their environment to the maximum degree possible in the name of profits.


I feel like there are some in the US that hope for exactly this sort of situation here.

Indeed, that's not very different from what the US has done.


I mean... it's pretty different, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We don't have endless uneducated human capital and we haven't fucked our environment anywhere nearly as bad as they have. Not even close.

Cycloptichorn
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:33 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
None of this really speaks to the underlying point, which is that the Dems would have to lie to their citizens in order to mirror the GOP's success in... lying to their citizens. 

In order to win elections, the Democrats just need to be perceived as more principled and more credible that the Republicans. That should be relatively easy, don't you think? It starts with not shying away from an analysis of what went wrong in 2016.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:33 pm
@oralloy,
You are too kind. It's worse than silly, it's malignant.

Which is why I've decided to expose to the world that BillW is a toad licker who gets high and fantasizes about Kamala Harris.
BillW
 
  2  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:34 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Your not American, are you? Our Constitution favors a 2 party system.

That's exactly what I am saying.


And?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:35 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Trump is more than ready to "go dictator". The army isn't. At least I hope.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:35 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
None of this really speaks to the underlying point, which is that the Dems would have to lie to their citizens in order to mirror the GOP's success in... lying to their citizens. 

In order to win elections, the Democrats just need to be perceived as more principled and more credible that the Republicans. That should be relatively easy, don't you think? It starts with not shying away from an analysis of what went wrong in 2016.


A more principled and more credible Dem party would tell middle-class white voters that jobs lost due to Globalization aren't returning. The alternative is to absolutely lie to them. Are you claiming that engaging in a repeated pattern of lies somehow makes one more credible than telling the truth?

What happens when your promises never come true?

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:36 pm
@Builder,
Indeed

https://znakitowarowe-blog.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SOLIDARNO%C5%9A%C4%86-wsp%C3%B3lnotowy-znak-towarowy.jpg

My Aussie leftist friend.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You are too kind. It's worse than silly, it's malignant.

Which is why I've decided to expose to the world that BillW is a toad licker who gets high and fantasizes about Kamala Harris.


You wrote 'BillW' when you meant to write 'Cyclo.' Now excuse me, I have a date with an amphibian and some tissues

Cycloptichorn
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:38 pm
@snood,
And yet you won't Very Happy

That doesn't say much about him being an A2K Elder.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:39 pm
@BillW,
You must have found an extremely slimy toad.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:39 pm
Here we go--the constitution is entirely mute on the subject of political parties. It does not "favor" a party system of any type. In 1787, there were no political parties in the world, such as we would recognize. From 1800 to 1828, there was effectively only one party--the Democratic Republicans, generally referred to as the Republicans. The Democrats are lying through their teeth when they claim to be the party of Jefferson. It was Andrew Jackson who founded the Democratic Party, after he felt that he had been robbed of the 1824 election. It was a modern political party in every sense (except for gross amounts of cash).

Those who wish to comment on the constitution might read it every once in a while. Understanding the historical context of the adoption of the constitution wouldn't hurt, either.
BillW
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:39 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
None of this really speaks to the underlying point, which is that the Dems would have to lie to their citizens in order to mirror the GOP's success in... lying to their citizens. 

In order to win elections, the Democrats just need to be perceived as more principled and more credible that the Republicans. That should be relatively easy, don't you think? It starts with not shying away from an analysis of what went wrong in 2016.


It is proven mathematically that they are behind 33%; which represents the number of deplorables, which are unprincipled tRump supporters.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:41 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
China qtarted as very very poor, so of course they had cheap labor. Likewise, don't forget that the US were built by slaves, historically. And you have fucked up your environment too. Plus that of the whole world through climate change denial.

In any case, the point was that having an industrial policy and protecting one's industries is not always a bad idea, as the cases of China, South Korea and to a lesser degree Europe exemplify.
maporsche
 
  3  
Fri 3 Nov, 2017 01:44 pm
@Setanta,
Was the Federalist party not a thing?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.47 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 06:34:14