Politics Princess' Sweet Sixteen

[smjjames]

Based on Bartimaeus summary I cant say I completely disagree with the Chinese program. Imo, having some social rules and expectations is better than every single clown doing whatever, wherever, they want cause "that's their rights".

 

One imposed by the government and the government sets the rules? I don't mean stuff like no littering signs, I mean straight up social engineering on that scale and scope.

 

I have a feeling our fellow libertarian forumers are going to have a different definition and scope on social engineering like what the Chinese program is, but we generally enforce social rules and expectations with laws rather than something straight out of 1984.

[213374U]

Based on Bartimaeus summary I cant say I completely disagree with the Chinese program. Imo, having some social rules and expectations is better than every single clown doing whatever, wherever, they want cause "that's their rights".

 

I think the concern is more about the state having a comprehensive record of every minor thing you may have ever done and enforcing penalties based on that, than about the idea of consequences for violations.

 

On principle, I don't disagree, either. I live in a country where it's really easy for minor things like telling someone to take their hoof off a bus seat to escalate into a physical confrontation -- basic manners and consideration have largely gone the way of the dodo. I would, however, resist it in practice because if something has a potential to be abused you can bet your ass politicians will abuse the **** out of it. I mean, it's not like the CPC have a great track record of transparency and honesty.

 

Social rules have always worked based on a soft "social credit" concept. The problem is the state taking charge of it now.

[Bartimaeus]

Based on Bartimaeus summary (I didn't read the link) I cant say I completely disagree with the Chinese program. Imo, having some social rules and expectations is better than every single clown doing whatever, wherever, they want cause "that's their rights".

 

I wouldn't like to be disbarred from travel purely based on associating with the likes of you.

 

@213374U: Yep, social credit has always existed. However, it is a dystopian nightmare that your government should keep a permanent record of it via arbitrary rules (some of which are no doubt secret) and then subsequently use findings from it to punish you. It should be up to the people to collectively ostracize (and impose soft social restrictions upon) others for awful behavior, not the government.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

Reminds me of that Orville episode where everyone on a planet gets voted on and if you get too many downvotes then you get "corrected."

[Malcador]

Political humor... sort of... well, I laughed at it

 

 

Damn it, i had almost forgot that ****ing movie existed.

[Guard Dog]

  It was pretty awful.

[HoonDing]

I rooted for the British.

[Raithe]

Well they were going to base that movie on a real historical character. Then as they started shooting they realised the character who fought the English was a slave-holding rapist, and decided "eh, maybe we shouldn't use this guy as a hero, lets just fictionalise him..."

[Malcador]

So they fired McCabe just before he could retire, heh.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/16/fbis-andrew-mccabe-is-fired-just-before-retiring-former-deputy-director-became-lightning-rod-for-clinton-email-and-russia-probes/?utm_term=.de99a4a43fcd

Edited March 17, 2018 by Malcador

[Bartimaeus]

Statement by Andrew McCabe
 
I have been an FBI Special Agent for over 21 years. I spent half of that time investigating Russian Organized Crime as a street agent and Supervisor in New York City. I have spent the second half of my career focusing on national security issues and protecting this country from terrorism. I served in some of the most challenging, demanding investigative and leadership roles in the FBI. And I was privileged to serve as Deputy Director during a particularly tough time.
 
For the last year and a half, my family and I have been the targets of an unrelenting assault on our reputation and my service to this country. Articles too numerous to count have leveled every sort of false, defamatory and degrading allegation against us. The President's tweets have amplified and exacerbated it all. He called for my firing. He called for me to be stripped of my pension after more than 20 years of service. And all along we have said nothing, never wanting to distract from the mission of the FBI by addressing the lies told and repeated about us.
 
No more.
 
The investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has to be understood in the context of the attacks on my credibility. The investigation flows from my attempt to explain the FBI's involvement and my supervision of investigations involving Hillary Clinton. I was being portrayed in the media over and over as a political partisan, accused of closing down investigations under political pressure. The FBI was portrayed as caving under that pressure, and making decisions for political rather than law enforcement purposes. Nothing was further from the truth. In fact, this entire investigation stems from my efforts, fully authorized under FBI rules, to set the record straight on behalf of the Bureau, and to make clear that we were continuing an investigation that people in DOJ opposed.
 
The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter. It was the type of exchange with the media that the Deputy Director oversees several times per week. In fact, it was the same type of work that I continued to do under Director Wray, at his request. The investigation subsequently focused on who I talked to, when I talked to them, and so forth. During these inquiries, I answered questions truthfully and as accurately as I could amidst the chaos that surrounded me. And when I thought my answers were misunderstood, I contacted investigators to correct them.
 
But looking at the in isolation completely misses the big picture. The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.
 
Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way become of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey. The release of this report was accelerated only after my testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed that I would corroborate former Director Comey's accounts of his discussions with the President. The OIG's focus on me and this report became a part of an unprecedented effort by the Administration, driven by the President himself, to remove me from my position, destroy my reputation, and possibly strip me of a pension that I worked 21 years to earn. The accelerated release of the report, and the punitive actions taken in response, make sens only when viewed through this lens. Thursday's comments from the White House are just the latest example of this.
 
This attack on my credibility is one part of a larger effort not just to slander me personally, but to tain the FBI, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals more generally. It is part of this Administration's ongoing war on the FBI and the efforts of the Special Counsel investigation, which continue to this day. Their persistence in this campaign only highlights the importance of the Special Counsel's work.
 
I have always prided myself on serving my country with distinction and integrity, and I always encouraged those around me to do the same. Just ask them. To have my career end in this way, and to be accused of lacking candor when at worst I was distracted in the midst of chaotic events, is incredibly disappointing and unfair. But it will not erase the important work I was privileged to be a part of, the results of which will in the end be revealed for the country to see.
 
I have unfailing faith in the men and women of the FBI and I am confident that their efforts to seek justice will not be deterred.

 

tl;dr fump truck

[Guard Dog]

I'd like to say the FBI is not political. But is is and always has been. To a point. They will not make something up. But they will investigate some crimes more vigorously than others. You can thank Director Hoover for that. That is not to say Mcabe did anything wrong or that Trump was in any way justified in firing him. To tell the truth I haven't been paying close attention. The political shenanigans these days is like watching two bands of monkeys play rugby. They scream, throw poop, no one ever scores. And even if one side eventually wins you're stuck with a band of screaming poop throwing monkeys.

[Bartimaeus]

"Trump’s Lawyer: It’s Time to End the Mueller Probe": ​https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-lawyer-its-time-to-fire-robert-mueller

 

@GD: All of the people investigating Trump have been Republicans (and indeed, some of them were even appointed by him). That should tell you something.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

"Trump’s Lawyer: It’s Time to End the Mueller Probe": ​https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-lawyer-its-time-to-fire-robert-mueller

 

Turns out that he wasn't speaking on the Presidents behalf or authorized to speak in that specific moment on the Presidents behalf and the WH walked back the comment.

 

While it's not a new thing that Trump would like the Mueller probe to end, they seem to be raising the stakes here.

 

edit: Also, Dowd was likely pretty obviously speaking to an audience of one. Trying to end the Mueller probe prematurely is going to go nowhere good since it implies that they're trying to hide something.

Edited March 17, 2018 by smjjames

[Bartimaeus]

He probably shouldn't be saying that he's speaking officially on the President's Trump's behalf, then.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Malcador]

This WH is run like my company...which reminds me I need to update my resume

[smjjames]

He probably shouldn't be saying that he's speaking officially on the President's Trump's behalf, then.

 

 

He did later tell CNN that he was speaking on his own behalf, and a source close to Trump said that Dowd wasn't authorized to make that statement. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/17/politics/john-dowd-mueller-russia-investigation/index.html

Edited March 17, 2018 by smjjames

[Bartimaeus]

​

This WH is run like my company...which reminds me I need to update my resume

Given that WH aides have reported that the WH is the "most toxic working environment on the planet", it's probably somewhat worse.

 

(edit): And these are just some of the more important positions (...and this is a couple of weeks out of date):

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Lexx]

Meanwhile in China: "China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains"

 

For anyone who doesn't know, China is currently running a sort of "social credit score" system where being critical of the government, minor legal infractions, financial problems, your appearance in public, associating with other people with a low credit score, etc. reduces your social credit score and makes you an undesirable...and now it's starting to carry legal implications. Authoritarianism taken to the next level...and a good argument for always pushing and fighting for your rights (though we may often disagree with which are the most important) in our cushy Western countries, for (virtually) nothing in our world is either free or static. Every country that no longer exists or had its governmental system replaced at some point either collapsed, was conquered, and/or had some kind of revolution - and we have little reason to believe that we should be any different. Compared to the living conditions elsewhere in less stable parts of the world right now as well as what people had to endure in centuries past, we live in relative utopias - I would think we would like to keep it that way, but it always has been and always will be a struggle.

 

Wasn't this an episode of the The Orville?

[Bartimaeus]

That's what ShadySands said on the previous page, yes.

[Lexx]

Didn't read that far, because this news bit crazed me too much. :>

 

 

Nothing good can come out of such a system.

[smjjames]

 

Meanwhile in China: "China to bar people with bad 'social credit' from planes, trains"

 

For anyone who doesn't know, China is currently running a sort of "social credit score" system where being critical of the government, minor legal infractions, financial problems, your appearance in public, associating with other people with a low credit score, etc. reduces your social credit score and makes you an undesirable...and now it's starting to carry legal implications. Authoritarianism taken to the next level...and a good argument for always pushing and fighting for your rights (though we may often disagree with which are the most important) in our cushy Western countries, for (virtually) nothing in our world is either free or static. Every country that no longer exists or had its governmental system replaced at some point either collapsed, was conquered, and/or had some kind of revolution - and we have little reason to believe that we should be any different. Compared to the living conditions elsewhere in less stable parts of the world right now as well as what people had to endure in centuries past, we live in relative utopias - I would think we would like to keep it that way, but it always has been and always will be a struggle.

 

Wasn't this an episode of the The Orville?

 

 

Episode 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orville#Episodes ? Sounds more like a parody of Reddit with the up/down votes and other places with similar things.

[Guard Dog]

Basic economics: If you artificially make a thing cost more then you will sell/get less of it

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzxyiHyrJ0

[Bartimaeus]

Ex-CIA director slams Trump after McCabe firing: You'll be remembered as a 'disgraced demagogue': http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/378909-ex-cia-director-slams-trump-after-mccabe-firing-youll-be-remembered

​

​I'm posting this more for amusement than anything else, due to the use of "demagogue". It's rather funny (and a little sad) to do a comparison of Trump and Wikipedia's article on demagogues. It's almost like it was made just for him. Scapegoating, fearmongering, lying, emotional oration and charisma, accusing opponents of weakness or disloyalty, promising the impossible, violence and physical intimidation, personal insults and ridicule, vulgarity and outrageous behavior, folksy posturing (probably the one that least that applies to him...and one that ironically instead applied to Hillary!), gross oversimplification, and attacking the news media. Sadly, however, that part of the article was written some time before he became president.

[Guard Dog]

Don't blame me. I voted for Johnson.

 

It never gets old!

[Terminator]

 

 

 

But would USA declare war to China, if China takes away Taiwan's and Hong Kong's autonomies and taking direct control over lots of world's electronic manufacturing or if China takes over Senkaku Islands and builds their military base there in order to make it easier to strike to Japan there, or if China increases their naval power South China sea and so on?  And what would Australia do if China threatens to block their imports and exports?

 

Meaning that China and USA don't need to go in full on war in order to have fight over things that effect big economical and political impacts.

 

Interesting discussing. I dont think China will conquer Japan you greatly underestimate Japan. Japan dont even need USA to defend vs China. Australia would likely make their BETA military alliance with Japan to full military alliance if China will harass them. Australia is not a poor country. I am sure they can increase the military budget if the demand rises and Japan is constantly increasing military budget already.

 

Hong Kong? Their autonomy is already taken away step by step and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to start a war with China and nobody wants to attack China based on whatever happens in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is doomed anyway its fate is sealed and it is doomed.

 

Taiwan? Taiwan is an interesting chapter. History goes that communists stayed in mainland and nationalists moved to Taiwan. Taiwan has been very stubborn in resisting main land China. Regarding Taiwan future I find it very hard to predict for some reason don't know why Taiwan seems to do better then say Hong Kong with China mainland authorities.

 

Taiwan is so much resisting so I would not sign out the possibility of civil war Taiwan vs mainland. I think they mainly try diplomacy.

 

If China tries to take Taiwan by force there will be war and Taiwan hates China:

 

 

 

Yes China can go have their wargames with Taiwan that would result in massive military casualties to China mainland and a destroyed Taiwan not a great way to improve China economy and in the aftermath there can be lingering guerilla warfare with terror attacks from pissed of Taiwanese people who have lost the war.

 

 

Who speak about China conquering Japan? China has now for quite long time wanted to build military bases closer to Japan in order to have more military threat towards them.  If you think that Taiwanese or Japanese hate China that is quite mild comparison to hate which lots of Chinese feel towards Japan, because of what Japanese did for Chinese in WW2. It is historical issue that still causes lots of disputes between China and Japan. If you look Finnish attitudes towards Russians and then increase disdain/hate by ten folds you may get picture of how lots of Chinese feels about Japanese.

 

 In war between Japan and China, China would eventually win because of it fast larger resources (over 10x more people, much more natural resources, much more factories and other production facilities, larger capacity to produce ships, air planes and missiles. And not vulnerable to total aerial and naval blockade), but if China actually tried to conquer Japan, that war would end in usage of nuclear weapons which would make whole thing pointless. So there is quite low change that such war will ever happen in any other form than in form of a cold war.

 

In war between China and Taiwan, China would most likely just blockade Taiwan and force it surrender by bombarding it if outside forces don't come to help Taiwan. China lets currently Taiwan keep its partially recognized state (Taiwan isn't currently fully independent country because China claims sovereignty over, which makes diplomatic relations with Taiwan quite complicated, which is why only 20 countries actually recognize Taiwan as country) because they don't want jeopardize their trade and other agreements with other countries, but that attitude would change if USA broke one of those agreements for example by attacking to NK. Also Taiwan's stubbornness to resist China isn't necessary in magnitudes that you think, because there are big sunk of Taiwanese who actually want Taiwan to become part of China (20-30% in polls but under actual military threat it could rise or lower somewhat).

 

Yeah, China taking over by force Taiwan and Honk Kong and other territories it wants would hurt its economy and foreign relationships, which is why they have not done so, but even though economy is big factor in political decision it isn't only one, which is why we even talk about USA's possible strike/war with NK. Or why we, rest of EU and USA have several kinds of sanctions towards Russia. Why we have trade restrictions towards China and lots of other countries which human rights situations we don't approve. Meaning that you should not underestimate China's willingness to hurt their economy in order to forward their other political/ideological ambitions.

 

Yes it is possible China attacks Taiwan. However China are idiots if they attack USA that is the stupidiest thing what they could do and I dont think China is that stupid even if USA hits NK with full force without any warning.

 

Battlefield 4 you can play that if you want to experience war. Yes China this and that and behaves like bad children. I don't care. Japan is not scared of China anymore, but they respect China military power that is why they are eager to military alliance with Australia and to increase Japans own military power and military budget.

 

Regards to Taiwan. If China attacks Taiwan it is pretty much internal war between Chinese people and they shoot their own foot in doing so not good for neither main land China or Taiwan.

 

Hong Kong? Who cares it is already lost their autonomy is gone. Hong Kong as free city really dont exist anymore police already take hard line on any student demonstrations it is that bad. Hong Kong is doomed whatever happens.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Terminator