Politics' Official Eighteenth Thread

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 But no matter who wins the government gets bigger, the deficit climbs towards eventual collapse, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, everyone becomes less free, and the bombs never stop falling overseas.

 

It does not have to be this way. But it will be until people realize there are options beyond the one we have now. Yes... one

 

 

 

A melancholic  assessment of the state of US  politics my friend  ....pass the razor blades  

 

But under Obama the USA , apart from understandable drone strikes, tried very hard to stay out of the ME and other geographical hot spots of political and social instability

 

But Trump has brought the USA back into the interminable struggles of the ME, thats on him 

 

No, Obama is 100% responsible for our involvement in Libya, Syria (not the mess, just our involvement in it), Yemen, and several African countries.

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Libya, Syria and Yemen are conflicts caused by the Arab Spring and the horrific civil wars we now see are a symptom of the leaders of these countries refusing to be more inclusive of there own citizens in economic  and political transformation 

 

The USA was involved after the Arab Spring started, the Arab Spring was not caused by the USA

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Arab_Spring

 

 

I would strongly suggest no one in the USA  accepts responsibility for the Arab Spring but of course if you do you are absolving the appalling dictatorships and lack of human rights that exist, and use to exist in the ME,  and this needs to be addressed by the ME  leaders 

 

What African countries is the USA  responsible for causing wars or bombing in the last 20 years ?

[smjjames]

@BruceVC: I thought the Yemen conflict dated back to before the Arab Spring since it was simmering before that.

[Guard Dog]

I find amusing how so many still don't understand that Trump is really different from everything that came before. Just his attitude towards trade, for instance, has clear potential to tank the country's economy in a way that would make the sub prime crisis look like a walk in the park.

Just an FYI on trade, the President does NOT have the constitutional power to impose tariffs. Congress does. The power to do that was given to the Executive by Congress with two laws. One during WWI that allowed the President to use tariffs as a incentive to nations doing business with an enemy of the US during war with that enemy. Then in 1977 another law was passed that extended that privileged to peace time to respond to a "national emergency".

 

Since the President only has that ability at the sufferance of the Congress the Congress can take it back at any time. Small chance of that happening however. Right now it's controlled by Republicans who won't screw their own President (probably). But even if the Democrats take over they won't because someday a Democrat will be President. Maybe even one of them. And they will want that power.

 

For me this is an object lesson in giving the President, or any part of any government a power they should not have. Someday a man like Trump was going to get elected. It was inevitable.

[Guard Dog]

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

[Bartimaeus]

I find amusing how so many still don't understand that Trump is really different from everything that came before. Just his attitude towards trade, for instance, has clear potential to tank the country's economy in a way that would make the sub prime crisis look like a walk in the park.

Yes...the difference, I feel, is that past administrations were, for the most part, rational actors. Not always on every issue, and just because they were rational doesn't mean they were kind or just or lawful (just the opposite in many cases!). There are some benefits to having a federal government that's acting like a chicken with its head cut off (there's not much permanent legislation going through, for example - that's both good and bad in different ways), but there are consequences as well (these executive "czars", Trump included, are massively empowered in acting policy in the face of legislative standstill, just as it was the case under Obama - for better and for worse under him, and I would personally say almost entirely for the worse under Trump, but I'm sure people have their own opinions on that). These past three presidents (in all their own ways, starting with Bush and including Obama but now especially Trump), have really proved that we need to reign in the executive branch something fierce...but uh, Congress collectively has shown no interest in doing that, and in fact has pretty much encouraged the opposite...so screw us, I guess?

[BruceVC]

@BruceVC: I thought the Yemen conflict dated back to before the Arab Spring since it was simmering before that.

In its current state, 2015. But if you at the reasons for this long conflict in Yemen how is the USA  responsible, it has nothing to do with the USA but rather Islamic extremism and the ancient Shia/Sunni animosity 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)

[smjjames]

 

I find amusing how so many still don't understand that Trump is really different from everything that came before. Just his attitude towards trade, for instance, has clear potential to tank the country's economy in a way that would make the sub prime crisis look like a walk in the park.

Just an FYI on trade, the President does NOT have the constitutional power to impose tariffs. Congress does. The power to do that was given to the Executive by Congress with two laws. One during WWI that allowed the President to use tariffs as a incentive to nations doing business with an enemy of the US during war with that enemy. Then in 1977 another law was passed that extended that privileged to peace time to respond to a "national emergency".

 

Since the President only has that ability at the sufferance of the Congress the Congress can take it back at any time. Small chance of that happening however. Right now it's controlled by Republicans who won't screw their own President (probably). But even if the Democrats take over they won't because someday a Democrat will be President. Maybe even one of them. And they will want that power.

 

For me this is an object lesson in giving the President, or any part of any government a power they should not have. Someday a man like Trump was going to get elected. It was inevitable.

 

 

I thought I'd read/heard that law was made in 1967 (or so)? Might be wrong, but tiny unimportant detail there anyway.

 

And yes, he's using the whole 'national security' excuse for completely BS reasons.

 

I recall something about the WTO having a similar thing (or maybe I'm thinking of the same law you're talking about GD) where 'national security' can be used as a reason to unilaterally put tariffs or something like that. However, the reason that nobody has used the 'national security' excuse is precedent. The precedent is that if we go and use the 'national security' reason, no matter how BS it is, ESPECIALLY if it's a BS reason, to bypass the WTO, then that opens the door for other countries to go and use the same excuse to unilaterally put their own tariffs on us or other countries.

 

 

 

@BruceVC: I thought the Yemen conflict dated back to before the Arab Spring since it was simmering before that.

In its current state, 2015. But if you at the reasons for this long conflict in Yemen how is the USA  responsible, it has nothing to do with the USA but rather Islamic extremism and the ancient Shia/Sunni animosity 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)

 

 

I never said it had anything to do with the US, just that I thought it was just the latest phase in a long simmering conflict.

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

 

I see the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the baker, Im disappointed     

[Bartimaeus]

It was a bipartisan decision, and it was made with pretty good reasoning. It is a limited ruling that doesn't set precedent due to issues with this specific case. While this baker wins, the issue has more or less been punted down the road.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

Remember Bruce, the issue wasn't that he would not serve a gay couple. The issue was he would not make a specific kind of cake for them. Had they asked for anything else he said he would have done it.

 

Let me ask you a question. If a painter were a religious person and refused to make a painting of the devil screwing the virgin mary would you tell him he had to do it?

 

If the cake were prepared and ready and he refused to sell it to them: problem. If he refused to sell to them at all: problem. If he refused to create a custom cake that violates his own ethics: no problem.

 

And the court had it at 7-2. That is not close. Especially in this court.

[smjjames]

The article (and the SCOTUS statement) also makes note of the fact that the commission was pretty hostile towards the baker, which infuriated Justice Kennedy.

 

I can see a religious painter making their own choice (as opposed to a commission) to make a painting of the devil sodomizing the virgin mary to be satirical or make some kind of point because, well, art.

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[Malcador]

Did they ever say what was on the cake ?

 

At least one amusing thing from is Trump's moron son proving he fails at ****posting

 

 

 

Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, reacted to the decision by mocking media coverage that described it as narrow. He tweeted: “I am reading about a 7 - 2 vote. Pretty sure that’s not narrowly... At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed.” But critics on Twitter quickly upbraided him, pointing out that it was the legal decision that was “narrow”, not the vote among the justices.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Malcador

[Bartimaeus]

*Picard face*

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[smjjames]

@malcador: I don't think the cake itself was ever described, not as far as I know. Maybe in the case documents?

[Malcador]

@malcador: I don't think the cake itself was ever described, not as far as I know. Maybe in the case documents?

Will have to dig a bit when I have time/not busy listening to 90's rap at work. I guess it doesn't matter so much w.r.t the legal view, would be odd for a man to be offended by "Happy Marriage Adam & Steve", at least to me.

[Amentep]

Pretty sure that the story is they never got so far as to discuss what kind of design it'd be; the baker took the gentlemen to his book of samples and when they told him what it was for he said he couldn't make it, that he'd sell them anything else in the store but for religious reasons he couldn't accept a commission to bake a wedding cake for them.

[Guard Dog]

The article (and the SCOTUS statement) also makes note of the fact that the commission was pretty hostile towards the baker, which infuriated Justice Kennedy.

 

I can see a religious painter making their own choice (as opposed to a commission) to make a painting of the devil sodomizing the virgin mary to be satirical or make some kind of point because, well, art.

Yeah, they went in there looking to provoke that exact firestorm that happened. That was pretty clear.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

As you my melancholic assessment: "When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed"

 

Classy.

 

Do you think any of that is wrong?

 

 

 

I just think it's funny in light of an article I recently read, which argues that the ultimate goal of the same special interest groups who uphold Rand as an inspirational figure are also very keen on the Virginia school of economic thought, whose endgame - according to the article's author - is to create the exact situation described in the bolded part of the quote.

 

(Not that I trust any article from a random source - if you happen to know more about Buchanan's work and disagree with his characterization by the author, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.)

 

Concerning Rand I've said this before:https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63443-americans-renouncing-citizenship-to-become-british-over-taxes/page-4?do=findComment&comment=1314174

Read posts 62, 66, and 73.

 

Yes I still quote her. The funny thing about philosophy is you can take or leave as much of it as you like. It's ok to think someone was right about some things without buying into them on everything.

 

Now that article looks pretty interesting. I only skimmed it and it's not something I'd want to comment on until I really read it. I'll get back to you later on that one.

[smjjames]

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

Did you deliberately leave out the word cow in your post?

 

Rest of your post aside (which sounds borderline baity, at least in the context of not having the word cow in the sentence) and the source being somewhat sensationalist, it is weird. The cow was returned to it's owner and theres no indication that the cow came into contact with other livestock and the cow transported itself. If you want to go by a more bizarre definition of transport, they could have just aborted the calf and then killed the calf because the cow was 'transporting' the calf.

 

So, yeah, it comes off as completely nonsensical to me and putting the cow down seems drastic as they could have put it in quarrantine (still nonsensical in this case, but at least the farmer doesn't lose a valuable cow) for a while, if it was healthy, fine, no harm done, if it's sick, then treat it.

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[aluminiumtrioxid]

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

[smjjames]

I couldn't decide whether sharp_one was intentionally being baity or was using sarcasm in the context of the cow but accidentially left out the word 'cow' in the link.

 

edit: Can he even edit his posts while on probation?

Edited June 4, 2018 by smjjames

[Amentep]

 

A pregnant sentenced to death for crossing EU border

 

Ok, this is wierd. Come to EU illegally you will get money, leave EU illegally and get killed.

Fascist!

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Seems like something that should be on ESPN

[smjjames]

Heh amentep. In the context of the cow, he does come off as being sarcastic, just not sure if he intentionally left out the word cow in the link.

 

Also, I can't help but wonder if theres some Balkan thing going on between Bulgaria and Serbia, had to scan the article a few times to be sure it really was some EU law strangeness and not something between the two countries.