US Politics VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
today i learned that starting needless trade wars with your neighbours with the express purpose of wrecking their economies and threatening to abandon your closest allies while simultaneously praising and cozying up to dictators who have been america's enemies for decades "doesn't represent much of a transition".
It would represent a transition if these decisions had popular support in Washington. Who is in line to keep it going? Even his Vice President parts ways with him.
 
Not unheard of is a politician's "private position" and one he takes publicly.

In a private remark...

"England is fighting our fight and you may well understand that I shall not, in the present state of the world's affairs, place obstacles in her way... I will not take any action to embarrass England when she is fighting for her life and the life of the world."

This should explain his excusing of British violations of international law, while also threatening to hold Germany strictly accountable for American lives and vessels. Neutrality? Not quite.

"Why be shocked by the drowning of a few people, if there is to be no objection to starving a nation?"
- William Jennings Bryan

that is not a private remark at all. it was said directly to an english diplomat during a full cabinet meeting, before the sinking of the lusitania in early 1915, about the possibility of going to war against britain due to the blockade against germany interfering with american shipping.

and besides all that says is "we won't join your enemies and make war against you". people flatter each other in international diplomacy all the time, that's literally how it works. similar things were said to german diplomats in 1915 and 1916. there's no suggestion in that statement of any action being taken. that's not violating neutrality in the slightest.

if he was so gung-ho to join the war why was he proposing to mediate a peace conference only four months before the US declared war? why did he base his entire 1916 presidential campaign on explicitly keeping the US OUT of the war (in which he risked wasting the entire secret anti-german propaganda apparatus you claim he'd been running by waiting until after a close election to declare war)? why did he wait three months hoping for a peaceful solution after receiving the zimmermann telegram that explicitly stated that germany was secretly trying to find an ally to backstab the US and annex its western states? why did he wait two months after the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, when americans were dying by the hundreds every week, to declare war on germany if he was thirsty for war? that's two cut-and-dry, totally legal casus belli that he could have used instantly, but the secret warmonger who apparently had spent years running a nefarious anti-german propaganda machine with the express intent to bring the americans into the war sits on two perfectly valid CB's for months because...reasons?
 
Last edited:
I dunno, the current situation going on at the border with children being put in cages and being ripped from their families seems to be in the same vein as that to me.
As I understand it, separation had been a long-standing issue, but Trump passed an Executive Order that escalated it.
 
if he was so gung-ho to join the war why was he proposing to mediate a peace conference only four months before the US declared war? why did he base his entire 1916 presidential campaign on explicitly keeping the US OUT of the war? why did he wait three months hoping for a peaceful solution after receiving the zimmermann telegram that explicitly stated that germany was secretly trying to find an ally to backstab the US and annex its western states? why did he wait two months after the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, when americans were dying by the hundreds every week, to declare war on germany if he was thirsty for war? that's two cut-and-dry, totally legal casus belli that he could have used instantly, but the secret warmonger who apparently had spent years running a nefarious anti-german propaganda machine with the express intent to bring the americans into the war sits on two perfectly valid CB's for months because...reasons?
A lot of these questions go back to saving public face and political calculation. The war wasn't popular. He didn't have political ammunition.

Demanding "loyalty" as Wilson did prior to entering WWI set the stage ("If you're not with us, you're against us" should sound familiar enough. He didn't just do it for his health). His control of the press was certainly transformative. The press didn't smear independently of him (Eugene Debs went to federal prison).

Then you have the CPI. Thus, the media's shenanigans were hardly independent of Wilson's administration.

The Foreign Language Newspaper Division (of the CPI) kept an eye on the hundreds of weekly and daily U.S. newspapers published in languages other than English.

...

The CPI News Division then went a step further, creating something new in the American experience: a daily newspaper published by the government itself. Unlike the “partisan press” of the 19th century, the Wilson-era Official Bulletin was entirely a governmental publication, sent out each day and posted in every military installation and post office as well as in many other government offices. In some respects, it is the closest the United States has come to a paper like the Soviet Union’s Pravda or China’s People’s Daily.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...nda-machine-changed-american-journalism-76270
 
i simply don't buy the idea that he was secretly a warmonger. everything i've read and heard about the man suggests the exact opposite, that he was too idealistic and a pacifist who only agreed to war when he had entirely run out of other options. there's certainly a good case to be made that FDR is the president who actively maneuvered an isolationist USA into an overseas war, but i don't think it's there for wilson.

none of this is intended to be construed as support for the man - he was a racist asshole and a generally bad president domestically, but in terms of foreign policy he was a visionary - the only leader of any major nation on earth (both before and after US entry into the war) who was trying to seek an end to the war that was something other than "we will utterly humiliate, dismantle, and cripple our enemies for generations" (aka the treaty of versailles).
 
today in little rock, arkansas:

2d8ijezj1ig11.jpg


:corn:
 
It’s been postponed

Think when this news came out there was too much negative reaction.
 
(1) start posting real links
(2) the only thing that happened in the last 300 years wasn’t capitalism, holy fuck you ignorant juice drinker
(3) very few people need to hear your “education” links - are you trying to sell us ideology?
(4) capitalism has its good and it has its bad.
 
It’s been postponed

Think when this news came out there was too much negative reaction.

I wouldn't be surprised if they broke the news of the budget overrun just so they could postpone the parade. No-one wants to have that parade. Except Trump.
 
(1) start posting real links
(2) the only thing that happened in the last 300 years wasn’t capitalism, holy fuck you ignorant juice drinker
(3) very few people need to hear your “education” links - are you trying to sell us ideology?
(4) capitalism has its good and it has its bad.
This is a song called bad


Oh shit wrong subforum. My bad
 
"Capitalism" is a sort of nuanced term, especially when one looks to the Industrial Revolution for a definition (as opposed to a historical event). Lockean homesteading theory would differ in that it has always been with us by unowned resources claimed and mixed with the soil. Thus, private property, means of production, and the exchange of ownership.

That's essentially the main features, yes? Thus, applicable to Crusoe Economics?

Minecraft*serves as a model of a simple, developing economy that — not unlike the real world — continues to develop by accumulating capital. Crafting tables allow you to create more goods, and furnaces allow you to transform materials like coal and ore into metal ingots, with which even better items can be crafted. By continually combining raw materials into increasingly complex goods, players have constructed extremely intricate and majestic cities. But all of this building begins with nothing more than a character and an untouched world.
https://mises.org/wire/minecraft-and-crusoe-economics
 
The way I see it is that if you’re citing a Facebook post of no credibility, it’s the same as quoting another poster.

It being in a link does not make it credible.
 
Then you grant the ad hominem a place in the equation.



It depends how you look at it. We live in *the* misinformation era. I don’t believe discrediting a source without considering its content is necessarily ad hominem. But one should at least preview the material to develop their own opinion (unless they wish to boycott it as a means of refusing to commit to clickbait and thereby funding the source).

I think it’s fair, for example, to refuse to click an infowars link regardless of the content. I think also it’s fair to assume that if one can’t link to source (ie linking Wikipedia or Facebook instead), their position is weakened.

Both of his last posts have been triple/quadruple+ embedded sources, which boil down to hearsay and manipulation.
 
It depends how you look at it. We live in *the* misinformation era. I don’t believe discrediting a source without considering its content is necessarily ad hominem.
There's a lot of misinformation out there, to be sure. Though let's also not forget the Yellow Journalism Era.

I think it’s fair, for example, to refuse to click an infowars link regardless of the content.
I'm with you on this much, though I would put Infowars into a different category - It's publically known for wild speculation. That's not to say it's incapable of taking a correct position, but it does read like a tabloid.

But what about the praises of capitalism in the content (of the Facebook link)?

Could you say, "Wait a minute, that wasn't capitalism, it was the Rah Rah Act of 1905, reversing a longstanding trend of poverty?"

I still think even a Facebook link could be countered, if one wants rigorous discourse.
 
I have a petty answer to that Facebook link. I glanced over the content and realized I was reading an argument where both sides beat a dead horse repeatedly and I disagree with both. Except this one was coming from not an argumentative angle, but rather a glorifying angle. It’s like an advertisement. It’s not a review or an argument. It doesn’t tackle a full picture.

For the record I check in both at Fox News and CNN routinely. Just to see what’s up. Make no mistake - just because I believe CNN represents the sane side does not mean I condone or support them. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Chris Cillizza is a pompous asshole and a laughable writer.
 
But what about the praises of capitalism in the content (of the Facebook link)?

Could you say, "Wait a minute, that wasn't capitalism, it was the Rah Rah Act of 1905, reversing a longstanding trend of poverty?"

I still think even a Facebook link could be countered, if one wants rigorous discourse.

1. When you see someone constantly paste fb links you start to realize this is where he gets his news.

2. It’s always best to try and find the source article and post it direct.

3. If there is no source article then this means it’s just some random fb poster with an opinion, which is fine just know it’s not going to carry much weight with anyone.

4. The post had some glaring factual mistakes and shouldn’t be used by anyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom