US Politics IV

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Everything sort of has a natural equilibrium, and societies in general tend to gravitate towards the center. There will always be a far left and far right that are considered fringe.

The thing is, what's the center? In America the Overton Window has basically been on the center-right since Reagan, so anything left of that is considered, well, left wing. Even though in many countries (like here in the UK) that place would be regarded as more centrist.

That's what I meant when I said earlier in this thread that Reagan was a transformational President in a way Obama was not. We're still basically having the discussion of the role of government under the rules as framed during the Reagan years. There is a rising, active left that's pushing back on that, but that was more a reaction against Obama's classic liberalism than anything.
 
Any ideology that heartily embraces capitalism should be considered right wing, hence my statements about the Democratic Party.
 
anitram said:
Maybe you weren't around when a few of those Trumpists were posting, but I tried to engage them a number of times on specifics about the border tax and its budgetary implications, for example and never got anything other than silly Trumpian platitudes.

When roughly half the people who showed up to vote did so for a man with basically no ideology and no platform and who themselves clearly did not vote based on policies, then how is your response that this place is an echo chamber? Who are we to discuss with? Principled and reasoned conservatives, mostly of the fiscal variety, are generally horrified by him as well. The ones we got here posted about pizzagate (an opinion they STILL hold today) and denied racism is anything but "glorified hyporbole". Hardly people to rise to the occasion of in depth debate.
Click to expand...

This. I'd gladly be happy to have a proper debate with conservatives, but most of the conservatives we've gotten in here lately have not shown any interest in actual debate. All they've done is resort to cheap, lame meme humor to make their arguments and mock the "oversensitive liberals", or they come up with ridiculous stuff like a "racism scale" and literally do get outed as actual white supremacists.

And if somebody comes in here and starts talking about how they don't agree with same-sex marriage, or how they support bathroom bills, or shrugs off the nasty things men, be it Trump or anyone else, says about women as "just locker room talk", or calling poor people "lazy moochers", or things of that sort, then yeah, we're going to argue against that stuff, because it's really hard to have any sort of patience or tolerance for those kinds of views. Especially since there are people here for whom those issues are quite personal, and would affect them directly. There is nothing to defend about those attitudes, because they're nothing more than people being mean and discriminating towards others for no justifiable reason.

If conservatives want to discuss actual policy issues like economics, ways to improve our healthcare system in ways that benefit everyone (and fix the aspects of Obamacare that do need fixing), stuff like that, please, by all means, let's do it. I too would absolutely love to get back to discussing legitimate policy stuff, and figuring out how both sides could work together to get this or that happening.

But so long as people keep using the bully tactics that Trump's using and believe that to be a legitimate debate tactic, then no, sane, rational discussion doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon.

Nick66 said:
Anyway, there IS a big debate on the left that has nothing to do with Trump between the establishment left and the Bernie wing. I think that's a much more interesting discussion!
Click to expand...

This I fully agree with. I think the liberals, both in this forum and in the country in general, definitely need to start talking about how to work together to make the Democratic Party a stronger and more viable option going forward, as well as discuss how to better promote their message and platform to voters. I saw a headline the other day talking about how Democrats were looking to make universal healthcare a large part of their party's platform, which would be fantastic.

I also think there's some other issues that aren't getting discussed enough that the left should be bringing up more often, like the issues that come with the Citizens United ruling and all this talk of these TV companies merging to create monopolies (or things like the Sinclair issue, which is a troubling situation in and of itself).

And while I don't know that there's much chance of Democrats getting through to the diehard Trump supporters, I do still very much agree that the party needs to work on spending more time in the middle of the country in general, both to win over independent voters and to rally and engage the liberals that live here. We do exist, and we're not just in the bigger cities :)!

I also agree with the comment that...cori, I think it was...made some time back about how we need more young blood in the party. Yes, Bernie got a nice amount of college-age supporters, which is fantastic, and there were younger people who supported Clinton, too. And ultimately if somebody can do the job, I'll vote for them, age be damned.

But I do think it would be nice to get an idea of who the next generation of potential Democratic leaders will be, too, and help support them and get them into the spotlight. And I do think younger people would like to see more candidates like themselves as well. People like Danica Roem are a perfect example of what we could use more of in this party, and I hope we get to see more of that going forward.
 
PhilsFan said:
Any ideology that heartily embraces capitalism should be considered right wing, hence my statements about the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...



Out of curiosity, for the many ills of capitalism, so you appreciate it when it contributes something more than its social counterparts can offer?

I can think of something within my own industry where evil capitalism butts heads with good capitalism.
 
PhilsFan said:
Can you give me an example of what you are referring to?
Click to expand...



Well, within the space exploration community, we have two major launch entities that stem beyond space exploration.

United Launch Alliance is a duopoly joint business venture between Lockheed Martin (very evil) and Boeing (very evil). They produce the Atlas rocket (Lockheed) and the Delta rocket (Boeing). They used to compete (barely) until the late 1990s when they realized they both had a blank check from the government using 1960s technology, since they were the only companies capable of heavy launch. So they just signed up together, few questions asked. They typically otherwise compete in aerospace defense and other sectors, producing the world's most efficient killing devices such as the predator missile. They have no leader, but only shareholders expecting the business to optimize. So, it does. At all costs. At the cost of lives. At the cost of taxpayer dollars. At the cost of curbing technological development.

Along comes spacex and Elon Musk. Rapidly, a new heavy launch company was developed. Why? A void in technological development. Yes, we could have been landing our spent rockets in the 1980s, easily. What does Musk do? He flips the industry on its head. With a staunch capitalistic approach. He risked his money for the sake of developing technology that ultimately will make him even richer, the cost of launch go dramatically down, and technology to go where it hasn't yet.

But there's more. He's still risking it. He put forth his BFR - a long term plan to re-invent the way we travel. Planes are effectively maximized at this point. We can get percents on end to improve their performance, but as population grows, the demand for crude oil in that industry will only go up. And then what? Our planes won't become more cost effective. Aviation also offers no route to renewable energy due to its high power density demand per flight. Musk's BFR does, though. They chose to go after methylox as a fuel - something that can be produced on renewables with just water and CO2 from the atmosphere. And the product? 30 minutes travel to anywhere in the world. Plus the added benefit of space travel to the moon and Mars. It sounds silly, but it checks out. Planes probably sounded silly in 1900.

But this isn't his only "flip the industry on its head and make a bunch of money doing so while turning everything green" project. Tesla? Fully electric cars - chargeable from renewables. Except... they're netter cars. They are not just electric novelty and efficiency. They perform better than most gas guzzling cars. SolarCity? He's putting homes on solar power. Hyperloop? Re-inventing the train. Except a shit ton faster. And renewable.

And on and on and on. It takes an entrepreneur to stand up against those greedy capitalist pig companies. But... he's a capitalist, too. He's pushing our tech, he's helping set humanity on a greener path, and he's making money. And take it from me after having just done my time with the space industry in Europe... the semi-socialist countries like the Netherlands, of the EU as a whole? In this industry? They're conservative. They want the rocket to be 5% better. They have no desire and no ability to re-invent the system. Their own economic system doesn't permit it. It's too much of a risk for them - they risk the entire industry lagging behind or falling apart if they're not conservative like they are.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Well, within the space exploration community, we have two major launch entities that stem beyond space exploration.

United Launch Alliance is a duopoly joint business venture between Lockheed Martin (very evil) and Boeing (very evil). They produce the Atlas rocket (Lockheed) and the Delta rocket (Boeing). They used to compete (barely) until the late 1990s when they realized they both had a blank check from the government using 1960s technology, since they were the only companies capable of heavy launch. So they just signed up together, few questions asked. They typically otherwise compete in aerospace defense and other sectors, producing the world's most efficient killing devices such as the predator missile. They have no leader, but only shareholders expecting the business to optimize. So, it does. At all costs. At the cost of lives. At the cost of taxpayer dollars. At the cost of curbing technological development.

Along comes spacex and Elon Musk. Rapidly, a new heavy launch company was developed. Why? A void in technological development. Yes, we could have been landing our spent rockets in the 1980s, easily. What does Musk do? He flips the industry on its head. With a staunch capitalistic approach. He risked his money for the sake of developing technology that ultimately will make him even richer, the cost of launch go dramatically down, and technology to go where it hasn't yet.

But there's more. He's still risking it. He put forth his BFR - a long term plan to re-invent the way we travel. Planes are effectively maximized at this point. We can get percents on end to improve their performance, but as population grows, the demand for crude oil in that industry will only go up. And then what? Our planes won't become more cost effective. Aviation also offers no route to renewable energy due to its high power density demand per flight. Musk's BFR does, though. They chose to go after methylox as a fuel - something that can be produced on renewables with just water and CO2 from the atmosphere. And the product? 30 minutes travel to anywhere in the world. Plus the added benefit of space travel to the moon and Mars. It sounds silly, but it checks out. Planes probably sounded silly in 1900.

But this isn't his only "flip the industry on its head and make a bunch of money doing so while turning everything green" project. Tesla? Fully electric cars - chargeable from renewables. Except... they're netter cars. They are not just electric novelty and efficiency. They perform better than most gas guzzling cars. SolarCity? He's putting homes on solar power. Hyperloop? Re-inventing the train. Except a shit ton faster. And renewable.

And on and on and on. It takes an entrepreneur to stand up against those greedy capitalist pig companies. But... he's a capitalist, too. He's pushing our tech, he's helping set humanity on a greener path, and he's making money. And take it from me after having just done my time with the space industry in Europe... the semi-socialist countries like the Netherlands, of the EU as a whole? In this industry? They're conservative. They want the rocket to be 5% better. They have no desire and no ability to re-invent the system. Their own economic system doesn't permit it. It's too much of a risk for them - they risk the entire industry lagging behind or falling apart if they're not conservative like they are.
Click to expand...

Excellent post! Thanks for that LN7.
 
LuckyNumber7 said:
Well, within the space exploration community, we have two major launch entities that stem beyond space exploration.

United Launch Alliance is a duopoly joint business venture between Lockheed Martin (very evil) and Boeing (very evil). They produce the Atlas rocket (Lockheed) and the Delta rocket (Boeing). They used to compete (barely) until the late 1990s when they realized they both had a blank check from the government using 1960s technology, since they were the only companies capable of heavy launch. So they just signed up together, few questions asked. They typically otherwise compete in aerospace defense and other sectors, producing the world's most efficient killing devices such as the predator missile. They have no leader, but only shareholders expecting the business to optimize. So, it does. At all costs. At the cost of lives. At the cost of taxpayer dollars. At the cost of curbing technological development.

Along comes spacex and Elon Musk. Rapidly, a new heavy launch company was developed. Why? A void in technological development. Yes, we could have been landing our spent rockets in the 1980s, easily. What does Musk do? He flips the industry on its head. With a staunch capitalistic approach. He risked his money for the sake of developing technology that ultimately will make him even richer, the cost of launch go dramatically down, and technology to go where it hasn't yet.

But there's more. He's still risking it. He put forth his BFR - a long term plan to re-invent the way we travel. Planes are effectively maximized at this point. We can get percents on end to improve their performance, but as population grows, the demand for crude oil in that industry will only go up. And then what? Our planes won't become more cost effective. Aviation also offers no route to renewable energy due to its high power density demand per flight. Musk's BFR does, though. They chose to go after methylox as a fuel - something that can be produced on renewables with just water and CO2 from the atmosphere. And the product? 30 minutes travel to anywhere in the world. Plus the added benefit of space travel to the moon and Mars. It sounds silly, but it checks out. Planes probably sounded silly in 1900.

But this isn't his only "flip the industry on its head and make a bunch of money doing so while turning everything green" project. Tesla? Fully electric cars - chargeable from renewables. Except... they're netter cars. They are not just electric novelty and efficiency. They perform better than most gas guzzling cars. SolarCity? He's putting homes on solar power. Hyperloop? Re-inventing the train. Except a shit ton faster. And renewable.

And on and on and on. It takes an entrepreneur to stand up against those greedy capitalist pig companies. But... he's a capitalist, too. He's pushing our tech, he's helping set humanity on a greener path, and he's making money. And take it from me after having just done my time with the space industry in Europe... the semi-socialist countries like the Netherlands, of the EU as a whole? In this industry? They're conservative. They want the rocket to be 5% better. They have no desire and no ability to re-invent the system. Their own economic system doesn't permit it. It's too much of a risk for them - they risk the entire industry lagging behind or falling apart if they're not conservative like they are.
Click to expand...
:up:
 
Fantastic post LN7.

A great example of entrepreneurial capitalism working the way its supposed to. Driving innovation and moving us forward. And the comments in your last paragraph about the ESA are very well taken, and sadly replicated across many industries in parts of Europe, where the economic system simply does not encourage, or even allow, innovation and risk-taking.
 
Last edited:
LuckyNumber7 said:
Well, within the space exploration community, we have two major launch entities that stem beyond space exploration.

United Launch Alliance is a duopoly joint business venture between Lockheed Martin (very evil) and Boeing (very evil). They produce the Atlas rocket (Lockheed) and the Delta rocket (Boeing). They used to compete (barely) until the late 1990s when they realized they both had a blank check from the government using 1960s technology, since they were the only companies capable of heavy launch. So they just signed up together, few questions asked. They typically otherwise compete in aerospace defense and other sectors, producing the world's most efficient killing devices such as the predator missile. They have no leader, but only shareholders expecting the business to optimize. So, it does. At all costs. At the cost of lives. At the cost of taxpayer dollars. At the cost of curbing technological development.

Along comes spacex and Elon Musk. Rapidly, a new heavy launch company was developed. Why? A void in technological development. Yes, we could have been landing our spent rockets in the 1980s, easily. What does Musk do? He flips the industry on its head. With a staunch capitalistic approach. He risked his money for the sake of developing technology that ultimately will make him even richer, the cost of launch go dramatically down, and technology to go where it hasn't yet.

But there's more. He's still risking it. He put forth his BFR - a long term plan to re-invent the way we travel. Planes are effectively maximized at this point. We can get percents on end to improve their performance, but as population grows, the demand for crude oil in that industry will only go up. And then what? Our planes won't become more cost effective. Aviation also offers no route to renewable energy due to its high power density demand per flight. Musk's BFR does, though. They chose to go after methylox as a fuel - something that can be produced on renewables with just water and CO2 from the atmosphere. And the product? 30 minutes travel to anywhere in the world. Plus the added benefit of space travel to the moon and Mars. It sounds silly, but it checks out. Planes probably sounded silly in 1900.

But this isn't his only "flip the industry on its head and make a bunch of money doing so while turning everything green" project. Tesla? Fully electric cars - chargeable from renewables. Except... they're netter cars. They are not just electric novelty and efficiency. They perform better than most gas guzzling cars. SolarCity? He's putting homes on solar power. Hyperloop? Re-inventing the train. Except a shit ton faster. And renewable.

And on and on and on. It takes an entrepreneur to stand up against those greedy capitalist pig companies. But... he's a capitalist, too. He's pushing our tech, he's helping set humanity on a greener path, and he's making money. And take it from me after having just done my time with the space industry in Europe... the semi-socialist countries like the Netherlands, of the EU as a whole? In this industry? They're conservative. They want the rocket to be 5% better. They have no desire and no ability to re-invent the system. Their own economic system doesn't permit it. It's too much of a risk for them - they risk the entire industry lagging behind or falling apart if they're not conservative like they are.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking time to post this, very interesting, and a very good example of capitalism done right, with vast benefits. But there are many, many other sectors that are making record profits, decimating the North American workforce, and leaving their workers basically living in poverty. What about those? I don't think it's fair to use this one example to discount PhilsFan's point (not that you are doing that LN7, I mean generally).
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised how many typos I always make on interference.

Believe it or not everyone... I am known for my strong writing skills. [emoji55]
 
VintagePunk said:
Thanks for taking time to post this, very interesting, and a very good example of capitalism done right, with vast benefits. But there are many, many other sectors that are making record profits, decimating the North American workforce, and leaving their workers basically living in poverty. What about those? I don't think it's fair to use this one example to discount PhilsFan's point (not that you are doing that LN7, I mean generally).
Click to expand...



I don’t want to speak for LN7, but I believe he was using the point to show that not all capitalism is bad.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Which is what PhilsFan’s post is suggesting. I honestly believe it will never work in this country, and honestly I’m not sure it should.

As a country, we’re so obsessed with this either/ or mentality these days that it’s difficult to have these conversations. I remember the Newsweek cover “We’re all socialists now” and thinking how fucking stupid are Americans now? Are our history lessons this bad? And yes it was just a cover, but that was the mindset of so many Americans at that time.

I wish we lived in a society today where the majority understood the world isn’t black and white. Nuance is dead. Hence, debate is dead.

I’m not trying to discount Phil’s point, but I’ve been seriously disappointed by his lack of wanting to have this discussion.
 
BVS said:
I wish we lived in a society today where the majority understood the world isn’t black and white.
Click to expand...

That's a terrifying sentence. Terrifying because my initial reaction to it is, well hell yes but - who doesn't want this?
And then I remember the US right now. And Britain. The pathetic arguments being trotted out and applauded during Australia's gay marriage referendum. The increasingly stupid nationalist racist shit being thrown around in NZ.

Black and white is the colour scheme of the decade. Terrifying to think what needs to happen for it to change.
 
kiwilad said:
Black and white is the colour scheme of the decade. Terrifying to think what needs to happen for it to change.
Click to expand...



Not that I rule out anything extreme happening on US soil, but I’m optimistic. The majority of the Trump mindset is a fading generation. But there is that young nationalistic crowd that gives me pause.
 
BVS said:
I don’t want to speak for LN7, but I believe he was using the point to show that not all capitalism is bad.

Why does it have to be one or the other? Which is what PhilsFan’s post is suggesting. I honestly believe it will never work in this country, and honestly I’m not sure it should.

As a country, we’re so obsessed with this either/ or mentality these days that it’s difficult to have these conversations. I remember the Newsweek cover “We’re all socialists now” and thinking how fucking stupid are Americans now? Are our history lessons this bad? And yes it was just a cover, but that was the mindset of so many Americans at that time.

I wish we lived in a society today where the majority understood the world isn’t black and white. Nuance is dead. Hence, debate is dead.

I’m not trying to discount Phil’s point, but I’ve been seriously disappointed by his lack of wanting to have this discussion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that. My point was also to say that it is not black and white - that while LN7's anecdote was interesting and compelling and makes a good argument, that for every story like that, there are probably dozens where companies are not making efforts to lead the way in technology, and are making record profits, while their workers are suffering. So props for those capitalists who are doing good things, but most aren't.
 
A faster rate of innovation and higher profits mean nothing if it goes into the hands of a few.
 
VintagePunk said:
Yes, I realize that. My point was also to say that it is not black and white - that while LN7's anecdote was interesting and compelling and makes a good argument, that for every story like that, there are probably dozens where companies are not making efforts to lead the way in technology, and are making record profits, while their workers are suffering. So props for those capitalists who are doing good things, but most aren't.
Click to expand...

Most capitalists, and by most I mean the overwhelming majority, are engaged in small business, are not making 'record profits' or screwing their employees.
 
nbelcik said:
A faster rate of innovation and higher profits mean nothing if it goes into the hands of a few.
Click to expand...



What? I mean maybe you had something in mind when you wrote this, but from the very perspective of what I just wrote, I couldn't see this as further from the truth. A faster rate of - not innovation - technological advancement as a whole, absolutely in no way falls into "the hands of the few." In many cases, it benefits us all. Or, in evil cases, harms us all.

The problem we see in capitalism and classical liberalism is the reliance it has on volunteerism. The more computational it becomes, the more volunteerism gets eliminated. It boils down to the law-philosophical argument of whether or not a corporation is a person. It's absolutely not.

The problem is we rely on these capitalists to exhibit volunteerism, when it's easy for them to be greedy and do by themselves to make more money.
 
So I’ve been on silent retreat for 10 days. The world is still here

But what did i miss? Any new updates on Russia investigation? I see CNN headlines are about nukes
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Need Help With How To Do Transfer And Sale Through TM
Replies
14
Views
610
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
301
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
927
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Achtung_Bebe
IO: It's been a while...
Replies
2
Views
758
mikal
mikal
N
Hello!
Replies
2
Views
833
Hewson
Hewson

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom