Jump to content
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Moscow Mitch

Recommended Posts

Quote

 

At a Farmfest listening session with farmers in Minnesota, Perdue hit back at the complaints with his joke: “What do you call two farmers in a basement? A whine cellar.”

As he pounded the table in mirth, some of the thousands of farmers at the event laughed nervously — which was followed by boos.

“It was definitely not an appropriate thing to say,” Minnesota Farmers Union President Gary Wertish told HuffPost. “It was very insensitive. It took everyone by surprise. He doesn’t understand what farmers are dealing with, and he’s the head of the Department of Agriculture. He’s supposed to be working for farmers.”

Wertish said several farmers have complained about Perdue’s comment to him in person and via email.

Net farm income in America has plunged by nearly half over the last five years from $123.4 billion in 2013 to $63 billion last year. It plummeted by 16% last year alone, Time reports. Farmers have filed a record number of bankruptcies since the start of Trump’s trade war with China.

 

Farmers Reel After Sonny Perdue Mocks Them As ‘Whiners’ Amid Trade War Bankruptcies
Minnesota Farmers Union president calls the agriculture secretary’s dig “very insensitive. It took everyone by surprise.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sonny-perdue-whining-farmers-angry-reaction_n_5d51e64ce4b0c63bcbec0c10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sologdin said:

it's an old left insistence, uninterested in intersectionality doctrine, rooted in a narrow interpretation classical marxism's thesis that the economic base determines in the last instance superstructures such as race, gender, and other ideologies.

His predictions about the future didn't work out too well, but Marx was pretty good about spotting problems. "Intersectionality doctrine" is just one entry on the long list of tools used to keep the working and middle classes divided so that the people on top can stay on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2019 at 10:30 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

The question is, what does censorship mean for private organisations? Any private entity is surely free to chose what kind of speech it associates with. Even with legal protections concerning liability for harmful communications a private entity may still choose not to have any association with certain types of speech. I.e. a private entity should be free to be as biased as it wants to be. It's up to the market (consumers / users and advertisers) to decide whether they want to continue using the services of a biased organisation.

I'd just say an organisation needs to be transparent about its biases, is it pro or anti LGBT? Is it pro or anti choice? Is it pro or anti mob violence on the right / left / both? Is it pro or anti white ethno-state?

If a govt wants to support a social media platform that doesn't delete any content no matter how offensive or threatening, they can simply provide online security cover for 8Chan.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this.  Many here would be supportive of the mythical bakery having to make a cake for the gay wedding.  Or that in areas with limited services, that those services can't be held back due to prejudice.  We don't want the green book having to come back (or an equivalent for any other group).  In that context, where do these internet systems fit in?  In a world where they have a near monopoly, and the ability for groups to move their service is actually pretty limited, I'm not sure if do agree they shouldn't be forced to be open for everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ants said:

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this.  Many here would be supportive of the mythical bakery having to make a cake for the gay wedding.  Or that in areas with limited services, that those services can't be held back due to prejudice.  We don't want the green book having to come back (or an equivalent for any other group).  In that context, where do these internet systems fit in?  In a world where they have a near monopoly, and the ability for groups to move their service is actually pretty limited, I'm not sure if do agree they shouldn't be forced to be open for everyone. 

Is it a monopoly though? There are a lot of options for people in terms of website platforms. And people can even create their own web platform, with their own computers and servers and security if they can buy the skills. I think access to the internet should not be curtailed, and people should be able to register domains. But that's about as far as I think it should go in terms of imposing access on private entities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it a monopoly though? There are a lot of options for people in terms of website platforms. And people can even create their own web platform, with their own computers and servers and security if they can buy the skills. I think access to the internet should not be curtailed, and people should be able to register domains. But that's about as far as I think it should go in terms of imposing access on private entities.

Its not a pure monopoly, but either is that bakery with the cake.  Just because they're the only bakery (or hotel or supermarket, whatever) in town doesn't make them a pure monopoly because anyone can open against them.  But in reality, they're the only service provider.  

If you want to interact with other groups (or see lots of businesses' info) you have to log onto Facebook/Instagram etc.  If you want to know what your celebrities are tweeting, you have to go to twitter.  

Asking someone to build their own web platform sounds a lot harder than telling someone they can bake their own cake.  

Part of me is saying this, because I always assume that these things will be tried to be used against us.  Remember, it often wasn't laws but societal norms that shut minorities out of services and establishments.  That said, I don't want Trump et al being the arbiter of what can and can't be said either!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it a monopoly though? There are a lot of options for people in terms of website platforms. And people can even create their own web platform, with their own computers and servers and security if they can buy the skills. I think access to the internet should not be curtailed, and people should be able to register domains. But that's about as far as I think it should go in terms of imposing access on private entities.

and people can bake their own cake, with the ovens in their own homes, access to cakes wont be curtailed and people will have unlimited access to all the cakes they want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ants said:

Its not a pure monopoly, but either is that bakery with the cake.  Just because they're the only bakery (or hotel or supermarket, whatever) in town doesn't make them a pure monopoly because anyone can open against them.  But in reality, they're the only service provider.  

If you want to interact with other groups (or see lots of businesses' info) you have to log onto Facebook/Instagram etc.  If you want to know what your celebrities are tweeting, you have to go to twitter.  

Asking someone to build their own web platform sounds a lot harder than telling someone they can bake their own cake.  

Part of me is saying this, because I always assume that these things will be tried to be used against us.  Remember, it often wasn't laws but societal norms that shut minorities out of services and establishments.  That said, I don't want Trump et al being the arbiter of what can and can't be said either!  

I think there’s a fundamental difference between protecting groups  from being discriminated from private establishments based on their sexual orientation and protecting certain groups from facing discrimination over their politics-which what you seem to be  advocating for. A person can’t change their orientation. They could shift their viewpoints.

If a Neo-Nazi dressed in an old SS uniform comes to a Jewish bakery and offers the bakers present for a cake that says “America only belongs to the whites “are you seriously contending that Baker should be legally obliged to fulfill that request? 

Hell, how about a baker who refuses to sell to those who publicly denounce his products as terrible?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If a Neo-Nazi dressed in an old SS uniform comes to a Jewish bakery and offers the bakers present for a cake that says “America only belongs to the whites “are you seriously contending that Baker should be legally obliged to fulfill that request? 

Hell, how about a baker who refuses to sell to those who publicly denounce his products as terrible?

These arguments have been addressed in judgments of both the UK and US Supreme Court.  Both agreed that you cannot compel speech (as in your first example of adding words on a cake).  And your second example is not discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and so would not implicate an equal protection claim. 

People have strong feelings about this, but in my view we should draw the line in preventing discrimination in offering a service, full stop.  So you cannot require an african-american sculptor to create a bespoke swastika for the KKK.  But a sculptor who sells standard crosses in a shop cannot refuse to sell to someone simply because they disagree with their sexual orientation or race.  Bakers who sell standard cakes should be required to sell to all.  But if you are asked to create a bespoke cake with words that you don't agree with, you should be entitled to refuse. 

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

And your second example is not discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and so would not implicate an equal protection claim. 

Well neither of my examples is not example of discrimination on sexual orientation. They’re examples of people being discriminated against based on their political stances.

40 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

People have strong feelings about this, but in my view we should draw the line in preventing discrimination in offering a service, full stop.

I have to disagree. I see the only real justifications for such rules is to protect groups that could not reasonably be expected to change ingrained characteristics. 

40 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

So you cannot require an african-american sculptor to create a bespoke swastika for the KKK.

So a member of the KKK should be able to wear his or her robes go to an African-American sculptor, and request service so long as they don’t tack on a specific/explicit message with the service? I find such an idea unsatisfactory.

Next, you may as well argue that a Sculptor  could not refuse to hire that KKK member based off they’re political beliefs/affiliations. 

40 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But if you are asked to create a bespoke cake with words that you don't agree with, you should be entitled to refuse.

See the problem here is that if social-media platforms are compelled to cater to every single  idea floated they’re being compelled in the same way thing sculptor would be . albeit with a grander scale involved. There’s no reasonable difference that could be seen between compelling a  baker to write “Jews are corrupting the government” and compelling a media platform to feature the same messaging on their platform. Both private entities are being forced to have their services be used in the promotion of a message they apparently find disagreeable. I don’t think political stances  NAMBLA  has about unfair society treats pedophiles or the KKK for how it’s so unfair how the government would go after them for killing non-whites, or Incels on how awful women are need government protection.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yeah, it looks like the collective GDP for the entire Eurozone only grew at 0.2% in the 2nd quarter, down from 0.4% in the 1st quarter.

And I don't expect the US/China trade war will end anytime soon. Xi Jinping can't afford to bend to US pressure, and Trump certainly isn't going to admit he was wrong, so at this point it's probably just a matter of finding out how much of a lead time a Eurozone recession has on a global one.

I’ve got to imagine that’s only going to get worse as Brexit looms, and I’m certain they’ll crater if BoJo is really dumb enough to leave without a deal, or at least some framework, in place.

On the China front, Hong Kong’s airport got shut down for a second straight day. Xi will be distracted by that in the weeks to come, so the 10% increase in tariffs is more likely than not to take effect.

And yet oddly the market opens up +450.

:dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On the China front, Hong Kong’s airport got shut down for a second straight day. Xi will be distracted by that in the weeks to come, so the 10% increase in tariffs is more likely than not to take effect.

And I just now read an article about Chinese troops amassing outside Hong Kong. As I had anticipated in the International News thread. We are most likely going to see those brave protestors die for democracy while the western world was too busy showing them how to kill democracy once you have it.

Edited by Toth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

so the 10% increase in tariffs is more likely than not to take effect.

And yet oddly the market opens up +450.

:dunno:

WH just announced the tariffs will be delayed until December 15, for fear of hurting the US economy.  Sounds like Wall Street got the heads up in advance, which is par for the course in this administration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Triskele said:

If it's true that Trump used to study Hitler's speeches I had not heard that yet and would have thought that would be all over the place.  

Here's some terrifying reading for everyone.

Old news monkey man. It was covered and then ignored during the primaries. It’s actually rather startling how much the two figures have in common, at least in their respective ascensions. I wrote here in 2016 comparing Trump’s use of Twitter to Hitler’s mastery of the radio and megaphone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

His predictions about the future didn't work out too well, but Marx was pretty good about spotting problems. "Intersectionality doctrine" is just one entry on the long list of tools used to keep the working and middle classes divided so that the people on top can stay on top.

curious.  i wonder which ones are considered good or not so good.  some things in his near term were substantially correct, such as the US civil war and the likely effect of socialism in the russian empire--but those are specific ontic instances from history, rather than ontological abstractions about political economy, which, as a hegelian, he would've found more important and more real. the manifesto's decalogue seems to be plausible for the advanced states, though bound by 19th century ideas. i suppose therefore it matters little, the nature and extent of the predictions--one can't hold too tightly to a 19th century writer, but must look at the updates on the doctrine as history unfolds; otherwise, it is a prophetics, rather than scientific prediction. certainly the classical description of capitalist doctrine in the 19th century is worthwhile, as it broke classical political economy and made the bourgeois economists run with an entirely different set of philosophical assumptions.

what objection however to intersectionality doctrine? it's fairly basic stuff, descending from dubois and feminist ideas. is the argument that in developing the thesis, they were deploying class bound false consciousness that enhanced the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? that certainly applies to the specifically racist and xenophobic ideas of rightwing populists such as trump and other fascists--but does it apply with equal force and effect to the attempts by feminists and critical race theorists to end discrimination within liberal capitalism?

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Toth said:

And I just now read an article about Chinese troops amassing outside Hong Kong. As I had anticipated in the International News thread. We are most likely going to see those brave protestors die for democracy while the western world was too busy showing them how to kill democracy once you have it.

I could see this going either way. One the one hand, we just passed the 30th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, but on the other, the West is so distracted with its own problems giving China a lane to gamble on a harsh crackdown.

39 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

WH just announced the tariffs will be delayed until December 15, for fear of hurting the US economy.  Sounds like Wall Street got the heads up in advance, which is par for the course in this administration. 

What's a bit of insider trading when treason hangs over your head, amirite?  

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I could see this going either way. One the one hand, we just passed the 30th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square, but on the other, the West is so distracted with its own problems giving China a lane to gamble on a harsh crackdown.

China is vastly more powerful than they were in 1989.  Even if the EU, US and Japan could speak with more or less one voice, what would they do?  Empty words and maybe some symbolic slap on the wrist is just about the worst that China could expect.  Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China, and there's no way they're going to tolerate significant outside interference. 

China is weighing the pros and cons of a crackdown based on how it would play in both HK and the rest of China.  Concerns about the reaction from the West is a secondary issue at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

China is vastly more powerful than they were in 1989.  Even if the EU, US and Japan could speak with more or less one voice, what would they do?  Empty words and maybe some symbolic slap on the wrist is just about the worst that China could expect.  Like it or not, Hong Kong is part of China, and there's no way they're going to tolerate significant outside interference. 

China is weighing the pros and cons of a crackdown based on how it would play in both HK and the rest of China.  Concerns about the reaction from the West is a secondary issue at best. 

I have to somewhat disagree. China’s economy is in a precarious position, and the first, second and third priorities of the Communist Party are maintaining a stable, growing economy. They are deadly afraid of an uprising caused by a massive economic downturn. I’m not sure they’re willing to risk a massive Western backlash while also damaging their financial hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

For the first time since the beginning of the Democratic presidential primary, Elizabeth Warren took the lead in PredictIt’s online betting markets over the weekend. Shares of the Massachusetts senator were going for as high 29 cents on Sunday, one cent more than Joe Biden’s. Senators Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders were a fairly distant third and fourth.

Warren first appeared to overtake Biden on Saturday evening, when her shares hit 26 cents.

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/betting-markets-see-warren-as-likeliest-democratic-nominee.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I have to somewhat disagree. China’s economy is in a precarious position, and the first, second and third priorities of the Communist Party are maintaining a stable, growing economy. They are deadly afraid of an uprising caused by a massive economic downturn. I’m not sure they’re willing to risk a massive Western backlash while also damaging their financial hub.

I guess I'm not really sure what a "massive Western backlash" would mean.  I think that even in the event of a serious military crackdown involving hundreds killed and wounded that the West would just tut-tut and make some symbolic, but toothless, economic punishments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×