Jump to content
Triskele

U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away

Recommended Posts

I’m going to propose another consideration of the idea that racism is kinda sorta a systemic issue with LEOs.

 

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/legal_affairs/wv-employees-suspended-after-photo-emerges-of-correctional-officers-nazi/article_fb446f32-31c5-5b46-9977-5854937697a7.html

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I’m going to propose another consideration of the idea that racism is kinda sorta a systemic issue with LEOs.

 

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/legal_affairs/wv-employees-suspended-after-photo-emerges-of-correctional-officers-nazi/article_fb446f32-31c5-5b46-9977-5854937697a7.html

It's kind of haunting that the picture is from basic f'ing training. That's culture, not just a few bad apples...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
  On 11/28/2019 at 12:20 AM, ThinkerX said:

 Complaints against Biden tend to either get mired in the Ukraine stuff (which Trump fans appear to be uncomfortable discussing in depth) 

Are you implying I'd be scared of pointing out that Biden stands guilty of quid pro quo in fact ?  while a two year Democrat smear campai

gn meant to shift Biden's crime onto Trump has failed to eatablish Trump's imaginary quid pro quo?   You're right: there was no need to go into great depth there.

 

First, Biden had n authority to negotiate on his own.  VICE - President, remember.  

Second, Biden was the THIRD Obama official to make that demand over the course of several months.  He was carrying out the policy of that administration - acting within the rules.

Now, as to Team Trump, well, we have Rudy and Trump meeting with literal gangsters and setting up a shadow state department because the actual state department kept balking at committing illegal acts.

Now, in the infamous phone call (and elsewhere) Trump (and his followers) claimed that Trump was merely investigating corruption.  Guess what?  Guy in charge of the Ukraine did initiate such an investigation - hundreds of prosecutors and petty officials facing charges - including every last one that Team Trump was working with (a couple of whom were praised by Trump).  Biden?  No legitimate grounds to start a corruption investigation.  (this really should have been posted days ago, but whatever)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-zelensky-is-making-headway-against-corruption-but-the-fight-risks-angering-trump/2019/12/01/eccff802-0d27-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Your definition of freedom is remarkably narrow.

In this context it means "rich".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Your definition of freedom is remarkably narrow.

According to Freedomhouse.org the USA had a freedom score of 90 in 2016 and it has a score of 86 in 2019. Trump's time isn't over, so it could yet improve, but it's moved in the wrong direction over the last 3 years.

In case some people were wondering if this might be a golf scoring situation where lower is better, it's not. Higher is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

 I liked the first part.  Thoughtful.  We're really one and the parties are tricking us into thinking like we"re two different species when really it's an adventurous youth vs. aged wisdom thing, like a bodily process.

As for the second part, I've already explained why it"s proper to fear the government as it grows ever larger and more intrusive.  The gov isn't Jesus, you guys.  Stop religioning it.   

 

Also, if you want to get religious about it. Religion says the only thing to fear is God, if you fear anything else then that's a weakness and a flaw in your religious faith. So Christians fearing their own govt are showing severe weakness of faith and doubt in Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Your definition of freedom is remarkably narrow.

He's certainly protecting the freedom of rich people and corporations to viciously exploit working people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

   Let's fix this one blurb for ya as an example of how backwards this thread is.  The electorate got what they wanted and so were rewarded.   You're trying to punish them by turning against yur own nation and reversing the election instead of focussing on Russia dicking with us.  Fascism is being generated on college campusses (i refuse to say campi), not in the whitehouse.  Your nominees do want to kill the market, so you got that right, but this would be even worse for the nation than the current anti-American activities of your party.  Bernie or Warren, by killing the economic engine, would accomplish more for our enemies than the counterculture ever yielded them before.  It is the economy, doncha know, that props up the gov's ability to do all these wondrous "free" programs.  These decrepid candidates would kill that golden goose, so hungry are they like vampires to bring everything under governmental control by choking out all competition (The People, the businesses you so despise).

 

am developing the thesis that this constellation of spelling mistakes, reading comprehension errors, historical inaccuracy, and illogical derivation is the necessary condition for far right politics. the question then becomes whether the amount of work it takes to be so completely wrong indicates intentional error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sologdin said:

the question then becomes whether the amount of work it takes to be so completely wrong indicates intentional error.

I doubt it. Even if the discourse is somewhat exaggerated for recreational purposes (to trigger us libtards) the core of the belief is most probably sincere.
As has been pointed out in these threads, right-wing people have a tendency to accuse the left precisely of what they are themselves doing (standard psychological projection). I don't think anyone here worships the government. But the right's worship of the "free market(s)" is well-documented.
To quote Robert Shiller:

Quote

[...] the problem of market-incentivized professional manipulation and deception is fundamental, not an externality. In short, the superiority of untrammeled free markets — the fundamental theorem of welfare economics — has taken on the aura of a law from the heavens.

I would argue that not only is Shiller correct, but if anything he may be understating it. It's not just that protecting the "freedom of markets" or "freedom through markets" has an "aura of a law from the heavens." People on the right tend to actually believe that the market is spontaneous, a "natural" state of affairs that can thus only be the will of a god.

Notwithstanding the obvious logical flaws, the fundamental problem might be what Mlle Zabzie and Ran ended up pointing out: that the left has not come up with a working alternative to the market for valuation, not just of assets or companies, but of goods, services, labor... etc. In other words, since even the left bases its policies on a socio-economic system dominated by market forces it is ill-equipped to counter the dominant neo-liberal ideology, thus leaving neo-fascism as the apparent alternative to the establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I doubt it. Even if the discourse is somewhat exaggerated for recreational purposes (to trigger us libtards) the core of the belief is most probably sincere.
As has been pointed out in these threads, right-wing people have a tendency to accuse the left precisely of what they are themselves doing (standard psychological projection). I don't think anyone here worships the government. But the right's worship of the "free market(s)" is well-documented.
To quote Robert Shiller:

I would argue that not only is Shiller correct, but if anything he may be understating it. It's not just that protecting the "freedom of markets" or "freedom through markets" has an "aura of a law from the heavens." People on the right tend to actually believe that the market is spontaneous, a "natural" state of affairs that can thus only be the will of a god.

Notwithstanding the obvious logical flaws, the fundamental problem might be what Mlle Zabzie and Ran ended up pointing out: that the left has not come up with a working alternative to the market for valuation, not just of assets or companies, but of goods, services, labor... etc. In other words, since even the left bases its policies on a socio-economic system dominated by market forces it is ill-equipped to counter the dominant neo-liberal ideology, thus leaving neo-fascism as the apparent alternative to the establishment.

I think the most amazing aspect of the worship of ‘free market’ is the...it must be deliberate unless they literally don’t read past the opening paragraph...misunderstanding of the Adam Smith work they champion so much and so often. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on't think anyone here worships the government. But the right's worship of the "free market(s)" is well-documented.

trump voters tend to craft nietzsche's new idol from the state, despite all the mindless chanting of swamp-draining mantras: walls, tariffs, prisons, militarism, public moneys for private interests, establishment of religion, enhancement of public budgetary deficit. we have seen all this before in rightwing regimes, deploying the standard set of ideological equivalences of state and nation, military and policy, constitution and party--all conjoined in the person of the main office-holder--so that opposing an aspect of one is to become an avowed enemy of all of them. and insofar as the person of the office-holder makes it all up as he goes along, the trump voter is an inverted ned flanders, doing everything trump says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff. it is accordingly not a problem at all for this voter to craft a new idol of state power and childishly accuse another of worshiping the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, sologdin said:

trump voters tend to craft nietzsche's new idol from the state, despite all the mindless chanting of swamp-draining mantras: walls, tariffs, prisons, militarism, public moneys for private interests, establishment of religion, enhancement of public budgetary deficit. we have seen all this before in rightwing regimes, deploying the standard set of ideological equivalences of state and nation, military and policy, constitution and party--all conjoined in the person of the main office-holder--so that opposing an aspect of one is to become an avowed enemy of all of them.

Well, of course. Governments are only instituted among men to protect the god-given state of affairs after all. Doubting one can only mean doubting the other, you faithless anti-American liburul...
Or as we say here: "die, communist scum"  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRDqXtDn_Yg )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The story of Buttigieg's time with McKinsey, which was also mostly his time in the military, working on McKinsey Pentagon funded projects:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

And here I'd thought his time in the Middle East serving in the military was actually, you know, being a soldier, but it was data wonking about business for programs for which a non-government corporation was getting paid, and which didn't work out, due to a variety of factors, which presumably were not connected in any personal way to Buttigieg.  It was all about though, the ever more privatization of every aspect of our military operations for the enrichment of private - corporate - non-government. stockholding sorts with federal monies (tax dollars)  initiated by the bushwas.

Quote

Mr. Buttigieg’s work on the Afghanistan project ended in late 2009, close to the time he was commissioned as an officer in the Navy Reserve. And that October, when he was still several months from leaving McKinsey, he set in motion the next phase of his life: He registered as a candidate for office with the State of Indiana.

He was never under fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I think the most amazing aspect of the worship of ‘free market’ is the...it must be deliberate unless they literally don’t read past the opening paragraph...misunderstanding of the Adam Smith work they champion so much and so often. 

Please correct me if I’m mistaken as I read Smith’s work sophomore year in a haze of smoke, but wasn’t part of the idea of the invisible hand of the free market that it would cleanse society of the less desirables because they’d fail to survive the implied social Darwinism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there was another mass shooting on a military base this week, NBD, only three dead, yawn factor is over 9,000, but it was interesting to be reminded that the people we trust most to have weapons of war have very strict access to their firearms on base. Far stricter than what most Democrats would probably want. And yet if you lived a mile off base you could have a gun room that would put the one from Tremors to shame.

Murika!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn’t part of the idea of the invisible hand of the free market that it would cleanse society of the less desirables because they’d fail to survive the implied social Darwinism?

perhaps the contrary. in the theory of moral sentiments, smith sounds like a bloody commie:

Quote

 

The produce of the soil maintains at all times nearly that number of inhabitants which it is capable of maintaining. The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. 

 

IV.I.10 (emphasis added). there is a small flaw with this axoim to the extent it is completely false, when measured in the laboratory of history.

the earlier wealth of nations uses the term in a fairly limited sense, regarding foreign v. domestic industry:

Quote

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

IV.2.9 (emphasis added).  the distinction between not intending to promote the public interest vs. directing capital toward the domestic industry appears to be without difference and is accordingly merely tautological.  i marvel that anyone thinks this metaphor--which lacks any evidentiary rigor and is simply asserted--is in any way persuasive.  it is therefore a postulate of a cult, a theology established as the default religion of numbnuts in both major US parties.

Edited by sologdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Please correct me if I’m mistaken as I read Smith’s work sophomore year in a haze of smoke, but wasn’t part of the idea of the invisible hand of the free market that it would cleanse society of the less desirables because they’d fail to survive the implied social Darwinism?

Well, he sort of contradicts himself every now and then but I’ll try and expand my point a bit for ~ clarity. First, like say Freud we need to understand the environment to which he was reacting. The understood enemy of his day was not governmental controls of the economy, but rather the heads of the mercantile system, essentially big business.

That was the entity whose controls were to be avoided when they harmed the true specifically denoted priority in Smith’s ethos, the people. He was absolutely for regulations when they hindered the mercantile accumulation of private interests and helped those of the workers. He stated clearly that unregulated economies born out of the mercantile system will inevitably result in concentration and further stratification and his aim was to prevent that occurrence. 

He also anticipated the economic realities of the Industrial Age and, with the same priorities mentioned above, argued strenuously against division of labour because it would further commodify labour, render workers yet more dependent on ownership and increase the compounding of interests/power that he dreaded.

Modern western capitalists have basically taken a western movie theorem, switched the roles of the white hats and black hats and tried to argue that this was the intention all along. It’s...kinda insane, but I will admit Smith writes enough seemingly contradictory passages which in isolation could be misconstrued. Not if you read the entire work, or even much of it, but there’s enough there to seemingly lend weight to the way western nations have ‘taught’ Smith since.

The possibly greatest irony? Smith saw this happening in his own time and wrote dire warnings and complaints, often stating that the people who championed his works the loudest understood it the least. He may have died thinking he’d made a grave mistake.

Edited by James Arryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to CNN (so let's wait a few hours for confirmation from a real news outlet) the shooter of the day is a member of the Saudi military. I... don't know if I should be happy about that. Can someone tell me? Oh forget it, I'll just turn on CNN and agree with the talking head that isn't a Klan member.

Share this post


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

×