Support for authoritarianism?

[Caecus]

Nonsense, China will whine and then do nothing. Their talk of invasion (of Taiwan) is a bluff which they won't go through when Trump thanks to people such as yourself has gotten a reputation as a madman who will nuke China immediately if they do such a thing. I don't believe Trump would but a reputation that he would is always good when dealing with enemies.

Oh and yes it is them supporting a dictatorship over a Liberal Democracy, literally complaining that Trump didn't kowtow to China and their ridiculous demand. No Liberal should be saying it is right to deny Taiwan's existence. It right to deny Israel too because some countries want that? Palestine? Goes on. 

 

You're going for the wrong thing. The Nixon thing I was referring to is, "Only Nixon could go to China". Trump is a strongman so him doing a peacedeal between Israel and Palestine wouldn't get him talked about as weak and "giving the Muslims everything" and such. Also hard to paint him as anti-Jewish in such an equation considering the obvious (and lol at the Liberals who have in the past tried).

 

Taking my words out of context. Yes, if a bomb falls on you its going to be effective. However if you're bombing ineffectively and doing little damage then yes, its ineffective and not working. Bombings in Libya were effective and quickly finished what little hope the country had, in Syria however its much different.

 

Literally saying that you're not sure saving jobs is positive. Just stop, completely discrediting.

 

If you don't see anything wrong with Trump accidentally making a phone call that potentially pushes both nations to threatening nuclear war, then I can't argue with that logic. 

 

You think Trump is going to be the first strongman in the history of trying to solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Nasser, el-Sadat. For !@#$ sake, even Chaney had gotten in on the action before, and he shot someone in the face. Has Trump blown someone's !@#$ing face off with a shotgun? Get sum. 

 

So, somehow American air force pilots are being "Obamatized" and keep missing the damn mark because a liberal infection has made them suffer a mental stroke? I don't see how Trump is going to change anything. What is he going to do different that Obama hasn't?

 

Literally read my first sentence and everything else flew over your head. I'm saying that conservative economists think Trump is a statist, and many have written books saying statist policies lead to soviet-style slavery. These conservative economists are the intellectual backbone of the Republican party's economic branch; a branch which Trump has now clip offed, made into paper, and wiped his ass with. I'm a neo-Keynesian, so it's kind of funny to watch, but I know a lot of people on the other side are turning in their graves. 

 

 

I'm not sure this Caecus chap even has purpose posting as it seems to be mostly poor jokes here and again, perhaps he's just getting ready. 

There is a difference between the economics inside the nation and outside the nation, companies should be paying for selling their products in another nation. It would be no different than a company leaving to another planet and still selling shit and expecting our planet to just accept that, ah no thanks this planet gets treated better than that you pig.

 

I'm not even sure if your first sentence was an insult? Besides the poor jokes, which is more or less a true statement. 

 

Your narrow minded view of nation states and equating them to closed-system economies suggests you have no !@#$ing idea what you are talking about. Do you even know who Hayek is? Do you even know what neoliberalism is? 

 

I assume you see the word "liberal" and probably think it must have nothing to do with your political views. 

 

 

 

Also, we are getting off topic. "Authoritarianism is bad."

[----]

Also, we are getting off topic. 'Authoritarianism is good.'

Corrected.

 

I once used to be an adament supporter of the free market. Many factors contributed to my switch in beliefs, but that can be another thread topic. I will say, however, I have noticed that free market advocates seem to make the same excuse as left socialists/communists ('real communism has not been tried').

 

The means are irrelevant, since their morality is but a hazy abstraction that dissipates in the light of achieved ends. Even financial 'prosperity' is less important than the concrete and tangible advancement of a unique, national civilisation. Much like metal particles, whose magnetism is achieved through congruent alignment, the needs of the individual must be completely submitted to the needs of the collective to achieve national advancement. The individual is but a mere unit, a cell, vital, but unable to survive alone.

 

Most people, as opposed to the power-hungry bourgeoisie (money-makers) and intelligentsia (politically powerless intellectuals), possess a single concern, to count on the morrow. Enough with the frivolity of 'rights' 'democracy' or 'choice'. Goals need to be achieved, not debated. The people need a single, clear vision, not the cacophony of childish dissent.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[Rozalia]

If you don't see anything wrong with Trump accidentally making a phone call that potentially pushes both nations to threatening nuclear war, then I can't argue with that logic. 

 

You think Trump is going to be the first strongman in the history of trying to solve the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Nasser, el-Sadat. For !@#$ sake, even Chaney had gotten in on the action before, and he shot someone in the face. Has Trump blown someone's !@#$ face off with a shotgun? Get sum. 

 

So, somehow American air force pilots are being "Obamatized" and keep missing the damn mark because a liberal infection has made them suffer a mental stroke? I don't see how Trump is going to change anything. What is he going to do different that Obama hasn't?

 

Literally read my first sentence and everything else flew over your head. I'm saying that conservative economists think Trump is a statist, and many have written books saying statist policies lead to soviet-style slavery. These conservative economists are the intellectual backbone of the Republican party's economic branch; a branch which Trump has now clip offed, made into paper, and wiped his ass with. I'm a neo-Keynesian, so it's kind of funny to watch, but I know a lot of people on the other side are turning in their graves. 

 

China maintains that if Taiwan was to declare "independence" (Taiwan only still "claims" China as to not do so would be to be in violation of China's ridiculous conditions) then they would invade. Let them try if they dare when America is armed and willing to oppose them. You should certainly be cautious on not sparking a war, but not to the point of shamefully kowtowing. There is giving concessions for peace and then there is giving your opponent everything while they laugh at you. China has gotten away with this ridiculous matter for a long time and in addition to this they've gotten away on trade for a long time also with their combination of the enforcing of "free trade" abroad (threats of trade wars and such if they are not kowtowed to) and protectionism at home (which leads to western companies not being able to compete effectively there). 

 

A significant difference between an Egyptian strongman and an American one.

 

There is nothing wrong with the pilots, the planes, or the bombs. They do their role as well as well as they can, they were simply handicapped by the scope they are allowed to act in. Take for example ISIS and their oil fields. A lot of money there and if you asked any man on the street they would logically tell you that removing such sites from the equation would weaken ISIS financially which would have the effect of making them less effective. American forces however were handicapped and only allowed to hit transports from such sites, however there is more and there were cases of the airforce having to drop pamphlets for transport drivers warning them of the incoming strike within the hour. The American airforce could not thereby achieve the goal of weakening ISIS in that regard, the government had essentially chained their arms behind their back. Reasons were given of course, all nonsense, and to people like me the reason was simply to see, America had no interest in doing meaningful damage. All these reasons also ceased to matter much anymore when the Russians came in and started doing what the Americans should have in the first place. 

 

And what exactly is your point? Is Trump not being a Conservative still noteworthy? He has talked both pre and post election of massive infrastructure spending, something normally the Republicans would vote down but look set to now approve (only Trump could pass such things by them once again you could say). Many reasons why but the simplest is Trump won when their Republican brand of Conservatism could not. As Klemens Hawicki has been saying, people care about the results and not so much the methods. 

[Clarke]

 

I'm not even sure if your first sentence was an insult? Besides the poor jokes, which is more or less a true statement. 

 

Your narrow minded view of nation states and equating them to closed-system economies suggests you have no !@#$ idea what you are talking about. Do you even know who Hayek is? Do you even know what neoliberalism is? 

 

I assume you see the word "liberal" and probably think it must have nothing to do with your political views. 

 

 

 

Also, we are getting off topic. "Authoritarianism is bad."

If you took away closed economic systems from the post then I can't help you.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Lightning

[Caecus]

The means are irrelevant, since their morality is but a hazy abstraction that dissipates in the light of achieved ends. Even financial 'prosperity' is less important than the concrete and tangible advancement of a unique, national civilisation. Much like metal particles, whose magnetism is achieved through congruent alignment, the needs of the individual must be completely submitted to the needs of the collective to achieve national advancement. The individual is but a mere unit, a cell, vital, but unable to survive alone.

 

Most people, as opposed to the power-hungry bourgeoisie (money-makers) and intelligentsia (politically powerless intellectuals), possess a single concern, to count on the morrow. Enough with the frivolity of 'rights' 'democracy' or 'choice'. Goals need to be achieved, not debated. The people need a single, clear vision, not the cacophony of childish dissent.

 

Not according to David Hume. And not a lot of people on the right subscribe to the organic state theory. Not a lot of people on the left either.

 

Federalist #10 disagrees. The capacity for disagreement and conflicting interests in a republic is long-term stability. Take Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro. Lot of people call him a hero for improving the health care system, eliminating racism, fighting child malnourishment, and taking on the world's greatest super power. But at the same time, a lot of people call him a tyrant for imprisoning or executing political opponents, exiling opposition leaders, and forcing millions under a broken command economy exacerbated by the embargo. Truth be told, Castro was somewhere in between. His legacy of social reforms represents a "single, clear vision," but that vision depends upon himself living, and a peaceful transition of power to the next person who would carry out his will. If our country had a "single, clear vision" every time there was a change in power, people would rewrite the constitution for their needs like every other dictatorial Latin American country. Madison understood the benefits of allowing dissent: the federal government should be slow in passing laws, to prevent radical shifts in policy that leads to an unstable republic. It's the reason why we have a bicameral house. 

 

China maintains that if Taiwan was to declare "independence" (Taiwan only still "claims" China as to not do so would be to be in violation of China's ridiculous conditions) then they would invade. Let them try if they dare when America is armed and willing to oppose them. You should certainly be cautious on not sparking a war, but not to the point of shamefully kowtowing. There is giving concessions for peace and then there is giving your opponent everything while they laugh at you. China has gotten away with this ridiculous matter for a long time and in addition to this they've gotten away on trade for a long time also with their combination of the enforcing of "free trade" abroad (threats of trade wars and such if they are not kowtowed to) and protectionism at home (which leads to western companies not being able to compete effectively there). 

 

A significant difference between an Egyptian strongman and an American one.

 

There is nothing wrong with the pilots, the planes, or the bombs. They do their role as well as well as they can, they were simply handicapped by the scope they are allowed to act in. Take for example ISIS and their oil fields. A lot of money there and if you asked any man on the street they would logically tell you that removing such sites from the equation would weaken ISIS financially which would have the effect of making them less effective. American forces however were handicapped and only allowed to hit transports from such sites, however there is more and there were cases of the airforce having to drop pamphlets for transport drivers warning them of the incoming strike within the hour. The American airforce could not thereby achieve the goal of weakening ISIS in that regard, the government had essentially chained their arms behind their back. Reasons were given of course, all nonsense, and to people like me the reason was simply to see, America had no interest in doing meaningful damage. All these reasons also ceased to matter much anymore when the Russians came in and started doing what the Americans should have in the first place. 

 

And what exactly is your point? Is Trump not being a Conservative still noteworthy? He has talked both pre and post election of massive infrastructure spending, something normally the Republicans would vote down but look set to now approve (only Trump could pass such things by them once again you could say). Many reasons why but the simplest is Trump won when their Republican brand of Conservatism could not. As Klemens Hawicki has been saying, people care about the results and not so much the methods. 

 

You call keeping the peace in the region kowtowing? The passive recognition of "one China" is a small political price to pay for unofficially maintaining Taiwan's independence. Do you understand the economics of free trade? Do you understand the benefits of having Chinese goods on our markets? Alexander Del Mar, who wrote the Kwang letters, rightfully made the point that a rising standard of living isn't just rising wages, but access to cheap goods. Entering into a trade war with China will hurt both economies, but experts disagree who would get shot in the foot and the other in the head. Keep in mind, Alexander Del Mar was a mid 19th century economist who was later regarded as the intellectual basis for Nixon's opening China policy. A trade policy, mind you, that many people argue contributed to solving the stagflation problems of the 70s later down the line. 

 

Chaney. Shotgun. Face. Pretty much led the invasion of Iraq from the shadows. 

 

Shocker, the American air force doesn't do indiscriminate bombing. This isn't total war, the destruction of civilian infrastructure creates more militants than it kills. 

 

I suppose not, I'm just saying Trump doesn't have a consistent ideology. He has a supply-side economics tax policy, but also has a fiscal policy that doesn't make any god damn sense. Sure, the economy is on the upturn (THANKS, OBAMA!) and there is real growth to be made. But any amateur economist can tell you that by the end of the four years, more of our GDP will go towards interest on the debt for little if any net gains on the gross GDP as a whole. The only way for the US to go back to 6% GDP growth is either a massive solar energy boom (beyond our current technological capabilities) or somehow overnight having an extra 300 million citizens working 60 hour weeks for 5 pennies a day. 

 

Also, Trump saved 730 jobs. Obama's bailout of the auto industry saved 1.5 million jobs. Why aren't you worshiping Obama? 

 

If you took away closed economic systems from the post then I can't help you.

 

Lol. Classic.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I'm just saying Trump doesn't have a consistent ideology. He has a supply-side economics tax policy, but also has a fiscal policy that doesn't make any god damn sense. Sure, the economy is on the upturn (THANKS, OBAMA!) and there is real growth to be made. But any amateur economist can tell you that by the end of the four years, more of our GDP will go towards interest on the debt for little if any net gains on the gross GDP as a whole. The only way for the US to go back to 6% GDP growth is either a massive solar energy boom (beyond our current technological capabilities) or somehow overnight having an extra 300 million citizens working 60 hour weeks for 5 pennies a day. 

Whoa! Even my Socialist Democrat Great Uncle who is a Stock Market Analyst on Wall St.  says the upturned economy has nothing to do with Obama but has everything to do with the Trump nomination. He calls it false hype but at least acknowledges that our current administration has nothing to do with it. 

[Rozalia]

You call keeping the peace in the region kowtowing? The passive recognition of "one China" is a small political price to pay for unofficially maintaining Taiwan's independence. Do you understand the economics of free trade? Do you understand the benefits of having Chinese goods on our markets? Alexander Del Mar, who wrote the Kwang letters, rightfully made the point that a rising standard of living isn't just rising wages, but access to cheap goods. Entering into a trade war with China will hurt both economies, but experts disagree who would get shot in the foot and the other in the head. Keep in mind, Alexander Del Mar was a mid 19th century economist who was later regarded as the intellectual basis for Nixon's opening China policy. A trade policy, mind you, that many people argue contributed to solving the stagflation problems of the 70s later down the line. 

 

Chaney. Shotgun. Face. Pretty much led the invasion of Iraq from the shadows. 

 

Shocker, the American air force doesn't do indiscriminate bombing. This isn't total war, the destruction of civilian infrastructure creates more militants than it kills. 

 

I suppose not, I'm just saying Trump doesn't have a consistent ideology. He has a supply-side economics tax policy, but also has a fiscal policy that doesn't make any god damn sense. Sure, the economy is on the upturn (THANKS, OBAMA!) and there is real growth to be made. But any amateur economist can tell you that by the end of the four years, more of our GDP will go towards interest on the debt for little if any net gains on the gross GDP as a whole. The only way for the US to go back to 6% GDP growth is either a massive solar energy boom (beyond our current technological capabilities) or somehow overnight having an extra 300 million citizens working 60 hour weeks for 5 pennies a day. 

 

Also, Trump saved 730 jobs. Obama's bailout of the auto industry saved 1.5 million jobs. Why aren't you worshiping Obama? 

 

What does China do in the face of the appeasement of yours? They only push it further and further. Enough is enough, let them dare invade Taiwan who America protects for such ridiculous reasons and to then be blacklisted by the world in response and get its arse kicked for its trouble. 

This appeasement stretches to trade also which you ignored to just give me a "free trade is good" response. China supports free trade until it comes to their country, because then they'll make it so you can't compete. If China was fair in all this it'd still be crap but something, but they don't even that. They laugh at people who want to appease them like you, strokes their ego I'm sure.

 

Completely ignored what I said.

 

Its not a matter of indiscriminate bombing, as said when Russia started doing it the Americans finally began to. If it was suddenly fine then why not before? Logically all I could surmise was that America was bombing to "appear to be doing something" and when Russia was more effective then them in that short period they knew they had to step it up as otherwise their previous anaemic bombing would become obvious to even people with your opinion on this.

 

Come on man, Obama? How can you profess to have knowledge on the matter if you're seriously giving him that credit? None of the post election movements are due to him. Remember that people such yourself and most of the experts were predicting a doomsday that did not come.

 

Do you still not get it? It doesn't matter if Trump were to do non-conservative things, the orthodox can change and there is reason there has been talk of the Republicans going from a Conservative party to a Populist one because such things that normally would be roadblocks no longer matter much if Trump does them. In addition to this Trump is a salesman, a skill very handy here as he can sell his successes as being YUGE deals while Obama was never able to. Obama is so bad at such things that even many Progressives see any job saving he has done as a negative. 

[Clarke]

Lol. Classic.

I'll have to disagree, I'm not sure how the hell you came up with the post you did. 

The first issue about your stupid posts which you acknowledged was sorted. After that the rest of you post was barely relevant to anything I said except for the fact some of the words were the same such as "nation" and "economic".

There wasn't a whole lot of substance to your post and it very much wasn't a "classic" however what you done was a classic, making a point about something I never said as if I said it and then making several lines of inquiry on a phony point.

Ultimately if I had to guess you got lost in your own ignorance to make yourself feel good. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Lightning

[----]

Not according to David Hume. And not a lot of people on the right subscribe to the organic state theory. Not a lot of people on the left either.

 

Federalist #10 disagrees. The capacity for disagreement and conflicting interests in a republic is long-term stability. Take Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro. Lot of people call him a hero for improving the health care system, eliminating racism, fighting child malnourishment, and taking on the world's greatest super power. But at the same time, a lot of people call him a tyrant for imprisoning or executing political opponents, exiling opposition leaders, and forcing millions under a broken command economy exacerbated by the embargo. Truth be told, Castro was somewhere in between. His legacy of social reforms represents a "single, clear vision," but that vision depends upon himself living, and a peaceful transition of power to the next person who would carry out his will. If our country had a "single, clear vision" every time there was a change in power, people would rewrite the constitution for their needs like every other dictatorial Latin American country. Madison understood the benefits of allowing dissent: the federal government should be slow in passing laws, to prevent radical shifts in policy that leads to an unstable republic. It's the reason why we have a bicameral house. 

 

Keep in mind that I am not limiting my discussion to the United States (I am not American). However, I will point out that the 'stability' of the United States is complete political immobility. Stability, meaning constant, uninterrupted adherence to so a single idea (or set of ideas) is desirable, since it is the symptom of ideological orthodoxy and the construction of the nation's vision. However, this stability is needed in all aspects of the nation (political, social, cultural, economic/material and spiritual).

 

The United States were founded to ensure the power of non-aristocratic landowners and merchants, who simply refused to acknowledge their provincial status in the face of la noblesse and the monarchy. The 'Founding Father' class has long become materially/economically obsolete, yet the American system is still ordered according to a template designed to keep this class in power and to prevent the emergence of more effective forms of government. In effect, there is a government bent on maintaining its rule (constant re-election), while being afraid to rule (ideological hang-ups enforced by appealing to a ideologically trained electorate) and compensated for its effectiveness by private organisations and persons (corporations, financial institutions and political special interests). This is more than a mere 'Trump vs Obama', 'Republican vs Democratic' or even 'Liberal vs Conservative' issue, although, quite frankly, Americans' distorted definitions of liberals and conservatives are quite laughable.

[Caecus]

Whoa! Even my Socialist Democrat Great Uncle who is a Stock Market Analyst on Wall St.  says the upturned economy has nothing to do with Obama but has everything to do with the Trump nomination. He calls it false hype but at least acknowledges that our current administration has nothing to do with it. 

 

My bad! I forgot that Obama's stimulus package didn't bring America out of the '08 recession. I'm sure Trump has everything to do with the all time low unemployment rate, the 3.2% GDP annual growth, and the rebounded housing market. It is so easy to fix problem when you are not in the presidency and have no access to congressional funding allows you to fix the shit storm that was '08! 

 

 

What does China do in the face of the appeasement of yours? They only push it further and further. Enough is enough, let them dare invade Taiwan who America protects for such ridiculous reasons and to then be blacklisted by the world in response and get its arse kicked for its trouble. 

This appeasement stretches to trade also which you ignored to just give me a "free trade is good" response. China supports free trade until it comes to their country, because then they'll make it so you can't compete. If China was fair in all this it'd still be crap but something, but they don't even that. They laugh at people who want to appease them like you, strokes their ego I'm sure.

 

Completely ignored what I said.

 

Its not a matter of indiscriminate bombing, as said when Russia started doing it the Americans finally began to. If it was suddenly fine then why not before? Logically all I could surmise was that America was bombing to "appear to be doing something" and when Russia was more effective then them in that short period they knew they had to step it up as otherwise their previous anaemic bombing would become obvious to even people with your opinion on this.

 

Come on man, Obama? How can you profess to have knowledge on the matter if you're seriously giving him that credit? None of the post election movements are due to him. Remember that people such yourself and most of the experts were predicting a doomsday that did not come.

 

Do you still not get it? It doesn't matter if Trump were to do non-conservative things, the orthodox can change and there is reason there has been talk of the Republicans going from a Conservative party to a Populist one because such things that normally would be roadblocks no longer matter much if Trump does them. In addition to this Trump is a salesman, a skill very handy here as he can sell his successes as being YUGE deals while Obama was never able to. Obama is so bad at such things that even many Progressives see any job saving he has done as a negative. 

 

So, besides the recognition of One China, what else has pre-Trumpian US kowtowed to? Please, do tell me of this appeasement you speak of, because the only thing I see is the One China policy. You also seem to have intimate knowledge of trade agreements between the US and China. Can you tell me how much more does China mark up our goods when trading? 

 

Damn it, you beat me to the punchline. Chaney is an American, about as strong arming as you can get. For all the times he's tried to broker a peace in the middle east, why hasn't he been able to?

 

What makes you think Russia was more effective at bombing? Who said that? 

 

Seriously, Obama saved 1.5 million jobs. Kowtow to that, if anything else. Obama has so far saved more jobs than Trump, and yet you guys hate on him for some reason...?

 

 

I'll have to disagree, I'm not sure how the hell you came up with the post you did. 

The first issue about your stupid posts which you acknowledged was sorted. After that the rest of you post was barely relevant to anything I said except for the fact some of the words were the same such as "nation" and "economic".

There wasn't a whole lot of substance to your post and it very much wasn't a "classic" however what you done was a classic, making a point about something I never said as if I said it and then making several lines of inquiry on a phony point.

Ultimately if I had to guess you got lost in your own ignorance to make yourself feel good. 

 

No, I'm saying that's a classic response from someone who literally has no !@#$ing idea what he's talking about. When someone calls you on your bullshit, your response was literally "DID YOU NOT SEE WHAT I WROTE?" To which my answer would have been "Yeah, and it's bullshit," if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't care less if you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

You could always prove me wrong. Do you even know what trade is? Do you know why we have trade? Do you know what a tariff is?  

 

Keep in mind that I am not limiting my discussion to the United States (I am not American). However, I will point out that the 'stability' of the United States is complete political immobility. Stability, meaning constant, uninterrupted adherence to so a single idea (or set of ideas) is desirable, since it is the symptom of ideological orthodoxy and the construction of the nation's vision. However, this stability is needed in all aspects of the nation (political, social, cultural, economic/material and spiritual).

 

The United States were founded to ensure the power of non-aristocratic landowners and merchants, who simply refused to acknowledge their provincial status in the face of la noblesse and the monarchy. The 'Founding Father' class has long become materially/economically obsolete, yet the American system is still ordered according to a template designed to keep this class in power and to prevent the emergence of more effective forms of government. In effect, there is a government bent on maintaining its rule (constant re-election), while being afraid to rule (ideological hang-ups enforced by appealing to a ideologically trained electorate) and compensated for its effectiveness by private organisations and persons (corporations, financial institutions and political special interests). This is more than a mere 'Trump vs Obama', 'Republican vs Democratic' or even 'Liberal vs Conservative' issue, although, quite frankly, Americans' distorted definitions of liberals and conservatives are quite laughable.

 

As a whole, I would agree that the US does inherently have oligarchic characteristics. Moreover, I think the strict framework of the constitution (and the almost improbable amendment process) does contribute to a lack of flexibility and collects power into an oligarchic elite. But to allow "the emergence of more effective forms of government," I think you need to look at issues of practicality and realism. And I don't think corporatism is effective in the modern age, if that's what you are getting at. 

 

I once asked my Roman Republic professor on whether or not a constitution would have saved the republic from the political violence towards the end. While the Romans did understand the concept of due process, they didn't have a constitution (and an almost religious fervor for following it) and when Sulla (a senator turned tyrant) marched on Rome, there was no written form in which they could call him out on. In a lot of ways, the Founding Fathers wrote a constitution to address that problem. My Roman Republic professor answered me in a curious way: he called it an age-old question. Previously in the Roman Republic, there had been multiple times where the structure of government was changed to fit the needs of the time. Had those changes not taken place, you can counterfactually argue that the republic would have collapsed sooner. Does a strict constitutional government overall contribute to the state's projection of power and stability? I'll have to agree with my professor, it is an age-old question that I don't think anyone could say for certainty what an answer might be. 

[Rozalia]

So, besides the recognition of One China, what else has pre-Trumpian US kowtowed to? Please, do tell me of this appeasement you speak of, because the only thing I see is the One China policy. You also seem to have intimate knowledge of trade agreements between the US and China. Can you tell me how much more does China mark up our goods when trading? 

 

Damn it, you beat me to the punchline. Chaney is an American, about as strong arming as you can get. For all the times he's tried to broker a peace in the middle east, why hasn't he been able to?

 

What makes you think Russia was more effective at bombing? Who said that? 

 

Seriously, Obama saved 1.5 million jobs. Kowtow to that, if anything else. Obama has so far saved more jobs than Trump, and yet you guys hate on him for some reason...?

 

Making me repeat myself. As I said before, in addition it allows China to abuse trade by stating that everyone must do free trade, that free trade is good, but at home they'll do protectionism and screw you over. In short its not a level playing field by any means and they just take it. This is to not even get into their movements with the artificial islands and such.

 

What is with this? Whatever you can bring up is not equal to the American President.

 

Certainly not the MSM or the establishment in the west, Russian bombing as goes the narrative is ineffective and breeds terrorists because I suppose as that fool Trudeau says, "if you kill your enemies, they win". However in reality ISIS only started taking a serious hit to their oil network once the Russians began to bomb whereupon America soon became almost magically more effective. You can believe its a coincidence if you want certainly.

 

You really think you have a winner don't you? What did I just tell you? Obama is a terrible salesman with a bad image on the matter. No one believes whatever jobs saved were down to him, anyone else could have managed it they think. In addition when issues such as this comes up he would instead of saying, "We'll stop them leaving, we'll keep jobs here", he'd just shrug his shoulders and tell people to deal with it and to train for jobs that don't yet exist. Uncaring and weak, thats Obama. Trump meanwhile is getting his people on these deals and showing off to the country everyone that he manages, the message being that he cares and his strength is getting all these companies to invest. Obama could be as good as you believe (he isn't, a lot of cooking goes on with these things in most countries), but with how terrible he is in these matters very few people are going to believe you.

[Caecus]

Making me repeat myself. As I said before, in addition it allows China to abuse trade by stating that everyone must do free trade, that free trade is good, but at home they'll do protectionism and screw you over. In short its not a level playing field by any means and they just take it. This is to not even get into their movements with the artificial islands and such.

 

What is with this? Whatever you can bring up is not equal to the American President.

 

Certainly not the MSM or the establishment in the west, Russian bombing as goes the narrative is ineffective and breeds terrorists because I suppose as that fool Trudeau says, "if you kill your enemies, they win". However in reality ISIS only started taking a serious hit to their oil network once the Russians began to bomb whereupon America soon became almost magically more effective. You can believe its a coincidence if you want certainly.

 

You really think you have a winner don't you? What did I just tell you? Obama is a terrible salesman with a bad image on the matter. No one believes whatever jobs saved were down to him, anyone else could have managed it they think. In addition when issues such as this comes up he would instead of saying, "We'll stop them leaving, we'll keep jobs here", he'd just shrug his shoulders and tell people to deal with it and to train for jobs that don't yet exist. Uncaring and weak, thats Obama. Trump meanwhile is getting his people on these deals and showing off to the country everyone that he manages, the message being that he cares and his strength is getting all these companies to invest. Obama could be as good as you believe (he isn't, a lot of cooking goes on with these things in most countries), but with how terrible he is in these matters very few people are going to believe you.

 

So, China is abusing trade? Who told you that? 

 

You really don't know who Chaney is? Goodness, you are either really really young, or really really old. 

 

So, you are hedging on coincidences to explain everything? And how would you determine effectiveness? Did ISIS start losing faster? How do you measure that?

 

So, the jobs Obama saved is worth less than Trump's saved jobs? By a factor of... over 2000? Fact is, 1.5M >>>>>>>> 730. Plus, Trump is going to lose jobs too. Of the 730 jobs he supposedly saved, the majority of them are to help install machines to do the jobs, so they are all temporary. Were we to count that, Trump only saved around 120 permanent jobs. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

You really don't know who Chaney is? Goodness, you are either really really young, or really really old. 

Cheney.

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Doktor Avalanche]

My bad! I forgot that Obama's stimulus package didn't bring America out of the '08 recession. I'm sure Trump has everything to do with the all time low unemployment rate, the 3.2% GDP annual growth, and the rebounded housing market. It is so easy to fix problem when you are not in the presidency and have no access to congressional funding allows you to fix the shit storm that was '08! 

So the massive decline in new business startups, a spike in families on food stamps, the decline in real household family income, failure to maintain upkeep on working age population for jobs, recent labor rate participation is only at 62.7% which is the lowest in 40 years(not the all-time low you want to admit to!) and the economic growth rate has been below the average of 4.3% Obama's has been at 2.2% for over 29 quarters now. Well, yeah- your bad. I was referring to the recent spike since the elections which is what is trending right now. If you feel President Obama is to take credit for the increase since November 8th:

As of Wednesday's close, the Dow has posted gains in 18 of the past 22 sessions and 12 record closes since the election. The S&P and the Nasdaq, meanwhile, have risen 4.8 percent and 3.9 percent since November 8. - NBC

Edited December 10, 2016 by The King in Yellow

[Rozalia]

So, China is abusing trade? Who told you that? 

 

You really don't know who Chaney is? Goodness, you are either really really young, or really really old. 

 

So, you are hedging on coincidences to explain everything? And how would you determine effectiveness? Did ISIS start losing faster? How do you measure that?

 

So, the jobs Obama saved is worth less than Trump's saved jobs? By a factor of... over 2000? Fact is, 1.5M >>>>>>>> 730. Plus, Trump is going to lose jobs too. Of the 730 jobs he supposedly saved, the majority of them are to help install machines to do the jobs, so they are all temporary. Were we to count that, Trump only saved around 120 permanent jobs. 

 

Are you really this unaware? How can you talk down to anyone if these things are so unknown to you? China makes it so foreign companies simply cannot compete in China and they will outright compete with the local competitors if need be. Lets not even begin on intellectual property which in China basically consists of China allowing Chinese companies to steal from foreign ones at will.

Japan is a country that I've seen get some flak for Western countries not being able to effectively enter the market there but thats simply how it is in Japan, in China they government outright enforces it. 

 

I assumed you were talking of Cheney and the whole "Cheney is the real president" thing, not something I care to indulge. Hardly someone the Palestinians can trust.

 

I see the game you're playing and I know it'd be a waste of my time to go find some numbers. ISIS had their oil intact while the US was bombing them for a great deal of time and it began to fall apart when the Russians entered. Simple as that.

 

Just completely ignored everything I said and asked me to repeat myself. You're jumping at things I never said and I'm not sure why, whatever reason its a poor showing. The fact you're actually straight up comparing numbers from Obama as President with Trump as a private citizen should tell you that you're doing something really ridiculous. 

[Clarke]

No, I'm saying that's a classic response from someone who literally has no !@#$ idea what he's talking about. When someone calls you on your bullshit, your response was literally "DID YOU NOT SEE WHAT I WROTE?" To which my answer would have been "Yeah, and it's bullshit," if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't care less if you didn't know what you were talking about.

 

You could always prove me wrong. Do you even know what trade is? Do you know why we have trade? Do you know what a tariff is?  

We aren't talking about the same thing, something you seem confused about. 

How you're able to produce several sentences out of this I have no idea, I can see the angle you're working however as it was evident from the first post and you seem to be only continuing it, rather desperate if you ask me. 

I'm only testing to see how serious you're and it seems you're mostly having an argument with yourself, I wouldn't have bothered replying to the first post but I have a curiosity to see how far you would stretch it too make sure, I'm convinced now. 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Lightning

[Caecus]

So the massive decline in new business startups, a spike in families on food stamps, the decline in real household family income, failure to maintain upkeep on working age population for jobs, recent labor rate participation is only at 62.7% which is the lowest in 40 years(not the all-time low you want to admit to!) and the economic growth rate has been below the average of 4.3% Obama's has been at 2.2% for over 29 quarters now. Well, yeah- your bad. I was referring to the recent spike since the elections which is what is trending right now. If you feel President Obama is to take credit for the increase since November 8th:

 

Is the decline of new business startups a phenomenon of the post-housing bubble crisis and the lack of available capital or Obama's fault? In which case, which policy do you think caused that? Could you also look at the rise in food stamps part of that recession crisis? There has been a rise in the real median household income since 2007, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here. Also, upkeep? If you won't mind clarifying. The labor rate participation has been in steady decline well before Obama (Bush in 2000 recorded 69M not in. By 2008, that jumped up to 80M), and it indicates that more and more jobs are found outside of the institutionalized labor (along with people my age not working at Arby's anymore). Your average annual GDP growth includes the '90s and the internet bubble, ultimately skewing the curve. But, between 2001 and now, the average GDP growth is more indicative of what the modern economy should look like until the next major technological innovation. In which case, the average GDP growth over those years is around 1%, 2.3% if you exclude the housing crash. 

 

I don't think the stock market is a very stable indicator of the economy's success. Take immediately after Trump got elected. The S&P and the Dow were seemingly in free-fall. It just goes to show you how human emotion plays into the stock market.

 

To get to the point, the economy is in a better place than Obama inherited it, I don't think you can say we are in the same place we were in 2007. 

 

Are you really this unaware? How can you talk down to anyone if these things are so unknown to you? China makes it so foreign companies simply cannot compete in China and they will outright compete with the local competitors if need be. Lets not even begin on intellectual property which in China basically consists of China allowing Chinese companies to steal from foreign ones at will.

Japan is a country that I've seen get some flak for Western countries not being able to effectively enter the market there but thats simply how it is in Japan, in China they government outright enforces it. 

 

I assumed you were talking of Cheney and the whole "Cheney is the real president" thing, not something I care to indulge. Hardly someone the Palestinians can trust.

 

I see the game you're playing and I know it'd be a waste of my time to go find some numbers. ISIS had their oil intact while the US was bombing them for a great deal of time and it began to fall apart when the Russians entered. Simple as that.

 

Just completely ignored everything I said and asked me to repeat myself. You're jumping at things I never said and I'm not sure why, whatever reason its a poor showing. The fact you're actually straight up comparing numbers from Obama as President with Trump as a private citizen should tell you that you're doing something really ridiculous. 

 

So let's piss off China and start a war to settle things by accidentally calling Taiwan. To be entirely honest, I think I'm more worried by the fact he seemingly had no idea of the repercussions when he tweeted about it the next day. 

 

Palestinians are going to trust Trump? Sorry, Trump's son?

 

All I'm asking is where you heard this from, and I can find the rest. I'm just asking you if you found it on your facebook feed or from an actual news outlet (hell, I'm pretty sure Fox doesn't outright lie, they just leave other important facts out). 

 

Seriously? You just spent the last couple of posts extolling Trump for saving jobs, but when I retort Obama saved jobs too, you called them out as jobs not worth saving? Just admit it, you hate Obama and don't care if he saved more jobs than Trump. You are attached to a figure, not a concrete ideal. 

 

We aren't talking about the same thing, something you seem confused about. 

How you're able to produce several sentences out of this I have no idea, I can see the angle you're working however as it was evident from the first post and you seem to be only continuing it, rather desperate if you ask me. 

I'm only testing to see how serious you're and it seems you're mostly having an argument with yourself, I wouldn't have bothered replying to the first post but I have a curiosity to see how far you would stretch it too make sure, I'm convinced now. 

 

Classic. Just classic. 

 

You see, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would engage me and rub the proof that I'm wrong in my face. But since you have no idea what you are talking about, the only thing you can do is "You dndt understand me, ur stupid, read what i rote stupid" 

[Clarke]

Classic. Just classic. 

 

You see, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would engage me and rub the proof that I'm wrong in my face. But since you have no idea what you are talking about, the only thing you can do is "You dndt understand me, ur stupid, read what i rote stupid" 

I'll reply since this was an interesting response, especially the last part. 

I didn't say any of those words, perfect example of your imagination making stuff up. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

Is the decline of new business startups a phenomenon of the post-housing bubble crisis and the lack of available capital or Obama's fault? In which case, which policy do you think caused that? Could you also look at the rise in food stamps part of that recession crisis? There has been a rise in the real median household income since 2007, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about here. Also, upkeep? If you won't mind clarifying. The labor rate participation has been in steady decline well before Obama (Bush in 2000 recorded 69M not in. By 2008, that jumped up to 80M), and it indicates that more and more jobs are found outside of the institutionalized labor (along with people my age not working at Arby's anymore). Your average annual GDP growth includes the '90s and the internet bubble, ultimately skewing the curve. But, between 2001 and now, the average GDP growth is more indicative of what the modern economy should look like until the next major technological innovation. In which case, the average GDP growth over those years is around 1%, 2.3% if you exclude the housing crash. 

 

I don't think the stock market is a very stable indicator of the economy's success. Take immediately after Trump got elected. The S&P and the Dow were seemingly in free-fall. It just goes to show you how human emotion plays into the stock market.

 

To get to the point, the economy is in a better place than Obama inherited it, I don't think you can say we are in the same place we were in 2007. 

The biggest factor according to The American Entrepreneur is an increase in Federal, State, County and Local Business Regulation which demand huge amounts of capital(i.e. money/fees) required for startups and an increase in fees both quarterly and yearly. Apparently the government at all levels wants more dough from the people trying to start a business than increase their local economies. 

The increase in food stamps was actually started via the Farm Bill of 2002 and the increases in QE's and Stimulus packages since 2008. Obama just never ended the policies and allowed them to expand to where we are now today. So yes, Bush started the process by expanding SNAP but Obama continued the policies.

According to the WSJ, the real household income has gone from $57,000 in 2007 to $53,700 in 2015.

Upkeep. Keeping up with the number of jobs needed versus the working age population.

Skewed. Why? Those skewed variables account for reality in the data. In any case, the GDP since Obama took office has been the slowest growth seen, and recently as low as 1.2% in the last quarter. Yes, Bush sucked. Yes we had a Housing Bubble. However, we continued with failed policies and horribly slow growth due to failed policies in place. Personally I believe it would not have been any different if a Republican was in office either.

The increased Market is hype. I just find it amusing when the DNC also takes credit for it when they are the ones in charge and denounce an increased market when they are not the ones in charge. Hypocritical Democrats amuse me more than Republican nonsense.

[Caecus]

The biggest factor according to The American Entrepreneur is an increase in Federal, State, County and Local Business Regulation which demand huge amounts of capital(i.e. money/fees) required for startups and an increase in fees both quarterly and yearly. Apparently the government at all levels wants more dough from the people trying to start a business than increase their local economies. 

The increase in food stamps was actually started via the Farm Bill of 2002 and the increases in QE's and Stimulus packages since 2008. Obama just never ended the policies and allowed them to expand to where we are now today. So yes, Bush started the process by expanding SNAP but Obama continued the policies.

According to the WSJ, the real household income has gone from $57,000 in 2007 to $53,700 in 2015.

Upkeep. Keeping up with the number of jobs needed versus the working age population.

Skewed. Why? Those skewed variables account for reality in the data. In any case, the GDP since Obama took office has been the slowest growth seen, and recently as low as 1.2% in the last quarter. Yes, Bush sucked. Yes we had a Housing Bubble. However, we continued with failed policies and horribly slow growth due to failed policies in place. Personally I believe it would not have been any different if a Republican was in office either.

The increased Market is hype. I just find it amusing when the DNC also takes credit for it when they are the ones in charge and denounce an increased market when they are not the ones in charge. Hypocritical Democrats amuse me more than Republican nonsense.5.8% t

 

Inc. cites a generational difference and the combined high-fixed cost of entry and intimidation of big fish on the market. Also, nascent entrepreneurship is up from 4.8% to 9.7% since 2010, suggesting a recovery of venture capital from the housing crisis. I can't say I'm too familiar with local government regulation of startups, so I would be really interested in seeing this article, I unfortunately can't find it. 

 

Does the number of people on food stamps indicate the strength of one's economy? You can argue that the EU is nothing but food stamps, and they represent like 20% of the world's GDP. 

 

Bloody WSJ won't let me view the article without a subscription -.-

Was the 57k figure at the beginning of the year or end of the year? I would be extremely surprised if that figure was at the end of the year. 

 

Yeah, but America's always had a high priced labor market. That's what we have immigrants for right? Plus, the US isn't the only country affected by the age crisis. If you compare the age crisis of the US to China, you would probably feel more relieved. I suppose one of the challenges for medicine is to extend productive life, not just life in general anymore. 

 

As a Neo-Keynesian and subscriber to the Mature Economy Doctrine, I would argue that is pretty normal for an economy without recently discovering the internet or something. Slow GDP growth is what people should expect when in between tech periods. Growthism is a preposterous idea propagated by the complete utter destruction of the rest of the world post-WWII. Thus, the reason why I complained that the internet boom was skewing the GDP growth. 

 

Well, I would agree with you here. I hope I don't come across as a rabid democrat (sorry Roz, I know you want me to be). Hypocrisy, regardless of which side its on, is still hypocrisy. 

[Rozalia]

So let's piss off China and start a war to settle things by accidentally calling Taiwan. To be entirely honest, I think I'm more worried by the fact he seemingly had no idea of the repercussions when he tweeted about it the next day. 

 

Palestinians are going to trust Trump? Sorry, Trump's son?

 

All I'm asking is where you heard this from, and I can find the rest. I'm just asking you if you found it on your facebook feed or from an actual news outlet (hell, I'm pretty sure Fox doesn't outright lie, they just leave other important facts out). 

 

Seriously? You just spent the last couple of posts extolling Trump for saving jobs, but when I retort Obama saved jobs too, you called them out as jobs not worth saving? Just admit it, you hate Obama and don't care if he saved more jobs than Trump. You are attached to a figure, not a concrete ideal.

 

Why is it you speak as if you are showing virtue? I don't get how people can speak of cowardice as if its a positive. China is bluffing, do you really believe they will directly confront America and take Taiwan? If they were that brazen they'd have done it decades ago. Then if they do take it what then? America will rally the rest of the world to blacklist China and start cutting trade and China economically collapses which in true Chinese tradition will no doubt cause a revolt which the government will have to try and put down (violently of course). The Chinese government is smarter than all that.

 

Depends. Trump has spoken of wanting it sorted many years before the election and is hardly considered a Christian fanatic. Also strongmen are respected more than weaklings, not by you and others such as you in the west no but by a great deal.

 

Always with the going to Fox. I don't use Facebook and me getting anything from Fox is very rare considering they are a Conservative pro-war outfit.

 

Complete fabrication. I said no such thing. I said Obama didn't do anything anyone else could do (and others could do better no doubt) which is what most believe on that as Obama is as I said such a bad salesman. Trump owns it and gets across to the people that only he could have saved those jobs, Obama does not. Simple.

 

Well, I would agree with you here. I hope I don't come across as a rabid democrat (sorry Roz, I know you want me to be). Hypocrisy, regardless of which side its on, is still hypocrisy.

 

The irony here is you want me to be some Fox watching Nazi so much and can't get anything.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Rozalia

[Caecus]

 

Why is it you speak as if you are showing virtue? I don't get how people can speak of cowardice as if its a positive. China is bluffing, do you really believe they will directly confront America and take Taiwan? If they were that brazen they'd have done it decades ago. Then if they do take it what then? America will rally the rest of the world to blacklist China and start cutting trade and China economically collapses which in true Chinese tradition will no doubt cause a revolt which the government will have to try and put down (violently of course). The Chinese government is smarter than all that.

 

Depends. Trump has spoken of wanting it sorted many years before the election and is hardly considered a Christian fanatic. Also strongmen are respected more than weaklings, not by you and others such as you in the west no but by a great deal.

 

Always with the going to Fox. I don't use Facebook and me getting anything from Fox is very rare considering they are a Conservative pro-war outfit.

 

Complete fabrication. I said no such thing. I said Obama didn't do anything anyone else could do (and others could do better no doubt) which is what most believe on that as Obama is as I said such a bad salesman. Trump owns it and gets across to the people that only he could have saved those jobs, Obama does not. Simple.

 

 

The irony here is you want me to be some Fox watching Nazi so much and can't get anything.

 

I don't think cowardice is a virtue, but seemingly accidental and unintelligent foreign policy decisions sure are not. Are you even sure Trump's move was deliberate? It seems like he stumbled into it. Rookie mistake or act of lunacy? Either way, none of those are virtues. 

 

Ah huh. That makes sense. 

 

So, you don't really have a source, this is just a gut feeling you have?

 

So, you don't think Obama deserves credit for saving 1.5M jobs because you thought anyone in his position could have done it? So you don't think Bush should be blamed for the Iraq war because anyone in his position would go to war? It also sounds like Trump is a better propagandist, which I have to agree. Nobody else could make a big deal of saving some 730 jobs when actual presidents deal in the numbers of millions. 

 

Nazis think Fox is too liberal. I'm just wondering if you actually read news, and I went as far right as I could to see if I could get a bite. 

 

No, I think you are just someone who is desperate to cling to a savior figure to solve all your problems and lack a single backbone of principle to guide you otherwise. 

[Rozalia]

I don't think cowardice is a virtue, but seemingly accidental and unintelligent foreign policy decisions sure are not. Are you even sure Trump's move was deliberate? It seems like he stumbled into it. Rookie mistake or act of lunacy? Either way, none of those are virtues. 

 

Ah huh. That makes sense. 

 

So, you don't really have a source, this is just a gut feeling you have?

 

So, you don't think Obama deserves credit for saving 1.5M jobs because you thought anyone in his position could have done it? So you don't think Bush should be blamed for the Iraq war because anyone in his position would go to war? It also sounds like Trump is a better propagandist, which I have to agree. Nobody else could make a big deal of saving some 730 jobs when actual presidents deal in the numbers of millions. 

 

Nazis think Fox is too liberal. I'm just wondering if you actually read news, and I went as far right as I could to see if I could get a bite. 

 

No, I think you are just someone who is desperate to cling to a savior figure to solve all your problems and lack a single backbone of principle to guide you otherwise. 

 

Hard to know, not even his enemies can agree if it was accidental or on purpose.

 

I read a lot of stuff including sources I dislike. There was some talk prior to Russia's involvement on why America hadn't done the obvious and when Russia went in it was news that they were doing the obvious. If I could trust you in this I would gladly go find such information but I can't.

 

You keep seeing attacks when I just tell you how it is. I use the word salesman but you prefer propagandist due to sounding more negative I suppose, fine, whatever you call it Trump is far and ahead better than Obama at. Obama does not "own" his job savings as President, this isn't me attacking him, its simply the truth of how they are seen. Trump does and when he is President and make job savings (in the millions) he will be championing that from coast to coast. He could end up saving less jobs than Obama (though I'd say Obama's numbers are sketchy but whatever, its irrelevant) and most people would still end up seeing him as more of a job saver than Obama. The small number you mentioned you forget has additional value beyond job saving also. His opponents attack him as someone untrustworthy who won't keep promises, those jobs will be lost inevitably they say. Trump saves them and then promotes the fact thereby putting in the people's minds that he is trustworthy and his opponents are wrong.

 

You're behind the times then if you think Fox is what to mention in that regard then. My main news source is actually the Guardian as I check it at least once a day. However obviously I do get information from other places especially if people link me there. 

 

Its quite clear you desperately want me to be the caricature you have in your mind. As for talk of a "savior", no I don't have a problem with a strongman if he can fight back against the ills that infect the world.