America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 40,047 comments
  • 1,815,849 views
Populuxe Cowboy
How do we even have a functioning government if we start holding politicians accountable for their own words and actions?
Click to expand...

I sense just barely a note of sarcasm here...

original-2062953-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I don't even feel like I can get back to complaining. The bar has been set so low, that stuff i normally would have ranted about is just... meh. I mean, can you see me not ranting about $1.9T of government spending prior to the Trump era? Because I absolutely would have. Can you see me not spolling up over a $15 minimum wage, or at least half of the environment regulations planned... I mean I'm not a huge fan of some of this stuff.

But I just don't care anymore. At least it's not the end of representation and the murder and incarceration of political enemies or whistleblowers who uncover corruption.
Click to expand...

It's kind of heartbreaking to see you reduced to this. Even I am somewhat taken aback at how entirely irrelevant libertarian ideas have become in the present political climate ... in fact, how entirely irrelevant traditional conservative ideas have become. Trump blew the cover off conservative dogma & now we can all see what came scuttling out into the daylight.
 
Biggles
It's kind of heartbreaking to see you reduced to this.
Click to expand...

"Well if the 'chutes don't open, what's the point?" - Apollo 13

It's heartbreaking to see the US reduced to this. A nation that was once so proudly democratic fighting to maintain what is the cornerstone of modern civilization against that "scuttling". It's not particularly libertarian ideas that have become irrelevant so much as it is that almost all ideas for policy become irrelevant when faced with the prospect of tyranny. Because that's the linchpin of any government. The democrats are passing COVID relief right now (because it's easier and won't do much good later), but what's really needed is that voting reform bill (among other things). It'll be harder for them to pass. Luckily, the authoritarians are not a majority. If they were, we'd be extra screwed.
 
Danoff
The democrats are passing COVID relief right now (because it's easier and won't do much good later), but what's really needed is that voting reform bill (among other things). It'll be harder for them to pass. Luckily, the authoritarians are not a majority. If they were, we'd be extra screwed.
Click to expand...
A part of me really wants Democratic leadership to pull the same kind of garbage this session (and any possible future sessions) that Mitch has been pulling for years, like blocking a Senate vote on the latter...for years. The House pushed that bill through in...what...March of 2019?
 
Last edited:
Danoff
"Well if the 'chutes don't open, what's the point?" - Apollo 13

It's heartbreaking to see the US reduced to this. A nation that was once so proudly democratic fighting to maintain what is the cornerstone of modern civilization against that "scuttling". It's not particularly libertarian ideas that have become irrelevant so much as it is that almost all ideas for policy become irrelevant when faced with the prospect of tyranny. Because that's the linchpin of any government. The democrats are passing COVID relief right now (because it's easier and won't do much good later), but what's really needed is that voting reform bill (among other things). It'll be harder for them to pass. Luckily, the authoritarians are not a majority. If they were, we'd be extra screwed.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I've spent the better part of one & a half decades trying to convince you that mathematics & logics aren't an adequate basis for economic theory ... in fact they're not an adequate basis for anything when it comes to human relationships & society at large. It may have seemed adequate to the rationalist philosophers of the 18th century & it may have appealed to libertarian thinkers (as well as Marxists) in the first half of the 20th century, but our understanding of human psychology & it's influence on the functioning of human society has come a long way since then. The rise of Trumpism is a graphic reminder of that ... so is the craziness in the stock market (in particular the recent events with Gamestop). Simply put: human beings are more driven by feelings than they are by logical reasoning.
 
Biggles
The thing is, I've spent the better part of one & a half decades trying to convince you that mathematics & logics aren't an adequate basis for economic theory ... in fact they're not an adequate basis for anything when it comes to human relationships & society at large. It may have seemed adequate to the rationalist philosophers of the 18th century & it may have appealed to libertarian thinkers (as well as Marxists) in the first half of the 20th century, but our understanding of human psychology & it's influence on the functioning of human society has come a long way since then. The rise of Trumpism is a graphic reminder of that ... so is the craziness in the stock market (in particular the recent events with Gamestop). Simply put: human beings are more driven by feelings than they are by logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

Trumpism is not my position, and it never has been, and it is not a natural consequence of anything I've advocated for. Trumpism is, in many respects, completely opposed to libertarianism. Likewise... well... I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make with the stock market.

Nothing I've said about economics or human rights is in any way discredited by, or responsible for, or relies upon Trumpism or... uh... gamestop....

I think it's ironic and a little sad that you think somehow that us being on the same side during all of this proves that I was never reasonable. It ought to demonstrate to you the opposite. I was more reasonable than you thought.

Biggles
Simply put: human beings are more driven by feelings than they are by logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "more". But certainly people are emotional creatures. I don't see how this is supposed to be problematic for me.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Trumpism is, in many respects, completely opposed to libertarianism.
Click to expand...

I loathe how much Trumpism gets roped together with libertarianism. Trump was probably one of the least libertarian presidents we've had and I will still hold onto my belief that Trump wanted to a Communist. Not as is a socialist, but as in a red-blooded, hammer and sickle, USSR loving Communist. He wanted to be in complete control of the economy, especially the mode of production and was anything but a free market or capitalist champion. He also really, really wanted to be a dictator, but was too stupid to pull it off. If Trump had been remotely intelligent or had the charism of Obama, he probably would've succeeded.

Also, evermind the fact that Trump took a dump on gun owners, imposed draconian immigration policies, spend an absolutely insane amount of the country's money, and wouldn't know what free speech meant if the First Amendment grew legs and came up to kick him in his plump ass.
 
Danoff
Trumpism is not my position, and it never has been, and it is not a natural consequence of anything I've advocated for. Trumpism is, in many respects, completely opposed to libertarianism. Likewise... well... I don't actually understand the point you're trying to make with the stock market.

Nothing I've said about economics or human rights is in any way discredited by, or responsible for, or relies upon Trumpism or... uh... gamestop....

I think it's ironic and a little sad that you think somehow that us being on the same side during all of this proves that I was never reasonable. It ought to demonstrate to you the opposite. I was more reasonable than you thought.



I don't know about "more". But certainly people are emotional creatures. I don't see how this is supposed to be problematic for me.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not suggesting that you support Trumpism, or that libertarianism is in any way related to Trumpism, or even that Trumpism is an inadvertent consequence of libertarianism. And I do recognize that you have moderated your point of view over the years. Libertarianism seems largely irrelevant in the present day situation in the US, in spite of having being, ostensibly, some component of Republican/Conservative/Tea Party ideology, during the Obama years. It seems clear that feelings - racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious beliefs, fear & economic insecurity, loss of status & self-esteem - all these played a much bigger part in people voting for Trump than the libertarian component of conservatism.

Similarly, we seem to agree that feelings play an outsized role in the way the stock market reacts ... a good extreme example of this being the Gamestop phenomenon.

As I've said before, libertarianism seems like a throw back to a simpler time ... like Newtonian physics. Economics is not a mathematical system, it's a human, societal system. You cannot divorce it from the feelings people experience about it, which is why behavioural economics has become a prominent field. On the most basic level, on the subject of the relevance of inequality, I refer you to the monkeys:

 
Biggles
You're misunderstanding my point. I'm not suggesting that you support Trumpism, or that libertarianism is in any way related to Trumpism, or even that Trumpism is an inadvertent consequence of libertarianism. And I do recognize that you have moderated your point of view over the years.
Click to expand...

I see.

Biggles
Libertarianism seems largely irrelevant in the present day situation in the US, in spite of having being, ostensibly, some component of Republican/Conservative/Tea Party ideology, during the Obama years. It seems clear that feelings - racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious beliefs, fear & economic insecurity, loss of status & self-esteem - all these played a much bigger part in people voting for Trump than the libertarian component of conservatism.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that Trumpism is more relevant to the US population right now than libertarianism... because... I'm with you if that's what you're saying.

Biggles
Similarly, we seem to agree that feelings play an outsized role in the way the stock market reacts ... a good extreme example of this being the Gamestop phenomenon.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's "outsized" but it plays a huge role.

Biggles
As I've said before, libertarianism seems like a throw back to a simpler time ... like Newtonian physics. Economics is not a mathematical system, it's a human, societal system. You cannot divorce it from the feelings people experience about it, which is why behavioural economics has become a prominent field. On the most basic level, on the subject of the relevance of inequality, I refer you to the monkeys:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think any of this is inconsistent with libertarianism (or macroeconomics). Economics is just a description of human behavior under certain conditions. The fact that human behavior includes emotional reactions means economic includes that because... that's what economics is. Similarly, libertarianism might be kinda simple, but it doesn't assume human beings are. In fact, libertarianism is simple because it assumes human beings are not.

If you think that I assume people do not behave emotionally, or shouldn't be allowed to... I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Is it because I say you can derive human rights from rationality? Because that's not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Borrowing this from the space thread.

wfooshee
Raise your hands, anybody who is actually surprised by Biden's accommodations to China...

He calls it "easing strained relations."

Relations are "strained" because the poor saps weren't getting their way before. Standing up for America means not giving in to those who oppose America. China opposes America, in every conceivable way of looking at it.
Click to expand...

What on Earth is this? China does not "oppose" America in "every conceivable way". Good grief. I did a quick search for your "easing strained relations" line and couldn't figure out what it was in reference to. What does "getting what they were before" mean? I can only assume you mean Trump's tariffs, which has not exactly been a win:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war
The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and China.[13][14][15] In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. Many American companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'.[16] In other countries the trade war has also caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.
Click to expand...

Trade is good. It allows us to influence them (and we do that to them more than they influence us).
 
Sad Trombone

Fox News has cancelled “Lou Dobbs Tonight”

I like this.

I like it superficially because Lou Dobbs is a cancer on American society and so I'm glad that he's taken down a peg
I like it on a deeper level because it reveals that Fox News is hella shook about this smartmatic lawsuit
I like that because it reveals that Fox News understands the threat of the smartmatic lawsuit is credible and serious - they probably have a strong case
I like that because it reveals that Fox News knows they have been lying the entire time
I like that because it reinforces the idea that the election was clean and legitimate and that Trump is indefensible.
 
GranTurNismo
Actually two, Manchin doesn't want to abolish the filibuster either. Because reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is more important than ensuring that Americans get anywhere even close to appropriate COVID relief.

When it comes to moderate Dems, Biden included, there seems to be this notion that bipartisanship is something that is good by default. Working together with Republicans is good because it shows unity and putting partisan differences aside. But in actuality, "bipartisan" mostly means "on Republicans' terms"; republicans usually heavily water down any Democrat proposal, to the point where it is effectively useless. I'm nervous that Biden, being the good ol' moderate that he is, will actually accept to Susan Collins and the Republicans' measly COVID bill. Especially since there is a super-majority, we need Democrats who refuse to compromise unless they absolutely have to, and have a strong agenda. No legislation passed under the Trump administration was remotely bipartisan; Republicans did whatever the heck they could get away with without the Dems stopping them. After all this, I doubt the Democratic voter base, regardless of whether they're more moderate or progressive, is wanting unity with the Republicans right now.
Click to expand...
Good news, looks like they pushed forth on their own. And of course, McConnell made some whiney remark about there not being unity b/c they did it that way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bid...rillion-covid-relief-without-gop-support.html
 
CTznOfTime
Why is the outgoing clown still receiving any intelligence briefing ??!
Click to expand...

It's normal. Ex-Presidents are still statesmen and continue to represent the country. As such they receive briefings on the state of the world, some of which will contain knowledge or intel that's classified in varying degrees. In this case it seems that nobody thinks that's a very good idea.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
It's normal. Ex-Presidents are still statesmen and continue to represent the country. As such they receive briefings on the state of the world, some of which will contain knowledge or intel that's classified in varying degrees. In this case it seems that nobody thinks that's a very good idea.
Click to expand...
Trump certainly represents a certain part of the country or at least a subsection of its citizens. The stoopid subsection. If Craig Unger is right and he's been groomed as a Russkie asset, however, he may represent a security risk.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Trump certainly represents a certain part of the country or at least a subsection of its citizens. The stoopid subsection. If Craig Unger is right and he's been groomed as a Russkie asset, however, he may represent a security risk.
Click to expand...

I doubt he's a Russian asset in any formal sense, I suspect that Russia simply saw another opportunity to plant information that would create more division and disruption in American politics. But who knows at this point. The only thing that would be surprising about Trump turning out to be a Russian agent would be that he managed not to brag about it on live TV and Twitter.
 
Imari
The only thing that would be surprising about Trump turning out to be a Russian agent would be that he managed not to brag about it on live TV and Twitter.
Click to expand...

This. If he was knowingly "in" with the most powerful guy in the room (which he secretly knows isn't himself) there's no way he'd have been able to avoid mentioning it.
 
TenEightyOne
It's normal. Ex-Presidents are still statesmen and continue to represent the country. As such they receive briefings on the state of the world, some of which will contain knowledge or intel that's classified in varying degrees. In this case it seems that nobody thinks that's a very good idea.
Click to expand...


It was a rhetorical question....

I get all that already.

After 4 years of this dude, I can't understand why government officials haven't yet realized he is unlike anyone before him (and more than likely àfter him too), and he untrustworthy... He isn't representing anyone but his own self interest.. strip him of all benefits.
 
CTznOfTime
It was a rhetorical question....

I get all that already.

After 4 years of this dude, I can't understand why government officials haven't yet realized he is unlike anyone before him (and more than likely àfter him too), and he untrustworthy... He isn't representing anyone but his own self interest.. strip him of all benefits.
Click to expand...
Decisions like this require congressional approval. And as long as there are Republicans too greedy for the power their Trumpist base affords them, they'll stand in the way of any measure of accountability for the former president.
 
Imari
I doubt he's a Russian asset in any formal sense, I suspect that Russia simply saw another opportunity
Click to expand...

Never correct your enemy when they're making a mistake.

Stalin used to do this too; seeds of potential Soviet collusion would be sown and he'd simply not comment on it, not confirm it one way or another, which only bred more mistrust.
 
UKMikey
Decisions like this require congressional approval. And as long as there are Republicans too greedy for the power their Trumpist base affords them, they'll stand in the way of any measure of accountability for the former president.
Click to expand...

... Yes unfortunately have to go through the motion and protocols, to respect the rights of the spinless and

ROAD_DOGG33J
From what I read Trump hasn't requested to have any intelligence briefings so far.
Click to expand...

It's not as if he has any interest in reading or hearing those or even the intelligence to comprehend it





This new administration is way nice toward these officials from last administration...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-defending-nielsen-sessions-from-aclu-lawsuit

If anything, these official could push the responsibility to trump who ordered them to do so, because the buck stops there... and pull in Stephen Miller who really is the master mind behind all that...

These people should be held accountable for the debacle and their inhumane treatment of others...
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Decisions like this require congressional approval. And as long as there are Republicans too greedy for the power their Trumpist base affords them, they'll stand in the way of any measure of accountability for the former president.
Click to expand...

I looked into the whole intelligence briefing thing because I was genuinely curious. Apparently, it wouldn't require Congress to do anything. The former President and Vice President have the right to submit a request, but the CIA has the final say in whether or not they're able to get the information or not. It looks like it's Part 1909 of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 32.
 
Joey D
I looked into the whole intelligence briefing thing because I was genuinely curious. Apparently, it wouldn't require Congress to do anything. The former President and Vice President have the right to submit a request, but the CIA has the final say in whether or not they're able to get the information or not. It looks like it's Part 1909 of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 32.
Click to expand...
Thanks but the post I was replying to was talking about stripping him of benefits (presumably of the pension/office staff/secret service protection/medical insurance variety). It turns out that if Trump were removed from office he wouldn't've received these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
620K
sirjim73
sirjim73
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
450 451 452
Replies
14K
Views
750K
jesse100190
J
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
805
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
77
Views
7K
TB
TB

Latest Posts

Back