Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
As for beer, shitting on the megabreweries is fun and all, but that's why people who actually like beer don't drink the swill that Budweiser, Coors, and Miller keep filling cans with.
![]()
I'm of three opinions.
1.) I feel bad for whoever is suffering that huge pay cut.
2.) Amused that people are hailing this as an economic coup.
3.) Relieved that Trump did not have an unqualified success.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Wow, who could've seen that coming.
Although in this case, it's actually talking about another company who is still relocating to Mexico, and for that not to be done, the "average" wage of $25 would have to be cut down (so I'm curious about the specific breakdown).
Point is, it's not unreasonable to believe that will be the approach taken by Carrier now.
Yeah, those jobs will be saved...at the cost of lower wages and higher prices for everyone else.
I wonder exactly what Trump offered as incentives to businesses to make them willing to pass up cheaper foreign labor. Massive tax cuts and deregulation of minimum wages, environmental standards and safety standards would be my guess.
Workers will be paid far less than they need to support themselves and their families while working in far more hazardous conditions. The local communities will grow even more impoverished at the expense of those businesses' tax cuts. The higher prices of their goods will reduce spending, shrinking the economy. The environment will also suffer.
The big con Trump pulled on the white working class (most of the minority working class and poor being all too familiar with people like Trump and their bullshit) was convincing them that he was on their side (and that HRC was not) when he is really on the side of the big businesses screwing them over.
edited 29th Nov '16 7:30:21 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedPeople who only tepidly supported Trump might turn on him; a number of articles interviewing Trump supporters in rundown little towns suggested that the "Trump coalition" is actually quite fragile. People who guzzled his Kool-Aid definitely won't care, though.
A big problem is that Trump is by all accounts prepared to, if not explicitly censor the media, defang it by denying them access unless they're prepared to cooperate. With that in his pocket he can potentially mitigate negative coverage of his activities that would destroy other presidents, not to mention his present attempts at obscuring the truth and just outright bypassing the media altogether. And then finally, there's Breitbart becoming much stronger with this presidency.
edited 29th Nov '16 7:46:08 PM by Draghinazzo
We have to realize that the coming suffering the United States is likely to experience under a Trump administration had groundwork being laid for it since the Bush administration at the very latest (I'd start with Reagan personally), with Obama at the very best merely slowing down rather than reversing this trend.

No True Scotsman much. The fact is that there hasn't been any drastically new sources that have come to light about the Late Republic period between then and now. What passes is more or less interpretations and suppositions of the same texts. Obviously we have improved techniques for studying the same texts (Ronald Syme's prosopography for instance) but basically the texts and primary sources for that time are the same (Caesar's writings, Cicero's writings, Plutarch and other narratives). The Roman Republic has always been interpreted in terms of the political context of the time because it's not like anyone is closer today to knowing "what really happened" at the end of the Republic today, than they were in the late 1700s-early 1800s. So there's no grounds to say that it's not a "good reference point" and that they didn't know "what they were doing".
Whoa...that's not hard-left thinking at all. It's more or less moderate non-interventionist grounded Realpolitik. The fact is that having a mentality to think that Dictatorships are worst ever and that the people are victims is an argument that justifies any and all foreign interventions, the whole "We shall be greeted as liberators" thing. It also goes against all history of how democracies came into being, gradually, slowly over a place of time...and the idea of condemning the aggressive toppling of pre-existing institutions even in an autocratic system, is actually classic conservatism. It was put forth by Edmund Burke when he condemned the East India Company for aggressively attacking the local rural infrastructure in Bengal and utterly overturning the existing conditions in India.
Please don't throw Mccarthyist phrases like "hard-left" for no reason. Just because I cite Chomsky and so on, doesn't make me a Hard-Leftist by any means, I am fully capable like Mr. Vidal, of citing sources and arguments from people across the political spectrum, or at least I try to be.
The hard and brutal fact is that the world would be better had Saddam remained in charge of Iraq and had the invasion did not happen. From the perspective of international relations, the invasion was no referendum or inquiry or apposite judgment on Saddam and his crimes. How could it be, since the USA gave Saddam the gas he used against the Kurds.
And by the way, saying the Iraq War is a mistake doesn't mean that Saddam Hussein's reign is vindicated or justified. I thought that went without saying, but the point is if you don't have a proper plan or basis, you should not go toppling other governments and then say "Mission Accomplished".
Okay so we are in fact accommodating of some forms of illiberal governments after all, good to confirm it. The minute you can say that British and American Imperialism was bad but others are worse...you open the doors for people to say that so-and-so dictator was worse than others. The fact is you can't have an absolute liberal worldview, because that means that only a small portion of the world's population, mostly people living in the Anglophone and the EU, know true freedom and are truly empowered while the rest of the world can go f—k themselves. The only people that matter from these regions are the Token Heroic Orc — the ones who emigrate while the ones who live back there are cowards and morons who never had the guts to revolt against the "tyranny". It's not a foundation that the advanced nations applied to themselves, and it's not one they practise with their relations with Singaporean plutocrats like Lee Kuan-Yew and with Saudi Arabia.
So why the hell act as if that absolute perspective is valid or has meaning. Because it's not something that is actually practised in reality nor is it reflected in any real archival historical study.