US Politics Megathread

[n0el]

Warren is going to shit end Beto in that debate

[fightinfrenchman]

Each person is only going to talk for a couple minutes lol

[Dolan]

I don't conveniently ignore it. You mention 2 places. I respomd to one because you are wrong about one. I didnt say you were wrong about asia, as asia is generally overpopulated in almost every country. If you say man u and juventus have both red shirts, and i say, umh juventus has black and white shirts, you cant say oh but youre ignoring im right about man u...

That's a strawman of your own making. You chose to define overpopulation by population density, not me. I just said the world is overpopulated in absolute numbers (the species standing at 7.7 billions is just too large generically speaking). I never said that overcrowding is the criterion for making a judgement on this. This is the strawman you brought in the discussion. So, before you make such accusations, you should check the progression of arguments and the assumptions you made when you replied. You are pushing the debate in this "overcrowding" direction and then accusing me of implying things I never did. The only thing I have clearly stated, as you can check by reading back the replies is that the world is overpopulated (not overcrowded), the species is way too large for us to manage, but I never claimed that this is the case because of population density or overcrowding. And then you go on a rabid argument about how wrong I am for reasons that only exist in your head.

I didn't say things are awful in europe now, obviously not, sincecpretty much the entire global economy and infrastructure is geared towards making sure it isnt. But you think for a second how nice europe would be if all the people the have migrated to both north and south america, south africa and australia/new zealand in the past 500 years wouldve still been living in europe and all those mouths wouldve had to be fed? K.

Europe was doing fine even before the Age of Discovery. Europe started jumping ahead of the rest of the world starting from the late 10th and 11th century, when Northern Italian city-states began growing economically thanks to political modernisation (incipient forms of democracy) and mercantilism (incipient forms of capitalism).
The role of colonialism in Europe's economic growth has been way overblown. Most of those resources plundered by explorers did not benefit the massive crowd of poor people in Europe. Colonial explorers were given a license to conquer and plunder by the royals of their respective countries and they sent that loot back home to whom, do you think? To poor peasants from Spain? To poor peasants from the Netherlands? Those kingdoms had names like the Crown of Castile back then, the state and the whole territory were owned by royals and they used whatever loot they got from colonialism to increase their own wealth and display it in large buildings, like cathedrals that only the super-super-rich could afford to pay for. The poor from the Crown of Castile haven't seen much if anything of that colonialist loot. There might have been an indirect benefit to them via an increase in trade with those regions. Because it wasn't all just plundering, there was also trade involved. Sure, you could say that colonial explorers were exchanging worthless goods for very valuable ones, because natives were clueless about the relative value of their goods. But seriously, do you think all that gold from the colonies went to poor Spanish peasants? To the bulk of the poor population of those kingdoms? It never did.
Not to mention that very often those trading companies established in colonies went bankrupt. That was the case with the British trading companies that, at some point, needed to be bailed out simply because they were spending much more than actually making.
So all this narrative about how colonialism boosted Europe is, in large part, just hyperbole and virtue signalling. The huge majority of people used to be poor and devoid of any rights. The royals and nobility from those times wouldn't simply share the spoils of colonial looting with the poor and unwashed. That just wasn't how it was done back in those days.

Many people come to europe because they're told myths about how fabulous life is there, and in general many opportunities to advance in life are lacking in many african countries, which has a wide variety of reasons, most of which do not really include overpopulation. While the models indicate a rise in population in the next 50 years, overpopulation is not a problem in Africa now (though some urban zones are surely overcrowded), though perhaps it may become one in the future.

Again, I don't have to reply to this because I never made any argument about overcrowding. I made an argument about the species being too large to manage. It's a substantially different argument.

European, American and now also Chinese companies have been leveraging everything that can be leveraged to make sure that most people are paid bottom prices and that the vast majority of the wealth flows out of the continent. Fairer business practices will go a long way to mitigate many of the "huge" migration waves we're seeing now (though they're not actually that huge, but whatever). Yes people will mention corruption, and it's definitely a big problem, but it's not the biggest, nor is it the root of the problem. It's included in fairer business practices anyway. If we're not willing to pay the fair price when we're buying it, then it will be paid later down the line, either with migration related costs, or otherwise at some point, if things worsen globally, it will be war. And these aren't my words. One of the most successful dutch businessmen in West Africa basically says this word for word, and I can assure you he's only saying it now because he's retiring. So he knows what he's talking about. I know you like this sort of argument.

Nobody put a gun to their head to accept those trade deals. They negotiated them themselves. And they thought they would be beneficial to them, otherwise they would have never concluded them. Could those deals be better for them? For sure they could. But if they aren't, this means they don't have much bargaining power. And that's not Europe's or China's fault, it's not like they sent their armies over there to make African countries and traders accept certain conditions. Most likely it's a mix of causes, that involve some degree of corruption, greed, and even incompetence and lack of experience and status/position on the global markets.

Renault bought the biggest carmaker in Romania, Dacia, and built one of the most successful European cars. They are paying their Romanian employees somewhat higher wages compared to the average wage in Romania, but still way below what they pay their Western employees. It just shows that Romanians working for them didn't have much leverage in making them pay higher wages. Since the market has such low wages here, Renault could have always just fired those who demanded more and hired somebody else who was more than happy to earn a slightly higher wage compared to the rest of the market. It's not because Renault is evil or Europe put a gun to Romania's head and forced the labour force to accept wages that are way below the European average. It's just how the market works. Maybe things will change gradually, living standards will increase and people's expectations will also increase which will put more pressures on Renault to pay higher wages. Or maybe at some point they will just decide it's not worth it anymore, pack up and move their tent somewhere else.

[fightinfrenchman]

Guys we're talking about the primaries now

[spanky4ever]

Warren is going to shit end Beto in that debate

sure, but she still is a turncoat, and I would not trust her, Do you

[spanky4ever]

my second best is Tusli, and I do not trust Warren, and that is from how I read her from her merit since 2015.

[n0el]

Warren is going to shit end Beto in that debate

sure, but she still is a turncoat, and I would not trust her, Do you

She’s not a turncoat. I’d love her to be president. She’s clearly the second best option.

[fightinfrenchman]

my second best is Tusli, and I do not trust Warren, and that is from how I read her from her merit since 2015.

Read the article I posted about Tulsi, she's a nutcase

[spanky4ever]

Warren is going to shit end Beto in that debate

sure, but she still is a turncoat, and I would not trust her, Do you

She’s not a turncoat. I’d love her to be president. She’s clearly the second best option.

do you think that the TPP would be a thing now, with HER? Do you think that Us would be closer to war with Iran, or even IN war if Clinton was the POTUS?

[spanky4ever]

my second best is Tusli, and I do not trust Warren, and that is from how I read her from her merit since 2015.

Read the article I posted about Tulsi, she's a nutcase

I think I have a fair idea about Tulsi, I do not need another smear article about her. You, on the other hand, could try getting some news outside the ecco0, neoliberal, chamber

[spanky4ever]

you say USA is the greatest country in the world. I would say, you are a has been. You built your wealth on exploiting slaves and Indians. Now, the only thing you have going for you is a huge military build up. The USA is warning of Huawei to make 5G for other nations, but at the same time, you do not have the tech to do it yourself. That is SAD. You are lagging behind in tech, cos profit in the short run is more important than to explore and researchers for the future. Guess its time for the USA to steal from China now

[Goodspeed]

Sigh, Warren is a turncoat now?
What did she do except not be named Bernie Sanders?

[n0el]

I like Tulsi on domestic economic policy equal to Warren, but her foreign policy is scary(Warren isn’t great either).

[spanky4ever]

I like Tulsi on domestic economic policy equal to Warren, but her foreign policy is scary(Warren isn’t great either).

what is so scary about not wanting to interfere in other countries businesses, all the time? And not wanting to rage wars all over the world If you think that is scary, then I cannot imagine what is the opposite of scary, seriously Noel (800 or more Usa military bases all over he world, keep that in mind when you respond)

[fightinfrenchman]

@spanky4ever Do you think it's at all possible that you get news from a left wing echo chamber?

[spanky4ever]

@spanky4ever Do you think it's at all possible that you get news from a left wing echo chamber?

I get news from the commen sense chamber, I do not know if you are familiar with that

[n0el]

I like Tulsi on domestic economic policy equal to Warren, but her foreign policy is scary(Warren isn’t great either).

what is so scary about not wanting to interfere in other countries businesses, all the time? And not wanting to rage wars all over the world If you think that is scary, then I cannot imagine what is the opposite of scary, seriously Noel (800 or more Usa military bases all over he world, keep that in mind when you respond)

It’s not that, I agree with her there. It’s her support for governments like Assad in Syria and her support of the Hindu nationalists like Modi and the BJP in India.

[spanky4ever]

Sigh, Warren is a turncoat now?
What did she do except not be named Bernie Sanders?

1. she did not support Bernie in 2016, instead, she came out as a supporter to Clinton
2. She was a supporter of Medicare for all, but then she has the second opinion, saying there is many roads that lead to it, That is fake, a cowardly imo
She has Strong opinions, but suddenly, she caves in. In these 2 important issues, she proves herself to be a turncoat, and I do not think ppl forgive this easily.

[Dolan]

I like Tulsi on domestic economic policy equal to Warren, but her foreign policy is scary(Warren isn’t great either).

what is so scary about not wanting to interfere in other countries businesses, all the time? And not wanting to rage wars all over the world If you think that is scary, then I cannot imagine what is the opposite of scary, seriously Noel (800 or more Usa military bases all over he world, keep that in mind when you respond)

If it wasn't the USA doing all that, it'd be Russia or China doing it in an even more oppressive way. Do you have any idea how Russia oppressed Eastern European countries during the Cold War? That's how a world in which Russia would be the main hegemon, instead of the USA, would look like. You have a very naive outlook on the world if you think that big powers will simply not jump at the opportunity of dominating the world if another power declines. That's how it has always been.

If you want to change that, change the genetics of this species.

[spanky4ever]

I like Tulsi on domestic economic policy equal to Warren, but her foreign policy is scary(Warren isn’t great either).

what is so scary about not wanting to interfere in other countries businesses, all the time? And not wanting to rage wars all over the world If you think that is scary, then I cannot imagine what is the opposite of scary, seriously Noel (800 or more Usa military bases all over he world, keep that in mind when you respond)

It’s not that, I agree with her there. It’s her support for governments like Assad in Syria and her support of the Hindu nationalists like Modi and the BJP in India.

you should know better by now, she is not supporting Assad or Modi. She just does not want to rage wars against them, and instead, she wants to make diplomacy strong, so you would not need endless wars. THAT is her policy, and I support that.

[n0el]

Diplomacy is one thing but I believe, as Sanders does,
that we need a unified left wing global movement against authoritarian governments. Gabbard is clearly against that mission.

[spanky4ever]

Diplomacy is one thing but I believe, as Sanders does,
that we need a unified left wing global movement against authoritarian governments. Gabbard is clearly against that mission.

How so? I find your statement strange since she is clearly left-leaning in her policies. And she still wants to give diplomacy a chance, even if she does not agree with other states policies. That is not the same, as she is supporting the policies, and you should not mix the 2.
What Tulsi want, is to not send soldiers into meanless wars, that they do not even understand the meaning off, putting their life on the line, for nothingness other than filling the pockets of military-industrial corporations.
I guess a lot of Americans will agree with her, when she say that the money that you spend on war, could be spent for the US pop, and your crumbling infrastructure (new water pipes, roads without holes, maintain bridges before they come tumbling down), education, Medicare for all, etc etc

[n0el]

@spanky4ever I think there’s an important difference between not supporting the war machine but associating with authoritarian governments (Gabbard) and not supporting the war machine but also not supporting those governments but rather supporting their left rivals (Sanders).

[Dolan]

Diplomacy is one thing but I believe, as Sanders does,
that we need a unified left wing global movement against authoritarian governments. Gabbard is clearly against that mission.

Good luck doing that with countries whose culture does not recognise the "universal" declaration of human rights, such as Saudi Arabia and most of the Muslim world. See the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and the reason why it was created in the first place. Some articles are deliciously honest about how "universal" human rights are in their view:

Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia."

But mahhh "universal rights" and my right to be offended about things happening in other countries.

PS. Oh, I forgot about China and their "appalling record on respecting universal human rights", as the media expression usually goes. Nope, nothing to do with culture. Culture does not have any bearing on a country's politics. We're all human and shit.

[n0el]

Why do you always turn to attacking Muslim culture?