Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Cuba admits Castro is dead. Rot in hell murderer.

Hasn't he been on the edge for years now?

 Frazzled wrote:
Cuba admits Castro is dead. Rot in hell murderer.

Few live such worthy lives.

 LordofHats wrote:
Hasn't he been on the edge for years now?

Well, I mean, he was old. So, yes, I suppose. Once you hit 70 or so you should probably have your things in order, just in case.

There is no possible way the election was rigged.

CNN, MSNBC, DNC, and her holiness Hillary Clinton said so.

In good news;

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
As a footnote, since most pro-Socialist politicians/voters are also big fans of the single payer healthcare system, we fortunately have one in existence right here in the US of A to give you an example of what the US would be like if we went that road.

The VA.

I want that to sink in: the biggest push from the socialized healthcare crowd is to essentially ape the VA. I've been dealing with the VA since 2008 for a back injury during my deployment. I've seen firsthand how bad the system runs, and that it took until 2013 for them to simply process paperwork stating my physical limits so I could continue my military career. That's not even counting the hoops one has to go through for medication. Ever dealt with ExpressScripts? Try it some time. My wife has to go through them to get her diabetes medicines, along with her other long term medication. One prescription went unfilled for over 2 months, and we had to go out of pocket to keep her alive essentially. And if that is spread to every place universally, what is the likelihood of us being able to actually GET things when the socialized medical service fails as it routinely does?

And don't get me started on incompetence within the system. WITHOUT any sort of MRI or Xray to go off of, they sent me to a chiropractic session in their hospital. Thankfully the Dr. or whatever he was refused to administer care without knowing the extent of the injury.

By the same token, there's the British NHS (or really any of the other industrialized nation's socialized healthcare systems), which is largely excellent.

Yeah, the VA has issues. That's not a problem with single player socialist healthcare systems, it's a problem with the management of VA, just like Tyranid Maleceptors being bad isn't a problem with MC's, it's a problem with the Maleceptor just not being functional

It's not like we can't find plenty of privately run health care organizations that have similar issues to the VA as well, a friend of mine nearly died thanks to incompetence at Scripps Health, while the much dreaded Obamacare literally saved his life in another instance.

Well done with the dig at the poor tyranids..Xenophobe

 thekingofkings wrote:

Well done with the dig at the poor tyranids..Xenophobe

The Imperium is one of, if not the most xenophobic depictions of humanity in fiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mitochondria wrote:
There is no possible way the election was rigged.

CNN, MSNBC, DNC, and her holiness Hillary Clinton said so.

Trump said it was, though.

 Pouncey wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
There is no possible way the election was rigged.

CNN, MSNBC, DNC, and her holiness Hillary Clinton said so.

Trump said it was, though.

Yeah, now Trump is claiming the popular was rigged, because "millions" illegally voted.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/index.html

Jill Stein is scamming everyone she can for as much money as she can get. At least it's liberal true believers throwing away their money instead of the general public. But that only shows Stein's scheme is nothing more than a secular televangelist fundraising operation.

Liberals need to start looking at Stein when wondering how Hillary could have lost the electoral count. Stein isn't totally at fault but she deserves more than a little bit of blame.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:
There is no possible way the election was rigged.

CNN, MSNBC, DNC, and her holiness Hillary Clinton said so.

Trump said it was, though.

Yeah, now Trump is claiming the popular was rigged, because "millions" illegally voted.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-fraud-popular-vote/index.html

Is incapable of admitting defeat at anything, even winning the EC, he has to win the popular vote, if he doesnt it surely wasnt his fault, it was obviously rigged, in his mind

Thats scary

In other news, the idiots from the Oregon wildlife refuge debacle are wineing that they've been put on a watch list. What else do you think will happen when you have an armed takeover of government property?

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/11/three_malheur_refuge_occupiers_claim_to_be_on_terrorist_watchlist_evidence_suggests_its_true.html

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
In other news, the idiots from the Oregon wildlife refuge debacle are wineing that they've been put on a watch list. What else do you think will happen when you have an armed takeover of government property?

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/11/three_malheur_refuge_occupiers_claim_to_be_on_terrorist_watchlist_evidence_suggests_its_true.html

My liberal heart bleeds for them

*stockpiles popcorn*

 Breotan wrote:
Jill Stein is scamming everyone she can for as much money as she can get. At least it's liberal true believers throwing away their money instead of the general public. But that only shows Stein's scheme is nothing more than a secular televangelist fundraising operation.

Liberals need to start looking at Stein when wondering how Hillary could have lost the electoral count. Stein isn't totally at fault but she deserves more than a little bit of blame.

The amount of votes she took was negligible. Johnson did more damage to Clinton then Stein did.

Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President
Interesting NYT article, a bit too long to copy-paste.

What happened to all those Republicans calling for Clinton to shut down the Clinton foundation if elected? They've been remarkably quiet about all this.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Potential Conflicts Around the Globe for Trump, the Businessman President
Interesting NYT article, a bit too long to copy-paste.

What happened to all those Republicans calling for Clinton to shut down the Clinton foundation if elected? They've been remarkably quiet about all this.

Are you actually wondering? Haven't you learned by now?

The political rhetoric is just trash-talking your opponent. It's not actually meant to point out legitimate problems.

 Hordini wrote:
The United States doesn't have an official language, and it should stay that way. We're free to speak whatever language we please.

Obviously the US doesn't have an official language. When one poster is arguing for English to become, in some way or another, a national language, then it should be understood by everyone involved that there isn't currently an official language.

The second part of your argument, "it should stay that way", doesn't actually advance the conversation at all. cuda1179 said English should be made the official language, I asked why, and then you responded with 'no it shouldn't'. First of all, why respond to me with that comment and not cuda1179? And second up, why not let cuda1179 give an answer for what he thinks making english an official language will achieve?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Credit where credit's due - it's a smart move by Trump...

Yes, it's fething genius to let aggressive, totalitarian states do as they please all around the globe, and let murderous feth wits like Assad remain in power. fething genius move, that.

 djones520 wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Jill Stein is scamming everyone she can for as much money as she can get. At least it's liberal true believers throwing away their money instead of the general public. But that only shows Stein's scheme is nothing more than a secular televangelist fundraising operation.

Liberals need to start looking at Stein when wondering how Hillary could have lost the electoral count. Stein isn't totally at fault but she deserves more than a little bit of blame.

The amount of votes she took was negligible. Johnson did more damage to Clinton then Stein did.

I haven't seen news that Johnson is trying to keep the Crazy Train rolling on down the tracks.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you want govt officials to do something productive about illegal immigration you should have them examine our protectionist labor policies and laws. There are pros and cons to protecting labor, if we want to protect workers and raise the cost of legal labor then we're gong to incentivize lower cost illegal labor which in turn incentivizes illegal immigration. It's not so much that illegal immigrants come and take our jobs it's that everyone involved benefits from the lower labor cost of illegal labor so we continue to have people working against the system. An objective analysis of policy should be able to determine if the costs are outweighing the benefits and if we need to make adjustments.

Not really. Illegal labour isn't sneaking in to work in car factories or other union shops. It's competing in areas like agriculture and domestic services. About the highest rate of unionisation you'll see illegal labour is construction, where union membership is only a tick over 10%, and even there illegal workers tend towards residential construction, which is the least protected, least unionised construction.

You're right that illegal immigration is the natural product of the price of local labour, you're wrong in thinking that price is defined by labour policies and laws alone. It is priced primarily by scarcity, and the reality is that most native born americans who are able to willing and able to work hard enough have taken advantage of the education available to earn a much higher wage in a more skilled area. Scarcity would then either drive the price of the remaining construction labour up, or attract cheaper labour from elsewhere, or some combination of the two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
However, I do think that an official English language for official acts and paperwork would be a good idea.

And as I asked before, what does this achieve? Right now every law, every court process, every time you speak to a government official at any level of government, in every service offered by government, it is all done in English. An English speaker is not kept out of any part of government by language. So what would making English the official language do, just stop presenting laws in English, stop translation services in courts, no longer have spanish speaking officers in police stations? Is that what you want? Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.

This is 100% false. Russia's attacks are focused on the Syrian rebels who are not ISIS. This is because Russia has no interest in small ultra-crazy groups of lunatics with no chance of taking real power in the region. Russia is worried about the much larger collection of rebel groups who actually pose a risk to their man in the region, Assad.

 sebster wrote:


Not really. Illegal labour isn't sneaking in to work in car factories or other union shops..

This is true.

I think it is also true that blue collar workers have been effectively trained to be in perennial fear that their jobs will be taken by foreigners, whether they be Chinese, Mexican, or Indian either in the US or abroad.

 Pouncey wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Well done with the dig at the poor tyranids..Xenophobe

The Imperium is one of, if not the most xenophobic depictions of humanity in fiction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mitochondria wrote:
There is no possible way the election was rigged.

CNN, MSNBC, DNC, and her holiness Hillary Clinton said so.

Trump said it was, though.

Of course it is not, they are the most open, accepting, and tolerant society out there. just ask them!

 cuda1179 wrote:
Honestly, it's a bit controversial. While I would like other cultures to preserve their traditions there is some benefit to forced assimilation. Lower crime rates being one of them. The US is a unique, wonderful mess. Our variation and diversity is wonderful on many levels, but it has also been shown to be a cause of conflict. Many Europeans that immigrated 150 years ago weren't really seen as "white", even though today we couldn't point out the difference. Much of that came from forced learning of English. Once a common language is shared, a common respect can build.

Cultural assimilation happens because the native society has an awesome culture that people want to be a part of. It is a culture that not only lets anyone join, it also lets them bring the parts of their culture that are awesome with them. The change might be too great for many first generation immigrants, but their kids will assimilate, and their grandkids will be all but assimilated.

This process isn't helped by adding borders, such as putting a language barrier between people and basic government services.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
I've never seen a particular problem with the idea that if you're moving to another country whose parent language isn't your own, that you should have lessons in said language and a test as part of immigration to make sure you can speak it to a passable degree. It doesn't have to be perfect, but you should be able to communicate with the local population. I would have thought this shows some respect to the country you're moving too.

I have no problem with the idea of saying people 'should' learn the language of the society they are moving in to. I think this is true of Chinese people moving to America and to English people moving to Spain.

The problem comes when you start talking about government policy that requires people to learn a language, or be unable to access basic services without a certain fluency in a language.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.

Who in the holy feth said America was the racist one about this? Who even used 'racist', other than you?

This is actually an issue where America should be commended. That one or two posters want to roll that back doesn't make America racist, it's still one of the best examples of multi-cultural immigration there is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We can’t sit back and let Russia “own” anything of strategic importance in the ME. Neither the US nor Russia seem to really want to make a go of more casual relations.

What? The US didn't give two gaks about Russia's relationship with Assad, until Assad's response to civil unrest was to start torturing and murdering his own citizens, to the tune of about 250,000 before open fighting began. Then the US got involved.

Seriously, there are no white hats in international politics, but sometimes there are hats which are some white and some black, and some other hats that are totally black.

Pretty much, because of how we postured after WW2, Russian interests are direct threats to US hegemonic interests. Revamping that dynamic means someone's economy is taking a blow somewhere, and neither of us are willing to take that blow just so we can all get along.

The Russian economy is very small time. It's behind Canada, Brazil, Italy, South Korea. It's half the size of India's economy. There's a rounding error between it and the Australian economy. The Russian economy has gone in to meltdown, and the rest of the world didn't even notice. It could suddenly stop sucking tomorrow, and people still wouldn't notice.

The reason Russia is noticeable is because it funds a fairly large army, backs that army up with a large nuclear weapons capability, and undertakes aggressive foreign policy, including breaking international law.

There's about two dozen countries that could be as disruptive as Russia, and most of them are much bigger and would be capable of being much more disruptive to international conditions. They don't because they're not run by kleptocrats with nostaglic memories of empire.

This isn't to say Russia should be ignored or mocked, it is to get rid of the false equivalency between the US, a major power focused on the status quo, and Russia, a minor power with no regard for status quo stability.

To be fair to DJones I totally insinuated that it was racist, not because I think having a national language is racist, but because the only reason people in the US want one is because some racists want to keep all the non-whites out and have successfully managed to get a whole gaggle of non-racists on board with the idea.

So yeah I'll own that one

 LordofHats wrote:
I think it is also true that blue collar workers have been effectively trained to be in perennial fear that their jobs will be taken by foreigners, whether they be Chinese, Mexican, or Indian either in the US or abroad.

No, that's not true.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think it is also true that blue collar workers have been effectively trained to be in perennial fear that their jobs will be taken by foreigners, whether they be Chinese, Mexican, or Indian either in the US or abroad.

No, that's not true.

Then I guess the AFL-CIO was opposing the TPP just to troll.

So Trump has announced the four people to head the transition team for Treasury. There's William Walton, who's come from private equity, and who's experience with government is in working for a think tank that lobbies for intelligent design (so it is both irrelevant to economics, and utterly stupid). There's Curtis Dubay, a crank from Heritage who's entire body of work involves writing pieces that say 'taxes are bad for whatever reason you're paying me to say'. Then there's Judy Sheldon, a goldbug. Lastly there's Mauricio Claver-Carone, who works for lobby groups on trade relations with Cuba.

So of the four people picked to staff Treasury, only two have any economics training at all. And those two have no work experience doing any kind of economic work either forecasting or analysing policy in government. The only one who's worked in Treasury worked there as a lawyer.

Holy fething gak how can anyone be so partisan that they would defend this nonsense?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When reflecting on Castro's legacy, let's not paint the man as a saint (he wasn't ) but let's remember the forces of history that 'made' him:

If Castro's only atrocities stopped as soon as he took power, you'd have a point. Revolutions can be nasty, so we'll look past that. But the problem is that as soon as he took power, Castro carried on being a totalitarian fuckstick. More than 3,000 people were killed by firing squad under Castro's rule, convicted by show trials or not even convicted at all, just shot. He also had extra-judicial death squads that rounded up and killed another 1,000 odd enemies of the revolution.

In the wake of revolution, to consolidate his power, Castro put in place forced labour camps for anyone he considered a threat to his revolution. This wasn't limited to former enemies, but also former allies, typically more moderate socialists who could potentially become an alternate option to Castro. In time Castro also used these camps to imprison homosexuals, people who maintained their religious faith, or people who refused to be part of the massive collectivisation changes being forced on to society.

And all this conversation we're having about Castro... something that was never possible in Cuba. That country has been consistently ranked last or second last for journalistic freedom by Journalists Without Borders for decades. They didn't just shut down dissenting media, they imprisoned the people who challenged government, and even disappeared a few. Seriously name a shithole country anywhere in the world, and then think about what it means to have even worse journalistic freedom than that place offers, because that's what Cuba has had under Castro.

To sum up, nuance and balance are needed when reflecting and analyzing the life of any historical figure...

There's no nuance in your idea, that basically boils down to 'tough time, tough man'. The nuanced position is 'difficult economic and social conditions can produce a drive for massive social change, and sometimes that social change can be understandable and even an overall positive, while the people who ride those social forces can be murderous dicks'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:
No, I mean that in real life there are probably only like 7 human-like civilizations in the galaxy, and the Federation's territory is only large enough that they'd've only come across about 1-2 non-human civilizations.

You're making assumptions about the likelihood of sentient life in the galaxy, and then complaining about a show that made different assumptions. I mean, there's a whole bunch of nonsense science and world building in Star Trek, why pick on the one bit that's actually open for reasonable speculation?

And on top of that, remember that Star Trek isn't assuming random life creation on each planet. They actually found evidence of a founder species that seeded life across the galaxy. This would explain the number of sentient species, and also why so many of them look like humans with bits stuck on their heads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
It may have been because Karl Marx himself said that Socialism logically leads to communism. Did nobody read the actual texts that Marx and Weber put out?

And Adam Smith was unable to establish a model for trade between two countries with different standards of productivity. When such a model was developed, we didn't insist capitalists continue holding to Smith's original confusion.

Similarly, it is inane to insist socialism must conform to Marx' original line of argument. The inevitability assumed by Historical Materialism has been rejected by almost all socialist organisations. And there were plenty of strains of socialist thought before and after Marx that don't believe in violent revolution, or in a move towards an eventual utopia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, he had two years as and Illinois senator before throwing his name into a Presidential Election. So yeah, he did have a very tiny bit of experience. On the other hand Trump has massively more experience in running a business, and arguably more foreign experience.

Ah, I see, we're including 'running a business' in experience towards being a president. So you're happy to include experience in not being in government as valuable experience in being in government. That pretty much means any and all experience counts. I mean, if Trump building a golf course counts, why shouldn't GW Bush's time as a cheerleader count? So then if any and all experience counts, then it comes down to who has existed the longest before becoming president And points to you there, Trump has definitely existed longer than Obama. Great argument, well done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Um....no, just no to this on so many levels. The number one producer of CO2 in the world is volcanic eruptions. The amount of CO2 man makes is less than the average yearly variation ( + OR - 5%) in CO2 output from volcanic eruptions.

This is utter tosh, and it's tosh that gets repeated in every bloody climate change thread, and disproven in every climate change thread. Emissions from volcanoes account for about 5% of the emissions from man.

Here's fething NASA on the subject.
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/984/

Now please never make that argument again, and more than that, realise that the people feeding you arguments like that are either lying or ignorant of the science on this subject, and either way you should stop listening to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
On the other hand we have bicycle repairmen inventing the airplane.

There is quite a difference between managing a working prototype, and taking control of the government of the most powerful country in the world.

That being said, I do like his plans for limiting lobbyists. I like his idea for making concealed carry permits nationally recognized.

And this is a large part of the reason your country suddenly found itself where it is today. I don't want to be rude, but look at that trivial nonsense. A pie in the sky thought bubble about lobbyists, and something to make CCL a bit easier. These are fething nonsense points. They shouldn't make the footnotes of the policy dump section of a candidate's website, let alone be things people actually talk about in terms of their whole campaign strategy.

Really, there's a chronic disconnect between what actually matters in governing a country, and what US elections focus on. This disconnect has gotten severe enough that a total nonce like Trump can come in, bluster around with big statements about partisan but largely irrelevant issues, and it isn't obvious to the electorate how little value his bizarre policy focus offers the country.

And this is part of the argument. Man is definitely contributing to Climate Change, but exactly how much is man and how much is naturally occurring?

The issue is that's the argument on sites like this, where amateurs wade in with little knowledge of the scientific research tells us are still happy to hold strong opinions on the subject. Among climate scientists, there is no debate about the extent that climate change is caused by humans, that's long settled.

 Just Tony wrote:
There are scientists denying climate change

The presence of engineers and geologists who dispute climate change is as meaningful as a historian who disputes quantum physics.

scientists claiming cyclical patters to climate change (ie. prep for another ice age sometime in the future),

What? Cyclical heating and cooling patterns aren't some fringe thing, they're a core part of climate science.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The often quoted "consensus" really isn't though. We often hear about that study of thousands of scientists that agree.......Except that only a small portion of them are actually scientists, many of them only partially agree, many of them agree only if you cherry pick their quotes, some have been discredited, and others have been entirely misquoted and have sued to have it cleared up.

Or there's the often misquoted "97% of scientists agree" statement. It really means, 97% of papers we read, which we cherry picked, many of which are actually written by the same people, vaguely agree with it.

You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, you're confusing your talking points. The 97% refers to a questionnaire sent out that found majority support for climate change among scientists, and a 97% support among climate scientists. The criticism of that initial questionnaire was that response was optional.

You've confused that with criticism of some IPCC releases, that included quotes that were disputed from some people. These were mostly technical disputes which in no way threatened the eventual conclusions of the report. You added about three layers of embellishment over the top to make it seem like something meaningful, though.

But to get back to that 97% figure, what most people don't realise is that since that original questionnaire, there's been a lot of follow up work that contact people directly, or reviewed papers on the subject, or looked for the position of major research bodies like NASA. All those studies found results very much like that original 97% conclusion - this is accepted science within the field, the debate now is the speed of the change, on exactly how that change will play out, and exactly how various human responses might change what is happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Meanwhile, Trump reacted and says they must respect the election. Funny that he was the one saying the election was rigged even before people went to vote. But I guess nobody remembers that in America now, it's been far too long for their short term memory. It seems like that's what your President-elect wants to believe.

Trump is still claiming the election was rigged, and that he would have won the popular vote except that there were millions of illegal votes for Clinton. He claims this with zero evidence, it's just something his ego wants to believe, and in Trump world it becomes true.

This is the muppet that is about to be sworn in to the Whitehouse, and still the greater conservative base doesn't realise what they've done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Of equal irony is the Clinton group that rolled their eyes at conspiracy accusation are now on board with voter fraud accusations.

Alleging voter fraud without evidence is nothing at all like asking for a recount of a close state. You should know this, but you don't because it would make it harder to make your little political argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Jill Stein is scamming everyone she can for as much money as she can get. At least it's liberal true believers throwing away their money instead of the general public. But that only shows Stein's scheme is nothing more than a secular televangelist fundraising operation.

Uh, liberals are part of the general population. Just like conservative true believers are. And, yeah it is bad for the people getting played for suckers when a populist liar like Stein works the system for donations, and more than that it is bad for democracy. This is the thing when the populist liar is Ben Carson, Ron Paul or Sarah Palin.

Really, America collectively needs to stop tolerating awful policy nonsense from manipulators.

Otherwise over time these lying scammers will lower the political discourse to a level where they actually get taken seriously. One of them might even end up actually winning. I mean, I know that sounds pretty farcical, but when 2016 began one of the lying scammers was Donald Trump, and there were times it looked like he almost might even be a major imagine candidate. Just imagined how fethed we'd be if that grifter ended up in the Whitehouse.

Liberals need to start looking at Stein when wondering how Hillary could have lost the electoral count. Stein isn't totally at fault but she deserves more than a little bit of blame.

Stein's vote counts were pretty crappy, especially in the swing states. Clinton's failure to win came from failing to get her base of supporters out in the states where it matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
To be fair to DJones I totally insinuated that it was racist, not because I think having a national language is racist, but because the only reason people in the US want one is because some racists want to keep all the non-whites out and have successfully managed to get a whole gaggle of non-racists on board with the idea.

So yeah I'll own that one

Yeah, and as I read through the thread allegations of race came up more and more through the thread. I'm happy to accept there was a race allegation component to what the argument against english as an official language.

Still, I think my point that the US should be proud of having a more inclusive immigration policy, and see things like having no official language as part of that. I mean, who would see immigration in a place like France and think they want more of that in their own country?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
This is true.

I think it is also true that blue collar workers have been effectively trained to be in perennial fear that their jobs will be taken by foreigners, whether they be Chinese, Mexican, or Indian either in the US or abroad.

To be fair, blue collar work in a lot of industries has been lost overseas. Where jobs weren't lost, wages have been stagnant. While the economy as a whole has gained from trade, these blue collar workers weren't necessarily in a position to take on a position in the new jobs created in finance etc.

 sebster wrote:

Holy fething gak how can anyone be so partisan that they would defend this nonsense?

One who believes everything should be put in the hands of private corporations, I think. Also, if you're convinced the previous government was indeed evil and corrupted, you would welcome the change of heads anywhere. For some people, experience is irrelevant - people can adapt and learn themselves, after all. In fact, someone who is experienced can be seen as part of the "old system" and then a possible suspect/enemy/traitor/whatever you want as insult. I read an article about the American middle class admiring the rich and despising the professionnal. Maybe the simplest answers are the best, after all.

And anything can be justified by Breibart News or the Right Wingers medias. Just read Whembly, Frazzled and the like-minded others on this topic. You have your answer for four years.

We're living more and more in bubbles. That's the really scary thing.

Well apparently Californian independence is a thing but it would seem that they have taken a leaf from Hollywood's book and indulged in a spot of blatant plagarism.

So, this would normally be tinfoil hat territory but given what Stein and Clinton are doing with the recounts, could there be some merit?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html

Richard Baehr wrote:The Democrats’ real strategy in launching recounts

The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

Interesting theory but, assuming everything is as he suggests, would it work? Would Trump and the Republicans be so tarnished the Democrats would recoup much of their losses in two years time? Or would the scheme backfire and the Democrats be tared and feathered and lose even more in '18?

I actually question whether or not the House/Senate would put Trump up. but I do find it very very unlikely.

Further, painting this as a ploy by the Democrats is silly. This is the Green Party pushing for recounts, and that's likely for the sole purpose of publicity.

 Sarouan wrote:
One who believes everything should be put in the hands of private corporations, I think. Also, if you're convinced the previous government was indeed evil and corrupted, you would welcome the change of heads anywhere. For some people, experience is irrelevant - people can adapt themselves, after all. In fact, someone who is experienced can be seen as part of the "old system" and then a possible suspect/enemy/traitor/whatever you want call him.

Its pretty run of the mill to believe that a government agency's management is corrupt, incompetent or both. There's enough detail and complexity in even the smallest of govt departments that opposition can always find something to attack an agency on. And sometimes government agencies are terribly run, so the claims aren't too hard to believe, even when they're wrong.

The issue here is that the new management is an intelligent designer, a goldbug, an anti-tax crank, and a lobbyist/lawyer. He picked three straight up crazy people, and no-one with any economics experience for government. There is nothing normal about this.

Surely there's a point where Republicans will stop putting the tribe ahead of reality, and call this nonsense for what it is. Treasury appointments are probably too minor an issue to deliver that moment when Republicans call an end to this bs, but this was such a clearly hopeless selection of appointments that it needed to be raised.

I read an article about the American middle class admiring the rich and despising the professionnal. Maybe the simplest answers are the best, after all.

Yeah, that article was linked to here on dakka. It was a good piece.

We're living more and more in bubbles. That's the really scary thing.

The scary thing is we're choosing to live in those bubbles. Perhaps scarier still is that when people get presented with the reality outside their bubble, they rarely decide that living in a bubble that feeds them bs is a bad idea... instead they just decide to venture out in to reality a little less often.