Jump to content

Buglamp

Member Since 25 Mar 2008
Online Last Active Today, 05:47 AM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Brexit lol

Today, 03:35 AM

Quote

  • WRT Donald Trump, his excuse is that "I got along with everybody".
  • I reckon it might have been the cost of business.

I feel like these excuses could be used for HRC as well. Politicians have their own forms of greasing palms and doing favors for political currency.

Quote


The information necessary to make an informed choice is out there for the public, made available from credible sources.

If it's as damning as you suggest, why haven't Republicans been able to use it against her successfully? Do you believe their public display of opposition to Clinton is fake? Are they just incompetent? Too busy worrying about Trump?

Also, we don't have that much info, and much of it isn't trustworthy. There's a spectrum of informed but it's not like Trump has a political record to scrutinize - and his business record doesn't seem to be entirely clean.

Lastly, the idea that he defeated primary candidates by superior argumentation is iffy. I think he got by more by style than substance, partially because the republican party had poor options. Rubio did his robot repetition thing, Jeb Bush is a pushover, Cruz is just dislikeable and creepy, Kasich is just too dull. Trump came on stage with more energy and a style of debate that made him both stand out, and made them all look too much like cardboard cut-outs rehashing tired rhetoric. Trumps actual words and arguments though, were in very little detail and not particularly compelling in the primary debates.

The GOP also has a more visible... organization system? than the democrats currently. Trump may've brought it into better focus, but it was there to see for people looking closely for awhile now. Democrats there's at least more illusion that they allow more dissent and compromise amongst their own party. Maybe they're just better managed but I don't see the same degree of corruption and towing of the party line.

Quote

Donald Trump has sacrificed his time, his reputation, many multi-million dollar TV contracts, his business thanks to boycotts, his safety (several attempts have been made on his life already), etc.

It is interesting that he switched so suddenly into politics, but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be bad for his business and reputation in the long run. He already had a somewhat negative reputation coming into it. And it's still publicity. But none of this means he necessarily has the competence to be president, or good intentions. Obama, who I'm assuming you're not a fan of, was obviously taking risks to run as well. It was a really ugly campaign year.

Quote


Electing a criminal for president would be the death knell of representative democracy in America, and it would follow with the death of American prosperity, too.

We've arguably already elected multiple criminals.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Yesterday, 08:55 PM

View PostFTRouslan, on 01 July 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:


When we freely give away our industries to East Asia, what jobs will be left? Government jobs? Trade jobs? Lawyers? Doctors? Retail and fast food? We're going to be see structural unemployment hitting 10%... 20%. And it won't be pretty. It certainly isn't sustainable. And the only people profiting are the CEOs, politicians, foreign leaders, and investment bankers responsible for the current economic paradigm.


What does give away really mean here? Not giving them comparable incentives here, not fighting against them creating incentives there, not giving them better tax rates?


Quote

1. Marc Rich.

2. Uranium Deal

3. Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation.

4. Wall Street speech transcripts.

5. Lies about Benghazi.

6. AP-confirmed lies about her compromised email server.

etc. not a limited list

I'd encourage you do to the research about these issues yourself. They are so toxic that I rarely see any of these facts mentioned in any Hillary Clinton apologia. The first three are never even mentioned.

How often do we see entirely clean candidates, and do these things really mean HRC has no plan to serve the interests of the public? AFAICT most politicians have had to take money and do some sketchy things to be viable. HRC doesn't seem exceptionally corrupt to me relatively. We know both Bill and Hillary made what they saw as politically pragmatic choices they didn't agree with ideologically and they've both admitted this occasionally.

Quote


Totally in it for power. Her positions are entirely calculated on the winds of public opinion. Her policies have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, with the displacement of millions more. She is currently running for her life, because if she fails to get elected, she could very easily end up in prison, if President Obama does not pardon her.

Where Hillary Clinton intervened in Libya on the advice of a man with 1) totally false information and 2) financial interests in the venture:

She seems to've wanted the presidency for awhile, I find it hard to believe she's running for her life. Acting on bad intel from someone with financial interests ... seems like a common thing in politics across the globe, aside from less militarily active first world countries perhaps.


Quote

It's happening. And when H1B visa abuse continues unabated, we will also see our last comparative advantages siphoned to developing countries, so they can permanently outcompete us.

What are our comparative advantages?

Quote

The only lost cause is expecting Hillary Clinton to do anything about the problem, when the people funding her, which include previous GOP donors, profit thanks to these government-created conditions.

Hasn't "the people funding her" included Donald Trump at times as well?

In Topic: Brexit lol

Yesterday, 09:23 AM

View PostFTRouslan, on 01 July 2016 - 03:39 AM, said:


There's no such thing as "others embracing it". Nobody is embracing it knowingly. Those who know don't embrace it willingly. Brexit is a sign that the average person is waking up.

You can't solve the economic inequalities created by the neoliberal system, since it is entirely designed to shift burdens away from the corporations and onto the American taxpayer. The first major notch was when corporations eliminated one major cost of business by taking advantage of incentives offered by the PROC to reduce production costs, killing American jobs, which once paid good wages. Obamacare was the second major notch in this plan as millions of healthcare plans were discarded while full-time jobs became part-time jobs, dropping wages even further, thanks to the incentives placed in the ACA. Hillary Clinton seeks to expand Obamacare, even offering it to illegal immigrants, who will come in droves once President Obama stops paying the Mexican government to patrol their southern border. Are you still seeing the patterns yet?

When all of the good, productive jobs move overseas, only to be replaced by minimum-wage distribution and service jobs, like fast food and big box mart jobs, you cannot raise minimum wage laws to a livable standard without bankrupting the businesses. Welfare will become increasingly essential to the survival of the average American family, paid for on the backs of the shrinking middle class under an increasingly unstable economic model. And then one day... it will all collapse. The vulture capitalists will seek refuge in the next up-and-coming global power, whose control they bought, while the American people are left with the smoldering ruins of their own country.

Either you become complicit in the largest extraction of capital in world history, or you take a stand against it. It can be done when the people take back the government, so it can represent the interests of the American people. The honest politicians will be free from the shackles of donors, while the corrupt politicians will stand trial. It can be done if you help it happen.

Obamacare's problem is that it's not single payer healthcare, it's some abomination of compromises because single payer and (bad kind of)socialism are too linked in the public's mind at the moment. There are plenty of governments right now doing well with welfare systems.

Also your issue with minimum wage seems to mostly be that it sucks after the supposed damage that will be done is done, when we're stuck with only shitty jobs anyway, or am I missing something?

Taking back the government from corporate control and influence will require a lot more than getting Donald Trump in there and crossing your fingers. That's pretty much a hail Mary situation. It's more likely that it'll be slow and agonizing as it begins to become harder for people to willfully ignore.

HRC's degree of corruption is currently unknown, but so is Trump's temperament and competency to be an effective politician if elected - he appears easy to goad and manipulate in interviews particularly. I'm more interested in seeing what HRC will actually do once in the position. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe she's wholly corrupt and will go back on all related campaign promises. I don't understand what's in it for her though, if she does so.

I'm curious what you think HRC and Trump's motives are though. HRC doesn't strike me as in it solely for money or power. Is she simply misguided or is she malicious in your mind?


I also have trouble believing in the flakiness of corporations that provide good jobs. There are many important and US based large corporations that I don't see flocking to whatever country provides the most incentives in the short term. I think there's more "buffer" to this gradual collapse, basically.

Last but not least, attempting to maintain the kind of jobs and industries we have now/had in the past seems a lost cause to me. We may not need people to do the same kinds of jobs for long. Some of them are going to disappear in all countries regardless of how our foreign policy is managed.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Yesterday, 08:38 AM

Quote

Remember when Sarah Palin accurately predicted the consequences of the Obama administration's approach to Russia? What would happen when the "Russian reset" failed?

Probably not, especially since Sarah Palin was ridiculed for the suggestion, but this is an interesting read: http://spectator.org...-and-brightest/

Or how about when Hillary Clinton destabilized Syria in order to benefit Israel, as uncovered by Wikileaks, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions of people? Source: https://wikileaks.or...18328#efmADMAFf

Remember when Hillary Clinton toppled Muammar Gaddafi, plunging the country into chaos? Remember when she laughed about it? (We came, we saw, he died) Remember when State department sanctioned weapons fell into the hand of Islamic terrorists? Source: http://www.nytimes.c...mist-hands.html

Where is the competence here, exactly? Probably in lying to the American public, that's all.

Palin making an accurate prediction(granting she cast a somewhat wide net with multiple scenarios) is interesting and noteworthy I suppose. However, aside from this she fucked shit up badly throughout the whole campaign. That's not competence either. She basically allowed herself to become a stereotype to people. McCain's campaign probably wasn't going to win regardless but she hurt it much more than she helped. Being a competent politician involves being competent in multiple areas, but first you need the competence to secure a place of influence to bring your ideas to the table in the first place.

There's a bias both for and against a certain kind of fake intellectualism going on perhaps, but most politicians have some shtick to appeal to voters. The "I'm kind of an average joe" thing isn't any more honest. Trump... well I'm not sure how much is an act. Trump has issues with his persona though, his outwardly narcissistic mannerisms, gaudy style, and combative/defensiveness are hurting him with more people than they're helping him. You could argue that substance should be > style, but a politician needs style to succeed and Trump's isn't good.

Accusations of hubris are... well you have to have some degree of hubris to believe you/your ideas are good enough to run a country(especially the US) and worth the things you have to do to put yourself in such a position. A politician without some level of hubris doesn't go very far anymore - part of that is the media and the public's ignorance, but dealing with public ignorance while having to lie to them to get elected is just a conundrum of democracy at the moment.

I also have to point out that Trump isn't experienced either. So her prediction that Obama's inexperience would lead to this doesn't actually make a good argument for Trump over Clinton, since Clinton clearly has more foreign policy experience.



As for HRC, destabilizing.. it's only partly true because these weren't stable places to begin with. Assad and Gaddafi leaderships were low hanging fruit. Hands get forced in these situations. That she thought the US would look good in Syria after it all is troubling to me admittedly, but to sell the idea maybe she had to sugar coat it for people.


Bringing this back to Trump, I'd say first and foremost you need to be an effective politician to have a chance to use your competence. I don't think Trump is, even his ideas are good(which I don't believe overall). He doesn't sell his ideas well except to a small population of loud easily marginalized and mocked people(due to being loud, seemingly ignorant, angry, and even insane), and in doing so it's cost him credulity amongst the demographics he'd need to win along with political and financial support he'd need. That plus, he hasn't sold his ideas well to economists or various experts. Now maybe those economists and experts have a flawed perspective that arose from an environment of bad ideas, but you need to sell them something other than your true ideas in such a case.


Quote

If you don't think Donald Trump understands the problem, or knows how to combat government corruption, then take a look at this Congressional testimony from 2005, where Donald Trump accurately predicted that the UN building renovation would go overbudget by a billion dollars thanks to incompetency at nearly every level:

I don't consider this strong evidence. It's in his comfort zone since buildings are his thing. It's admirable that he'd intervene, and shows a side of Trump that's less grating than usual, but it's not proof that he knows how to combat government corruption. If he were president he'd be fighting it in areas he's less knowledgeable of, and from the inside, and doing so may also come with more difficulties than pointing out corruption as an outsider.

In Topic: Brexit lol

Yesterday, 03:24 AM

View PostFTRouslan, on 01 July 2016 - 02:59 AM, said:

What is unappealing about Donald Trump's solution?


Trump is the unappealing part of it TBQH. He's doesn't have the political strength or experience necessary, and is generally disliked on both sides. I understand that's part of being anti-establishment to a certain degree, but he's not managing it well and not making necessary allies.

Quote

Hillary Clinton helped to draft TPA/TPP, and the establishment donors funding her campaign are all for the trade deal. Remember, we're talking about the person who called TPP "the gold standard" of trade deals. If you think that her current stance, which is nothing but a cold, focus group driven calculation, is indicative of her current interests, then you're in for a giant disappointment.

It may be a focus group driven calculation, but her original stance may've as well for all we know. Part of being a politician is making compromises to maintain appeal to the public. I don't actually think her interest is to weaken america to enrich wealthy elites.

Quote

Want more evidence of neoliberal policies? Hillary Clinton's stance on illegal immigration is "gut border security, remove enforcement, create entitlement programs for incentives, create a path to citizenship, etc.", which is worse than simple open borders. It would result in a massive flow of people across the Southern border, which would push down wages even further.

How effective is our current border security? From what I've read it's a joke. Which I'd assume means illegal immigration from the south isn't going to suddenly flood in considering it's already somewhat trivial. A path to citizenship would clearly be a longer and more limited process to entering the country.

Quote

Remember when Sarah Palin accurately predicted the consequences of the Obama administration's approach to Russia? What would happen when the "Russian reset" failed?

Probably not, especially since Sarah Palin was ridiculed for the suggestion, but this is an interesting read: http://spectator.org...-and-brightest/

Or how about when Hillary Clinton destabilized Syria in order to benefit Israel, as uncovered by Wikileaks, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions of people? Source: https://wikileaks.or...18328#efmADMAFf

Remember when Hillary Clinton toppled Muammar Gaddafi, plunging the country into chaos? Remember when she laughed about it? (We came, we saw, he died) Remember when State department sanctioned weapons fell into the hand of Islamic terrorists? Source: http://www.nytimes.c...mist-hands.html

Where is the competence here, exactly? Probably in lying to the American public, that's all.

I'll have to spend some time going through this, but I'll admit to spending 0 time considering anything Palin has said seriously.

I also consider lying to the American public an important part of governing, however. Perhaps not to the degree that we do, but calling politicians liars just strikes me as idealistic nonsense since you basically have to be a liar to succeed in that position. I'm a bit Machiavellian in my views on this I guess.


Quote


I remember when the media tried to say, for the 200th time this election, that Donald Trump is finished. HE HAS NO MONEY! was the new reason du jour.

Just kidding, Donald Trump raised $11,000,000+ in less than 48 hours of calling for a fundraiser... from small donations: http://www.cnn.com/2...-since-tuesday/

Don't believe the pundits, Buglamp. They don't know anything. They've been wrong this entire election, and that's because they're bought and paid for. Pick your favorite commentator... chances are fucking Ann Coulter has been more correct this election cycle. And that's saying something.

It's hard to not consider the media considering it's my only link to the outside world beyond conversation. I'm obviously not personally observing government from an internal and privileged position. I could say you're picking your commentators with a bias as well.

Recently Trump is reported to've been soliciting contributions from foreign politicians, which isn't a good look either even it was a technical mistake of his campaign.


Quote

Minimum wage laws won't solve the problem, especially without border security. Increasing minimum wages in easy service jobs will only hasten automation, and it will do nothing to bring back jobs in the more complicated industries that never paid minimum wage to begin with.

Remember, illegal immigrants aren't beholden to minimum wage laws and illegal immigration pushes down equilibrium wages below minimum wage. If you want higher wages for US citizens, protect American businesses and industries.

The may not solve the problem, but I don't see them adding to it substantially. And automation is kind of inevitable and will likely reshape the future regardless of any attempt to fight it. I like welfare/socialist policies that stress that providing a decent standard of living/safety net for this very reason.

Quote

There is no need for "larger" government given that managing international trade falls under the President's authority under the limited framework provided under the Constitution, with a check by the Senate on approving treaties.

If you don't think Donald Trump understands the problem, or knows how to combat government corruption, then take a look at this Congressional testimony from 2005, where Donald Trump accurately predicted that the UN building renovation would go overbudget by a billion dollars thanks to incompetency at nearly every level:


I'll have a watch, but part of combating government corruption will demand a degree of cooperation from within the system. That's where I have little faith in Trump.



Quote


You don't have to "swim" against the current of globalization. As you can recall, the entire current was started and sustained by government policies, not by real economic conditions. All you have to do is change policy and leverage our remaining American resources. It has nothing to do with increased communication and technology. It has everything to do with artificial incentives that our government refuses to fight, despite the fact that it will impoverish American citizens, because it will be a bonanza for the multinational corporations and their investment bank lenders in the long-term.

I don't think we can go back, only manage what has been started regardless. I believe if we pull back from it while others embrace it, we're not going to do well. Which means it has to be a cooperative effort between multiple countries. This is getting vague and maybe semantic, I know, but I think you get the idea.

<