|
Trabisnikof posted:Other than your anger about my use of Obama as a metonymy, what was contorted about what I said exactly? I wan't angry and I honestly considered tongue-in-cheek sarcasm was possible. There was no order issued by Obama. The catchphrase of "Obama order" is just a go to phrase for conservative talking heads to identify some alleged violation of our constitutional rights by a rouge dictator black president. That wasn't what happened here. edit: but that's not going to stop conservatives from saying that's what happened and that the Supreme Court had to save us from Obama. radical meme fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Aug 4, 2016 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
zoux posted:Aw did we mis-signal our virtue again, oops. What? Did I somehow enter a bizarro universe where the only two sides are libertarians and the alt-right, and I must choose a side? I'm gonna disclaim here that I'm a Hillary supporter with far-left ideals but incrementalist, in case it helps. My post before is genuine confusion, not some sort of concern trolling -- I actually just don't know anything about TPP and the rhetoric around it doesn't fit into my preconceptions about politics, so I'm looking for clarification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:no, we shouldn't do that, we should demand that big businesses give their money to poor people. this would make trade, an inevitable part of the 21st century economy, into a completely good thing the fact that many voters think limiting trade is more possible than expanding the social safety net, or institution something like UBI, should tell you something about how possible what you're saying is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:No application necessary. All you have to do is assign imaginary motives, and even statements, to posters who say anything contrary to what's acceptable in mainstream political discourse. Remember, all trade agreements are good, trickle down will work, and we don't need to protect American jobs, at all, because we'll be getting UBI any day now. Just a reminder, we have no way to pay for a UBI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
poor life choice posted:I tuned in just long enough to confirm he's still talking about Obama paying Iran a 400k ( I thought it was 400 million) ransom in small unmarked bills from multiple countries. Well, he moved on from that to reading off a list of immigrants from various countries who were arrested for terrorist stuff. Or rather, he was until the word 'Yemen' somehow lead back into a tangent on Iran again and on talking about how he was against going into Iraq and how he's almost always right. Edit: Now he's talking about Hillary's 33,000 emails as though they were physically stolen. I guess by Trump standards he's still staying relatively on-point and aiming at Hillary instead of Obama. Though he still can't seem to decide between demeaning Bernie Sanders or talking about how good he is. Seeric fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
St. John Coltrane posted:Trump coming up in Portland, Maine live: Tuned in to confirm that Trump boils down every national and foreign issue to "Making Deals" and "Solving Problems".
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:no, we shouldn't do that, we should demand that big businesses give their money to poor people. this would make trade, an inevitable part of the 21st century economy, into a completely good thing Okay, but it is politically infeasible to do so because of the broken nature of our political system. If TPP is only good when we are able to refocus some of that wealth into providing for the negatively affected, what is it when we are unable to do so? The opposite of good? Is there a word for that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:the fact that many voters think limiting trade is more possible than expanding the social safety net, or institution something like UBI, should tell you something about how possible what you're saying is. what i'm saying is that they're wrong that limiting trade is more possible than expanding the social safety net, and it's the other way around
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
because we're all loving nerds here https://twitter.com/jwoodham/status/760903088605499392
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:What? Did I somehow enter a bizarro universe where the only two sides are libertarians and the alt-right, and I must choose a side? I'm gonna disclaim here that I'm a Hillary supporter with far-left ideals but incrementalist, in case it helps. My post before is genuine confusion, not some sort of concern trolling -- I actually just don't know anything about TPP and the rhetoric around it doesn't fit into my preconceptions about politics, so I'm looking for clarification. Trump supporters - neo-nazis, alt-right folks, etc. - are going around putting parens around names and yelling about globalism so posters ITT have to come out hard for unmitigated free trade and globalism in order to signal what side they're on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/connergrant5/status/761283832322596864 Not a good look, GOP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:what i'm saying is that they're wrong that limiting trade is more possible than expanding the social safety net, and it's the other way around they're absolutely wrong, but here we are
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Okay, but it is politically infeasible to do so because of the broken nature of our political system. If TPP is only good when we are able to refocus some of that wealth into providing for the negatively affected, what is it when we are unable to do so? The opposite of good? Is there a word for that? we have 2 options if we want to protect the incomes of poor people: 1. stop TPP 2. implement a social safety net 2 is way more politically feasible than 1, and it's economically better, I don't know why people think otherwise
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
I am angry hat man cautiously trying to steal a constitution
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:what i'm saying is that they're wrong that limiting trade is more possible than expanding the social safety net, and it's the other way around haha okay buddy you heard it here first, folks increasing taxes and providing social safety nets in the united states of america is easy
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Okay, but it is politically infeasible to do so because of the broken nature of our political system. If TPP is only good when we are able to refocus some of that wealth into providing for the negatively affected, what is it when we are unable to do so? The opposite of good? Is there a word for that? TPP is mostly about containing China. Maybe that helps Americans and maybe it doesn't. Helping most Americans isn't at the forefront of anyone's mind who is negotiating the TPP, though. If you own stock or have a pension fund that does then maybe you benefit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:I don't know anything about what you are talking about, but you aren't saying the right liberal sounding words. Like, my mistake for wandering into a thread argument where people have already staked out their sides and all, but I'm being genuine here. I wasn't rushing in to side with Noam Chomsky using sarcasm, I was confused and stating my confusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:haha okay buddy We are seeing a generational shift coming so this may not be as implausible as you think
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:haha okay buddy it's not easy, but it's easier than implementing protectionism
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
According to Trump, had Bernie gone in hard on the E-mails, he would have won the primary. Source: just said it
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:TPP is mostly about containing China. Maybe that helps Americans and maybe it doesn't. Helping most Americans isn't at the forefront of anyone's mind who is negotiating the TPP, though. If you own stock or have a pension fund that does then maybe you benefit. See, this is why people are finding you frustrating. You try to retreat back into this when you are challenged Noam Chomsky posted:My only original point was that I don't blame people for souring on it after a lot of manufacturing jobs have been lost to offshoring and even if NAFTA was not the direct cause of that, the two are linked in many people's minds. when you are clearly trying to argue TPP is a bad thing objectively for American workers and not just a victim of a bad reputation
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Like, my mistake for wandering into a thread argument where people have already staked out their sides and all, but I'm being genuine here. I wasn't rushing in to side with Noam Chomsky using sarcasm, I was confused and stating my confusion. I'm just as confused as you are, especially as to why Zoux comes out so hard at anything I say. I guess he needs a forums enemy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:We are seeing a generational shift coming so this may not be as implausible as you think I definitely see it happening in the future but the fact of the matter is right now we still have a red house. With Clinton we get a liberal Supreme Court, great. We can potentially end Gerrymandered districts and rehear a campaign finance reform case that will overrule Citizens United. But passing new additional restrictions is going to require a friendly house and that's not going to happen for a while. You screw over the little guy now with a vague promise that things will get better in the future. That's a good way to piss off the young voter base you're trying to build.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:TPP is mostly about containing China. Maybe that helps Americans and maybe it doesn't. Helping most Americans isn't at the forefront of anyone's mind who is negotiating the TPP, though. If you own stock or have a pension fund that does then maybe you benefit. You keep saying this stuff, yet you have no evidence or statistics to back it up. Did you read what I posted on comparative advantage? Do you have any kind of argument to back this up that relies on facts instead of conjecture or saying scary boogyman words?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:we have 2 options if we want to protect the incomes of poor people: We already have social safety nets. They don't seem to be working well. Also the TPP doesn't hurt poor people 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I'm just as confused as you are, especially as to why Zoux comes out so hard at anything I say. I guess he needs a forums enemy. The gently caress are you talking about man, I don't even know who you are
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:lol i'm not the one hammering on one poster because he dared to say that he can see why free trade is not popular with many americans it was that and your anti-corporate conspiracy theories, and then the immediate hissy fit you threw when challenged which lead to the dogpile son i mean while you're at it you might as well drill down into why unemployment benefits is not popular with many americans
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:I definitely see it happening in 20 years or so, with Clinton we get a liberal SC. We can potentially end Gerrymandered districts and rehear a campaign finance reform case that will overrule Citizens United. But passing new additional restrictions is going to require a friendly house and that's not going to happen for a while. So we pass TPP now and the poor get shafted for 20 years? That seems like a good way to piss off the people that you expect to be voting for you for a long time. Unfortunately the only way a greater social net is created is when the average person is no longer able to convince themselves that they won't need it. As long as "the poor" are somebody else, America will always vote against social services. Its not an accident our greatest socialist policies came during the Great Depression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I'm just as confused as you are, especially as to why Zoux comes out so hard at anything I say. I guess he needs a forums enemy. zoux is like batman, he's nothing without his gallery of rogue enemies I'm Azrael
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:Like, my mistake for wandering into a thread argument where people have already staked out their sides and all, but I'm being genuine here. I wasn't rushing in to side with Noam Chomsky using sarcasm, I was confused and stating my confusion. TPP as written is mediocre with bad provisions but free trade is literally an unstoppable Pandora's box and the negative side effects of it are able to be mitigated by things like labor laws and environmental regulation. Some leftists think protectionism and anti-free trade are better bets than those things, and they will be sad when they realize they're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:So we pass TPP now and the poor get shafted for 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:TPP as written is mediocre with bad provisions but free trade is literally an unstoppable Pandora's box and the negative side effects of it are able to be mitigated by things like labor laws and environmental regulation. Some leftists think protectionism and anti-free trade are better bets than those things, and they will be sad when they realize they're wrong. this is well-said and correct
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:See, this is why people are finding you frustrating. You try to retreat back into this when you are challenged So, I've mainly posted two things: 1. NAFTA led to a lot of manufacturing jobs to be lost. 2. I don't blame Americans for being against the TPP when NAFTA left a sour taste in their mouths. These are not novel views and there's been a lot written and said to this effect. I don't understand why views beyond that are being attributed to me but it's probably because a handful of posters, always the same posters, love to dogpile me for not being moderate enough I guess. I never once said free-trade is bad. Just that I understand why someone would think so if it led, or they believe it led, to the loss of their job. Offshoring has led to a lot of job loss where I'm from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
it's also fully sick that a guy with the forums name noam chomsky writes conspiratorial posts about the united states' elite with no proof or concept of nuance
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:lol i'm not the one hammering on one poster because he dared to say that he can see why free trade is not popular with many americans Have you considered actually backing up your points with facts instead of pretending that what you feel about something makes it true, then getting hyper-defensive when people correct you? Like I'm all for debating this but I need to see more than "Corporations Bad" Yinlock fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Also funny that I was boxed into being anti-free-trade by the usual suspects, because I said I don't blame Americans for being anti-TPP because NAFTA may have left a sour taste in their mouths. I agree with you and thought it was a good point - just irrelevant to the policy itself. It's also the answer to your earlier NAFTA/lobbying question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:TPP as written is mediocre with bad provisions but free trade is literally an unstoppable Pandora's box and the negative side effects of it are able to be mitigated by things like labor laws and environmental regulation. Some leftists think protectionism and anti-free trade are better bets than those things, and they will be sad when they realize they're wrong. Yeah, you can pass environmental regulations and labor laws! In the United States! With a Republican House!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:it's not easy, but it's easier than implementing protectionism It's far more likely to work than closing your eyes, covering your ears, and shouting "The Socialist Revolution Will Fix Everything" until the system magically gets better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Amergin posted:We already have social safety nets. They don't seem to be working well. the social safety nets we have work well, we just need way more of them and outsourcing (which the TPP facilitates) necessarily hurts people in the outsourced jobs unless there's a redistribution to help those people
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 01:24 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:So, I've mainly posted two things: 1) you cannot substantiate this to any meaningful degree and instead rely on an appeal to common sense, which is where you start parting ways with people who fundamentally agree with you because your argumentation is bad 2) appealing to what americans are against is where we end up with muslim immigrant bans. this is why we look at facts in policy and not feelings. the american job market is actually doing well and if you have to invoke a theoretical Joe Coalminer and put words in his mouth to make your argument work then your argumentation is bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 21:05
|
|