Do US Republicans want a failed state?

I decided to no longer mute/hide Cloud, Pat, FB, or Dawg because I enjoy telenovelas too much!

I don't think I'd shine in a telenovela. My Spanish isn't as good as it used to be.

What did i do to deserve this dishonor?

Don't pretend to be the innocent one here among a crowd of ogres. You know very well you're just as bad as the rest of us in this department.
 
A6374DF6-64B2-4C60-B415-EFD1AAA1DAA6.jpeg


Organizing my paper.
 

Printing yourself $14 trillion in 40 years means that, due to inflation and devaluation, they'll have less than 10% of the original currency value of the $14 trillion left at the end of the 40 years. And the "Non-Marxian Left," (which is another one of those highly inaccurate and stereotyped "lump terms," but for the sake of argument, I'll respond) are obsessed myopically with social issues, as a rule, so of course their command of economic influence is going to suffer and tank. Clinton's Presidency was a very mixed bag, and not all it's often touted as being, exactly, by both his proponents and his critics. In fact, he was a lot more Conservative and Hawkish in office, as a President, by far, than after retirement as a philanthropist, and many people forget this, especially his retrospective promoters.
 
Organizing my paper.

Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well. Looks pretty much exactly like mine, even with the ridiculous Pynchonesque titles.
 
Inflation in the past 40 years has been negligible. Prices have tripled since 1981. To put it another way:

In 1981 terms they voted themselves over $4 trillion.
In 2019 terms, it’s $13 trillion.

This is not trivial.
 
Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well. Looks pretty much exactly like mine, even with the ridiculous Pynchonesque titles.
Do you like how Krugman’s name alone is sufficient to designate a problem? :D
 
Inflation in the past 40 years has been negligible. Prices have tripled since 1981. To put it another way:

In 1981 terms they voted themselves over $4 trillion.
In 2019 terms, it’s $13 trillion.

This is not trivial.

But since fiat currency is highly subjective in value, and easily and rapidly falls due to investors, bankers, and stock brokers' whim, it'll end up for not when inevitably the Yuan eclipses the Dollar as the dominant global currency. Then the American Dollar will (at least in the immediate aftermath of such a huge blow to national and economic ego) suffer in a spiral akin to the Confederate Dollar, though will recover, but will never be quite the same.
 
But since fiat currency is highly subjective in value, and easily and rapidly falls due to investors, bankers, and stock brokers' whim, it'll end up for not when inevitably the Yuan eclipses the Dollar as the dominant global currency. Then the American Dollar will (at least in the immediate aftermath of such a huge blow to national and economic ego) suffer in a spiral akin to the Confederate Dollar, though will recover, but will never be quite the same.
Nice fan fiction.
 
I think my favorite part is how we’re discussing how kleptocrats, including some of your aforementioned “investors” and “bankers” (dunno how stock brokers make your list) printed themselves an average of $300 billion a year, with no big changes in domestic prices, and a stable forex rate that doesn’t even matter, and your concern is that

One day

The same kleptocrats

Will buy Yuan as the dollar fluctuates on the international market.


And somehow that nullifies the history and concern that kleptocrats are kleptocrats.
 
Nice fan fiction.

If I had presented the story of the First World War in the Victorian Era, it would have been called a work of, "dark and gritty science romance fiction." In other words, don't dismiss it off hand TOO fast...
 
I think my favorite part is how we’re discussing how kleptocrats, including some of your aforementioned “investors” and “bankers” (dunno how stock brokers make your list) printed themselves an average of $300 billion a year, with no big changes in domestic prices, and a stable forex rate that doesn’t even matter, and your concern is that

One day

The same kleptocrats

Will buy Yuan as the dollar fluctuates on the international market.


And somehow that nullifies the history and concern that kleptocrats are kleptocrats.

Greed and the need to steal and cheat from others is part of human nature. HOWEVER, the means and methods by which they do it, and the value of what is stolen and cheated, DRASTICALLY changes over history and by context. Those specifics are not constants or reliable elements, only the base greed and need to steal and cheat from others itself.
 
Ok which part of that changes what is historically true and relevant to the Republican Party today, as opposed to a general model you hold about open ended possibilities elsewhere?

Remember, you started this claiming I was tin-foil hatting this. Ironically...
 
I didn't say they were the core, just that they were among the abolitionists.
I'm genuinely curious. Given the large role a particularly militant form of Christianity and a desire to use government power to bring about moral reform played in the abolitionist movement, can you name a prominent abolitionist who would fit in comfortably with today's Libertarian Party and their aversion to government-backed moral reform and promotion?

And they won
The Civil Rights Movement achieved some notable successes thanks to federal legislation enforced by federal agents. Or did you forget that federal marshals were needed to escort children to school in Little Rock?

Jim Crow was about political power, thats what pointing guns at people is - power. If they couldn't point guns and terrorize people, segregation would die. Most people just aint racist, they wont buy from racists, they wont employ racists. Racism will wither, peacefully.
You are taking a remarkably blase stance on stripping people of their civil rights for a supposed libertarian.
 
A failed state would have a weak government. Private interests would be more free to pursue their goals, and the outcomes you get would be more dependent of your capabilities and the resources you have.

Isn't that what the US Republicans want? Is that what 'small state' right wingers want in general? Is the current US a good outcome for the Republicans?

Please tell me.
from what ive been able to discern. they want a limited government where might makes right and the productive self-reliant population are not enslaved against their will to provide for the unproductive and fragile. they do desire a collapse or re-alignment of left wing institutions, namely the media, academia, big tech, and government think-tanks.

The Republican party is controlled by rich people who for the most part just want more money. In the short-term this of course means less employee protections, less environment regulations, lower taxes for corporations, and so on.

It's a short-tern plan to get more money for those who donate to the party and so on. Those who vote Republican do so for other reasons.

Did I get this right, Americans? Republicans don't want a failed state, but they are driven by greed, so they aren't planning for the future of America. Instead they are planning for the short-term benefit of a a tiny subset of America who is already rich to begin with.
wrong. the poorly educated and white middle class largely voted for trump. their motivate was not greed. they have a different vision for society and the future and its more rugged, hard nosed, and requires the population to be accountable for themselves and self reliant.

hh
 
That undercuts the massive success of the Freedom Riders establishing a core moral foundation that led into things like some of the best voter registration drives in the south. On a certain level, every vote is naked force, but the Freedom Riders were more. I wouldn't cheapen what they did by shuffling the success off to Washington. They don't deserve the credit.
 
I didn't say there was no difference, first off. But the differences may mean different things and have very different priorities, to different people. The "Log Cabin," and African-American and Hispanic Republicans are a thing, not a myth. The Walton Family, despite exploiting non-unionized, often minority workers with ruthless abandon to make huge profits while they can barely keep body and soul together, have proudly been Democratic voters and endorsers (and Hillary Clinton sits on the Wal-Mart board of directors). I'm not saying they're both the same - but the differences are not nearly prioritized the same by different voters, even remotely. And, the concept of "holding people accountable for their vote," is a CHILLING pronunciation on the path to dystopian tyranny. The fact is, many voters have too make hard choices, because one party rarely meets all their needs and priorities, and there's only two, because they're thoroughly cheated and screwed by their system, so indeed priorities have to made and hard choices. But, you, and @Cloud_Strife have arbitrarily decided that one area of policy is HIGHER THAN ALL, and that everyone's priorities must hold that area highest, and that area alone is where they are judged completely as voters' to be held "accountable." Although they are VERY significant issues, such an arbitrary declaration that they must be the HIGHEST standard and judgement for everyone in the country is frankly - if unfortunately - unrealistic.
Coupla things, this thread seriously moved in the time I've been busy.

1. "holding people to account" as per this discussion. I have no way of enacting it in person, what would I even do? You were objecting to perceived stereotypes. In context, these generalised condemnations and perceived stereotypes are holding people to account. Sorry for the miscommunication.

2. It's not "policy" per se, it's basic human rights. I guess it's both, realistically. That said, I have every right to decide that this area is the defining factor in condemning people for their vote for an arguably horrendous party (out of two rubbish choices, sure). Is it unrealistic to expect everyone to share this opinion? Sure. But it's my opinion, and I have every right to have it. I'd be interested in understanding why you think it shouldn't be - however unfortunate you think it is. A lot of policy is inarguably important and life-changing (basic economic policies, for example, make or break livelihoods). But to me even this is less important that treating humans equally in the eyes of the law. I would've thought as a humanist, this wouldn't be the thing you have an issue about. I can't click my fingers and make it the most important issue in the world, but if we're comparing Republican voters and Democratic voters, I can absolutely use it as a basic measuring stick for decency.

(I have a lot of respect for humanism, we had a humanist do the readings at a family funeral. I'm not invoking your humanist beliefs as a gotcha)
 
wrong. the poorly educated and white middle class largely voted for trump. their motivate was not greed. they have a different vision for society and the future and its more rugged, hard nosed, and requires the population to be accountable for themselves and self reliant.

hh

Maybe you misunderstood the post. Most people who vote Republican are poor and so on yeah, I wouldn't bet against that being true.

Doesn't change that the party itself is controlled by people who are anything but poor.
 
Maybe you misunderstood the post. Most people who vote Republican are poor and so on yeah, I wouldn't bet against that being true.

Doesn't change that the party itself is controlled by people who are anything but poor.
any political party is. you think the left doesnt care about money? they own and control all of the big institutional money that they shuffle off to each other and causes they support. by in large thats done by the left not the right.

hh
 
Back
Top Bottom