Right, but this ignores two things. One, that our Government works for us. Not the globe. In theory, they’re job is to put our interests over everyone else in the World’s. Something we haven’t done, clearly.
Two, unconditional trade only creates a scenario where countries ignore that their workers are human beings and instead treat them like complete shit just so they can make something as cheap as possible. By having tarrifs, we essentially force countries to treat workers more fair as a terms of our new trade agreement. Otherwise, we will just continue to artificially raise the price.
Look at what Mexico caved to in the new NAFTA deal. Guaranteed $16/hr USD by 2023 for anyone working for auto manufacturers. That is what should be happening with every major manufacturing country we trade with.
Of course we live in a global economy, but we get taken advantage of from it. The truth is, what Trump is doing needed to be done. Criticize Trump all you want about pretty much anything else. But his tarriffs have had the desired effect. He has won with NAFTA and the EU. China appears to be on their heels as well. The truth is the other countries had no reason to work on trade terms because they were benefiting from them more than we were. Now they are getting the stick instead of the carrot and they are caving.
Ill give you the fact that President Obama is a great orator. Maybe the best since Kennedy. Reagan was good but he was a witty speaker. Kind of down to earth. Yet if you have a opinion, then so do I.
Also lets be honest? Giving a good speech is one thing, but actually doing what is right is a whole different thing.
@DoubleDD @Woodrow So about conservatives being upset and Boycotting Nike now? Appears both sides are doing it…
I don’t have a problem with any average citizen or fringe group boycotting whatever they see fit. Even though most of the time they are dumb. My problem is a political organization calling a boycott on a person or business because of political afflation.
In the case of In and Out. The head chairman of the DNC called for a boycott against In and Out because they made a donation to the Republican party. I find plenty wrong with that.
Plus I don’t think it would be fair to blanket all the protesters as conservatives as the ones now boycotting Nike. I would assume there are plenty of Liberals that are not happy with Nike.
I’m no great business person, but sometimes the saying, “There is no such thing as bad press” rings true. You have to applaud Nike in this instance. They found the most Controversial sports figure they could find and made him the voice of their ad campaign.
LIke it or not it’s a genius move. Especially in light of the FBI investigations in college basketball. They have in a essence grabbed control of the content of the Media headlines and public perception. Even if in the coming days a story breaks that Nike has crossed the line in dealing with college players. Nobody will care. As Kaepernick will be all the rage.
If it’s not clear from the image, this photo is from 2016 and the subtitle is originated by someone making a joke at CNN’s expense.
Here’s origin of the picture:
My favorite Reddit comment on it was:
“Quick! Someone get that woman a Kane!”
That’s a real test of robotics. Many robots work well in manufacturing plants but even in an environment like a large retailer distribution center, robotics struggle with the variety of packaging size, shape, and weights that they come across.
Doing this picking effectively would be a huge step forward.
After skimming his wiki page briefly, my money is on him being controlled opposition.
US intel and the Deep State appear to roll these guys out endlessly on left and right to take up oxygen on the wings. They carefully marginalize legitimate discourse and keep it from attaining a critical mass of consensus whatever their reasons for doing so.
For every apparently controlled Noam Chomsky, there follows an apparently controlled Jordan Peterson on the right.
(Note: I know, I know, I have no certain idea what the guy really is. He may be American Socrates, also, but the life history has that feel. All this and what follows are speculation from the outside looking in to a box that appears pretty opaque to me these days.)
Black Money is apparently spent to foster and grow the divisive issue, media figure and/or group and then a later lackey is rolled out to divide the divisive issue.
The controlled opposition appear often cherry picked young from the “other side”, or so the cliched legend goes. They start out a young idealistic leftie (or rightie) and then learn how fouled up and corrupt the left (or right) ideologies are and move right (or left). Capice? It probably gives them character arc and also makes them feel kind of vulnerable to exposure for having switched. Who knows? You’d have to be an Intel pro to know their techniques.
The managers of the discourse propaganda game have to get a good chuckle each time some of us get sucked in and take 5-10 years to catch on to one of their latest lackeys.
Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine apparently requires lackeys not only on both ends, but high brow and low brow on the ends—AND in the trusted center. Not just MSM has to be controlled—the wings have to be, too.
Chomskys and Petersons—“controlled brilliants” if you will—are needed to frame the official talking points, for wannabe intellectuals, same as “controlled bombasts”, like Alex Jones, are needed to serve the low brow market.
It’s all about managing the political signals and resulting engineered public opinion in the differen markets.
One of the tells is whether these guys get to stay gainfully employed in the establishment and spout their “controversial” stuff (likely controlled), or they get shit canned (likely uncontrolled).
Another tell is if they are successfully monetizing their dissent, rather than getting sent to the poor house. True dissent is rarely profitable while those one dissents from are in broad control of the levers of power.
Then there are even a few that are apparently full blown professional spooks (maybe Edward Snowden?) that apparently maybe get assigned to go “rogue” and infiltrate and inform for “the other side.”
Even guys widely believed to be true dissenters, like Assange and Norman Finkelstein and some of the internal leakers revealing about American and European media being fully controlled by the CIA/MI5/Mossad since the 1950s have to be viewed somewhat skeptically, unless they get verifiably whacked, or “accidented”, IMHO. There just is great intelligence benefit, and historical precedent, to creating fake defectors given very thorough legends so as to insinuate them into possible spy networks of opponents. Assange, if he were really still alive (seemingly unlikely but possible), and Finkelstein, could be the real deals, but you can’t be sure, so long as they at least appear to be alive . Someone like Snowden seems a likely fake defector, a digital age equivalent to Lee Oswald and reputedly many other fake defectors back in the old fake defector program days when the Soviets sent us fake defectors too. Assange and Finkelstein could turn out to be counterfeits, or real. Unless they are verifiably imprisoned at Leavenworth, or verifiably executed, you can’t say for sure. And it is frankly very tough to verify real imprisonment or execution these days. Remember Osama bin Laden? The guy has reputedly died so many times so many places I have no idea what really became of him, though if I had to bet, I would bet $5 on kidney failure back in 2001, or 2002.
Speaking of controlled opposition, where’s the apparent Infowars lackey, Alex Jones, or whatever legend he goes by, going to pop up next? They appear likely clearing him from their wake, if he were controlled. Maybe he fades away, like Mike “Peak Oil” Rupert. Each of these guys appear iterations of the guys that preceded them. Disinformation in America is a medley of medley relays. Set’em up, use’em, knock’em down. Repeat.
Our private oligarchy’s reputed Deep State controlled media told us all very plainly 9/11 changed everything; that things were never going to be the same. They haven’t been. Take them at their word. On 9/12 Dubya reputedly signed the executive order implementing the FEMA COG, which was only to be implemented in case of war, or other national emergency. It has reputedly never been rescinded 18 years later. We have apparently been in a state of war or some kind of national security emergency ever since. Whatever, this is NOT a conspiracy. They have told us what has been done. They codified it retroactively with the Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act. The torture prisons operate. We are searched at airports and mapped and listened to. A border wall has been being built under two Presidents now that can both keep others out, and us in. 5 or 10 countries have been knocked over and Iran is reputed to come. Reputed mass murder and weaponized refugee vectors have been resorted to. Millions are dead. Time tested agent provocateur acts of violence and terror appear to occur with official explanations that make little sense and evolve as skepticism and contrary facts arise. Presidents have apparently been selected and destabilized as needed in plain sight by a group the apparently controlled MSM openly refers to as a Deep State. The current reputedly unexpectedly elected President openly and repeatedly says elections are rigged and the news is fake. The Deep State and the MSM apparently openly want him removed and likely jailed. Pedophile rings traditionally used to compromise public officials surface frequently and then recede with out successful prosecution. Candidates guilty of reputedly known major violations go unpunished while lesser offenders are given massive sentences. Feasible 24/7 NSA surveillance of all digitized information flows reputedly occurs. The CIA contracts for $600 Million with Amazon ownership that also owns the WAPO. The current NSA director reputedly even learned very soon when the secret FISA Court was being improperly informed by the FBI about the dirty dossier for god’s sakes. NSA reputedly can look at any intercepts and know if Russia and Trump colluded even without a special prosecutor. The internet has been openly reinstituted to allow the big tech firms to make it hard to find the facts and easier to marginalize and smear dissenters and leakers. Late in the Obama administration the government reputedly authorized itself to use propaganda on the American people for what reason I do not know.
THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.
Folks that believe in conspiracy just haven’t been paying very close attention.
Motives may be murky and complicated, but then they usually are.
It’s all above board otherwise, whether you think it’s stupid, or smart, wrong or right.
To borrow Coach Self’s phrase, this is who we are…now.
The goal is clear: national security at any cost.
The result so far appears broadly clear at least: sharply conditioned freedom, oligarchy rule (see President Carter) and fantastic re-concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small private oligarchy, a trillion dollar mil-int budget, and an internal struggle over which axis of private oligarchy gets to wage war to stop the the Shanghai Security Pact from staying in control of the Trans EurAsian super corridors and starting their own EurAsian central bank. This is euphemized as “the China Pivot.” The MSM reports very selectively, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientists to simply look at what they don’t cover, read a little, and see what they are omitting and sometimes why.
What’s hard for people is the relentless fear mongering and fake news insinuations of wrong doing that never pan out, and the resorting to arrests for unrelated crimes and the inducement of the arrested to “compose” something that contradicts the story of those we put our trust in by vote. This wears an ordinary American down when 5 holding companies coordinate their 90% of MSM outlets to pump out fake news and allegations for a year. Americans probably now have some idea now of how our opponents feel once our mil-int complex commits to destabilizing a foreign country. Destabilization hurts.
But Jesus once said: the rich we will always have with us.
If Jesus were alive today, would he say: the rich and their spooks and controlled opposition we will always have with us?
Maybe he is real, or maybe he controlled.
Be very, VERY skeptical.
And be so whether one self identifies as conservative, liberal, or indie.
We ordinary folk need to constantly keep in mind how little we can know for certain in war time, when the well of information is being poisoned with a virtually unlimited budget for whatever reason.
We have to remember that war unearths and exposes many of the long term flaws and power cliques of a nation and especially their corruption of its government, as well as its heroism and virtues and commitment to its values. Disappointment is to be expected but despair is not allowed.
We have to hope and pray those at the top know more about what they are doing than it has appeared they do so far, and at the same time be loyal, skeptical, civil, vigilant and encouraging of whatever republican self-governance continues, so that slowly, fitfully but inexorably competence and insight and representative vision can resume more fully operational than presently appears the case.
I believe America will eventually prevail over its intentionally engineered divisions, and opponents, but economic circumstances and certain elements within the private oligarchy are going to be very problematic, as they were in the Depression and early days of WWII, also.
Nothing is written.
But there is no doubt the sled runners need some wax about now.
Yes, he has a slim margin but it will also heavily depend on who the democrats select. The new faces and potential candidate are all way to the left and the least liberal is Biden, who did not have enough support even as the sitting VP and would be 78 years old, in comparison, Reagang is the oldest elected president and was 69 at the time of his first inauguration.
The next election might be one in which a credible third party candidate can affect the results like Perot did taking many republican votes and helping Clinton in the process. If Sanders, who would be 79, runs as an independent the votes would come from the democrats; a more centrist candidate might take votes from both parties and I would no be surprised to see the winner get under 40% of the popular vote.
One of the most insidious parts of oppression and then victimization of individuals, groups, or nations is that it makes so many begin to self limit their goals to within the box oppression builds for us.
Why did John Lennon have to be killed by an apparently mind controlled assassin with the legend of an obsessed lone gunmen?
Because he sang about what was not merely possible, but actually feasible.
He added an explanation that the enforcers of the private oligarchy really did not want the public to recognize, or think was feasible to get away with having said.
John said go ahead, imagine what you want; that apparently angered the shit out of those already in control of the explanations.
This puzzled me for many years. Lennon was already long past his great influence. It was very improbable the lightening of mega popularity would strike twice. The Deep State can stop popularity by denying mainstream distribution any time.
Then it occurred to me.
Lennon had seen through the oppression game. It’s a set of obstacles and misrepresentations intended to make the oppressed embrace victim hood as the only feasible path.
It makes them self-limit the possible.
Lennon wrote songs (created an entertainment) that outflanked the oppression game, same as Gandhi built a resistance philosophy that did.
Same as Lincoln built a republican government that out flanked the oppression games being played by the private oligarchies of North and South.
Anyone that restores a nation’s capacity to focus on what is best for itself, instead of on limiting itself to accepting what is best for its private oligarchy is apparently best murdered, when ever feasible, from the POV of the oppressing private oligarchy.
Put another way, oppression works by focusing us on the problems, not on our best interest.
The oppression game is a very clever way of getting us to focus on our problems rather than on what we want and should have.
Everyone should be free, well fed, well housed, have any needed medicines, feel safe, get equal justice, have their votes counted, live under representatives trying to serve their constituencies best interests, be prosperous, enjoy life and live as they wish, so long as they hurt no one.
They shouldn’t be settling for a victim’s franchise.
There, that was easy.
Any government, firm, or person that doubts the feasibility of persons best interests is oppressive and part of the problem.
The oppression game makes us willing consent to the unfeasibility of our best interests.
Our best interests are feasible.
Always have been.
Always will be.
Its not the system. It’s the issues.
Foreign policy is complex.
Domestic budgets are complex.
Economics are complex.
All of these levers that operate civil society aren’t just simple things. Pull one, that may throw another off kilter in the same way that adding one chemical to a mixture will cause a certain reaction.
I remember when the “tea party” wave swept across the country in 2010. The thing that struck me more than anything, as a person that had previously very much been in support of shorter terms for politicians, was the lack of overall competence demonstrated by many of these newly elected “leaders.”
They didn’t know even the basics that you learn in junior high social studies or civics. Because of that, many of them were dependent on certain special interest groups to tell them how to vote on bills that they had no personal knowledge about.
One newly elected legislator, when handed a new bill in committee asked “how am I supposed to know what this bill does?” A veteran legislator told him he needed to read the bill. At that point, the freshman legislator asked “and then how do I know how to vote?”
While it may seem like getting rid of career politicians would limit the special interests, in reality, the opposite is true. Because the special interests are experts in their field, they can generally sway newer legislators more easily.
One year here in Kansas, the NRA sponsored a bill about knife length and crossbows. Before knowing that the NRA was behind the bill, the bill couldn’t even get a committee hearing. Once the NRA came out backing the bill, the bill flew through committee and passed through the House easily. When questioning the bill on the House floor, the response “this is the NRA bill” was given to answer the question of why this bill needed to pass. Like I said, it passed easily.
Term limits don’t eliminate lobbyist influence. They increase it.
As for the idea that @jaybate-1-0 poses to allow government workers to educate and keep things operating, in this partisan climate, that is troublesome.
I have seen non partisan workers skewered by politicians simply for telling them that something would not work, or that it was a bad idea. Because an idea like lowering taxes is partisan, telling a legislator that its a good (or bad) idea is seen as partisan rather than sound policy advice. That’s how it is on most hot button issues - advice is viewed through a partisan lens rather than sound or unsound policy advice.
This cripples the internal bureaucracy because they can’t just advise without sounding partisan if they disagree with what certain interest groups suggest.
Because China has been in its current form (geographically, at least) for centuries, it is far more stable than the former Eastern Bloc ever was.
This long history also means that, ethnically, China is actually quite homogeneous. The Han-Chinese make up over 90% of the population. While China is linguistically very diverse (nearly 300 languages, probably twice that if you include local dialects), most Chinese speak Mandarin (about 70%). Based on that, more than 60% of the population is both ethnically and linguistically united.
Simply put, it is unlikely that China would break up even in the event of a revolution because of its longstanding historical borders. Many of the subgroups are so small that it would be difficult to break off into a separate nation, particularly for those that would be entirely surrounded by mainland China.
I think those factors contribute to actually stabilizing China substantially. Even in the event of a change in governance, China would probably still have a population over 1B, making it a substantial world player either way.