Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Watchman Mk. IV]

Edited.

[Simon]

May want to read the rules and your post again and work on another edit or two.

[Sociotard]

1 hour ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

The tactics I was referring to have to do with passing bills in Congress when only a majority is needed rather than a supermajority.  (Although I'd love to see the Senate refuse to even interview a SCOTUS appointee, even though that won't have a chance to happen for a while.)

 

I can empathize with wanting to refuse to interview a SCOTUS appointee, but I do not think it is a good idea.  I could just see an opening appearing when there was 2 years until the election instead of just most of one, and the Democrats trying it, and then the Republicans doing it on a Democrat President's first year, or refusing to hear any judicial appointments. It is an ugly bit of escalation, and I don't want to see what it leads to.

 

As for the other, do you mean that the minority Democrats should stop any bills from passing unless the Republicans can get 60 seats?

 

 

[wcw43921]

Senator McConnell Wants Hemp Removed From The Controlled Substance List

 

I have to admit, this was something I would not have expected from him.  I figure he's trying to court left-wing voters, or he realizes that hemp is a bigger cash crop than tobacco ever was.  Maybe both.

[Lord Liaden]

Or he's a closet user. He does seem pretty laid-back.

[Ragitsu]

Do shelled reptiles enjoy munching on cannabis?

[death tribble]

It makes me wonder would anyone here sleep with you know who if you got $100,000 to keep quiet about it ?

[Old Man]

Sure, but I don’t think i’m Voldemort’s type. 

 

I couldn’t do it with Trump though. I know I could never live with myself if I did. 

[Starlord]

294 billion more debt to China to pay for tax cuts

[RDU Neil]

4 hours ago, Starlord said:

294 billion more debt to China to pay for tax cuts

 

So... I've long felt that the biggest risk to the US, and general world stability, was the economic vulnerability between the US and China.

1) The dollar only has value, because it is propped up by China buying it in massive amounts.

2) China is a nation with a long history of being able to go through very difficult times, but re-emerge as a unified power.

3) All it would take is the rise of an ideologue with the passion of Mao (but not his exact ideology) and the long term vision of a world ruling Middle Kingdom. All this person would need to do, if in power is..

4) Stop buying the US dollar. Just refuse, and in fact, dump their dollars on the world market.

5) The world economy would simply stop, plunging into chaos immediately, with first China nationalizing every industry, which would encourage other countries (smaller, more stressed ones at first, but then cascading) to do the same

6) The US, EU and Russia would try to respond, but the US would lack any and all economic clout, the EU would be too divided and lack any real military influence to act as a stabilizing element, and the Russian oligarchs would look to consolidate wealth and power even more than they have... while likely pushing militarily deeper in to the 'stans and Eastern Europe.

7) Hot war would break out within months, if not weeks, with the US forced to go into a state of martial law, with rationing of fuel and food... seeing as most industry would halt, being unable to get supplies and parts as the flow of 'on demand' good immediately dries up and imports and shipping become massively expensive.

8) The middle east would boil over, as the lack of European and US support would leave Israel vulnerable, and they and the Palestinians would be crushed under opportunistic invasions as multiple hot wars would break out across the region, Turkey, the Kurds, Syria, Iran and Iraq, etc.

9) If the MIddle East doesn't go nuclear first, then likely it would be India and Pakistan... with the hardline Hindu gov't in Mumbai escalating over Kashmir or other symptomatic issues of the rivalrly, including sectarian violence between Muslim and Hindu.

10) Limited to full scale nuclear war would follow.

 

Now... back in China, the whole point to this is that the ideologue who kicked off the first domino is just fine with this, because China has a long history of plunging into chaos, and then pulling itself out, stronger and more unified that before. It has done in several times over the centuries and would be in the best position to come out on top.

 

All it would take is one Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong __, Stalin, Napoleon type to come to power in China, with the slightest sense of historical destiny.

 

The third world war will be triggered by economic collapse... of this I'm sure. Global warming and melting ice caps increasing natural disasters, water wars, food shortages, etc. could easily snowball into an unsustainable world economy as well. The easiest way for human agency to kick it off... have China stop buying the dollar.  That simple.

[Lord Liaden]

With respect... no.

 

China has no appetite for ideologues right now. The majority are enjoying China's wave of prosperity. The minority who aren't have no political clout. China's government are clearly desirous of making the country more prominent in world affairs, but for the most part the status quo is working well for them.

 

Yes, China has gone through difficult times and arisen renewed. But those times were never easy or painless. Chinese history emphasizes that eras of conflict have been bad. They value order and stability. They won't rock the boat in a major way unless they feel a serious need to.

[RDU Neil]

You could say that the majority of Americans are enjoying prosperity, and it didn't stop a fascist oligarch who might just push the button because his McNuggets were cold from being voted in. I'm sure we didn't see the Cultural Revolution coming.

 

Sure... if we get it right and those in charge prefer stability, fine... but the vulnerability of the US remains the same. It is dependent on a massively powerful foreign government not deciding to use its power to start 'effing with the economy. It is completely out of the hands of the rest of the world.

 

Yes... everything depends on step 3, above... and you may argue that is unlikely to happen... but the vulnerability is still there.

[Lord Liaden]

I agree. I do think the particular scenario you outlined is very unlikely for the foreseeable future, but the United States should never have let itself get in such a vulnerable position, and it does leave the country open to coercion in principle. President McNuggets' ineptitude certainly isn't helping.

 

In hindsight, though, his rise to power is understandable. Americans generally had been growing increasingly frustrated with a fractious governing political class apparently unable to function effectively. A large minority of Americans were feeling economically disenfranchised, and unlike in China they have a voice and influence. But President Trump's failure to advance key elements of his agenda have displayed the limits of presidential power under the American system of checks and balances.

 

Chinese president Xi Jinping has just established a firm lock on power. His policies are clear, and without unforeseen crises aren't going to change. Unlike the United States right now, the world has a pretty good idea of China's overall strategy.

[Old Man]

 

I'm not an economist but I don't think the scenario envisioned is plausible for two reasons. 

 

One, China doesn't buy dollars exactly; it buys Treasuries, which are bonds.  China is effectively loaning us the money that we use to buy their stuff with.  The term on the bonds is fixed, it's not as though China could suddenly "call in" the debt.  They could stop buying Treasuries starting today, but that gets to the second point:

 

Two, China's economy is very heavily export-driven.  Were they to stop buying Treasuries, demand for Chinese stuff would plummet, their employment would drop, and their economy would crash.  They could attempt to nationalize everything but even if it worked the best case scenario would be an economy that looks like the days of Mao.  More likely the Chinese people would revolt and there would be chaos.

 

I should add that despite recent upheavals, US Treasuries are still the safest investment in the universe, so it's unlikely that anyone will just stop buying them unless that changes.

 

Basically we have a situation where we owe the "bank" so much money that it's the "bank's" problem and not ours.  But the current arrangement is so beneficial for both sides that it's expected to continue for the foreseeable future unless a completely insane idiot somehow wrecks it.  Right now the insane idiot is not a Chinese national, but an American; but for all his bluster he's limited in what he can do with the Chinese trade war.  I'd expect the corporate-owned wing of the GOP to curb him before it gets out of hand.

 

The real danger posed in the article is the ridiculous deficit that is resulting from December's tax cuts.  That poses a real risk of driving up Treasury interest rates and, thereby, inflation.  I'm actually surprised they're not already talking about ending Social Security to make up for it.

[Sociotard]

Evidently the Pulse shooter scoped out Disneyland, (in particular a shopping complex there that was hosting a "Gay Days" event).  He was seen checking out the police there, and it is inferred that he went in search of a softer target.

 

http://www.newser.com/story/257173/pulse-shooter-meant-to-attack-disney-world-prosecutors.html

 

Of course, it is possible he assessed the density of the crowds and decided a nightclub would be more fish-in-a-barrel-y.  But, it is possible the no-soft-targets people have a point. (but then, there will always be a soft target somewhere, and let us not forget those two negligent-discharges by school resource officers earlier this month. My feelings here are complicated)

[Lord Liaden]

The parts of the world with less gun violence than America also have less gun passion, glorification, and obsession than in America. What I find encouraging about the current groundswell over gun control is not specifics about restrictions or legislation, but that it represents a potentially changing attitude toward the place of guns in American society. Gun violence won't diminish until there's broad consensus that certain behaviors and irresponsibility that have been tolerated by society, no longer will be. Regulation can help with that, but it needs to be backed up with collective willingness to make regulation stick.

[Watchman Mk. IV]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The parts of the world with less gun violence than America also have less gun passion, glorification, and obsession than in America. What I find encouraging about the current groundswell over gun control is not specifics about restrictions or legislation, but that it represents a potentially changing attitude toward the place of guns in American society. Gun violence won't diminish until there's broad consensus that certain behaviors and irresponsibility that have been tolerated by society, no longer will be. Regulation can help with that, but it needs to be backed up with collective willingness to make regulation stick.

 

Approval of regulation always spikes when there are gun-related attacks.  The difference here is that, instead of people just forgetting it, the kids are pushing it.  They're the future, and they're not going to forget about it.  This one came home to them in a much more personal way.

[RDU Neil]

On a less visceral, but none-the-less important issue...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/29/donald-trump-amazon-attack-twitter-jeff-bezos?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Opinion+US+-+collections+2018&utm_term=269501&subid=24646434&CMP=ema_opinion_us

 

I hate it when I find myself agreeing with the beast, but sometimes his bile and ire and pointed in the right direction.

[Ternaugh]

Sinclair Broadcasting, who is looking to expand by another 40 stations (allowed by a rule change put through by the FCC's Ajit Pai) decided recently to force their on-air talent to read a promo (video at the link): https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490

[Lord Liaden]

Sinclair has been forcing this sort of bullpup on their stations' news departments for at least a couple of years now, although this may be the most egregious example. The feature on the practice broadcast by John Oliver (one of the links embedded in the story above) noted that most of the stations have been running these "public service announcements" in the vicinity of 2:00 AM, when few people are watching.

[Ragitsu]

Can we just take a moment to appreciate how breathtakingly disgusting a select portion of this country's populace is for insulting the victims and survivors of the Parkland massacre by A ) claiming that the latter group has no right to talk about gun violence and B ) endlessly repeating how their ordeal was a "false flag" operation?

[Lord Liaden]

The degree of contempt and vitriol being publicly displayed in many of these comments, toward minors who survived a horrible tragedy, is breathtaking in the worst possible way. I could never have imagined anyone daring to utter such words where they could be identified a couple of years ago. I have to suspect that the example set by the current President, of getting away with provocative statements without consequence, has emboldened others.

 

But I also smell more than a whiff of fear behind these attacks. I get the impression the more rabid gun-rights activists sense that this movement is different, that it has the potential to counter their own political influence and actually force some restrictions on their toys. Viciousness is very often a sign of desperation.

[TheDarkness]

I think it's an unfortunate and standard practice. Pelosi, Obama, the Clintons, I think there is a contingent in conservative media who pretty much consider anything less than lifelong spite for political opponents as being a RINO. There's zero middle ground whatsoever in that circle, someone can't be like 'I don't agree with their policies, but I don't think they're evil' without taking a big hit.

[Lord Liaden]

The practice you cite was far less prevalent in the past, but in this millennium has become much more common. But what I'm talking about is vicious personal attacks against children who were already victims, over political differences. It wasn't long ago at all that any borderline sane public figure would never dream of making such remarks in the open, because he/she would have been universally tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion. To be fair, those who have made recent comments in that vein have received a storm of condemnation causing them to duck and cover (which makes you wonder which parties are really the "cowards"), but that they would think to do it at all is a disheartening sign of the times.

[Ragitsu]

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490

 

*shivers*