USA Sinks into Authoritarinism

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They may get better, or they may get worse but your assessment of "too many people too few resources" being the reason for dischord doesn't ring true since we have more people than ever right now and more people doing better also.

Agreed. Message to chicken littles: sky not falling.

[Wilber]

Wishfull thinking.

 

Quote

The world’s ecological deficit is referred to as global ecological overshoot. Since the 1970s, humanity has been in ecological overshoot, with annual demand on resources exceeding what Earth can regenerate each year. Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.7 Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year. We use more ecological resources and services than nature can regenerate through overfishing, overharvesting forests, and emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than forests can sequester.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

So now Donald Trump is responsible for climate change ?   As ridiculous as that seems, even more remarkable is the power he and his supporters have been given by critics who predict American (and indeed world) doom because of one Donald Trump.   How did it come to pass that a single American president is perceived to have such overwhelming power, not just in the United States, but also in Canada and elsewhere ?

Those who are full of fear for the future were already in a dark place before Trump ever came along, and certainly created an inflated role for American choices in their lives. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

1. So you think that, in general, the situation is improving, and will continue to do so?  You think things are getting better, not worse, and will continue that trend? 

2. Nothing to worry about, just keep doing what we are doing and all will be fine?

 

1. Over a long enough timeframe, well yes.  But it was your assertion that too many people and too little stuff is causing today's problems that I think is dead wrong.

2. Things will not be fine in the short term, because we can't agree on anything.

 

[WestCanMan]

Re: ecological overshoot - the Chinese government was onto this a long time ago when they implemented their 1 child only policy. They knew that 3+ kids per family was unsustainable.

People who were in government for a long period of time saw how hard it was to keep finding the space to build more cities & roads, and how hard it was to keep finding more fresh water and more food. Compounding the problem of food was the fact that cities were taking over valuable farmland. That’s why they are taking over the fish stocks in the south china sea. 

A lot of liberal types over here thought it was a violation of human rights to stop people from having as many children as they want. They talk about eating just vegetables so that there’s enough food to stop global hunger (eating meat is a much larger strain on the environment). That’s true enough, but without limits on child birth, global hunger is a moving target. You can’t just “feed the kids”, mom and big sister will eat too, and they’ll have more and more kids. That’s “the tragedy of the commons”. People do what seems normal on a personal scale with no regard for the overall effect of what happens on a larger scale when everyone else is doing that exact same thing.

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So now Donald Trump is responsible for climate change ? 

If CNN is to be believed he’s the cause of just about everything in the last 3 or 4 centuries.  

I think that being alive in the time of Trump is very interesting from a historical pov. Depending on what cahnnel you watch, he is a completely different person. People who live across the street from each other have wildly different opinions about who he is and what he has done so far. 

Is he a huge racist that’s riding Obama’s coattails and guiding the country to oblivion, or is he cleaning up Obama’s mess and destroying Islamic State while he’s working 80 hrs per week to make America great again?

How will Trump be remembered 200 years from now? Probably one way or the other. Unfortunately for Trump, CNN’s version has a lot of people sucked in right now.

It makes me doubt everything that I know about everyone who was alive before I was born when people are so divided over who Trump is, despite the fact that we have the ability to see so much with our own eyes. 

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

....How will Trump be remembered 200 years from now? Probably one way or the other. Unfortunately for Trump, CNN’s version has a lot of people sucked in right now.

It makes me doubt everything that I know about everyone who was alive before I was born when people are so divided over who Trump is, despite the fact that we have the ability to see so much with our own eyes. 

 

That's the thing...Trump has magically erased history, no matter what the topic is.   The U.S. is suddenly "authoritarian" and run by oligarchs....never before....because of Donald Trump.

I just chalk such nonsense up to the triggered snowflakes who also have their own agenda and desire for power, having lost it, at least in their minds.  

Even Ted Turner, CNN's founder, thinks the pioneering cable news network needs a more "balanced agenda", if it must have an agenda at all.

I still can't figure out why Canadian media devoted so much bandwidth to the Kavanaugh confirmation process, except that maybe it is grist for the larger anti-Trump mill.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Re: ecological overshoot - the Chinese government was onto this a long time ago when they implemented their 1 child only policy. They knew that 3+ kids per family was unsustainable.

People who were in government for a long period of time saw how hard it was to keep finding the space to build more cities & roads, and how hard it was to keep finding more fresh water and more food. Compounding the problem of food was the fact that cities were taking over valuable farmland. That’s why they are taking over the fish stocks in the south china sea. 

A lot of liberal types over here thought it was a violation of human rights to stop people from having as many children as they want. They talk about eating just vegetables so that there’s enough food to stop global hunger (eating meat is a much larger strain on the environment). That’s true enough, but without limits on child birth, global hunger is a moving target. You can’t just “feed the kids”, mom and big sister will eat too, and they’ll have more and more kids. That’s “the tragedy of the commons”. People do what seems normal on a personal scale with no regard for the overall effect of what happens on a larger scale when everyone else is doing that exact same thing.

 

 

 

It's not just population, its also about distribution of wealth,  people in developing countries want more. Those billion + Chinese want to live just like us and why shouldn't they. 

[ReeferMadness]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The article you linked to is ridiculous, and now that you were called out on the stupidity of Hitler comparisons, you are backpedalling on your own claims. Well that's progress I suppose. The whole thread is designed as an inflammatory, joke. What's funnier is those who took it seriously! 

So, you're criticizing an article that you weren't able to understand.  Not too surprising.

And, as the originator of the thread, I'm pretty sure I'd know if it was a joke.

[WestCanMan]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Even Ted Turner, CNN's founder, thinks the pioneering cable news network needs a more "balanced agenda", if it must have an agenda at all.

I still can't figure out why Canadian media devoted so much bandwidth to the Kavanaugh confirmation process, except that maybe it is grist for the larger anti-Trump mill.

Interesting to know that Ted Turner feels that way. I had no idea. 

 

Domestic affairs in the US have been a really big deal here ever since the rioting and looting started in Obama’s last years. Plus you had a string of shootings that were highly politicized events. Disgruntled kids, terrorists, the Vegas guy that shot up all the country music fans (imo that was probably because they were deemed to be NRA supporters).

The Dems raced to make things about gun control and racist pigs, Republicans raced to make things about terrorism, the need for law and order and for protection in schools. It’s all really emotionally charged stuff. 

Issues here play out the same way as down there. Terrorists attack and our Liberals want more gun control. Our worst attack here was with a van but getting rid of guns here is the Liberals’ main priority for keeping us safe lol. 

I think the Dems down there watched how easily the MSM brought down our conservative government with the Duffygate scandal, that was all over $90K worth of travel expenses. That’s how we ended up with the village idiot in charge of our country. They’re trying to do the same thing with Russian collusion imo. 

 

[dialamah]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1. You think that comparing Trump with Hitler is fair game,

2. but it actually requires more than the writer's own incorrect assumptions. 

1. How many times do you need to read that the essay's author wasn't comparing Trump to Hitler, but was comparing the similarities in the political situation that brought Hitler to power.  The author also examines the differences of "then" vs. "now" and why an authoritarian regime, if it did come about in the US, would not look like Hitler's Germany, but more similar to Putin's Russia.

2.  The author, Christopher Browning, is an historian who has studied and written about Nazi Germany for decades.  His "opinion" has credibility light years beyond that of a right-wing partisan hack on an internet forum.  

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

So, you're criticizing an article that you weren't able to understand.  Not too surprising.

And, as the originator of the thread, I'm pretty sure I'd know if it was a joke.

People understand it reefer. It’s not written in hieroglyphics, or containing difficult subject matter. 

They just think it’s all BS

[ReeferMadness]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

People understand it reefer. It’s not written in hieroglyphics, or containing difficult subject matter.

Some people understand it.  It's just you're not one of them.  No shame in that.  Comprehending an article written at a grade 8 level of difficulty isn't for everyone.  I'm sure you have plenty of other talents.

Look at dialamah's post.  She understands it.

Edited October 8, 2018 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Right-wingers here:  let's not bother reading the article, assume what it says and then argue against our assumptions.  Because if there is anything right wingers are good at, it's arguing against what wasn't said and what hasn't happened.

Yup.  They find it much easier to debate what they wanted you to say instead of what you actually said.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1. How many times do you need to read that the essay's author wasn't comparing Trump to Hitler, but was comparing the similarities in the political situation that brought Hitler to power.  The author also examines the differences of "then" vs. "now" and why an authoritarian regime, if it did come about in the US, would not look like Hitler's Germany, but more similar to Putin's Russia.

 

So where is this author's essay on the political situation that brought FDR to power ?   You know, the president who actually implemented "fascist" state control of industries, racist welfare policies, internment camps, National Recovery Act, etc., etc.

[ReeferMadness]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

So, Trump is not Hitler but what is happening now is how Hitler rose to power and we are all blind and ignorant if we can't see it?  I suppose McConnell is Hitler.

Really??

Let's see if that's what the article said:

Quote

But the most interesting part of his argument is the comparison between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Paul von Hindenburg, the German leader who ultimately handed power over to Hitler. Here’s how Browning summarizes the history:

NO!!!  It doesn't say that.

Why bother posting about an article you clearly have no interest in?

[WestCanMan]

39 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1. How many times do you need to read that the essay's author wasn't comparing Trump to Hitler, but was comparing the similarities in the political situation that brought Hitler to power.  The author also examines the differences of "then" vs. "now" and why an authoritarian regime, if it did come about in the US, would not look like Hitler's Germany, but more similar to Putin's Russia.

2.  The author, Christopher Browning, is an historian who has studied and written about Nazi Germany for decades.  His "opinion" has credibility light years beyond that of a right-wing partisan hack on an internet forum.  

I made a lot of factual statements here about this guy's blatant inaccuracies that you can't even deny. The situation in Germany when he got elected being one of them. For gawd's sake the fact that they were coming off 4 years of brutal trench warfare and a punitive depression were by far the determining factors leading up to the election of a Hitler. Trump isn't on a diabolical demagogue path. The appointment of his SCJs was perfectly above board and beneficial to the democracy. Trump isn't a divisive President, Obama is the poster boy for divisiveness. If Browning had half a brain he would know that. Trump's foreign policy isn't isolationist. This is just an attempt to back up CNN bullshit with assumptions, inaccuracies and a farcical comparison. 

Maybe C Browning would blow me away in a game of WWII Germany Trivial Pursuit but he's not good at figuring on what's going on around him. He's the type that learns by rote but can't connect dots by himself. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

Some people understand it.  It's just you're not one of them.  No shame in that.  Comprehending an article written at a grade 8 level of difficulty isn't for everyone.  I'm sure you have plenty of other talents.

Look at dialamah's post.  She understands it.

Some people believe what they want to believe, and they disregard the rest. They're scared of cognitive dissonance. They'll follow anyone that comes along making even the most outrageous claims that fit their narrative, even if it's total BS at the grade 8 level. That's you and dialamah. "Ooh a girl claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her in '82 or 83, it has to be true because we hate Trump! A guy said that this is the erosion of the democracy and that it's Hitleresque! So true!"

If someoone came along who claimed to be an FBI haircut analyst and said "Trump and Hitler part their hair the same way and that's proof of Trump's evil intent" you would believe it. You would call people stupid for not believing it. That's your answer to everything.

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump isn't on a diabolical demagogue path.

Let me try this again, slowly and using as many one-syllable words as possible:

The essay was not about Trump beyond his serving the ultimate goals of the Republican party.

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Maybe C Browning would blow me away in a game of WWII Germany Trivial Pursuit but he's not good at figuring on what's going on around him. He's the type that learns by rote but can't connect dots by himself. 

Your expectation that your opinion should be taken more seriously than someone who has spent a lifetime studying Nazi Germany is laughable.   The arrogance of your assumption that a smattering of historical knowledge should qualify you to dismiss someone's life work is pretty astounding.   This is on the same scale of breathtakingly stupid as people who still think vaccinations cause autism, that the earth is flat and that men never landed on the moon.

Reply as you will, I have no interest in engaging with someone with as much hubris as you've demonstrated.

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The essay was not about Trump beyond his serving the ultimate goals of the Republican party.

 

Wow...what a shocker !   A Republican party president is serving the goals of his nominating party....who does that !!!???

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

Really??

Let's see if that's what the article said:

NO!!!  It doesn't say that.

Why bother posting about an article you clearly have no interest in?

I always do that.  I respond to posts.  You don't have to if you don't want to.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Let me try this again, slowly and using as many one-syllable words as possible:

The essay was not about Trump beyond his serving the ultimate goals of the Republican party.

Your expectation that your opinion should be taken more seriously than someone who has spent a lifetime studying Nazi Germany is laughable.   The arrogance of your assumption that a smattering of historical knowledge should qualify you to dismiss someone's life work is pretty astounding.   This is on the same scale of breathtakingly stupid as people who still think vaccinations cause autism, that the earth is flat and that men never landed on the moon.

Reply as you will, I have no interest in engaging with someone with as much hubris as you've demonstrated.

Your constant attempt to dodge counter-points by just pointing at his reputation, and your sandbox insults, are your only contribution to the thread. You could just as easily say “every assertion made by the author is 100% correct and everyone here is stupid but me.”

You should go to the “orgy of trump-hatred site” that linda sarsour runs. That kind of thing is right up your alley.

 

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

A very thoughtful if worrisome interview with Chris Hedges on the current state of affairs:

 

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

A very thoughtful if worrisome interview with Chris Hedges on the current state of affairs: 

 

 

Not so thoughtful...or very original...what is an "AR-14" ?

[Zeitgeist]

Some important points to take away: 

1.  America is now a state of consumption rather than a state of production, paid for through borrowing (increasing debt to pay for tax cuts).  We'd like to think more people are working at middle class jobs, but that isn't really the case.

2.  Democratic institutions are seriously weakened as government has been painted as the scapegoat for social problems rather than a solution, and gutted accordingly.

3.  Many of the disenfranchised are either checking out through opioids or taking solace in right-wing extremism.

4.  What's especially concerning is that the U.S. is quite a violent society replete with weaponry, so when people express their frustration and rage, the results won't be pretty. 

5.  What tools will there be to fix the mess after a crash, with interest rates already low and debt already high?