Has the regeneracy arrived?

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 02:52 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Jordan, if Trump decides to press the South China Sea issue, as Spicer suggested, how would you respond if you were China?  I'd rather play China's hand in this situation and ours.  Not sure what I would do though.

There are a lot of other actors and actions involved, so it's tough to say for sure.  The One Belt/One Road thing is a sensible move, accelerating the ability to secure resources from routes not subject to US interdiction.  Stockpiling, too.  The use of nonmilitary maritime assets to put pressure on the US naval presence while maintaining deniability and escalation dominance would be smart, too, which they're also doing.  They can also do what Putin has, and they've been doing as well, in shifting the point of friction between them and the US to different areas, de-escalating in one area while ratcheting up tensions in another.  Continuing to pursue bilateral deals with places like the Philippines and Vietnam is clever, too, working to split up potential coalitions before they congeal.  Cyberspace is a potential area where they can bring power to bear with some deniability as well.  Somewhat more speculatively, the US private sector has an enormous amount of capital invested on the Chinese mainland, and pressure brought to bear here could lead to political pressure for the US back home.

But it's tough for them, too.  There is a great deal of nationalist sentiment among the Chinese public that needs to be assuaged, limitations in the extent to which land supply routes can replace sea routes, their own fragile economic state, trust issues between them and their neighbors, rising protests in places like Hong Kong and elsewhere, hard red lines with places like Taiwan and its geopolitical status, a military that hasn't fought a war in almost 40 years, technical limitations in the production of certain military goods like jet-engines, the geographic constraints of the first island chain, etc.  It really could go either way, if it comes down to out and out conflict (military or otherwise), between roughly matching adversaries.  And there are tons of ways things could spiral out of control, despite each side's best efforts.

Good analysis.  Supports my view that there are a lots ways China could respond to a belligerent Trump besides all-out war.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 02:56 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:03 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:  A China that secured the 1st and maybe 2nd Island chains, and its sea lanes to the Middle East and East Africa, which had an economic and political weight commensurate with its demographic one, that was the epicenter (at least at first) of whatever the 20th K-wave turns out to be...

I don't see this as nearly equivalent to what previous hegemons had,  This seems like nothing to me.  Also the K-wave stuff is the precursor to hegemony.  Hegemonic powers dominate K-waves long before they became hegemons.  For example, Portugal began its K-wave program in 1415.  It did not emerge as hegemon until 1516.  The Netherlands had already dominated Baltic trade in the 16th century and sealed the deal with the development of the fluyt in the 1570's, long before they became hegemon in 1609.  The British began building the economic foundations  for hegemony with the successful cultivation of tobacco at Jamestown (tobacco) in 1617 and settlement of Barbados (sugar) in 1627, long before 1714.  America built the foundations for hegemony by their domination of the railroad (including the development of the telegraph which made railroads a true leading sector)  and the steel leading sectors in the 1840's and 1850's--long before 1945. 

If China dominates the 20th K-wave, it will power the hegemony to emerge after that time.  Consider the 1792 railroad date given by M&T. The railroad-industrial leading sectors, built on the existing British strengths in steam engines technology and metallurgy, power their second round of hegemony to emerge after 1815.

If we compare the 1973 beginning of the IT leading sectors to the 1792 ones you have to agree than this sector started in the US, it is NOT a Chinese sector.  Other countries (e.g. Japan) who had industrialized after the US could have run with this sector.  Japan already was a leader in electronics.  But it happened here.  This is why I came up with my alternate hegemonic cycle.  The US had been a major player in the railroad/industrial leading sectors and the following mass market leading sectors (automobiles/electricity/consumer products) and now was looking like it was dominating yet another leading sector with IT.  In M&T's scheme only the UK had led on more than two leading sectors, so it seemed the US was due for another round of hegemony.

Anyways, if the 20th K-wave is to be dominated by China, that would make 2030 like 1792, indicative of Chinese hegemony 20 years later--i.e. 2050, not 2016.

Yes, but where has the GROWTH from the post-1973 K-wave been centered?  It is normal for future leading sectors to start in the existing hegemon, but find their full expression somewhere else.  You might want to consider that, as you have complained all this time, the real money made from IT might not be from the Googles and Facebooks of the world but the manufacturers of the equipment they run on.  And that the Chinese equivalents to those software companies like Alibaba and Weibo are just as innovative and have more stable revenue streams.  

I am not arguing that China will start dominating leading sectors from the 20th K-wave on, but that it has been capturing the growth from those sectors of the 19th k-wave that give it the resources to challenge during the coming macrodecision phase, and if successful, it will be hegemon AFTER that phase concludes, around 2050, yes.

As for your comment on hegemony, again, you're ONLY pointing to Britain II and the US.  Those are not the only hegemons in the cycle.

[SomeGuy]

Thanks, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  I also don't think a conflict, even an all-out war, would be likely to involve a nuclear exchange or a ground invasion of one country by another.

[Marypoza]

(01-24-2017, 01:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 09:42 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Eric Wrote:The voters chose Donald (a con man who had been a Republican candidate already in 2012)

-- the Donald didn't actually run in 2012:

http://mashable.com/2015/06/16/donald-tr...Lw.can8aqn

Eric Wrote:over an honest to goodness sixties liberal activist.

-- except the DNC refused to run Bernie. lnfact they went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to 

Eric Wrote:Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. But I don't know who was elected yet to head the DNC. They need Ellison, I think.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11329/pelo...es-barrett

This issue you raised was that Donald wasn't a Republican until this election. He WAS; he almost ran as a Republican in 2012, and was already testing out his demagoguery with his birther nonsense.

 
-- he also flirted with the Reform Party, according to the mashable link. Which explains this bizarre theory Jesse the Body Ventura raised that the Donald was running as a repug to destoy the party bcuz Pat Buchanan had destroyed the Reform Party. Whatever *shrug*

From the Clinton News Network:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/d...-democrat/

Eric Wrote:Pelosi didn't say she was against change in the country. She said the Democrats did not need to change their position on issues to please the right-wing blogger you quoted. They need to get out their message better, she said. The Democrats are already about change, and the Republicans are about the status quo. Pelosi made a lot of change in 2009-2010. It was blocked by the Republicans, and by a few Democrats In Name Only (DINOs) in the Senate, and by the deceived voters in Nov 2010 on Black Tuesday, which allowed Republicans to gerrymander themselves into power. 

The "new direction" which that right-wing blog you quoted wants, is to go backward toward regressive Republican policies just because they won an election. NO, that's wrong, and the Democrats' policies are still right. Let the Republicans push the policies that THEIR voters want. That's NOT Pelosi's job, Marypoza. The Democrats answer to a different constituency: the people who know their real interests, and aren't deceived by economic libertarian slogans, race and gender baiting, religious-right nonsense, and so on.

Wow, that reactionary blogger you quoted actually said Pelosi's message sounded like Trump's. Gee whiz, so Pelosi sounds like the promises Trump made to workers, which he is now completely and utterly ignoring. All that says, is that American voters are easily deceived by the "changes" promised them by demagogues and deceivers (spelled Republican). Trump just "got his message out better." So, the Democrats need to make the people understand that Trump is the phony, and they are the real deal (at least a lot of them are, like Sanders and Warren and Kamila Harris).

-- oops l thought l linked the NY Post. Here ya go:

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelos...direction/

There were lots of links to articles about what she said:

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/58194-14259

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2016/12/01/the-...der-again/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...-direction

Those are a few. Not sure if they are left or right wing

[Marypoza]

(01-24-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Since l was paraphrasing, l decided to look ip exactly what Mussolini said & l found this:

The definition of fascism is The marriage of the corporation and state

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?...mit=Search

b4 you question my search parameters, let me just say l found the quote amongst a bunch of Mussolini quotes & l wanted to isolate it

There is no evidence he actually said that.  You are also still ignoring that "corporation" and "corporatism" have multiple meanings, particularly over in Europe.

-- so you're saying he wasn't referring to big businesses? I'll admit that quote is an English translation. My ltalian is not very good, actually it amounts to using Spanish to figure out what the ltalian words are

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 03:37 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Since l was paraphrasing, l decided to look ip exactly what Mussolini said & l found this:

The definition of fascism is The marriage of the corporation and state

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?...mit=Search

b4 you question my search parameters, let me just say l found the quote amongst a bunch of Mussolini quotes & l wanted to isolate it

There is no evidence he actually said that.  You are also still ignoring that "corporation" and "corporatism" have multiple meanings, particularly over in Europe.

-- so you're saying he wasn't referring to big businesses? I'll admit that quote is an English translation. My ltalian is not very good, actually it amounts to using Spanish to figure out what the ltalian words are

Yes, the use of the word "corporation" to mean specifically big businesses is largely restricted to American English.  In Fascist Italy, employee syndicates counted as corporations as well.  A lot of Mussolini's economic ideas were ripped off of national syndicalism.  The word for a business in Italian is actually "societa" (with an accent on the a) if I am not mistaken.

[Mikebert]

(01-24-2017, 03:10 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:56 PM)Some Guy Wrote: Yes, but where has the GROWTH from the post-1973 K-wave been centered?  It is normal for future leading sectors to start in the existing hegemon, but find their full expression somewhere else.  You might want to consider that, as you have complained all this time, the real money made from IT might not be from the Googles and Facebooks of the world but the manufacturers of the equipment they run on.  And that the Chinese equivalents to those software companies like Alibaba and Weibo are just as innovative and have more stable revenue streams.  

As for your comment on hegemony, again, you're ONLY pointing to Britain II and the US.  Those are not the only hegemons in the cycle

How so? I gave these examples: For example, Portugal began its K-wave program in 1415.  It did not emerge as hegemon until 1516.  The Netherlands had already dominated Baltic trade in the 16th century and sealed the deal with the development of the fluyt in the 1570's, long before they became hegemon in 1609.  The British began building the economic foundations  for hegemony with the successful cultivation of tobacco at Jamestown (tobacco) in 1617 and settlement of Barbados (sugar) in 1627, long before 1714. 

Quote:I am not arguing that China will start dominating leading sectors from the 20th K-wave on, but that it has been capturing the growth from those sectors of the 19th k-wave that give it the resources to challenge during the coming macrodecision phase, and if successful, it will be hegemon AFTER that phase concludes, around 2050, yes.

This is a deviation from the earlier cycles. I would point out that a nation that cannot pioneer a new leading sector on its own is not really a candidate for hegemon. I would point our that Japan in the 1970's and 1980's had  a vibrant economy that could easily have hosted the IT leading sector.  Didn't happen. And how much NEW cutting edge tech is being developed in the next hegemon today?. By now they should be decades ahead of us.  I don't think they are.  It is going to take a few decades for China to pull ahead of us by sufficient margin to be a world leader.

You seem to think if China gains control over it's near abroad and gains a free hand in trade policy that constitutes hegemonic status.  We had that in the 19th century and Britain gained it after the Armada crisis.  I see more as necessary.

[TeacherinExile]

(01-24-2017, 03:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:37 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Since l was paraphrasing, l decided to look ip exactly what Mussolini said & l found this:

The definition of fascism is The marriage of the corporation and state

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?...mit=Search

b4 you question my search parameters, let me just say l found the quote amongst a bunch of Mussolini quotes & l wanted to isolate it

There is no evidence he actually said that.  You are also still ignoring that "corporation" and "corporatism" have multiple meanings, particularly over in Europe.

-- so you're saying he wasn't referring to big businesses? I'll admit that quote is an English translation. My ltalian is not very good, actually it amounts to using Spanish to figure out what the ltalian words are

Yes, the use of the word "corporation" to mean specifically big businesses is largely restricted to American English.  In Fascist Italy, employee syndicates counted as corporations as well.  A lot of Mussolini's economic ideas were ripped off of national syndicalism.  The word for a business in Italian is actually "societa" (with an accent on the a) if I am not mistaken.

FWIW, I've never cared for Mussolini's self-definition of fascism, fascist though he obviously was.  His definition is oversimplified, and it suffers too, perhaps, from a poor translation of the quote attributed to him.  Using his too-narrow definition, we could generally conclude that there are a good number of fascist nations in existence today.  And how can that be? I've read a number of books on the subject of fascism, and the one historian whose definition best comports to my understanding of history is that of Robert O. Paxton:

Robert Paxton is an American historian and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University.  In his book, The Anatomy of Fascism, he develops the following definition:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.  (Paxton, op. cit., p. 218)

Trump's campaign rhetoric certainly gives evidence of "obsessive preoccupation...", but as for "compensatory cults" and "committed nationalist militants" and "redemptive violence," we're a long ways yet from any concrete evidence of those characteristics.

Paxton has been interviewed a couple of times by Slate in the past year, and each time when pressed on whether Trump is a fascist, he demurs.  (See his response to the interviewer's last question.)

"Does Donald Trump Believe in Anything But Himself?"  (The Republican candidate's fascist impulses are frequently rooted in his own self-interest.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...erest.html

[SomeGuy]

Quote:How so? I gave these examples: For example, Portugal began its K-wave program in 1415.

No, they first tried seizing ports from Morocco in 1415.  The K-wave didn't occur until they got down to Guinea in 1430, and got around the middleman.  In the text, that wave is specifically called Guinea Gold.  And it died out around 1500.  They reached hegemony after the start of the next k-wave centered around Vasco de Gama blazing the trail to the Indian Ocean.

Quote:The Netherlands had already dominated Baltic trade in the 16th century and sealed the deal with the development of the fluyt in the 1570's, long before they became hegemon in 1609.

Start up for Baltic & Atlantic Trades for the Netherlands was in 1540, when the Dutch role in the Habsburg empire was expanded with the vast flow of silver from San Luis de Potosi after 1540.  It wasn't even an independent country until about 1609 (which wasn't even formally confirmed by Spain until 1648).  That's where that date comes from.

Quote:he British began building the economic foundations  for hegemony with the successful cultivation of tobacco at Jamestown (tobacco) in 1617 and settlement of Barbados (sugar) in 1627, long before 1714.

Date for the start point of the boom was 1640, with the fighting between the Dutch and Portuguese fighting in Brazil driving up the price of sugar, and the Navigation Acts of  1650 confirming British control of its own production.  Production didn't really boom until the introduction of the plantation system and the surge in the slave trade, which didn't happen till the late 17th century.  There were more white people than black in places like Barbados, Jamaica, and elsewhere during the first half of the 17th century.  Britain was also fighting with the Dutch, frequently on the losing end, on and off for much of the 17th century, and it was technically taken over by the Dutch Stadtholder in 1688.  It also technically lost the War of the Spanish Succession, since there is a Bourbon on the throne to this day.

So we are looking at about a 70 year lead from agenda-setting to hegemony.  So, hegemony around 2050 means a start date around the late 70s?

Quote:This is a deviation from the earlier cycles. I would point out that a nation that cannot pioneer a new leading sector on its own is not really a candidate for hegemon.

The British were not the first to cultivate sugar.  America did not invent the automobile.  Dutch and British finance, respectively, were critical to each their development.  So no, I don't see that as a rule.  I can find an M & T quote to that effect if you like.

Quote: would point our that Japan in the 1970's and 1980's had  a vibrant economy that could easily have hosted the IT leading sector.

Depends on what you see the post-1973 growth sectors as.  Software, or hardware?  Japan, and later the other Asian countries, pretty much put the US out of business in the latter.

Quote:And how much NEW cutting edge tech is being developed in the next hegemon today?.

Have you SEEN a graduate class recently?  They don't all stay here.  Ever seen Weibo or Alibaba?

Quote:By now they should be decades ahead of us.

 
Pretty sure we weren't "decades" ahead of Britain when they passed the baton to us.  The British certainly weren't compared to the Dutch in 1714.  This is also not a rule.

Quote:It is going to take a few decades for China to pull ahead of us by sufficient margin to be a world leader.

Consider the population difference.  In PPP terms it is larger now, has a larger manufacturing capacity, more internet and mobile usersand doesn't have to even reach Asian Tiger levels of per capita to dwarf us as a share of the global economy.

Quote:You seem to think if China gains control over it's near abroad and gains a free hand in trade policy that constitutes hegemonic status.  We had that in the 19th century and Britain gained it after the Armada crisis.  I see more as necessary.

You seem to think that if it doesn't become Victorian Britain or Eisenhower's America that it doesn't qualify.  Those were not the only two hegemons.  A China that constituted between a quarter and a third of world GDP, the largest consumer market, control over a "near abroad" constituting half the world's population, and a naval share large enough to manage it, WOULD be a hegemon.

[Odin]

(01-20-2017, 05:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The believers in Thomas L. Friedman's "Flat World" just refuse to give up their idiotic utopian notions. Stop! Please! Stop poking the hornet's nest! If Trump is not a wake up call for you fools, I don't know what is!!!!!!

Trump is appealing to delusional people who don't understand how the world works and who think they can wave a magic wand and turn the clock back to the 50s and make all their factory jobs and coal mine jobs magically reappear, put women and blacks "in their place", make gay people go back into the closet, and deport every Latino and Muslim. These people don't want to listen to actual policy proposals (and a lot of them are too anti-intellectual to even care about such things), they want to be pandered to with bullshit.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 06:35 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-20-2017, 05:31 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The believers in Thomas L. Friedman's "Flat World" just refuse to give up their idiotic utopian notions. Stop! Please! Stop poking the hornet's nest! If Trump is not a wake up call for you fools, I don't know what is!!!!!!

Trump is appealing to delusional people who don't understand how the world works and who think they can wave a magic wand and turn the clock back to the 50s and make all their factory jobs and coal mine jobs magically reappear, put women and blacks "in their place", make gay people go back into the closet, and deport every Latino and Muslim. These people don't want to listen to actual policy proposals (and a lot of them are too anti-intellectual to even care about such things), they want to be pandered to with bullshit.

I know, that's why I voted for him. 

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2017, 01:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Jordan, if Trump decides to press the South China Sea issue, as Spicer suggested, how would you respond if you were China?  I'd rather play China's hand in this situation and ours.  Not sure what I would do though.

If I were Chinese leadership I would start pushing a version of a One China deal in which Taiwan gets an "offer that it could not refuse". I would allow the Republic of China to keep its democratic system at the expense of surrendering its formal independence and going into the military and diplomatic orbit of the People's Republic. Nothing changes on the Mainland, but there will be no possibility of any American military presence in Taiwan.

Checkmate. The USA loses any possibility of starting World War III.

P.S. -- I would also try to pull South Korea and Japan into the diplomatic and military orbit. Farewell, advanced American military bases in Rast Asia.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 07:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Jordan, if Trump decides to press the South China Sea issue, as Spicer suggested, how would you respond if you were China?  I'd rather play China's hand in this situation and ours.  Not sure what I would do though.

If I were Chinese leadership I would start pushing a version of a One China deal in which Taiwan gets an "offer that it could not refuse". I would allow the Republic of China to keep its democratic system at the expense of surrendering its formal independence and going into the military and diplomatic orbit of the People's Republic. Nothing changes on the Mainland, but there will be no possibility of any American military presence in Taiwan.

Checkmate. The USA loses any possibility of starting World War III.

P.S. -- I would also try to pull South Korea and Japan  into the diplomatic and military orbit. Farewell, advanced  American military bases in Rast Asia.

What makes you think that would work?  The Taiwanese already have the example of Hong Kong to see that it doesn't.  The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.  How would it set about prying South Korea and particularly Japan from the US orbit?

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2017, 03:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 09:42 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Eric Wrote:The voters chose Donald (a con man who had been a Republican candidate already in 2012)

-- the Donald didn't actually run in 2012:

http://mashable.com/2015/06/16/donald-tr...Lw.can8aqn

Eric Wrote:over an honest to goodness sixties liberal activist.

-- except the DNC refused to run Bernie. lnfact they went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to 

Eric Wrote:Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. But I don't know who was elected yet to head the DNC. They need Ellison, I think.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11329/pelo...es-barrett

This issue you raised was that Donald wasn't a Republican until this election. He WAS; he almost ran as a Republican in 2012, and was already testing out his demagoguery with his birther nonsense.

 
-- he also flirted with the Reform Party, according to the mashable link. Which explains this bizarre theory Jesse the Body Ventura raised that the Donald was running as a repug to destoy the party bcuz Pat Buchanan had destroyed the Reform Party. Whatever *shrug*

From the Clinton News Network:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/d...-democrat/

Eric Wrote:Pelosi didn't say she was against change in the country. She said the Democrats did not need to change their position on issues to please the right-wing blogger you quoted. They need to get out their message better, she said. The Democrats are already about change, and the Republicans are about the status quo. Pelosi made a lot of change in 2009-2010. It was blocked by the Republicans, and by a few Democrats In Name Only (DINOs) in the Senate, and by the deceived voters in Nov 2010 on Black Tuesday, which allowed Republicans to gerrymander themselves into power. 

The "new direction" which that right-wing blog you quoted wants, is to go backward toward regressive Republican policies just because they won an election. NO, that's wrong, and the Democrats' policies are still right. Let the Republicans push the policies that THEIR voters want. That's NOT Pelosi's job, Marypoza. The Democrats answer to a different constituency: the people who know their real interests, and aren't deceived by economic libertarian slogans, race and gender baiting, religious-right nonsense, and so on.

Wow, that reactionary blogger you quoted actually said Pelosi's message sounded like Trump's. Gee whiz, so Pelosi sounds like the promises Trump made to workers, which he is now completely and utterly ignoring. All that says, is that American voters are easily deceived by the "changes" promised them by demagogues and deceivers (spelled Republican). Trump just "got his message out better." So, the Democrats need to make the people understand that Trump is the phony, and they are the real deal (at least a lot of them are, like Sanders and Warren and Kamila Harris).

-- oops l thought l linked the NY Post. Here ya go:

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelos...direction/

There were lots of links to articles about what she said:

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/58194-14259

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2016/12/01/the-...der-again/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...-direction

Those are a few. Not sure if they are left or right wing

There is no difference in what she said. You misinterpreted what she said to claim that she doesn't want change. She's just saying that the election of bozo Trump and a right-wing congress does not in the least imply that Democrats should cease to be progressive, as they have been.

[Marypoza]

(01-24-2017, 07:36 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:31 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2017, 09:42 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

Eric Wrote:The voters chose Donald (a con man who had been a Republican candidate already in 2012)

-- the Donald didn't actually run in 2012:

http://mashable.com/2015/06/16/donald-tr...Lw.can8aqn

Eric Wrote:over an honest to goodness sixties liberal activist.

-- except the DNC refused to run Bernie. lnfact they went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to 

Eric Wrote:Pelosi hasn't said any such thing. But I don't know who was elected yet to head the DNC. They need Ellison, I think.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/11329/pelo...es-barrett

This issue you raised was that Donald wasn't a Republican until this election. He WAS; he almost ran as a Republican in 2012, and was already testing out his demagoguery with his birther nonsense.

 
-- he also flirted with the Reform Party, according to the mashable link. Which explains this bizarre theory Jesse the Body Ventura raised that the Donald was running as a repug to destoy the party bcuz Pat Buchanan had destroyed the Reform Party. Whatever *shrug*

From the Clinton News Network:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/d...-democrat/

Eric Wrote:Pelosi didn't say she was against change in the country. She said the Democrats did not need to change their position on issues to please the right-wing blogger you quoted. They need to get out their message better, she said. The Democrats are already about change, and the Republicans are about the status quo. Pelosi made a lot of change in 2009-2010. It was blocked by the Republicans, and by a few Democrats In Name Only (DINOs) in the Senate, and by the deceived voters in Nov 2010 on Black Tuesday, which allowed Republicans to gerrymander themselves into power. 

The "new direction" which that right-wing blog you quoted wants, is to go backward toward regressive Republican policies just because they won an election. NO, that's wrong, and the Democrats' policies are still right. Let the Republicans push the policies that THEIR voters want. That's NOT Pelosi's job, Marypoza. The Democrats answer to a different constituency: the people who know their real interests, and aren't deceived by economic libertarian slogans, race and gender baiting, religious-right nonsense, and so on.

Wow, that reactionary blogger you quoted actually said Pelosi's message sounded like Trump's. Gee whiz, so Pelosi sounds like the promises Trump made to workers, which he is now completely and utterly ignoring. All that says, is that American voters are easily deceived by the "changes" promised them by demagogues and deceivers (spelled Republican). Trump just "got his message out better." So, the Democrats need to make the people understand that Trump is the phony, and they are the real deal (at least a lot of them are, like Sanders and Warren and Kamila Harris).

-- oops l thought l linked the NY Post. Here ya go:

http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelos...direction/

There were lots of links to articles about what she said:

https://www.tapatalk.com/topic/58194-14259

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2016/12/01/the-...der-again/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susa...-direction

Those are a few. Not sure if they are left or right wing

There is no difference in what she said. You misinterpreted what she said to claim that she doesn't want change. She's just saying that the election of bozo Trump and a right-wing congress does not in the least imply that Democrats should cease to be progressive, as they have been.

-- progressive?? progressive??!!!!!!!??   :Rofl:

Omfg Eric you're funny 

This left wing blogger sez it alot better than l ever could so l'll let her take it from here:

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/300

[Marypoza]

(01-24-2017, 04:34 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 03:37 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:58 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 02:53 PM)Marypoza Wrote: Since l was paraphrasing, l decided to look ip exactly what Mussolini said & l found this:

The definition of fascism is The marriage of the corporation and state

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/search?...mit=Search

b4 you question my search parameters, let me just say l found the quote amongst a bunch of Mussolini quotes & l wanted to isolate it

There is no evidence he actually said that.  You are also still ignoring that "corporation" and "corporatism" have multiple meanings, particularly over in Europe.

-- so you're saying he wasn't referring to big businesses? I'll admit that quote is an English translation. My ltalian is not very good, actually it amounts to using Spanish to figure out what the ltalian words are

Yes, the use of the word "corporation" to mean specifically big businesses is largely restricted to American English.  In Fascist Italy, employee syndicates counted as corporations as well.  A lot of Mussolini's economic ideas were ripped off of national syndicalism.  The word for a business in Italian is actually "societa" (with an accent on the a) if I am not mistaken.

-- l've heard the Mob called the Syndicate so l guess that makes sense

TeacherinExile Wrote:FWIW, I've never cared for Mussolini's self-definition of fascism, fascist though he obviously was.  His definition is oversimplified, and it suffers too, perhaps, from a poor translation of the quote attributed to him.  Using his too-narrow definition, we could generally conclude that there are a good number of fascist nations in existence today.  And how can that be?  I've read a number of books on the subject of fascism, and the one historian whose definition best comports to my understanding of history is that of Robert O. Paxton:

Robert Paxton is an American historian and emeritus professor of history at Columbia University.  In his book, The Anatomy of Fascism, he develops the following definition:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a massed-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.  (Paxton, op. cit., p. 218)

-- with all due respect to Paxton, his definition makes my eyes glaze over. I'll concede that something is probably lost in the translation of Mussolini's definition (that's what generally happens when you translate from one language to another) but it's also to the point. For instance-& most notably- ppl conflate antisemitism with fascism. But Mussolini's ltaly did not practice antisemitism until the late 1930s, when Mussolini started getting a little too chummy with Hitler. Hungary's Hrothy also avoided antisemitism for the most part ( only when pressured by Hitler) it wasn't until Hrothy was overthrown & the Green Arrow took over that Hungarian Jews were rounded up en masse. So to say, "we're not fascist, we don't kill Jews". No but  what about killing unions? Today only around 7% of the workers are protected by unions. Ppl work longer hrs for less $ (adjusted 4 inflation) & we can't get the minimum wage raised. Who benefits from worker exploitation? Big Business. The exploitive TPP may be dead (this pos would of been a bonanza for big businesses) but what about DAPL, & the ppl fighting for their clean water? Who benefits from DAPL? Big Business. Then there was our health crap law which benefitted the insurance companies & Big Pharma, which the Donald signed an exec order dismantling (even a broken clock is right twice a day) unfortunately he also wants to deregulate alot of things (clean air, water, safety regs) which hurt ppl but benefit Big Business. When businesses bcome more important than ppl we are living in a facsist state

TeacherinExile Wrote:Trump's campaign rhetoric certainly gives evidence of "obsessive preoccupation...", but as for "compensatory cults" and "committed nationalist militants" and "redemptive violence," we're a long ways yet from any concrete evidence of those characteristics.

Paxton has been interviewed a couple of times by Slate in the past year, and each time when pressed on whether Trump is a fascist, he demurs.  (See his response to the interviewer's last question.)

"Does Donald Trump Believe in Anything But Himself?"  (The Republican candidate's fascist impulses are frequently rooted in his own self-interest.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...erest.html

 

-- l agree with that assessment. The Donald is out 4 the Donald

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Jordan, if Trump decides to press the South China Sea issue, as Spicer suggested, how would you respond if you were China?  I'd rather play China's hand in this situation and ours.  Not sure what I would do though.

If I were Chinese leadership I would start pushing a version of a One China deal in which Taiwan gets an "offer that it could not refuse". I would allow the Republic of China to keep its democratic system at the expense of surrendering its formal independence and going into the military and diplomatic orbit of the People's Republic. Nothing changes on the Mainland, but there will be no possibility of any American military presence in Taiwan.

Checkmate. The USA loses any possibility of starting World War III.

P.S. -- I would also try to pull South Korea and Japan  into the diplomatic and military orbit. Farewell, advanced  American military bases in Rast Asia.

What makes you think that would work?  The Taiwanese already have the example of Hong Kong to see that it doesn't.  The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.  How would it set about prying South Korea and particularly Japan from the US orbit?

Good point. The world scene changed dramatically on January 20, 2017 with the inauguration of Donald Trump as President and the complete rejection of liberalism  and a consensus of foreign policy seemingly entrenched indelibly since Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter as President.  President Trump's economic ideology is erratic enough in itself with the establishment of a plutocracy that resembles a Marxist stereotype of capitalist exploitation at its worst.  Many people see the USA as the new Evil Empire in the sense that the old Soviet Union was. I am one of those. The only hope that I can have in America is that the People will resist and undercut the authority of a vile leader.

Who would want to die for an inhuman, amoral, rapacious elite that imposes the duty of the masses to enrich and indulge it, no matter how much suffering that requires? I don't. Sure, China has a police state, but its leadership is at least predictable. If America has sacrificed steady-hand leaders like George H W Bush and Barack Obama for a demagogue who subsequently betrayed the masses that he got to vote for him, at least China is predictable.

[Warren Dew]

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.

I find that hard to believe.  Do you have a reference?  Even the Taiwanese language is dying if not dead.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 10:11 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:21 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 01:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Jordan, if Trump decides to press the South China Sea issue, as Spicer suggested, how would you respond if you were China?  I'd rather play China's hand in this situation and ours.  Not sure what I would do though.

If I were Chinese leadership I would start pushing a version of a One China deal in which Taiwan gets an "offer that it could not refuse". I would allow the Republic of China to keep its democratic system at the expense of surrendering its formal independence and going into the military and diplomatic orbit of the People's Republic. Nothing changes on the Mainland, but there will be no possibility of any American military presence in Taiwan.

Checkmate. The USA loses any possibility of starting World War III.

P.S. -- I would also try to pull South Korea and Japan  into the diplomatic and military orbit. Farewell, advanced  American military bases in Rast Asia.

What makes you think that would work?  The Taiwanese already have the example of Hong Kong to see that it doesn't.  The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.  How would it set about prying South Korea and particularly Japan from the US orbit?

Good point. The world scene changed dramatically on January 20, 2017 with the inauguration of Donald Trump as President and the complete rejection of liberalism  and a consensus of foreign policy seemingly entrenched indelibly since Reagan replaced Jimmy Carter as President.  President Trump's economic ideology is erratic enough in itself with the establishment of a plutocracy that resembles a Marxist stereotype of capitalist exploitation at its worst.  Many people see the USA as the new Evil Empire in the sense that the old Soviet Union was. I am one of those. The only hope that I can have in America is that the People will resist and undercut the authority of a vile leader.

Who would want to die for an inhuman, amoral, rapacious elite that imposes the duty of the masses to enrich and indulge it, no matter how much suffering that requires? I don't. Sure, China has a police state, but its leadership is at least predictable. If America has sacrificed steady-hand leaders like George H W Bush and Barack Obama for a demagogue who subsequently betrayed the masses that he got to vote for him, at least China is predictable.

So, back to rants.  Good bye.

[SomeGuy]

(01-24-2017, 10:19 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-24-2017, 07:30 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: The majority of Taiwanese don't even identify as Chinese anymore.

I find that hard to believe.  Do you have a reference?  Even the Taiwanese language is dying if not dead.

There are multiple "Taiwanese" languages: various aboriginal languages, the Hakka and other dialects brought over by the first (Southern) Chinese settlers in the early Modern period, and then the huge influx of Mandarin speakers after the Civil War.  But yeah, largely Mandarin, at least formally.

The references for the shift in identification from "Chinese" to "Taiwanese" are here.  It's more like the shift in colonists' attitudes from being "British" to being "American" even though they still spoke the same language.