The State of Global Politics Today

[Phoenix Wright]

5 hours ago, Tryhard said:

if calling the US an oligarchy is alarmist and factually inaccurate, then I suppose you would disagree with both Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky on what they've said about oligarchy. there's barely any places on earth that are laissez-faire capitalist, if any can be truly called that. Somalia, perhaps?

2

yes, sure, i'd disagree. what is fundamentally different from how other western systems work from ours? i'm 100% not okay with money in politics. i think a constitutional amendment is required and fully necessary to overturn citizens united (2010) and remove the strangehold money has in our politics. but aside from this, which is huge and cannot be understated, i don't really see how other systems are performing astronomically better.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html

articles like the above aren't tossed around anymore. i am simply skeptical that the published results are as dire as they are made to be.

i am fine with a representative democracy anyway. a mob rule does not work.

Quote

don't necessarily disagree, because even self-described conservatives can often be in favour of left-wing ideals - just without wanting to give themselves that label, with perhaps the exception of the death penalty which still holds a majority opinion in the united states. but conservative politics has always dominated the conversation in america. perhaps if voters actually turn out then it would change my opinion, instead of sticking with the republicans when the time comes because the democrats are socialists, apparently.

i' m a little wary about what the US public thinks, though, considering the US public was 80% in favour of the Iraq war at the time. just something to keep in mind.

6

you're cherry-picking and removing context from individual issues. on average, the usa is not really "pretty right wing." probably center-right, if not moderate leaning right-wing.

 

Quote

however, corporations will have more power in america than almost anywhere else. defense contractors get paid by the government to construct excessive weapons even when the Pentagon advises them that they already have enough. billions are giving to corporations for R&D by the government every year - essentially, corporate welfare, which the US is top of the world in, ahead of China. the US eschews workers rights like annual leave and maternity leave that is not neglected in other western countries. a great deal of push is made by republican politicians about cutting corporate taxes, and most democrats don't even want to increase corporate tax.

agreed, this is incredibly frustrating. but i think this is not evidence of an oligarchy, but instead an economically conservative policy/set of policies in action. american citizens do not vote in volume or frequently enough to change things. that is partly the reason why things are the way they are.

 

Quote

I'm not going to pretend that other western countries don't have the same problems to some degree, but the US is worse than most in this regard. hence I would call the mainstream politics in the united states skewed to the right-wing. if you're framing this from a populist perspective, then you very well may be right - but there is no representation of these views really, yet, with the republican party pushing so far right that they're in risk of falling off a cliff if they haven't already. 

you're changing your argument here--i'm not just trying to be nitpicky either. i never argued the opposite, but earlier the way your posts read was like the us was basically alt-right.

there's plenty of representation--perhaps the picture scotland gets is simply inaccurate. guns, for example, are extremely nuanced because even self-described socialists like me don't believe in banning them. trump wants out of afghanistan--what do you think of that? what do you think of the federal govt's relaxed views on marijuana (or at the very least relaxed enforcement)? (though this can dramatically depend on the state you're talking about as well.)

310+m people introduces many complications that smaller countries just don't have to deal with. and for those that are bigger, they've either got total control (china) or a suite of their own difficult issues to try and solve (india, indonesia, pakistan, brazil). for our immense size and political system, one could argue we're doing the best of all of top 10!

 

[Tryhard]

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

, but earlier the way your posts read was like the us was basically alt-right.

I think you are reading too much into it, and splitting hairs. When I said "pretty right", I envisioned center-right in my mind, maybe a little further, which is what you said it this post it is.

to put it into perspective, the republicans are the fringe party in almost any european country. they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as a reasonable party. the democrats are our conservatives.

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

there's plenty of representation--perhaps the picture scotland gets is simply inaccurate. guns, for example, are extremely nuanced because even self-described socialists like me don't believe in banning them. trump wants out of afghanistan--what do you think of that? what do you think of the federal govt's relaxed views on marijuana (or at the very least relaxed enforcement)? (though this can dramatically depend on the state you're talking about as well.)

guns are banned for general citizen use here, so where does gun control stand on the left-to-right spectrum? that said, I have a hard time believing that quite a few self-described socialists don't want to ban guns.

trump wanting out of afghanistan? good, if he actually is going to do it. american conservatives would argue that their anti-war position is not left-wing because they are libertarians or paleoconservatives. of course, I don't buy that, but this by itself or 'state' marijuana laws are the minority when it comes to actually representative government.

besides, earlier you said I was cherry-picking - how is this not?

Edited March 6, 2019 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I think you are reading too much into it, and splitting hairs. When I said "pretty right", I envisioned center-right in my mind, maybe a little further, which is what you said it this post it is.

to put it into perspective, the republicans are the fringe party in almost any european country. they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as a reasonable party. the democrats are our conservatives.

guns are banned for general citizen use here, so where does gun control stand on the left-to-right spectrum? that said, I have a hard time believing that quite a few self-described socialists don't want to ban guns.

trump wanting out of afghanistan? good, if he actually is going to do it. american conservatives would argue that their anti-war position is not left-wing because they are libertarians or paleoconservatives. of course, I don't buy that, but this by itself or 'state' marijuana laws are the minority when it comes to actually representative government.

besides, earlier you said I was cherry-picking - how is this not?

this will be my last post on this subject (in this topic). feel free (mods) to cut/paste this in us politics as well. or tryhard, feel free to pm me :)

well, when i say "pretty" it's basically a synonym for "considerably," so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i don't know--it's literally in our constitution so it's not really a "right" or "left" issue, tbh. this is my thoughts on it, though. i don't support banning, i support the so-called "common sense" reforms. i guess i should say "democratic socialist," rather than straight-up socialist, though. admittedly, i'm not entirely sure of what the differences are, so i can't be more precise. 

the rest of the disagreements stem from me reading into your posts a bit too much as well. i guess that's what i get for not posting in awhile...

[Tryhard]

22 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said:

this will be my last post on this subject (in this topic). feel free (mods) to cut/paste this in us politics as well. or tryhard, feel free to pm me :)

well, when i say "pretty" it's basically a synonym for "considerably," so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

i don't know--it's literally in our constitution so it's not really a "right" or "left" issue, tbh. this is my thoughts on it, though. i don't support banning, i support the so-called "common sense" reforms. i guess i should say "democratic socialist," rather than straight-up socialist, though. admittedly, i'm not entirely sure of what the differences are, so i can't be more precise. 

the rest of the disagreements stem from me reading into your posts a bit too much as well. i guess that's what i get for not posting in awhile...

it's cool. personally, I've got nothing against what you said, though I can't say I'll agree, and I was also going to stop posting on the next reply since I was more confused than anything else, and I definitely wasn't clear.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Tryhard

[Shoblongoo]

Hey so while we were sitting around with our thumb up our ass trying to figure out how to bring jobs back to coal country, China built a 250 acre solar farm shaped like a Giant Panda




...they're going to rule the world in 50 years... 

[XRay]

While I agree that we should not support the coal industry, we also need to help coal country move away from coal.

I hope the trade war escalates further though. The less dependent we are on the Chinese economy, the better off we will be.

Edited May 18, 2019 by XRay

[Jotari]

21 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Hey so while we were sitting around with our thumb up our ass trying to figure out how to bring jobs back to coal country, China built a 250 acre solar farm shaped like a Giant Panda




...they're going to rule the world in 50 years... 

"Sir, is a panda really the most efficient shape we can build this? I feel there's a lot of land not being utilized."

"Damnit man, renewable energy has nothing to do with efficiency! It's all about looking good."

 

[XRay]

Hong Kong for the past week is protesting Chinese interference and encroachment. During the British hand over of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Hong Kong was guaranteed to keep its system of democratic government for the next 50 years, so they coin the term "One Country Two [political] Systems" to describe the difference in governance between high autonomy areas and low autonomy areas. Basically, unlike Chinese citizens, Hong Kongers in general have about the same rights as those in Western democracies, but one of the most important differences is that they cannot choose their leaders (Beijing chooses for them), which means there is practically no effective mechanism to prevent an erosion of democracy inside the government. To further undermine Hong Kong's autonomy and end One Country Two Systems, the pro-Beijing leader recently is trying to get an extradition law passed that can be abused by Beijing to extradite political dissidents from Hong Kong to China to be tried under opaque Chinese courts, and this extradition bill is what lead to recent protests. The Hong Kong government is essentially representing a foreign power rather than representing the local populace.

Edited June 16, 2019 by XRay

[Shoblongoo]

Anyone wanna venture a guess why we're trying to unilaterally start a war with Iran???

[Interdimensional Observer]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Anyone wanna venture a guess why we're trying to unilaterally start a war with Iran???

Base points and renegotiation leverage I hear?

One must hope his "Old Man "Get off my lawn!"" isolationism wins out. Remember that Syria one-off missile strike from years ago? I like to characterize that as the Old Lawn Man shooting his shotgun into the air, but going no further.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[Phoenix Wright]

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Anyone wanna venture a guess why we're trying to unilaterally start a war with Iran???

the ny daily podcast ep. provided some insight into wtf is going on--i'd like to hear more takes on it but what they presented had at least a very logical flow. the short of it is that the united states wants iran to understand they can't act against us without fear of retaliation militarily. trump might (hopefully not) want to start a war, thankfully the strikes were called off for a good reason but at an odd time. according to the podcast the move "seems to have worked," but i think it's a bit too soon to know what's going on for sure.

iran wants the us and europe to know that they're capable of disrupting the oil trade.

it's difficult for me to try and guess why trump makes decisions outside of the realm of "this will turn america into a reality show/make me money/typical trump bs." listening to him speak, he seems genuinely hesitant to begin a real conflict though, which i think is a good sign.

[Shoblongoo]

Well refreshing to see that no one is buying our bullshit this time. 

I don't think there's a single European power thats gonna back us up if we start taking shots at Iran. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Life]

16 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Well refreshing to see that no one is buying our bullshit this time. 

I don't think there's a single European power thats gonna back us up if we start taking shots at Iran. 

I'm 100% going to regret this (me actually popping back up) but whatever.

A few things to note if the US and Iran go to war:

1) The Gulf States will actually back the USA. Shocking, I know. But the USA, Israel and the Saudis have what used to be a real under-the-table alliance that is anything but that these days. Hell, I see positive things said about the Saudis in my local newspapers while they still fund terrorists that want us dead.

2) Since the Gulf States will back the USA, Europe will just putz around and claim how they are disappointed but won't do anything about it.

3) War in Iran is AWFUL because that means that I will probably die before I have kids.

[Interdimensional Observer]

So what is the next step for Brexit? Between a reckless PM, an unliked opposition leader who seems to find sitting in Brexit No Man's Land (neutral/ambivalence) pleasant when nobody else does, the third major-ish party getting a sudden boost by going all-in as Remain but still not so big I guess, and a fringe Farage dude. What will happen?

[Etrurian emperor]

3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

So what is the next step for Brexit? Between a reckless PM, an unliked opposition leader who seems to find sitting in Brexit No Man's Land (neutral/ambivalence) pleasant when nobody else does, the third major-ish party getting a sudden boost by going all-in as Remain but still not so big I guess, and a fringe Farage dude. What will happen?

Parliament will likely block a no deal Brexit until Johnson is forced to ask for an extension and only when that's achieved will they allow new elections to happen.

[Tryhard]

5 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

So what is the next step for Brexit? Between a reckless PM, an unliked opposition leader who seems to find sitting in Brexit No Man's Land (neutral/ambivalence) pleasant when nobody else does, the third major-ish party getting a sudden boost by going all-in as Remain but still not so big I guess, and a fringe Farage dude. What will happen?

i dunno, at this point if you actually have an idea i'd be fine with you being a british politician

[Shrimpica]

6 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

So what is the next step for Brexit? Between a reckless PM, an unliked opposition leader who seems to find sitting in Brexit No Man's Land (neutral/ambivalence) pleasant when nobody else does, the third major-ish party getting a sudden boost by going all-in as Remain but still not so big I guess, and a fringe Farage dude. What will happen?

 

33 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

i dunno, at this point if you actually have an idea i'd be fine with you being a british politician

a prespective from a random EU-citizen: 
2nd referendum would be best, i think. And make it binding this time, so when some spew lies, the courts can call them on their bs.

sarcastic answer: kick England out of the UK, rest UK can stay.

Honestly, UK has always been the odd one out in the EU, without them, even though everyone would be hit economically, i think the EU can push more projects forward and achive closer integration. But it isn't worth the Price imo, espeically with Ireland troubles and Scotland getting dragged out without having a say.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Shrimperor

[Jotari]

9 hours ago, Shrimperor said:

 

sarcastic answer: kick England out of the UK, rest UK can stay.

A country that splits off from a larger EU state would need to apply for EU membership again. Which was one of the reasons Scotland didn't vote independence (they say). For the rest of the UK to kick England out of the union and declare themselves the legal successors, would be absolutely hilarious. England would be so incredibly pissed, but wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if the other three states were united on the matter. It'd be about the only way Scotland could stay in the EU at this point. Unless they decide to merge with Ireland and create a Celtic State. Which I'd have very mixed feelings about.

[Etrurian emperor]

The problem with a new referendum is that a very solid chunk of the British electorate would believe that their democratic rights have been trampled on. They finally were allowed to have their say, they were finally allowed to beat those gosh darn elites and then its yanked away from them. This will likely cause them to radicalize and lock them forever in the populist camp. At this point remain will probably have more supporters but I do think the proponents of a no deal Brexit are still sizable enough that it could get very nasty if they radicalize. 

Of course Brexit going on might also lead to a very solid chunk of the British electorate believing their democratic rights are trampled on. The Leave campaign always had a very shaky legitimacy considering the lies and them breaking electoral law, and the Brexiteers trying to dismantle the democratically elected parliament because they found it annoying isn't helping the matter. 

Both sides will likely consider themselves to be deeply wronged no matter the outcome. The whole thing is a mess no matter what ends up happening. 

[Shrimpica]

@Etrurian emperorHere's the thing tough, the referendom was non-binding, it was advisory. While a while ago i was also in a ''they should leave already'' state of mind, it's been more than 3 year now since the referendum. Countries usually have Elections every few years, as the mind of many change through the years.

13 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The Leave campaign always had a very shaky legitimacy considering the lies and them breaking electoral law

The only reason why the referendum wasn't nulled by a court for all the lies & laws they broke was because it was non-binding iirc. 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Shrimperor

[Etrurian emperor]

25 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

@Etrurian emperorHere's the thing tough, the referendom was non-binding, it was advisory. While a while ago i was also in a ''they should leave already'' state of mind, it's been more than 3 year now since the referendum. Countries usually have Elections every few years, as the mind of many change through the years.

The only reason why the referendum wasn't nulled by a court for all the lies & laws they broke was because it was non-binding iirc. 

Officially it was non binding but just about everyone involved was very clear in them respecting it. 

The legality and nuance about a referendum being binding or non binding doesn't entirely matter. Its how people feel. And currently a lot of people already think out the establishment is out to get them.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Etrurian emperor

[Shrimpica]

24 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Officially it was non binding but just about everyone involved was very clear in them respecting it. 

And they didn't find a solution that won't hurt everyone involved after trying to find one for years. Shouldn't they go to the public once more now that everything is laid to the table? Especiallly since the referendum back then didn't specify what kind of brexit it was talking about.

Or should they just let it burn because ''Will of the people''?

24 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

The legality and nuance about a referendum being binding or non binding doesn't entirely matter. Its how people feel.

Laws don't care about feelings.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Shrimperor

[Jotari]

14 minutes ago, Shrimperor said:

And they didn't find a solution that won't hurt everyone involved after trying to find one for years. Shouldn't they go to the public once more now that everything is laid to the table? Especiallly since the referendum back then didn't specify what kind of brexit it was talking about.

Or should they just let it burn because ''Will of the people''?

Laws don't care about feelings.

I believe his argument is "things are going to burn no matter what happens". People on both sides have reasons (whether they be rationale reasons is irrelevant as people will still believe them) to think their democracy is being usurped.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Jotari

[XRay]

On 6/16/2019 at 2:53 AM, XRay said:

Hong Kong for the past week is protesting Chinese interference and encroachment. During the British hand over of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Hong Kong was guaranteed to keep its system of democratic government for the next 50 years, so they coin the term "One Country Two [political] Systems" to describe the difference in governance between high autonomy areas and low autonomy areas. Basically, unlike Chinese citizens, Hong Kongers in general have about the same rights as those in Western democracies, but one of the most important differences is that they cannot choose their leaders (Beijing chooses for them), which means there is practically no effective mechanism to prevent an erosion of democracy inside the government. To further undermine Hong Kong's autonomy and end One Country Two Systems, the pro-Beijing leader recently is trying to get an extradition law passed that can be abused by Beijing to extradite political dissidents from Hong Kong to China to be tried under opaque Chinese courts, and this extradition bill is what lead to recent protests. The Hong Kong government is essentially representing a foreign power rather than representing the local populace.

So Hong Kong's protests have hit American shores. The NBA has gotten into a spat with China, due to the Rocket's GM supporting Hong Kong's protests. There is also a growing backlash and boycott against Blizzard for suspending a Hong Kong player for voicing support for Hong Kong; while I only play Overwatch occasionally when I visit my friends house, I will try to convince my friend to stop playing Overwatch for a while.

While I still would have an overwhelmingly negative opinion on Trump even if he gets tougher on China, I do appreciate that he brought trade onto the political table. The Cold War has resumed now.

— — — — — — —

In another part of the world, we are fucking our allies over. The Kurds have been with us through thick and thin, and Trump's betrayal just sickens me.

Edited October 9, 2019 by XRay

[eclipse]

7 hours ago, XRay said:

So Hong Kong's protests have hit American shores. The NBA has gotten into a spat with China, due to the Rocket's GM supporting Hong Kong's protests. There is also a growing backlash and boycott against Blizzard for suspending a Hong Kong player for voicing support for Hong Kong; while I only play Overwatch occasionally when I visit my friends house, I will try to convince my friend to stop playing Overwatch for a while.

While I still would have an overwhelmingly negative opinion on Trump even if he gets tougher on China, I do appreciate that he brought trade onto the political table. The Cold War has resumed now.

My issue with Blizzard was that they also fired the streamers for the same debacle.  Whether the streamers were in on it or not is debatable, but to fire first and ask questions later speaks badly of their position.