Elixir
Made in America
Oh? That would be starting wars. Which wars did he start?
Vacuous assertions are easy to make. And that one doesn't even address the substance of my post.
I get that you hate Obama.
-
Features
Free trade globalism has been a radical and spectacular failure with the result of populism - And here is why
- Thread starter RVonse
- Start date
Oh? That would be starting wars. Which wars did he start?
Vacuous assertions are easy to make. And that one doesn't even address the substance of my post.
I get that you hate Obama.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,957
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
As someone who opposes war I therefore by conclusion oppose Obama.
He gets credit for pulling US troops out of Iraq. He worked against it but the Iraqi government forced his hand, AND he sent them back.
So when Obama took office, the US had active military activity in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama expanded that to Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. He expanded the Afghanistan campaign to include military activities in Pakistan. Now when we talk about Libya as a good thing people are quick to credit Obama and Hillary, but when we talk about it as a bad thing people are quick to credit France. One thing that is true either way is that the Libya operation brought back Arabs trading in African slaves.
Granted Obama preferred drone strikes to troops on the ground, but that is little comfort to those injured or killed by those strikes. Plus Obama perfected the double-strike which is to bomb the same location a short time later when emergency first responders arrived to assist the wounded.
The only surprise I see in foreign policy is that neither Bush nor Obama were crazy enough to attack Iran.
I know the Trump Derangement is strong in you, but to forget that Obama learned to stop worrying and love the bomb is inexcusable.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Yea, Obama really gets a bad rep. Anti war people hate him, give a free pass to Bush and Trump. Bush killed around 600,000 civilians in Iraq war, under Obama is plummeted to around 324. Trump takes over, civilian deaths are up 8 times more than Obama within 18 months of taking office! How can anyone ignore these statistics. Health care people hate Obama because he didn't pass single payer. However, under Obama the number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before. He forced companies to treat mentally ill. Trump wants to reduce health care coverage. Bush didn't really care. Trump loves his coal miners and thinks that climate change is a myth. Under Obama, wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent. I'm not white and I hate throwing out the race card. But there is no doubt in my mind that if Obama had been white, he'd go down as one of greatest presidents. Sorry for derail...
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Do you mean the anti-war people I used to march with when Bush was president but all disappeared when Obama became president? Why would those anti-war people give a pass to Bush?
What I give him a bad rap about is that he was elected on the expectation he would not be a hawk. It was a reasonable mistake to make, given that he opposed Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general, and compared to those to it is an easy mistake to make. Still, even with low expectations, he managed to disappoint. I knew Hillary would be bad, I knew McCain would be bad, I foolishly hoped that Obama would be good.
It's harder to be disappointed when you have no positive expectations. Obama actually disappointed the few anti-war people who were still anti-war after he was inaugurated.
The anti-war left hibernated for 8 years, and now it is the anti-spending right's turn to hibernate.
poster
Senior Member
Elixir
Made in America
So - you're blowing smoke as usual. The correct answer was "none", but your TDS prevents you from telling the truth.
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Well, that's actually a good answer that I can understand. You were disappointed in Obama that your expectations of him didn't match his actions. I won't question your anti-war credentials again. However, I think that expectations of him were wrong. He never said that he'd be the peace president. In fact, he repeatedly stated that he was an internationalist - favored international action - not go it alone action that republicans have now adopted. In December 2009, he declared that humanity needed to reconcile “two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.” I think that war tortured him. He felt it greatly and tried to minimize it. I think that he was successful. He greatly reduced our footprint. Civilian deaths dropped to a fraction under Obama.
He wasn't perfect. He made tons of mistakes. But I think what makes him a great president is that he brought the office stability. He stabilized the economy, stabilized the housing market, stabilized the banks, stabilized the auto industry, and stabilized our foreign policy. He brought calmness. Under Obama, Americans could go to bed at night knowing that a white house would make decisions based on reasons and facts with the goal to maintain stability.
Elixir
Made in America
Good post, and it reflects my feelings quite precisely. I am not the starry eyed teenager who got teargassed at SDS rallies in Berkeley during the Vietnam war, but I am still opposed to war - especially "optional" wars. And I too harbored hope that Obama would aggressively draw down our involvements in the (illegal IMO) conflicts that were in process when he was inaugurated. I was likewise disappointed in him, but outside of that, he did a great job. The calm confidence that he inspired in the country (outside of the then marginal racist pockets) is sorely missed.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Everything after those three dots that you very conveniently cuts includes all the evidence you asked me to present.
Why did you cut the evidence and then accuse me of presenting none?
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Actually the Swiss are the perfect example of the most nationalistic European country and I believe the Swiss have it about right. They are NOT a part of the EU, they never get into other wars, and remain neutral to everyone. You can bet the Swiss themselves are NEVER mentioned in the economic global summits in Davos Switzerland. Personally, I believe they are the perfect place on the pendulum and the US should be more closely aligned to this as well IMO.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
Your post is so far off the grid, I'm not sure where to start. But lets start by understanding the definition of populist:
Dictionary said:
And that sounds like both Bernie and Trump to me.
But more important than what either of us believe , this is how most Trump supporters relate when they hear him speak.
All the problems you speak of in your aforementioned diatribe are problems NOT caused by supporting the common people. Take the latest banking debacle of 2008 for example. Was bailing out the bankster's an example of helping the common people? Who's watch did all of that take place on?
Then look to the steel tariffs and the supposed big bad Trump who put them into effect over all the gnashing of the teeth by the corporate elite media and republican party. And who directly benefited from the steel tariffs? Might it be the 700k labor workers who are now back at work?
Look at the actions and effects and forget about the circus of rhetoric. Media and their tail has certainly wagged your dog.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
In another thread about the eight spectrums political test, I was very disappointed that the definition of Nationalism versus Globalism used in that test equated to "do we force our will on other countries, or do we subsume our will to the international community." This thread has a healthier definition of Nationalism. You're right, the Swiss have the best model of foreign policy.
The reason I repeat "peaceful relations with all, entangling alliances with none" is because some want to portray Nationalism as "cutting the country off from the rest of the world" which ultimately even impedes trade. Trump's tariff's are a negative example of Nationalism. Last time I checked the Swiss weren't engaging in trade wars, but were trying to make their own country a good place to conduct business.
zorq
Veteran Member
American Democracy itself is rooted in the concept of populism. But just as the Founders of the US acknowledged the wisdom giving the people determination and self rule, they also acknowledged its foolishness and engineered as many "checks and ballances" as they thought prudent.
In truth, "the mob" is usually correct. The people are usually good at knowing what they want and need and when given a political voice their society will flourish. But in addition to that, the people keep a check on the power of the "elites." All successful political, and economic elites are individuals who crave power. But the accumulation of too much power in one place is dangerous because the consequences of abusing that power is great tragedy and suffering.
But this ignores the folly of the mob. And that is their ignorance and mercurial temperament . The mob is ALWAYS less informed than the elites, and their decisions are influenced more by emotion than reason.
The mob are not trained economists or scientists. They are myopic. They believe in the things that give them comfort, things that sound simple, things that they can see for themselves. But there is so much of this world that is too complicated for the mob to grasp firmly. So in these areas the mob is usually wrong.
Populists are right in that we can't trust the "elites" to make decisions with the interests of the common person in mind. (Luckilly, held in check by democracy, most decisions that benefit the elites usually benefit the common people too.) But we can't trust the decisions of the populists either because they are usually misinformed and driven by emotions like fear and anger.
So, when the elites suggest a policy, I know that it will benefit them, but I just check to make sure that it benefits everyone else too. But when the populists suggest a policy, I have to check whether it will result in a complete disaster. (Remember that the US invasion of Afghanistan was actually a populist initiative. )
---------------
Personally, I think US Populists are wrong to pin their personal stagnation on globalism. I don't think globalism has hurt the US. It has hurt SOME people in the US who haven't been able to adapt to the changes it has brought, but someone is always going to be hurt by change because change is inevitable. Had the US gone Isolationist after Gulf War 1 as RVOnce might have liked, there would be a completely different demographic in the US suffering today. IMO that demographic would likely be bigger and worse than the current one.
In truth, "the mob" is usually correct. The people are usually good at knowing what they want and need and when given a political voice their society will flourish. But in addition to that, the people keep a check on the power of the "elites." All successful political, and economic elites are individuals who crave power. But the accumulation of too much power in one place is dangerous because the consequences of abusing that power is great tragedy and suffering.
But this ignores the folly of the mob. And that is their ignorance and mercurial temperament . The mob is ALWAYS less informed than the elites, and their decisions are influenced more by emotion than reason.
The mob are not trained economists or scientists. They are myopic. They believe in the things that give them comfort, things that sound simple, things that they can see for themselves. But there is so much of this world that is too complicated for the mob to grasp firmly. So in these areas the mob is usually wrong.
Populists are right in that we can't trust the "elites" to make decisions with the interests of the common person in mind. (Luckilly, held in check by democracy, most decisions that benefit the elites usually benefit the common people too.) But we can't trust the decisions of the populists either because they are usually misinformed and driven by emotions like fear and anger.
So, when the elites suggest a policy, I know that it will benefit them, but I just check to make sure that it benefits everyone else too. But when the populists suggest a policy, I have to check whether it will result in a complete disaster. (Remember that the US invasion of Afghanistan was actually a populist initiative. )
---------------
Personally, I think US Populists are wrong to pin their personal stagnation on globalism. I don't think globalism has hurt the US. It has hurt SOME people in the US who haven't been able to adapt to the changes it has brought, but someone is always going to be hurt by change because change is inevitable. Had the US gone Isolationist after Gulf War 1 as RVOnce might have liked, there would be a completely different demographic in the US suffering today. IMO that demographic would likely be bigger and worse than the current one.
zorq
Veteran Member
It's hard to predict such a complicated system as the economy of a country the size of the US and how each of the players might react to each other in different ways. I'll throw some random simple guesses here though.
Possibly America's farmers would be suffering without any foreign customers to buy their extra produce they would have to cut back their economies of scale. Possibly raising the food prices around the country.
Maybe the housing industry would suffer and be forced to build with alternative, perhaps more expensive materials without the lumber the US usually imports from Canada.
Maybe people might reluctantly start moving to work in more rural areas as demand for natural resources increases and people move to fill jobs typically outsourced. This might lead to some cities stagnating and leading to a rise in urban crime as the tax base can no longer afford effective policing.
In general though it would likely mean more expensive everything for everyone. And I mean that in a standard of living way, which, of course, is worse than the inflation way.
Underseer
Contributor
Globalism?
Don't you mean Sinister Jewish Banker Conspiracy?
You don't have to speak in dog whistle around here. We know what the coded language means.
Don't you mean Sinister Jewish Banker Conspiracy?
You don't have to speak in dog whistle around here. We know what the coded language means.
RVonse
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,855
- Location
- USA
- Basic Beliefs
- that people in the US are living in the matrx
What I describe by "Globalism" has no race, creed, or sex. It is simply the management of global economies, the EU being the perfect example. It is possible, perhaps even probable that leaders at the economic summit in Davos, Switzerland are not stupid and are simply looking for the best possible outcome in terms of world trade. But what inevitably will happen is what has already occurred. There are winners and losers to free trade partnerships that were established without the consent of the those governed. Take Greece for example is now being asked to implement austerity in order to fulfill banking demands by people who are not even from Greece.
When a country is subject to demands of world leaders from beyond their borders, it is the pure definition of tyranny. And economically it is also a definition of communism because it is the elites who are attempting to manage everything that goes on in the world. It would be one thing if the tyranny of globalism actually worked, but since it is communism in the long run everyone is worse off for it. As I said in my OP communism just does not work, it never has worked and that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Jewish Bankers. The Jewish Banking system just happens to always be in the right place and at the right time to make their monetary killing off others. That perhaps might be another kind of corruption as well, but it is not the focus of my OP.
Last edited:
ruby sparks
Contributor
The OP makes some good points, but I must admit I've never seen globalism equated with communism before, that I can recall.