Competent Republicans?

[Willie71]

Capayan, there are a few like Rand Paul who are not the establishment. He was a moderate libertarian (what a strange label) and did work to protect freedom. He was also against military intervention, but flip flopped at the beginning of his presidential run. I strongly disagree with his ideology, but he mostly earned my respect.

 

There are moderate republicans, but they are being purged by the extremists. The Republican Party thought boehner was too moderate. The people need to be more aware, and speak with their votes. If extremists were no longer elected, or if racist, xenophobic crap didn't poll well, the party would have to change.

[Phi for All]

 

Well, I am not sure that the Republicans purely serve corporations.

 

Ah, I used that wording purposely to prove a point. I was hoping it would irritate enough for comment.

 

What if I said I think Republicans often equate competence with how well they're able to pass legislation that helps companies in their state provide jobs? That's a different spin on the exact same situation. The job packages usually come with all kinds of riders to erode taxation and regulations, and that only helps corporations, not People.

 

It all depends on who's talking, and the way they say the same things differently. There is a lot of common ground between the People that the parties don't want anyone to think about, with the Republican party being especially vehement about it. They cringe when you say welfare, but nobody, no-bo-dy wants to see a widowed mother of three kids go homeless in this country, to starve amid such wealth. And some of us don't restrict our integrity and sense of justice to arbitrary moral icons.

 

I don't see any Republican candidates who think American People are a better, more reliable investment than the Mega-Corporations that do so much to help their political careers. It's almost like the mega-corps have told them, "Don't worry about the People, we'll take care of them if you take care of us."

 

But that's crazy. They'd have to control the media to pull that off.

[neutrinosalad]

Ah, I used that wording purposely to prove a point. I was hoping it would irritate enough for comment.

 

What if I said I think Republicans often equate competence with how well they're able to pass legislation that helps companies in their state provide jobs? That's a different spin on the exact same situation. The job packages usually come with all kinds of riders to erode taxation and regulations, and that only helps corporations, not People.

 

It all depends on who's talking, and the way they say the same things differently. There is a lot of common ground between the People that the parties don't want anyone to think about, with the Republican party being especially vehement about it. They cringe when you say welfare, but nobody, no-bo-dy wants to see a widowed mother of three kids go homeless in this country, to starve amid such wealth. And some of us don't restrict our integrity and sense of justice to arbitrary moral icons.

 

I don't see any Republican candidates who think American People are a better, more reliable investment than the Mega-Corporations that do so much to help their political careers. It's almost like the mega-corps have told them, "Don't worry about the People, we'll take care of them if you take care of us."

 

But that's crazy. They'd have to control the media to pull that off.

 

I see that you have a point, but I am not sure if that covers the whole issue.

 

Also, a huge part of the Republican constituency are blue collar workers whose jobs have been evaporating. On one side, they wheel and deal with corporations to retain jobs, but then on the other side not enough welfare is being provided and tax money being collected.

 

Part of the American culture as a whole is that people derive their value from being able to perform a job that contributes something to American society. Receiving a check is not only money to put food on the table, but a form of validation that says that you are valuable. Increasing welfare benefits is necessary, but getting some check in the mail because you are poor does not have the same psychological or cultural rewards as doing a needed job.

 

Also, I have seen the same behaviors in Democrats. It seems the financing wheeling and dealing behavior is something that goes beyond party lines.

 

I think we agree, I just perceive the issue a bit differently.

[Phi for All]

Part of the American culture as a whole is that people derive their value from being able to perform a job that contributes something to American society. Receiving a check is not only money to put food on the table, but a form of validation that says that you are valuable. Increasing welfare benefits is necessary, but getting some check in the mail because you are poor does not have the same psychological or cultural rewards as doing a needed job.

And I think it's admirable traits like that that should define the American People. What could be wrong with wanting to help your own economy, you own country flourish, and you with it (hopefully)? What's wrong with the promise that if our country provides us with meaningful opportunities for prosperity, that we'll do everything we can to keep the system prosperous?

 

What's wrong is one whole side of the equation. If this were all math, you could do a quick dimensional analysis that would show we're using the wrong units of measure for prosperity. America doesn't do enough to provide all its People with meaningful opportunities in education and social programs that work, and lots of conservative Republicans equate opportunity with business but neglect preparing People for it, so we're loyal to something we wish could happen but often can't because of the way we're going about it. Does that make any sense?

 

It's not all about checks in the mail. Look at the numbers, and decide if the small amount of People who linger in the system do it because all the system is doing is sending them checks, and might go further if the system went further, or if they should be ignored. Going to college is something many People would be very successful at, and successful because of, if only they hadn't been born into their present circumstances. We shouldn't deny knowledge to People who weren't as lucky as I was. That's how I feel about that. How about you?

 

I think we agree, I just perceive the issue a bit differently.

Again, if you agree, why vote against what you wish would happen?

[neutrinosalad]

And I think it's admirable traits like that that should define the American People. What could be wrong with wanting to help your own economy, you own country flourish, and you with it (hopefully)? What's wrong with the promise that if our country provides us with meaningful opportunities for prosperity, that we'll do everything we can to keep the system prosperous?

 

What's wrong is one whole side of the equation. If this were all math, you could do a quick dimensional analysis that would show we're using the wrong units of measure for prosperity. America doesn't do enough to provide all its People with meaningful opportunities in education and social programs that work, and lots of conservative Republicans equate opportunity with business but neglect preparing People for it, so we're loyal to something we wish could happen but often can't because of the way we're going about it. Does that make any sense?

 

It's not all about checks in the mail. Look at the numbers, and decide if the small amount of People who linger in the system do it because all the system is doing is sending them checks, and might go further if the system went further, or if they should be ignored. Going to college is something many People would be very successful at, and successful because of, if only they hadn't been born into their present circumstances. We shouldn't deny knowledge to People who weren't as lucky as I was. That's how I feel about that. How about you?

 

I don't disagree with publicly funded university level education. If it were to happen, they would have to tighten requirements though.

 

 

 

Again, if you agree, why vote against what you wish would happen?

 

Not all Republicans have an archaic view on welfare. Also, I am registered as an Independent.

 

I side with Republicans over cultural issues. Cultural values for me personally supersede determining the function of the state.

[Willie71]

There is a group of conservative Christians who believe that wealth is a symbol of righteousness. The poor are poor because they never overcame original sin,

 

Christian Economics According to the Religious Right

 

From Let There Be Markets: The Evangelical Roots of Economics:

 

[Writing about the early eighteen hundreds] For [evangelicals] it was unthinkable that capitalism led to class conflict, for that would mean that God had created a world at war with itself. The evangelicals believed in a providential God, one who built a logical and orderly universe, and they saw the new industrial economy as a fulfillment of God's plan. The free market, they believed, was a perfectly designed instrument to reward good Christian behavior and to punish and humiliate the unrepentant.

 

At the center of this early evangelical doctrine was the idea of original sin: we were all born stained by corruption and fleshly desire, and the true purpose of earthly life was to redeem this. The trials of economic life-the sweat of hard labor, the fear of poverty, the self-denial involved in saving-were earthly tests of sinfulness and virtue. While evangelicals believed salvation was ultimately possible only through conversion and faith, they saw the pain of earthly life as means of atonement for original sin.

 

Moreover, they regarded poverty as part of a divine program. Evangelicals interpreted the mental anguish of poverty and debt, and the physical agony of hunger or cold, as natural spurs to prick the conscience of sinners. They believed that the suffering of the poor would provoke remorse, reflection, and ultimately the conversion that would change their fate. In other words, poor people were poor for a reason, and helping them out of poverty would endanger their mortal souls. It was the evangelicals who began to see the business mogul as an heroic figure, his wealth a triumph of righteous will. more

http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm

 

They also see welfare as a responsibility of the church, not the government. People can be saved into Christianity when they get poor or desperate enough.

 

From the same link:

 

Shift Education and Welfare to Churches

 

Beliles and McDowell tell us: "Scripture makes it clear that God is the provider, not the state, and that needy individuals are to be cared for by private acts of charity." (187) In the Texas GOP Platform a starved federal government is accompanied by a scaled-down federal government with the abolition of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Education. Welfare of the needy is shifting to churches through Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, another of his signature issues. The Bush administration's strong support of school vouchers is paving the way for government funding of religious schools.

 

February 10, 2005: The Institute for America's Future released a report detailing the cuts and funding freezes to education . The report shows that Bush fails to adequately fund essential early education and after-school programs, eliminates the Even Start literacy program, freezes work-study funding for college and kills funding for 48 education programs. Outraged, IAF President Robert Borosage says, "If the president has his way, the poorest children will bear the largest burden - suffering cuts to education, nutrition and health care, and the bill of increased debt which they will be forced to pay throughout their lives." SEE THE REPORT

[overtone]

Capayan, there are a few like Rand Paul who are not the establishment.

They are on the wingnut fringe.

Rand Paul is one of three members of Congress - two Senators and a Representative - to have received 100% ratings from the John Birch Society. As of 2015. https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1627/rating/8763?p=1&of=#.VsPQU1IYI4M

 

James (Snowball) Inhofe only made 90%.

 

The notion that the "non-establishment" Republicans are different in a good way from the "establishment" ones, that there is somewhere and somehow a cadre of Republican politicians with achieved national stature who are not part of what the Republican Party has become, is wishful thinking. It's been too long and too far down this road.

Edited February 17, 2016 by overtone

[Willie71]

They are on the wingnut fringe.

Rand Paul is one of three members of Congress - two Senators and a Representative - to have received 100% ratings from the John Birch Society. As of 2015. https://votesmart.org/interest-group/1627/rating/8763?p=1&of=#.VsPQU1IYI4M

 

James Inhofe only made 90%.

 

The notion that the "non-establishment" Republicans are different in a good way from the "establishment" ones, that there is somewhere and somehow a cadre of Republican politicians with achieved national stature who are not part of what the Republican Party has become, is wishful thinking. It's been too long and too far down this road.

Yes, he would like to see the USA return to the Wild West, but in that bizarre world, he got a few things right. I see the libertarians mostly being libertarians to get rid of regulations and taxes. Rand Paul seemed more authentic though, but I might have just been fooled.

[Ten oz]

 

I don't disagree with publicly funded university level education. If it were to happen, they would have to tighten requirements though.

 

 

Not all Republicans have an archaic view on welfare. Also, I am registered as an Independent.

 

I side with Republicans over cultural issues. Cultural values for me personally supersede determining the function of the state.

It is more than just funding education though. There is a homogeneous relationship between the overall well being of a communities population and its economy-ic strength. Different politicians attempt to demagogue individual groups but the more we are able to do for everyone the better off we all are. Whether the argument is against illigal immigrants, Muslims, drugs, abortion, taxes, etc a quick tour around this country shows that removing those factors doesn't equal prosperity. Wyoming has far less immigrants, muslims, and taxes than New York yet business isn't leaving New York for Wyoming. Conservative Nebraska isn't the innovation and GDP leader of this counrty; illegal immigrant filled, liberal, high tax California is.

 

You side with Replicans over cultural values; can you elaborate? Which values, how are those inacted as policy, and what is the short and long term good accomplished?

[Phi for All]

I don't disagree with publicly funded university level education. If it were to happen, they would have to tighten requirements though.

 

You have to have a C average in order to be eligible to go to college through this government program, and you have to maintain that average for continued eligibility. Is that enough tightening, or are you going to start excluding People based on other criteria? This is about education, not morality or fear or welfare. This is about sharing the knowledge our species has accumulated, something that belongs to no single person or group.

[neutrinosalad]

It is more than just funding education though. There is a homogeneous relationship between the overall well being of a communities population and its economy-ic strength. Different politicians attempt to demagogue individual groups but the more we are able to do for everyone the better off we all are. Whether the argument is against illigal immigrants, Muslims, drugs, abortion, taxes, etc a quick tour around this country shows that removing those factors doesn't equal prosperity. Wyoming has far less immigrants, muslims, and taxes than New York yet business isn't leaving New York for Wyoming. Conservative Nebraska isn't the innovation and GDP leader of this counrty; illegal immigrant filled, liberal, high tax California is.

 

You side with Replicans over cultural values; can you elaborate? Which values, how are those inacted as policy, and what is the short and long term good accomplished?

 

Based on what I have seen in the world, the reason why California is so successful is a combination of environment and a long coastline. Most of the wealth throughout the world is developed along the coastlines. China is a great example of this. The country is mostly ethnically homogeneous (90% are Han), so we can skip a discussion about the positives and negatives of immigration and "multiculturalism" and get straight to the point. The coastline of China has the highest population density, the most developed cities, and it is where most of the wealth is generated.

 

California success vs Wyoming success most likely has more to do with all of the many benefits of being near a coastline (trade and overall access to resources, which ends up attracting people) over education or political ideology.

 

The cultural values is complicated, maybe I will dive into it on here eventually.

 

You have to have a C average in order to be eligible to go to college through this government program, and you have to maintain that average for continued eligibility. Is that enough tightening, or are you going to start excluding People based on other criteria? This is about education, not morality or fear or welfare. This is about sharing the knowledge our species has accumulated, something that belongs to no single person or group.

 

You are arguing on the basis that spreading "knowledge" is something that society should achieve for moral reasons. Most people I meet do not care about knowledge, all they care about is being entertained and having a comfortable life. In addition to this, there is a practically unlimited amount of free information available online already. Universities are making their lectures free to access and you have a website like Wikipedia that is literally compiling as much information about science as history as possible.

 

Personally, I have doubts that the value added by making public universities free will offset the additional cost to the taxpayer. The US is a very large country, so the logistics of this change would be difficult and in addition to that there are already a lot of people in college who are not really making any significant gains in either knowledge or useful skills. I know quite a few people that got a job out of college that required no degree and the "gains" they made was the ability to regurgitate ideologies that were taught to them in their sociology classes.

 

Why should I or any other tax payer have to pay for a university education that does not lead to the person obtaining a higher paying job that leads to their contribution back to the economy and tax system offsetting the cost of their publicly funded education?

 

A lot of this is coming from a personal belief where I think too high of an emphasis is being placed on college nowadays. Some people should really be going to a trade school or just skipping college altogether. I think it is strange how every single job out there has been consolidated under university education even though they don't require the intellectual rigor that universities have the capacity to provide. On top of this, people keep pounding out the point that colleges are where success begins and ends, even though gaining intellectual knowledge and achieving personal success takes into account factors that go beyond sitting down at a lecture.

 

Also, I am leaving on a cliffhanger, but I am going to take a break in the discussion here. I am falling behind on work.

 

Edit: One last thing. This Friday, I am going to get four books I ordered last week in the mail. Two of them are on GR and two are on QM. I am going to try and learn more about the math in both of those areas through a combo of going through the books, watching lectures, and doing homework that I can find on university websites. I may not get far, but I will try on my own volition. Later this year, I am going to switch my career path over to a combo of PHP web coding + entrepreneurship (starting an ecommerce website) without having a single class in PHP web coding or on how to run a business. I'll be 100% self-taught through reading books, watching lectures, and going out and obtaining experience first hand.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Capayan

[Ten oz]

 

Based on what I have seen in the world, the reason why California is so successful is a combination of environment and a long coastline. Most of the wealth throughout the world is developed along the coastlines. China is a great example of this. The country is mostly ethnically homogeneous (90% are Han), so we can skip a discussion about the positives and negatives of immigration and "multiculturalism" and get straight to the point. The coastline of China has the highest population density, the most developed cities, and it is where most of the wealth is generated.

 

California success vs Wyoming success most likely has more to do with all of the many benefits of being near a coastline (trade and overall access to resources, which ends up attracting people) over education or political ideology.

 

The cultural values is complicated, maybe I will dive into it on here eventually.

If it were that simply coastal states like LA, MS, AL, and SC wouldn't be so poor and have below average GDPs. Also inland states like PA, OH, and MD wouldn't do so well. Florida has far more coastline than New York, same size population, better weather, less taxes, yet FL only has half of NY's GDP.

 

Now I am not claiming diversity, high taxes, or illegal immigration create prosperity. Rather I am pointing out that removing those variables are doesn'y appear to improve the economy of an area. That implies that perhaps those variables are simply not as important as many politicians would like to pretend. After all Republicans do not run on a platform of extending coastlines to promote job growth as the UAE has; they run on lowering taxes and deporting immigrants.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Ten oz

[John Cuthber]

 

The problem here Ten oz is that you keep changing definitions and conveniently altering the point of view so that no matter what, everything I say (or anyone who espouses a right leaning view) suddenly transforms to be wrong, incompetent or seriously flawed.

 

And let's address the whole competence argument. The definition everyone is following is a contrived definition that Mr. John Cuthber arbitrarily created:

 

 

Mr. Cuthber created arbitrarily created a premise upon which when followed through the "logical" steps, we come to the conclusion that no Republican could be competent. Real conducive to a discussion here.

 

Also, ironically no establishment Democrat is competent following his own premise.

 

Check this out:

 

 

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

 

The DNC just disassembled the rules blocking corporate interests from infiltrating Super-PACs, so Hillary Rodham Clinton could get more money. The establishment on the Democrat side are being fed by the same people that feed the Republicans. These donors want lower taxes and less benefits.

 

John's own premise makes it so that no Democrat is competent.

 

The premise is flawed.

You are assuming that the Democrats are actually going to do what they are told.

However I accept that you have a point. The Democrats are bent too.

And, if you search this site I'm sure you will find that I have already pointed out that talking about the Left in American politics is absurd because what you have is a choice between very very Right and very Right.

Thanks for reinforcing my earlier point.

If Peter and Paul are arguing, proving that Peter is wrong does not prove that Paul is right.

 

However when it comes down to it, this thread is about Republicans and it doesn't matter (from that perspective) if the Democrats are the Devil incarnate, does it?

 

[neutrinosalad]

Just because I am having trouble resisting the urge to respond.

 

If it were that simply coastal states like LA, MS, AL, and SC wouldn't be so poor and have below average GDPs. Also inland states like PA, OH, and MD wouldn't do so well. Florida has far more coastline than New York, same size population, better weather, less taxes, yet FL only has half of NY's GDP.

 

Now I am not claiming diversity, high taxes, or illegal immigration create prosperity. Rather I am pointing out that removing those variables are doesn'y appear to improve the economy of an area. That implies that perhaps those variables are simply not as important as many politicians would like to pretend. After all Republicans do not run on a platform of extending coastlines to promote job growth as the UAE has; they run on lowering taxes and deporting immigrants.

 

You do have a point when it comes to the South. For a few years now, I have seen the South as a strange outlier that has resisted any form of technological or cultural change.

 

I had a renewable energy class when I was getting my engineering degree, and I noticed that there was pretty much 0 proliferation of solar at the time even though the northeast and west coast had begun adopting it.

 

Maybe you have a point when it comes to the platform, but not all Republicans beat that drum and many are more moderate about it.

 

And, if you search this site I'm sure you will find that I have already pointed out that talking about the Left in American politics is absurd because what you have is a choice between very very Right and very Right.

 

However when it comes down to it, this thread is about Republicans and it doesn't matter (from that perspective) if the Democrats are the Devil incarnate, does it?

 

I don't see the Democrats as the devil incarnate, I just disagree with a lot of the ideas that come out of the left.

 

Also, I would say politics works on a spectrum. I would say Eastern Europe from what I have seen is more right leaning than the US in some aspects whereas Western Europe is more left leaning than the US in some aspects.

 

Edit: On top of this, there are some very noticeable regional differences within the US. The West coast is very progressive with cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco being beacons for modernity and progressivism. The same could be said of the North East and New York City. The South as a whole is highly conservative. Texas is seen as the Lone Star State. Utah is a hub for Mormons and is really the home of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Then you have the MidWest, which is right leaning yet not as audacious about being more conservative leaning as the South is.

 

The breakdown isn't 100% correct, but it is what I have seen in the news, from people I have met, and various things I have read.

 

Rural America vs urban America are almost like two completely different worlds.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Capayan

[John Cuthber]

I don't see the Democrats as the devil incarnate, I just disagree with a lot of the ideas that come out of the left.

Also, I would say politics works on a spectrum. I would say Eastern Europe from what I have seen is more right leaning than the US in some aspects whereas Western Europe is more left leaning than the US in some aspects.

 

Rural America vs urban America are almost like two completely different worlds.

So, still got nothing to say about competent Republicans then. Perhaps you could start another thread to discuss these matters.

[iNow]

Rural America vs urban America are almost like two completely different worlds.

Indeed. There is one side that consistently relies most heavily on federal welfare, and another that seems able to maturely implement evidence based ideas and progress self-sufficiently.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/06/some-of-the-most-conservative-states-rely-most-on-federal-government-aid/

They staunchly oppose federal meddling, but conservative states are among the most reliant on federal funding for revenues.

 

Mississippi and Louisiana are the two neediest states, with federal aid accounting for 43 percent and 42 percent of their respective overall revenues in fiscal 2013 (snip) Five states are among both the 10 most conservative and the 10 most reliant on federal funds. Four states are among both the 10 most liberal and the 10 least reliant on federal funds.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/01/17/cheat-sheet-states-with-most-food-stamps/21877399/

We've created a list of the states that have the most food stamp recipients per capita. To determine the states on this list, we used the USDA Food Nutrition Service's most recent state-by-state data, coupled with population data from the Census Bureau. States with the highest number of food stamp participants relative to population ranked highest. We've also included a state-by-state breakdown of food stamp use in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

I'll give you two guesses as to which political party dominates in each of the states requiring the most federal help just to feed themselves, but suspect you'll only need one to figure it out.

[overtone]

 

Maybe you have a point when it comes to the platform, but not all Republicans beat that drum and many are more moderate about it.

Not in the national political scene, with high Party status. The ones that don't beat the drum are more extreme, not moderate.

Edited February 18, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Just because I am having trouble resisting the urge to respond.

 

 

You do have a point when it comes to the South. For a few years now, I have seen the South as a strange outlier that has resisted any form of technological or cultural change.

 

I had a renewable energy class when I was getting my engineering degree, and I noticed that there was pretty much 0 proliferation of solar at the time even though the northeast and west coast had begun adopting it.

 

Maybe you have a point when it comes to the platform, but not all Republicans beat that drum and many are more moderate about it.

I have listed Republicans I felt were competent. Republican political affiliation isn't a mental condition that renders someone incompetent. However Politics is a team sport. A great player on a bad team still loses despite being great. The party platform is not a competent platform and Republican politicians, competent ones, are stuck wearing it around their necks.

 

When Mike Huckabee ran for president in 2008 he did so on a moderate platform that control for infrastructure spending rather than tax cuts to stimulate the economy:

"The problem I have is that taxpayers will spend their $150 billion in rebates to buy imports from China. So whose economy is being stimulated? What I suggested was, we have a nation whose infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, airports clogged up. Texas A&M did a study, found that the average American in an urban setting loses 38 hours a year--that’s a full work week--stuck in traffic because of clogged traffic patterns. Now, $150 billion would expand the interstate by two lanes, I-95, from Bangor, Maine, to Miami. There are places all over America where our infrastructure is choked. Every billion dollars we spend on infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Technology.htm

 

His plan was a lot like plans many Democrats have supported and Republicans fought to block. This year Huckabee centered his campaign around gay marriage; which is a shame.

[Phi for All]

Sen. Rubio just came out against Apple in the terrorist phone case. He says it's a "tough issue", but "ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important."

 

"A good corporate citizen" doesn't question the government when it asks for unethical license, I guess is this incompetent's stance. Well on the road to the nationalization of all businesses that have been formed into corporations. Fascism at its finest.

[StringJunky]

Sen. Rubio just came out against Apple in the terrorist phone case. He says it's a "tough issue", but "ultimately, I think being a good corporate citizen is important."

So much for following the party line about freedom from federal interference.... think guns and Republican resistance to government oversight about them. Where's the sick bucket?

Edited February 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408

 

Just in case anyone thought he might be the best of a bad bunch

[Phi for All]

So much for following the party line about freedom from federal interference.... think guns and Republican resistance to government oversight about them. Where's the sick bucket?

 

This war on terrorism is the greatest destabilizing force the US has ever come up with. It practically guarantees our corporate interests can act with impunity to rape the countries we plunge into chaos.

 

Business models applied to war, which means it's only going to grow bigger and better and more profitable with time. And when you can bribe the government into helping you overcome ethical hurdles, and turn them into law, you have complete control over trillions in taxpayer dollars.

[StringJunky]

https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/699706718419345408

 

Just in case anyone thought he might be the best of a bad bunch

Can't picture a UK MP doing that on the campaign trail. If it wasn't for visiting here, and the thoughtful and very intelligent Americans here, I could easily think they were generally thick as a population.

Edited February 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

Can't picture a UK MP doing that on the campaign trail. If it wasn't for visiting here, and the thoughtful and very intelligent Americans here, I could easily think they were generally thick as a population.

 

Generally conflicted, and that makes us look thick sometimes. Our media excels in spin, so the same thing can be said to all, but it's going to be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on your ideology. None of the news we get in the States is simply informative; it's all got spin to it, left and right. It's all been boiled down to sound bytes they know will cause an emotional, irrational response that keeps viewers viewing because they're never informed enough to form a reasoned judgement on what they see and hear.

 

American media rule of thumb: a cache of gang weapons being found is a better story than the dog that saved a drowning toddler. Fear boosts profit.

[StringJunky]

 

Generally conflicted, and that makes us look thick sometimes. Our media excels in spin, so the same thing can be said to all, but it's going to be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on your ideology. None of the news we get in the States is simply informative; it's all got spin to it, left and right. It's all been boiled down to sound bytes they know will cause an emotional, irrational response that keeps viewers viewing because they're never informed enough to form a reasoned judgement on what they see and hear.

 

American media rule of thumb: a cache of gang weapons being found is a better story than the dog that saved a drowning toddler. Fear boosts profit.

I think you have a good objective view on your country.