Dynadot
Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Who is to Blame for the Troubled US Economy?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • Both Parties

    268 
    votes
    44.7%
  • Neither Party

    57 
    votes
    9.5%
  • Democrats

    133 
    votes
    22.2%
  • Republicans

    141 
    votes
    23.5%
  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.

Impact
8,557
Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun :)

:wave:
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
upload_2021-10-5_17-17-44.png
 
3
•••
3
•••
3
•••
5
•••
In 25 years, I have seen Japan go from a place that loves China, and was looking forward to China's growth and to working with them to today - where China is Japan's biggest external threat.

In 15 years, XI has taken China from the cusp of glory to a very dark place that will not end well for anyone.

I suppose there's always an agenda...and excuses like nationalist unification/expansion, when in fact it has much to do with access to resources (in this case semi-conductors, not oil).

Here's a historical/modern pictoral parallel between US, Japan and China:

https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F6154d3b4f2c81a9e6f235414%2FThe-Historical-Parallels---1941---2021%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale


https://www.forbes.com/sites/george...taiwans-semiconductor-riches/?sh=5d91d71e2aa4

https://www.forbes.com/sites/george...factor-that-could-trigger-it/?sh=7e9231675d26
 
0
•••
I suppose there's always an agenda...and excuses like nationalist unification/expansion, when in fact it has much to do with access to resources (in this case semi-conductors, not oil).

That doesn't make much sense to me. Japan needed the oil for themselves. But semiconductors are only valuable to China if they can sell them to other countries. And, unlike a natural resource like oil, any country can produce semiconductors.

But Xi and many of his cronies are a primitive lot who idolize and model themselves after mass murderer Mao. I am fairly sure he will lead China to destruction and end up like the Gang of Four if he lives long enough. But he could take down much of the world with him. And he has had 15 years of indoctrinating young people, many who are old enough to fight wars now.

I think it all comes down to Xi's vanity. He wants to be the Great Ruler, and taking back Taiwan is part of his grand delusion.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
That doesn't make much sense to me. Japan needed the oil for themselves. But semiconductors are only valuable to China if they can sell them to other countries. And, unlike a natural resource like oil, any country can produce semiconductors.

In 2020 the Chinese economy spent $350 billion buying chips based largely on Western technology - more than it spent on oil. Not every country has the ability to produce advanced chips, and Chinese officials feel the country is vulnerable. In the “systems destruction warfare” approach, for the West to withold access to cutting edge technology is a major hurdle (invoking industrial espionage etc.)

China’s worries grew during the Trump administration, when the U.S. effectively destroyed Huawei Technologies Co.’s global smartphone business by forcing chip suppliers to cut it off, undermining the company’s ability to make devices. U.S.-aligned companies dominate the industry that makes the machinery needed to make chips, further complicating Chinese ambitions for self-sufficiency.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-chipmaking-efforts-falter-without-tech-edge
 
0
•••
In 2020 the Chinese economy spent $350 billion buying chips based largely on Western technology - more than it spent on oil. Not every country has the ability to produce advanced chips, and Chinese officials feel the country is vulnerable. In the “systems destruction warfare” approach, for the West to withold access to cutting edge technology is a major hurdle (invoking industrial espionage etc.)

Yet it's not a vulnerability that would be solved by invading Taiwan. If anything, the invasion would make them more vulnerable because they would lose what little international credibility they have left.

Referring to your earlier link, the production of semiconductors requires international cooperation. Even the know-how alone would be worthless. Do they think they can force Taiwanese to work for them to the same standard they work now? They are thinking of 700 years ago, when one could just take the craftsmen from a conquered nation and make the tech their own.

Xi seems to think that the open China policy can be abandoned and China can move on with a new totalitarian government now. That will fail because China has only had 30 years of progress, has not built up many generations of wealth and expertise, and still is not a wealthy nation. The USA can go Woke and it will take many decades to burn up all the capital it has accumulated over the past 100 years. China will burn up what they have much faster.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
In the mindset of a leftist activist DA, District Attorney Rachael Rollins, putting criminals ahead of citizenry and pushing US into anarchy.
Once a person becomes a criminal Democrats find value in such people and start protecting them.

 
4
•••
In the mindset of a leftist activist DA, District Attorney Rachael Rollins, putting criminals ahead of citizenry and pushing US into anarchy.
Once a person becomes a criminal Democrats find value in such people and start protecting them.


Somebody called it "anarcho-authoritarianism," I think. Give criminals free rein, criminalize ordinary citizens... it's a planned destruction of morals and society. They want to create chaos so they can take over and rebuild their "utopia." For historical reference, see Cambodia, Cultural Revolution, etc.
 
6
•••
In the mindset of a leftist activist DA, District Attorney Rachael Rollins, putting criminals ahead of citizenry and pushing US into anarchy.
Once a person becomes a criminal Democrats find value in such people and start protecting them.

...you can open carry firearms in Texas, but don't conceal wire snips, lol.

Likewise, federal cannabis legislation would require Republican support. Biden doesn't support legalization but rather decriminalization (which is better IMO).
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Another rare person on the left who is honest, and makes some interesting points here:


"Progressives often engage in leftist rhetoric, but their proposals always result in strengthening and expanding the existing, inequitable system and further entrenching the current, elite class. Progressives propose superficial policies rather than measures that would truly allow citizens to become more self-sufficient or otherwise reduce inequality because that would undermine their primary goal of unlimited growth. That is why progressives increasingly take refuge in identity politics; it allows them to talk about changing the system without actually having to challenge the exploitative aspects of society that they rely on for profit and growth. They then blame the increasing disparities on their opponents for resisting ‘progress’.

Progressivism is the direct descendant of the imperialism that dominated much of Western history for centuries."

"PROGRESSIVISM = IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is the practice of one group of people forcibly subjecting other groups of people to its authority and control for its own benefit, though the imperialists often rationalize their actions as an attempt to save or improve its victims. The history of imperialism in the United States has lent certain traits to its successor progressivism: an extractive belief system, an antipathy towards the natural world, a rigidly prescriptive mindset, and a pathological feeling of supremacy."


https://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2021/08/22/the-pandemic-response-as-contemporary-imperialism/
 
5
•••
"Follow the science," they say. Of course, there is not a single scientific argument made in this ridiculous article. The Woke believe actual science is a white supremacy plot. They like the word though. "Science"... sounds smart.
Trans Girls Belong on Girls' Sports Teams - Scientific American.jpg
 
7
•••
Somebody called it "anarcho-authoritarianism," I think. Give criminals free rein, criminalize ordinary citizens... it's a planned destruction of morals and society. They want to create chaos so they can take over and rebuild their "utopia." For historical reference, see Cambodia, Cultural Revolution, etc.

Democrats vote these prosecutes in
 
3
•••
...

"PROGRESSIVISM = IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is the practice of one group of people forcibly subjecting other groups of people to its authority and control for its own benefit, though the imperialists often rationalize their actions as an attempt to save or improve its victims. The history of imperialism in the United States has lent certain traits to its successor progressivism: an extractive belief system, an antipathy towards the natural world, a rigidly prescriptive mindset, and a pathological feeling of supremacy."

Populism vs Progressivism: Similarities And Differences

Populism and progressivism are similar in that both of them claim to be acting for the good of everyone, and in particular “ordinary people.” Both political movements promise to enrich the lives of ordinary people and promise to legislate towards that aim.

But even this singular similarity is misleading, because progressives and populists define “ordinary people”—or even “everyone”—differently. As mentioned before, European populist authoritarians define “the people” as white people, and more specifically white Christians. And rather than truly wanting to help “the people,” populist authoritarians want to divide people against each other, blaming minorities and other groups for the hardships of “ordinary people” and even the government’s own failings.

Progressives, on the other hand, are more inclusive. They genuinely want every member of society to have an equal chance to contribute and succeed. Rather than highlighting what makes us different from one another, as populist authoritarians do, progressives point to what we all have in common, what unites us, and portray our differences as sources of strength and cultural enrichment, rather than weaknesses or things to fear.

Perhaps the biggest difference, then, is that progressives believe in, and work towards, equality, whereas populist authoritarians actively work to create unequal societies. And this means weakening or getting rid of people, organizations, or institutions that help safeguard equality and equal protection under the law. Civil society groups and independent judges are often at the top of this list.

https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/populism-vs-progressivism/43713
 
0
•••
You really believe this? I am surprised. This has got to be one of the most inane "definitions" I have ever heard. It is absolutely typical of "progressives" to paint these lies and color themselves as wonderful and enlightened. My link was to an actual leftist website, the kind of leftist the progressives pretend to be. The criticism was from within. It's easy to find self-congratulatory tripe like this below:

Populism and progressivism are similar in that both of them claim to be acting for the good of everyone, and in particular “ordinary people.”

All political movements claim this. Might as well say they both breath air. Starts off insipid, and gets worse...

But even this singular similarity is misleading, because progressives and populists define “ordinary people”—or even “everyone”—differently. As mentioned before, European populist authoritarians define “the people” as white people, and more specifically white Christians.

Complete rubbish.


And rather than truly wanting to help “the people,” populist authoritarians want to divide people against each other, blaming minorities and other groups for the hardships of “ordinary people” and even the government’s own failings.

Another tactic of the Woke. Accuse others of what they are doing themselves. Blaming minorities is not a feature of the right that I see. However, this is a necessary like for the progressives because it furthers their aim of creating division, hatred and distrust.

Progressives, on the other hand, are more inclusive. They genuinely want every member of society to have an equal chance to contribute and succeed.

What saints! They want everyone who supports their agenda and quest for power succeed. The rest of us can die for all they care.

Rather than highlighting what makes us different from one another, as populist authoritarians do, progressives point to what we all have in common, what unites us,

This is into alternate reality stuff. A mirror image of the real world. They literally spend every day of their lives trying to divide.

Perhaps the biggest difference, then, is that progressives believe in, and work towards, equality, whereas populist authoritarians actively work to create unequal societies.

Yeah right. The ideal progressive society is the USSR circa 1970. Everybody poor, except for the elite.

And this means weakening or getting rid of people, organizations, or institutions that help safeguard equality and equal protection under the law. Civil society groups and independent judges are often at the top of this list.

Equal protection under the law, equality. More nonsense. Some are more protected than others, depending on their political views. Nobody is working harder to destroy what's left of human rights guaranteed by the constitution. This is bizarro-land, but I supposed the fascists who call themselves progressives read this crap and think to themselves, "Yes, that's me. I am enlightened and kind and wonderful. Unlike all those other citizens we need to crush."

Edit: After ranting all this, it occurs to me that you are just trolling, Mr. Cannuck. The article I posted was from a committed environmentalist on the left who is concerned about climate change, like you. I could easily post an article by Sean Hannity that tears into the progressives, but what would be the point? Likewise, if you want to convince me that a policy I support is awful, find something written by someone I can respect, something with a reasoned argument rather than hyperbole. Someone who is not beholden to a certain political perspective.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
1
•••
You really believe this?

Nothing is as black and white as painted and I am less likely to believe US politicians hold the same 'sensibilities' as their EU counterparts these days. The authors may be dreamers but surely not anarchists.

Edit: After ranting all this, it occurs to me that you are just trolling, Mr. Cannuck. The article I posted was from a committed environmentalist on the left who is concerned about climate change, like you. I could easily post an article by Sean Hannity that tears into the progressives, but what would be the point? Likewise, if you want to convince me that a policy I support is awful, find something written by someone I can respect, something with a reasoned argument rather than hyperbole. Someone who is not beholden to a certain political perspective.

Nice rant :giggle: I posted for demonstrative purposes only (in contrast to Imperialism = neo). They seem to be an energetic group of young human rights and environmental advocates in Europe. Give me a list of your respected elders if the youth cannot suffice.

https://www.liberties.eu/en/about/core-team
 
1
•••
The authors may be dreamers but surely not anarchists.

I don't know who they are, or care. That passage you copied was posted by a fantasist. I like anarchists. I have been called one myself. (I am talking real anarchists, not vandals and fascists who call themselves that.)


Give me a list of your respected elders if the youth cannot suffice.

I listen to anyone with a reasoned argument. I tune out polemics. I am not like the Woke and "progressives" who have an approved list of people they are allowed to listen to.
 
3
•••
Likewise, if you want to convince me that a policy I support is awful, find something written by someone I can respect, something with a reasoned argument rather than hyperbole. Someone who is not beholden to a certain political perspective.

I am not trying to convince or gaslight anyone...find me someone who is not beholden to a certain political perspective and completely impartial. That's more like apathy... no denying US politics is partisan. :xf.wink:
 
0
•••
Part of the problem in political discourse is that people don't have a common understanding of the terms they use. They say they are communist, Marxist, capitalist, anarchist, even conservative and liberal... but their definitions of each vary widely.
 
3
•••
I am not trying to convince or gaslight anyone...find me someone who is not beholden to a certain political perspective and completely impartial. That's more like apathy... no denying US politics is partisan.

US politics is batshit crazy. Whenever somebody sounds even a little bit reasonable, they are instantly marginalized.

I think I have been fairly consistent in believing in human freedom and limited government. That any government intrusion into human rights (i.e. any new law) should be seriously considered only as a last resort. And I believe those laws that pass should be regularly reviewed and removed when they stop serving a purpose. People are naturally sociable and work well together given the chance. When governments take over too much, they tend to create hostility and division.
 
5
•••
A side note...

"Japan and Singapore deemed world’s most powerful passports; US doesn’t make top 5


Of nearly 200 passports, Japan’s passport reigns as the most powerful passport in the world for the fourth year in a row, according to the 2021 Henley Passport Index released on Oct. 5. The U.S. was again shut out of the top five."
 
2
•••
US politics is batshit crazy...

Speaking of batsh*t crazy, this latest poll from PEW research :zippermouth:

The survey asked about the acceptability of elected officials from one party calling their counterparts in the other party “evil.”

A majority of Democrats (57%) and about half of Republicans (52%) say their parties should be not too or not at all accepting of officials who do this.

About four-in-ten Democrats 41% say their party should be accepting of elected officials in their own party who call GOP officials evil, with 13% saying their party should be very accepting of this. Among Republicans, 46% say their party should be accepting of officials who call their Democratic counterparts evil, including 18% who say the party should be very accepting of these officials.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/06/two-thirds-of-republicans-want-trump-to-retain-major-political-role-44-want-him-to-run-again-in-2024/?
 
0
•••
The survey asked about the acceptability of elected officials from one party calling their counterparts in the other party “evil.”

I would have expected the other way round, but fairly even. My theory is that the US is a Christian based culture, and that applies to the atheists and agnostics as well. They say they aren't Christian, but they live by Christian concepts of evil and are judgmental in a way that many Christians can be. Even though they reject Christianity per se, they have grown up with Christian concepts (including charity, good and evil, and religious certainty, etc.) instilled from childhood.

So they are religious fanatics without the tempering aspect of any tested or established religion. They make it up as they go, and they do it with fervor and certainty that they are right and just. And those who disagree, of course, are evil.

Politicians long ago figured this out, and magnify it to their advantage.

Ironically, politicians themselves are among the most objectively evil people in the country.
 
3
•••
Back