|
Post by kinsm on Jun 5, 2016 19:55:48 GMT -5
Numerous studies have shown that NAFTA's effect on the American workforce was negligible. Any politician who wants to bitch about American jobs being outsourced should bitch about Asia (India/China/Vietnam/Bangladesh) which started in the early 70's when Nixon opened China - not NAFTA.
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 5, 2016 20:19:44 GMT -5
Numerous studies have shown that NAFTA's effect on the American workforce was negligible. Any politician who wants to bitch about American jobs being outsourced should bitch about Asia (India/China/Vietnam/Bangladesh) which started in the early 70's when Nixon opened China - not NAFTA. I agree. But I still insist that it is corrupted. The backlash against it is the result of the cries of poverty in this country now.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jun 5, 2016 23:54:43 GMT -5
Since the second quarter of the nineteenth century, changes related to social justice have resulted from political organization, not from changes in ethics. It has come more from the bottom up in the West than from the top down. I doubt that it will take 2,000 years for factory workers in these other societies to organize, and to increase the price of their work, but it's not a process that any multinational corporation is interested in promoting... That is why I like what Sanders is selling. I say that it may take another couple of thousand years to inevitably even out globally. When we are all living on top of each other. Someday, hopefully in my lifetime, they will come to some agreement on a living wage index in every country, and make businesses pay that much to operate there. Eventually, with that kind of regulation, poverty and eventually violence would wane. I'm not sure how the Sanders campaign figures in this, I don't see him offering a global perspective on the problem of poverty... Mostly this seems to involve an attempt to define a problem or a set of problems. One group of issues involves the clear superiority of multinational corporations, driven by networks, capital, and markets, over national states defined in terms of territory. The former have no fundamental loyalty to the latter or their citizens, and the capital flows to the sites where resources, however defined, are undervalued, independent of any social values other than the maximum return on investment. There is no politician, party, or territorial state that can change this dynamic: the best long-term approach to the resulting problems is the building of coalitions with other societies, not a walling off from them... A second, major problem affecting all societies, including the US in general and my home patch in particular, is the corruption of governance and the political process by the massive wealth generated in this global economy: its enormous vested interest, its power now under law to give some individuals more votes than others, and its virtually unlimited access to those in positions of authority. During the first part of this century in the United States--setting aside the problems of corruption in other places--we have made this problem worse. Our judicial institutions have opened the floodgates to the influence of this wealth on our political institutions and elections. As a society, we aren't facing this challenge, and nothing about the current political environment among any of the parties addresses it. The notion that a "strong man" is going to force the global economy to serve the territorially defined interests of the United States in 2016 is a child's fantasy... My view at the moment is that we need to keep building more prisons and mental hospitals for the increasingly large number of individuals who can't or won't live under the terms of an increasingly polarized society. The extremes of social difference and inequality will continue to evoke extremes of behavior in response. I'll vote for the political candidates who seem to have the most useful experience of office, some intelligence, and some basic sense, but I won't do it with any confidence that these fundamental problems are even being faced, much less addressed... We appear to be headed towards a society in which inequality will become a fundamental structural, ideological, and experiential aspect of American life: a root, hog, or die arena in which the rooting has little purpose for the majority of citizens...
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 6, 2016 6:55:27 GMT -5
That is why I like what Sanders is selling. I say that it may take another couple of thousand years to inevitably even out globally. When we are all living on top of each other. Someday, hopefully in my lifetime, they will come to some agreement on a living wage index in every country, and make businesses pay that much to operate there. Eventually, with that kind of regulation, poverty and eventually violence would wane. I'm not sure how the Sanders campaign figures in this, I don't see him offering a global perspective on the problem of poverty... Mostly this seems to involve an attempt to define a problem or a set of problems. One group of issues involves the clear superiority of multinational corporations, driven by networks, capital, and markets, over national states defined in terms of territory. The former have no fundamental loyalty to the latter or their citizens, and the capital flows to the sites where resources, however defined, are undervalued, independent of any social values other than the maximum return on investment. There is no politician, party, or territorial state that can change this dynamic: the best long-term approach to the resulting problems is the building of coalitions with other societies, not a walling off from them... A second, major problem affecting all societies, including the US in general and my home patch in particular, is the corruption of governance and the political process by the massive wealth generated in this global economy: its enormous vested interest, its power now under law to give some individuals more votes than others, and its virtually unlimited access to those in positions of authority. During the first part of this century in the United States--setting aside the problems of corruption in other places--we have made this problem worse. Our judicial institutions have opened the floodgates to the influence of this wealth on our political institutions and elections. As a society, we aren't facing this challenge, and nothing about the current political environment among any of the parties addresses it. The notion that a "strong man" is going to force the global economy to serve the territorially defined interests of the United States in 2016 is a child's fantasy... My view at the moment is that we need to keep building more prisons and mental hospitals for the increasingly large number of individuals who can't or won't live under the terms of an increasingly polarized society. The extremes of social difference and inequality will continue to evoke extremes of behavior in response. I'll vote for the political candidates who seem to have the most useful experience of office, some intelligence, and some basic sense, but I won't do it with any confidence that these fundamental problems are even being faced, much less addressed... We appear to be headed towards a society in which inequality will become a fundamental structural, ideological, and experiential aspect of American life: a root, hog, or die arena in which the rooting has little purpose for the majority of citizens... That is why you get sucked into a cycle when you are in poverty. It becomes a way of life, and putting people in prison for petty crimes created by the war on drugs, just perpetuates the danger of living in your own society and if you are well off, your ability to travel and see certain places. They could do better on crime and inequality if the drug laws were at least tweaked for a start. That is where I like Libertarian ideals. I agree that there is hardly a way to make sovereign nations regulate businesses that have no border, but if you want to make society better, which is the point of government local or global, then you would like what Sanders is doing. His ideas may not resonate now, but maybe in 50 years, Bernie's influence will become a reality as poverty continues to rise in the US and we are in perpetual war from the industrial military complex. I think businesses runnining unfettered is going to continue poverty for another 1000 years because of peoples' distrust in what government does. You don't have a voice if you don't own stock, but you have a vote, so, how can you change you laws when only 10% of workers have a "vote" on what it's business does? Do these people have an interest in ending world poverty? Probably not. Business is not the product of change. History has shown this. It's always the push for changes in bad laws that is what democracy is all about. Some of these things will be eventually dealt with, just because that is the nature of mankind. It may take a while, but Sanders is way out in front of the curve. At least he can set an example for other nations, as opposed to what the Bush administration did to increase the dangers of poverty. If you don't do this, religion fills that void.
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jun 6, 2016 8:28:53 GMT -5
I agree that there is hardly a way to make sovereign nations regulate businesses that have no border, but if you want to make society better, which is the point of government local or global, then you would like what Sanders is doing. I cut down the longer post just to focus on this aspect of the politics. I appreciate the way Sanders identifies vested interests, but I don't believe that a Sanders presidency would accomplish much in the way of change or even a platform for change. On the small scale, I don't even see it helping his political chances that he defined himself as an independent when it served his local political turn, then negotiated a deal with Democrats in order to make a run at national office. It makes him more like everyone else. On the policy front, he's a protectionist--really not much of a visionary at all--who would either fail to deliver on his promises or would spend a large part of his one term in office putting out the trade fires that would result from delivering on them... I think the question of drug policy is an interesting one, in light of these rapid changes in American society. The longstanding moral view of drug use has been based on ideas of the individual, citizenship, and the nature of American society that correspond less and less to the reality that many Americans experience in their daily lives. If structural inequality is the new normal, it becomes profoundly hypocritical, even inhumane, to prohibit and punish even the artificial means available to escape from this prison...
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 6, 2016 9:12:19 GMT -5
I agree that there is hardly a way to make sovereign nations regulate businesses that have no border, but if you want to make society better, which is the point of government local or global, then you would like what Sanders is doing. I cut down the longer post just to focus on this aspect of the politics. I appreciate the way Sanders identifies vested interests, but I don't believe that a Sanders presidency would accomplish much in the way of change or even a platform for change. On the small scale, I don't even see it helping his political chances that he defined himself as an independent when it served his local political turn, then negotiated a deal with Democrats in order to make a run at national office. It makes him more like everyone else. On the policy front, he's a protectionist--really not much of a visionary at all--who would either fail to deliver on his promises or would spend a large part of his one term in office putting out the trade fires that would result from delivering on them... I think the question of drug policy is an interesting one, in light of these rapid changes in American society. The longstanding moral view of drug use has been based on ideas of the individual, citizenship, and the nature of American society that correspond less and less to the reality that many Americans experience in their daily lives. If structural inequality is the new normal, it becomes profoundly hypocritical, even inhumane, to prohibit and punish even the artificial means available to escape from this prison... I think you got to start somewhere. Sanders' voters voices are being lost with the adoption of "super-delegates", so, the Democratic party is less democratic than it lets on. At least the Republican party respects the views of the voters. I could never vote for the ideals that Republicans represent. However, I don't want to vote for Clinton, because of her wall-street connection and tendencies to be in favor of corporate welfare. If Sanders were elected, he could represent a beacon of change for the world. The world looks to the US for cultural reasons, mostly fueled by the widespread uses of the internet. It's "cool" in most other countries to be be in favor of democracy, thanks to our declaration of independence and constitution. For years, conservatives have been widdling away at our freedoms, especially as far as drug policy is concerned. If Sanders were able to practice his form of diplomacy, I think he would advance forward progress unmeasurably, first in the US, and then it would spread to other nations. He doesn't have to be a strongman as you put it, he just would need to set a good example as a leader, and I think he is in favor of fighting poverty, which is a big issue to me. Maybe he passes the torch to Elizabeth Warren eventually, but there is an appetite for changes. If only conservatives didn't dominate the house, and senate, maybe he could get some legislation done. But, we are far away right now to reforming how they form voting districts for the house. It's all about giving the common man a voice. Business doesn't do this, and they go to places like Asia, where it is illegal to have a voice in most countries. Globally, it's going to take time. But, while we wait through another 8 years of stagnation, the environment is being destroyed and poverty is increasing with every new child being born in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jun 6, 2016 9:17:55 GMT -5
That is why I like what Sanders is selling. I say that it may take another couple of thousand years to inevitably even out globally. When we are all living on top of each other. Someday, hopefully in my lifetime, they will come to some agreement on a living wage index in every country, and make businesses pay that much to operate there. Eventually, with that kind of regulation, poverty and eventually violence would wane. My view at the moment is that we need to keep building more prisons and mental hospitals for the increasingly large number of individuals who can't or won't live under the terms of an increasingly polarized society. The extremes of social difference and inequality will continue to evoke extremes of behavior in response. Interesting. For some reason I wouldn't have expected a call for more prisons, especially given the stats that we house a higher percentage of our population in prisons than any industrialized country in the world (or, whatever the statistic is, I'm sure you guys have heard whatever one I'm referencing). It seems like we should be finding a way to keep people out of prisons, can our society continue to function properly (or be something we recognize) if we are incarcerating an even higher percentage of the population than we are now? Also, how do we reconcile the below referenced revised societal view of drug use (which I assume means a move towards decriminalization for possession and use, though admittedly I haven't really taken Bernie seriously enough to study his views on drug use) with a call for an increased number of prisons? I think the question of drug policy is an interesting one, in light of these rapid changes in American society. The longstanding moral view of drug use has been based on ideas of the individual, citizenship, and the nature of American society that correspond less and less to the reality that many Americans experience in their daily lives. If structural inequality is the new normal, it becomes profoundly hypocritical, even inhumane, to prohibit and punish even the artificial means available to escape from this prison...
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 6, 2016 10:28:54 GMT -5
To me, the best thing to do for drug policies, is to legalize cannabis in federally, for the tax revenue it would create, and let's face it, it is way more safer then alcohol and tobacco. Anyone with any sense that has ever talked to someone who has used marijuana, you would extract this point of view. So, the pros definitely outweigh the cons for that drug. There are drug companies peddling harmful drugs for various types of reasons liberally to kids under 21, which is considered normal. If they take it off of their scheduling list, they can research more into it's medicinal value. Why has it taken so long? Let the people decide if they want to smoke a little weed. Meanwhile, the sin tax would be very beneficial in strengthening infrastructure. This is where Sanders stands.
As far as the other drugs, you got to treat addiction and decriminalize them to keep the prison population open for really bad people. I think some people would die from overdose, but it's happening now, so somethings got to change. If you build more drug treatment facilities to address the addiction overdose deaths would decrease. People shouldn't be scared of their own police and making them apply this ridiculous prohibition has been proven to increase crime.
So, I like that aspect of Libertarianism, but again, what would they do to fight poverty in the US?
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Jun 6, 2016 13:15:52 GMT -5
I know plenty of cops who will tell you about gruesome scenes they've reported to where a driver under the influence of pot has killed themselves or someone else.
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 6, 2016 13:47:33 GMT -5
I know plenty of cops who will tell you about gruesome scenes they've reported to where a driver under the influence of pot has killed themselves or someone else. What they don't tell you that Alcohol and Cannibis are often interlaced nowadays along with whatever else. It's not reliable data. Smoking under the influence should net you as much jailtime as a DUI. I'm not saying light up while you are driving, or in public. But, it's probably not more dangerous than texting or something. I'd rather see our police respected instead of being "the enemy", or some kind of paramilitary soldier with tanks and swat teams. That is ridiculous. It's too much. Ppl. should be able to do it in their home. If they are under the influence, just treat it as you do with a DUI. I know people that have a couple of DUI's and are allowed to keep their driver's license without anything but a fine. Alcohol is way more dangerous while driving. Also, they are commonly asked to violate the search and seizure rights of drivers, putting them in danger if the driver is armed and mentally not all there....
|
|
|
Post by psuhistory on Jun 6, 2016 16:47:16 GMT -5
Also, how do we reconcile the below referenced revised societal view of drug use (which I assume means a move towards decriminalization for possession and use, though admittedly I haven't really taken Bernie seriously enough to study his views on drug use) with a call for an increased number of prisons? I think the question of drug policy is an interesting one, in light of these rapid changes in American society. The longstanding moral view of drug use has been based on ideas of the individual, citizenship, and the nature of American society that correspond less and less to the reality that many Americans experience in their daily lives. If structural inequality is the new normal, it becomes profoundly hypocritical, even inhumane, to prohibit and punish even the artificial means available to escape from this prison... This idea about drug policy is my own rambling, I don't know Sanders' view either. As far as my other post is concerned, the current drug laws obviously remain in force and drug use a major law enforcement/penal problem. Prisons and hospitals are institutions for managing individuals and behaviors in the absence of any serious attempt to address the behavior's causes. If current socioeconomic trends continue, I think law enforcement, prison and hospital administration, the range of options related to dysfunctional social behavior, will all need to expand to keep up with increasing demand... There may be other, less expensive options in all these fields, alternatives to traditional institutions, but the basic point remains the same...
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jun 7, 2016 16:23:21 GMT -5
Also, how do we reconcile the below referenced revised societal view of drug use (which I assume means a move towards decriminalization for possession and use, though admittedly I haven't really taken Bernie seriously enough to study his views on drug use) with a call for an increased number of prisons? This idea about drug policy is my own rambling, I don't know Sanders' view either. As far as my other post is concerned, the current drug laws obviously remain in force and drug use a major law enforcement/penal problem. Prisons and hospitals are institutions for managing individuals and behaviors in the absence of any serious attempt to address the behavior's causes. If current socioeconomic trends continue, I think law enforcement, prison and hospital administration, the range of options related to dysfunctional social behavior, will all need to expand to keep up with increasing demand... There may be other, less expensive options in all these fields, alternatives to traditional institutions, but the basic point remains the same... I think there is always room for fiscal responsibility as far as our tax dollars are used, but there is an untapped river of money in the cannabis industry, and busting banks who keep money in other countries and taxing the insane amount of money in wall street. You got to make sure you are spending the money responsibly, but you also have so much reform that needs to be implemented to the business world that could be used to better US society in our lifetime. How you do it in a global economy is the 1000 year question... Bernie is closer to this view than anybody else. Maybe he will get what he wants at the convention and Hillary will move a little concerning regulating big business. Neither candidates seem to stand for much, but I doubt the Republican party is doomed.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Jul 19, 2016 22:25:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloucho on Jul 21, 2016 15:46:11 GMT -5
Just shows big money has corrupted the system so much that this is no longer a democracy. I'd say probably 40% of the voting pubic would rather either stay home, vote for someone else, or hold their nose and vote for one of the two. The cable media is controlled by money, and now after the supreme court decision on citizens united, the campaigns can buy more airtime. Put it together, and you have the brainwashing corporate media we have now backed by rich billionaires who control what the average American sees. Younger voters don't rely on these cable news stations for their sole source of news like most of the baby boomer generation does, because there is nothing but crap on their now, sensationalizing the two major parties. Baby-boomers grew up with cable news, and it's all they know. Bernie became such a huge phenomenon for the younger voters as he pulled in huge crowds. It was only until he started pulling in huge crowds, that they even considered giving him airtime. He had to join the Democratic party to do so though, if you notice, giving up his principles in the end, having to reluctantly endorsing Hillary. He would have never had a shot in the Green Party, which is basically where his beliefs align. Why do you not see more than one minute of time a week for either the Green or Libertarian parties and their ideas? It's because it runs counter to the interests of big businesses that control the media. 23 hours of their airtime are now focused on Trump vs. Clinton, basically telling Americans if you do not vote the way we tell you, you are wasting your right to vote. The only media news outlet I watch regularly now is C-SPAN, and even it is beholding to regurgitating what is written in the "esteemed" news sources half the time. When cable TV is replaced by internet TV in the future, you won't have voters being led around by their noses by these very rich news sources, who are totally biased to the two parties. I'm sure it's way more complicated than that, but if you get ultra-capitalist, or ultra-socialist in any way (we are capitalism on steroids), then you are going to get what you see in that article, lack of freedom of choice, and an infringement on the first amendment and freedom of speech for the common man.
|
|
|
Post by kinsm on Jul 21, 2016 18:11:57 GMT -5
Minor parties would get more exposure if they could even get on the ballot in a minimum # of states to take the white house, but they don't. If they can't get enough ballot signatures for that then no major media conglomerate is going to give them the time of day. 40% of the country might call themselves independents but 3/4's of them vote exclusively D or R nearly every year.
|
|