• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
Senator Bluementhal was all over CNN and MSNBC today. Every single interview went exactly the same.

Anchor: "What do you think of Trump saying nasty things about you on Twitter?"

Bluementhal: "The Russian investigation is a serious investigation. And we have to follow where the facts lead regardless of what the President tweets"

Anchor: "Okay yeah, I get it you're trying to take the high road, but seriously what do you think of the President's tweets about you?"

Must have been a slow news day.
 

pigeon

Banned
Senator Bluementhal was all over CNN and MSNBC today. Every single interview went exactly the same.

Anchor: "What do you think of Trump saying nasty things about you on Twitter?"

Bluementhal: "The Russian investigation is a serious investigation. And we have to follow where the facts lead regardless of what the President tweets"

Anchor: "Okay yeah, I get it you're trying to take the high road, but seriously what do you think of the President's tweets about you?"

Must have been a slow news day.

August is the dumbest month
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Don't worry, it's far better in the UK, where both parties are unwilling to oppose a self-destructive Brexit path because they're scared to death of pissing off racist voters.

Oh wait, that's even worse.

...this is entirely irrelevant to what I've said? You can search my post history to note that I called Brexit a worse decision than Trump. I don't think being an ethnostate is necessarily bad - I mean, the self-determination of peoples is the explicit principle on which we've constructed the current world system - I'm just pointing out that there's a trend in American discourse to not admit America is an ethnostate, which on an examination of the facts, isn't true.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I dunno what ethnostate means but I was assuming it meant "a nation-state formed around the concept of a single ethnicity" which appears to me to be almost every country in Europe. The stuff that determines why Alsace-Lorraine belongs to France (because "french people live there"). Here's my tabulation:

Andorra: 33% Catalan
Australia: 91.2% White
Austria: 92% Austrian/German
Belgium: 55% Flemish, 35.6% Walloon (who live in the north and south respectively)
Canada: 21.6% Canadian, 14.1% English, 10.6% French, 10.1% Scottish, 9.3% Irish, 6.8% German, 3.1% Italian (75.6% White)
Chile: 88% White Hispanic
Denmark: 89% Danish
Finland: 89% Finnish
France: 89% French origin, but ethnic makeup impossible to determine by law
Germany: 91% German
Greece: 93% Greek
Hungary: 83% Hungarian
Iceland: 93% Icelandic
Italy: 92% Italian
Japan: 98.5% Japanese
Malta: Almost entirely Maltese
Ireland: Irish: 84.5%
Netherlands: 81% Dutch
New Zealand: 74% White
Norway: 94.4% Norwegian
Portugal: Almost entirely "Mediterranean"
Monaco: 47% French
Sweden: Almost entirely "Swedish"
Switzerland: 65% German, 18% French
Taiwan: 95% Han Chinese
United Kingdom: This one's difficult for me. You're going to have to break it down because I'm having trouble with it.
United States: 63% Non Hispanic White
Spain: Not even going to attempt this.

(In New World countries, white is more important than specific European ethnicities, whereas in Europe I used ethnicity a little more precisely.)

If you're defining ethnostate as a country transitioning to or is already a Herrenvolk democracy, then I'd say that those only appear in countries that are at risk of losing ethnostate status. As far as the developed world is concern, only countries like the United States, Canada the UK, and Spain (just barely) have really managed to have a multiethnic experiment in democracy and survived. That's notable.

I think you're missing a lot here. Saying France is 87% French is a *long* way from saying that that France was formed out of and to be a homogenous monoethnicity - there's the Celts of Brittany, the Danes of Normandy, the Alsatians, the Basques, the Languedoc and a whole bunch of others rolled into the "French" melting pot over the centuries. the only reason we don't so much notice it now is the passage of time and the *success* of the melting-pot. Same goes for pretty well every non-Scandinavian country in Europe - even the Eastern European ones, where the apparent monoethnicity has a whole load to do with the forced "repatriations" after WWII, and so is pretty recent and many hundreds of years after their founding.

You might as well have said back in the 1970s that Yugoslavia was 90% Yugoslav - and look where that got us.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Not to mention you skip between race and ethnicity interchangeably. My closest friend is racially Asian but would be rather upset to be told he is anything but ethnically British.

As a side note, I think he must skew the fuck out of every poll he participates in, because he was a 2015 UKIP voter who went Green in the last election! He also had a really weird hard-on for Cruz despite being a Muslim (albeit not at all devout). Possibly the smartest person I know, but I will never understand his politics.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
This is why it's so important for authority figures to take stances on things even when it's unpopular, right? Because it can shift opinion. Sometimes all it takes is one powerful person.

I don't see any critical break-point that could be attributed to a single event like one powerful person changing in public. To me, that line looks more or less a constant linear progression.

I mean, obviously it's good that powerful figures explicitly make statements of public support, but I think this was almost entirely a bottom-up driven process and most powerful figures caught the wave rather than had any determinative effect.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Some interesting notes here: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-die-venezuela-implosion-hannah-dreier-215467

Dreier: Well, so, now that I’m not working for the Associated Press, it’s kind of fun to be able to point out these things that everybody covering Venezuela knows, but you can’t usually just say outright.

But, basically, the U.S., with those sanctions, which are very important symbolically—but, they said that they were going to freeze all of Maduro’s assets, and all the headlines were: Maduro’s Assets Frozen. There’s no reason to think Maduro has any U.S. assets. This is a man who railed every day against the U.S. empire. Why would he put his money in Miami property, or anything here?


So, the sanctions will prevent him from buying things in the U.S. and from doing business with Americans, which he wasn’t trying to do anyway, and Trump gets to say that this is a big, strong step. And Maduro, in Caracas, is also making hay with these sanctions and spending lots of time talking about them, and saying that they prove that the U.S. is a bully and that the U.S. is trying to ruin the Venezuelan economy—so, kind of a gift.

Glasser: And that was the response, as well, when Barack Obama imposed an earlier round of sanctions on certain regime leaders in 2015, right?

Dreier: Right. So, the time that I was in Venezuela, I just saw Maduro’s approval ratings go lower and lower and lower, it was a steady downward decline, except for this one month in 2015, right after Obama imposed sanctions, and Maduro loved those. He talked about them every single day for a month, and put posters up all around the capital talking about how bad those sanctions were. And people really responded. People said, “That’s right. The U.S. is trying to interfere in our politics, just like they always do.” And he got this total approval ratings bump. After that, I think the Obama administration backed off, because a lot of people seemed to realize that those sanctions were giving him a tool, not really hurting his administration.

And this is Venezuela, which ought to be much more amenable to sanction pressure than Russia!
 
I don't see any critical break-point that could be attributed to a single event like one powerful person changing in public. To me, that line looks more or less a constant linear progression.

I mean, obviously it's good that powerful figures explicitly make statements of public support, but I think this was almost entirely a bottom-up driven process and most powerful figures caught the wave rather than had any determinative effect.
I guess it does look like a straight line, but I was looking at the data points right around 2009. It jumps up to 57 and then the year Obama makes his announcement it falls to 43.

And this is Venezuela, which ought to be much more amenable to sanction pressure than Russia!
Venezuela doesn't do much business with the United States but Europe does a lot of business with Russia, right? Also there are all those Russian assets in the US that are still frozen.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Venezuela doesn't do much business with the United States but Europe does a lot of business with Russia, right? Also there are all those Russian assets in the US that are still frozen.

Well, no. Venezuela does a lot of business with the United States, it's just almost entirely around oil.
 
Well, no. Venezuela does a lot of business with the United States, it's just almost entirely around oil.
Huh? I just checked, Russian trade with EU accounts for 25% of its GDP. Venezuelan trade with the US accounts for 4.3% of its GDP, which is its biggest trading partner, but is still much smaller than the surface area covered by Russian sanctions. So sanctions would impact Russia much more than they would impact Venezuela both because they're significantly larger and also because they target people who actually own assets in the United States.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Huh? I just checked, Russian trade with EU accounts for 25% of its GDP. Venezuelan trade with the US accounts for 4.3% of its GDP, which is its biggest trading partner, but is still much smaller than the surface area covered by Russian sanctions. So sanctions would impact Russia much more than they would impact Venezuela both because they're significantly larger and also because they target people who actually own assets in the United States.

I'm unsure where you're getting your statistics from. The export value of Russia to the whole of Europe is $172B, from a GDP of $1,283B, or 13.4% of GDP. This is larger than Venezuela, but at the same time, Russia has significantly more capacity to reduce exposure than Venezuela does, since there are many more regional players who could be convinced to sanction Venezuela than applies to Russia.

More importantly, though, the extent to which a country is amenable to sanctions is not reducible to simply how much it trades on the open market. The theory behind sanctions is that:

1. They make the lives of ordinary people worse.
2. Ordinary people, wishing to remove these sanctions, place pressure on the political elite to change policy.
3. The political elite, fearing a loss of power, change policy accordingly.

I've bolded the critical part of 3. Maduro's position in Venezuela is significantly less secure than Putin's is in Russia, and accordingly Maduro has more reason to fear significant popular opposition and accordingly greater exposure to sanctions. Nevertheless, I've cited an expert stating that sanctions won't work. Well, why?

Because before you even get to 3., 2. doesn't work. Here's what actually happens:

1. They make the lives of ordinary people worse.
2. Ordinary people come to resent foreign powers making their lives worse and rally round their leader since at least he's one of them/will stand up to foreign powers.
3. The political elite are bolstered and are given reason to redouble their current policy.

This is exactly what happened to both Maduro and Putin - their approval ratings rose, and significantly so, after sanctions efforts. In other words: sanctions are wildly counterproductive. They actually achieve the opposite of their intended goals. This is pointed out in the article I cited.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Crab is like a literal propaganda account these last several pages.
 
Really quite amazed how quickly public opinion on Trans rights shifted.
I mean, the country is not there yet, but still...

I think LGBT rights were always something most people supported in private, but felt like they had to hate gay people because everyone else did and if you defend gay people, that makes you gay and effeminate and you can't be that.

Once more and more people came out as either gay or in support of gay rights, a lot of people just sort of shrugged and went "okay, that makes sense, let's do that now" since they always didn't really care, they just went along with what everyone else said.

I know a lot of deeply racist elderly people, who range from liberal to hardcore Republican (but all are racist), and none of them care about gay people at all. There's no malice there from them.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking of someone I know who is actively hostile to LGBT rights. Can't really think of anyone. Even the more conservative members of my family.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Crab is like a literal propaganda account these last several pages.

The site rules quite explicitly say:

II. Expected Behavior

NeoGAF is a forum for holding civil, evidence-based discussion. Do not post disingenuously, or in an inflammatory manner for the sole purpose of upsetting others. Negative commentary and minority opinions are not frowned upon, but members are expected to be able to substantiate their positions. At the same time, do not derail threads around yourself or attempt to respond to every single reaction among dozens after posting a comment that is reacted to severely en masse.

This does not engage with any of my points, it does not substantiate a position, it disingenuously portrays the source of my arguments, and it isn't civil.
 
I think LGBT rights were always something most people supported in private, but felt like they had to hate gay people because everyone else did and if you defend gay people, that makes you gay and effeminate and you can't be that.

Once more and more people came out as either gay or in support of gay rights, a lot of people just sort of shrugged and went "okay, that makes sense, let's do that now" since they always didn't really care, they just went along with what everyone else said.

I know a lot of deeply racist elderly people, who range from liberal to hardcore Republican (but all are racist), and none of them care about gay people at all. There's no malice there from them.

I'm actually having a hard time thinking of someone I know who is actively hostile to LGBT rights. Can't really think of anyone. Even the more conservative members of my family.

The big factor is (shockingly) lack of homogeneity. There's not really any way to accomplish Straight Flight. Racism is perpetuated through isolation, more than anything else, but even in the most one-note communities there's almost certainly a couple of gay people. When people started coming out, a lot of the homophobes were forced to confront the fact that their neighbors/friends/family were gay, and suddenly it became a lot harder to argue they were sub-human. You've basically just got the most hardcore of the hardcore left.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Rep. Cole says GOP isn't going to pass a debt ceiling increase. This should be fun to watch.
 

dramatis

Member
Then why can't you do so?
I suppose when you're arguing that 13.4% of Russia's GDP (by your math) means sanctions are less effective against Russia than sanctions against 4.3% of Venezula's GDP, you have more urgent problems than understanding from the US perspective the difference between Russia and Venezula.
 

Blader

Member
I know, I almost feel sorry for Macron.

France is actually willing to go into single-digits for their presidents' approval ratings, though. Where was Hollande at in the end, like 4 percent?

When the absolute floor for a U.S. president is somewhere in the low- to mid-20s, 32 percent at this stage is hilariously embarrassing.

New ARG poll (Aug 4-6)

New Hampshire 2020 poll of GOP primary voters
Kasich 52%
Trump 40%

Kasich 41%
Pence 27%

Kasich came in second in NH and has been to the state already this year, so that's not too surprising. Trump shitting on NH last week as a drug-infested den probably helps things too (and if that line isn't used ad nauseam in attack ads for the next three years, I'm going to flip).
 

Pyrokai

Member
What can I do on a personal level to fight propaganda?

I just can't be sit back and be idle anymore. I'm thinking about rejoining Facebook after being absent from it for about 5 years now.

It just kills me so, so, so much that my mom.....a good, loving person, is a victim of a Facebook echo chamber and supports Trump. I've had a friend say she likes these Facebook posts about Trump all the time and I know she doesn't get her news from anything but Facebook, word of mouth, and an occasional local affiliate station (Cleveland). So she's not even watching Fox News and is a victim.

I want to get on Facebook and post actual news articles just so that she knows what the actual hell is going on.

I don't know what to do. I love her and don't want this to happen. Sucks we have shitty relatives that post shit fake news.
 

Wilsongt

Member
NPR running an article with a former CIA agent who was stationed in Moscow. He feels there is no collusion, per se....

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/08/542106975/cover-lifted-a-cia-spy-offers-his-take-on-trump-and-russia

Russia and the Campaign

Hoffman's long experience observing Russian spies at work leads to a surprising conclusion about one of the most sensational revelations from last year's election: that Trump Tower meeting in June 2016. The one attended by Donald Trump Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, campaign manager Paul Manafort — and Kremlin-connected Russians.

"To me," Hoffman says, "it pointed to a discoverable influence operation rather than some effort to establish a clandestine channel for collusion."

Both in NPR's interview and in an op-ed for The New York Times, Hoffman argues the meeting was meant to be discovered. That Putin deliberately left a trail of bread crumbs from Trump Tower to the Kremlin.

And that the objective was simple: to soil the U.S. political process and undermine the credibility of the 2016 election.

Some other intelligence veterans disagree. But that is what former CIA station chief Daniel Hoffman sees.

Here's what he doesn't see:

"Overall I haven't seen any evidence of anyone actually colluding with the Russians," Hoffman says, "of Russian intelligence colluding with a campaign to cause harm to another."

Instead, Hoffman believes the Trump Tower meeting is significant mostly for what it reveals about Russia's motives and tactics.
 

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
I got like 43 points on that stupid immigration quiz but I sure as shit wouldn't come right now anyway if I weren't already here.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
It was interesting to me he qualified it as "to cause harm to another". I think everyone agrees Trump's team was in it for their own benefit rather than to harm the nation. I feel that the "harm to another" standard starts leading down the treason path in that it is intentional subversion for subversion's sake rather than for some self-stake.
 

kirblar

Member
The big factor is (shockingly) lack of homogeneity. There's not really any way to accomplish Straight Flight. Racism is perpetuated through isolation, more than anything else, but even in the most one-note communities there's almost certainly a couple of gay people. When people started coming out, a lot of the homophobes were forced to confront the fact that their neighbors/friends/family were gay, and suddenly it became a lot harder to argue they were sub-human. You've basically just got the most hardcore of the hardcore left.
Yup. It's why happened overnight compared to anything involving race.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I suppose when you're arguing that 13.4% of Russia's GDP (by your math) means sanctions are less effective against Russia than sanctions against 4.3% of Venezula's GDP, you have more urgent problems than understanding from the US perspective the difference between Russia and Venezula.

I literally made an entire post responding to this point, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. Why?
 

dramatis

Member
I literally made an entire post responding to this point, which you have deliberately chosen to ignore. Why?
You handwaved the effect sanctions have on Russia. That's hardly an explanation for anything. Instead you spent your post examining hypotheticals about what you think of Maduro's position in Venezuela.

What you didn't respond properly to was "Russia interfered in our elections, Venezuela did not". So don't make the claim that you did.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
You handwaved the effect sanctions have on Russia. That's hardly an explanation for anything. Instead you spent your post examining hypotheticals about what you think of Maduro's position in Venezuela.

It's not a hand wave just because you can't be bothered to engage with it.

What you didn't respond properly to was "Russia interfered in our elections, Venezuela did not". So don't make the claim that you did.

It makes literally no difference. What do you think putting sanctions on Russia is going to do - make Putin invent a time machine, travel back in time, and tell his former self not to interfere in the election? The interference happened. We're now talking about: well, where do we go from here?

You have two things you need to explain.

1. What policy goal you want sanctions to achieve.
2. How sanctions will realise this policy goal.

You can't explain either of them. You don't have a defined policy goal, and you can't explain why sanctions will work to achieve that policy goal.

And the thing is, I think you know this.

I want you to clearly explain your answer to 1. and 2., or I'm not going to bother responding to any of your posts and will put you on the ignore list for being a waste of my time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom