A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

Rain Man said:
Creatine, ibuprofen, and America.
Click to expand...

Creatine, only ever uses it to paint fences and garden sheds myself. I couldn't stand the heart palpitations at night.

Monkeyface said:
Free trade agreements are a way to ultimately equalise conditions between countries. It's already working, Japan is on the same level as the western world, same as Korea, or look at Eastern Europe for example, and China is very close and getting too expensive for "slave labour". It'll take another lifetime but we'll get there. It's a long term thing. We might have to give up a little so that people in other countries can enjoy the luxuries we've had for the past century, but that's only fair, no?

What's more likely is that it's not a zero-sum game, and that we'll all win in the long run, even OfficePants OfficePants .
Click to expand...
Why should equalization across all nations be a goal? Another left wing social project to bring us all down to the same level, well, not all of us. The technical elite will be on top enjoying the spoils.

The Roger Stone documentary on Netflix is worth watching. No measurable Russian interference, you guys and lasses did this on your own.
 
Lord Buckley said:
Why should equalization across all nations be a goal? Another left wing social project to bring us all down to the same level, well, not all of us. The technical elite will be on top enjoying the spoils.
Click to expand...

They think things can be equalized, stupidly making it easy for the elite to implement their corporatized world government.
 
OfficePants said:
No need to wait. It's easy.

Black culture is full of criminality and fathers that don't raise their children (one feeds the other). In addition, there is a sense of entitlement and a placid understanding within the community that you should get the government for whatever you can and let others pay for it.

Lastly, there is a belief that the white man owes you something, and that immigrant culture after immigrant culture has come here and succeeded while black America remains populating ghettos after a dozen head starts yelling about how their lives matter.

Feel free to debate any of these on their merits, or play white christian country solitaire, or whatever scary name is scaring me.

I really felt Hussein was going to be a transformative figure in this problemed culture, but it's worse than ever by any reasonable metric. And my taxes pay for it instead of evolving the human race.
Click to expand...

There is clearly a problem with elements in black culture in the US. The wilful denial of this, such as CNN denying that there was such a thing as "ghettos" and that the term itself was offensive during your election was revealing. Pretend, deny and let it continue. Trump called BS on that.

During the 90s and early 2000's we saw the rise of the modern minstrel show in gangsta rap. We now see Black Lives Matter against the American police, whilst the biggest danger to black Americans lives, is another black person.

So the question is: do you want the minstrel show to continue, or not? From my perspective, as an outsider, Hillary was going to continue with the booty girls, gangsta rap and lower expectations.

The representation needs to be handed over to those who can command respect for their race.

InstaHate said:
In seriousness, the nation started down this path, at least politically, in the wake of Obama's election. The Republicans openly decided to be obstructionist, the Democrats/WH moved to counter. It got worse as time passed. Now the Democrats will be obstructionist, and the Republicans/WH will move to counter.

It's a combination of an inherent failing of a two party democracy, the rise of internet echo chambers, media outlets more interested in money, clicks, or a political agenda than factual reporting, a political system designed in a way that it is forced to cater to extremes, and the overall polarization that has risen out of all of it.

People...everyday normal people... are more interested in calling out the other side than dialogue. Why? Because it is satisfying. I almost instinctually ignore anybody who describes Trump supporters as fascists, nazis, or white trash and anyone who describes the left as libtards, cucks, or snowflakes. Liberals gleefully reposting Trumptweets about Obama's vacations in light of Trump's vacations are part of the problem. Liberals gleefully pointing that supporters for Republican obstructionism now bemoan it when Democrats do it are part of the problem.

We are now a nation of people more concerned with proving a point, winning an argument, and getting one over on the "other side" than we are interested in actually talking with and listening to people who have different worldviews.

This is primarily a structural, emergent phenomenon, and it depresses the hell out of me. Looking back twenty years ago, it seems almost inevitable.

I do think, as individuals, it is possible to make a difference. I don't think that there is the critical mass required to do so. But it is possible, when framed properly, to have honest discussions about uncomfortable topics. I guest lectured a graduate sociology class a few months ago in the wake of Trump's victory. My intended talk had nothing to do with Trump (it was on how professions and labor have evolved in a society increasingly dominated by corporations), but Trump came up, and some kid mentioned white trash voters. And instead of calling her out, I asked the class why they thought "white trash" was okay but "wetback" wasn't. After some thought, they suggested that marginalized groups dont parallel with non-marginalized groups. I asked why they thought that poor whites aren't marginalized, and even more, structurally marginalized and demonized. I think all of them, at that point, recognized that "white trash" was just as pernicious as "wetback." How long that awareness lasted, who knows. But it is still possible to engage in nuanced dialogue. People just don't.
Click to expand...

Interesting point on the domination of corporations: globalization in its present form, favours massive corporations, as only they have the organisation to function trans-nationally and trans-continentally. The entrepreneur has no place in this world. That's why it must be resisted, as there will be no innovation in the equalized and lowest common denominator progressive hell we are creating.
 
doghouse said:
The mediocre people seem to be the ones having all the trouble.
Click to expand...

1pepay.jpg
 
doghouse said:
Everyone seems to be a lot less concerned about the Saudi's all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

You must not have heard. The Russians invaded.

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries in the world. I shrugged off the Russian invasion quite a while ago. When you're done eating the crumbs of the elite, look into them. They're shit.
 
OfficePants said:
You must not have heard. The Russians invaded.

Saudi Arabia is one of the worst countries in the world. I shrugged off the Russian invasion quite a while ago. When you're done eating the crumbs of the elite, look into them. They're shit.
Click to expand...

I hate the Saudis, you must have me confused with someone else.
 
OfficePants said:
I thought you learned to stop worrying and love the globalists, so you must love Saudis. Aramco bro.
Click to expand...

I am "the globalists". We have no particular affinity for the Saudis. That's something in the parallel universe you guys have invented.
 
doghouse said:
I am "the globalists". We have no particular affinity for the Saudis. That's something in the parallel universe you guys have invented.
Click to expand...

Saudi elite denial syndrome?

You're faux elite, shit man, you're a bottom. You're getting elite cock and balls (olo).

Which room you in bro, gettin' that olo stretch only the elite can deliver?

 
OfficePants said:
Saudi elite denial syndrome?

You're faux elite, shit man, you're a bottom. You're getting elite cock and balls (olo).

Which room you in bro, gettin' that olo stretch only the elite can deliver?

Click to expand...


Don't be upset only one of us is worried about retirement.
 
Lord Buckley said:
There is clearly a problem with elements in black culture in the US. The wilful denial of this, such as CNN denying that there was such a thing as "ghettos" and that the term itself was offensive during your election was revealing. Pretend, deny and let it continue. Trump called BS on that.

During the 90s and early 2000's we saw the rise of the modern minstrel show in gangsta rap. We now see Black Lives Matter against the American police, whilst the biggest danger to black Americans lives, is another black person.

So the question is: do you want the minstrel show to continue, or not? From my perspective, as an outsider, Hillary was going to continue with the booty girls, gangsta rap and lower expectations.

The representation needs to be handed over to those who can command respect for their race.



Interesting point on the domination of corporations: globalization in its present form, favours massive corporations, as only they have the organisation to function trans-nationally and trans-continentally. The entrepreneur has no place in this world. That's why it must be resisted, as there will be no innovation in the equalized and lowest common denominator progressive hell we are creating.
Click to expand...

Globalization, at least at its surface, is definitely not good for small businesses (probably oversimplifying things...it may allow inputs to be cheaper). But globalization definitely benefits big corporations more than it does small businesses, and big corporations most definitely aren't good with the small businesses they compete with.

Never gave much thought to its impact on small businesses. Intuitively, I'd hazard it isn't good, net. On a related note, Cornell created a endowed (ish) professorship for someone who researches family business and it's gone unfilled for two years because so few people do.

My own very tangential interest in the dominance of corporations is the degree with which professions have had to integrate elements of bureaucracy into their respective institutional logics as more and more professional work takes place in the context of large organizations.
 
Rambo said:
I thought you were the one that wanted substantive debate. Stop with the shitty one liner replies for fucks sake. It's not any funnier when you're doing it, nor is it engendering anyone to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

It's actually a thoughtful reply. It goes towards the desire for personal destruction of anyone that doesn't agree with the great media truth of leftism. Show me these hit pieces about people on the left.

It reminds me of when Le Monde headlined "we are all Americans" after 9-11. Now we're all Russians.
 
InstaHate said:
Globalization, at least at its surface, is definitely not good for small businesses (probably oversimplifying things...it may allow inputs to be cheaper). But globalization definitely benefits big corporations more than it does small businesses, and big corporations most definitely aren't good with the small businesses they compete with.

Never gave much thought to its impact on small businesses. Intuitively, I'd hazard it isn't good, net. On a related note, Cornell created a endowed (ish) professorship for someone who researches family business and it's gone unfilled for two years because so few people do.

My own very tangential interest in the dominance of corporations is the degree with which professions have had to integrate elements of bureaucracy into their respective institutional logics as more and more professional work takes place in the context of large organizations.
Click to expand...


As a small business owner, I can unequivocally tell you it has almost zero net impact. There is one thing and one thing only that tilts the balance for us, and that is regulation. It's reason numero uno that Obama is full of shit with his Main St talk. The end game of his regulatory goals is four MegaCorps™ that provide the entirety of the U.S. economy. A company like Coca Cola has compliance departments that dwarf the size of the average small business, it's about .000001% of their gross. Meanwhile, mom and pop are working through the middle of the night to fit that in their schedule.

We exist in the middle of those extremes, but it hurts us vis a vis a MegaCorp.
 
doghouse said:
Have you ever been on the internet or watched Fox News?
Click to expand...

I have, and it's nothing like the scale and intensity in the rest of the media world. You have to accept that probably 85% of all media is biased left. And 95% of hollywood. In essence, the ability to penetrate and sheer volume of hit pieces is overwhelming.
 
doghouse said:
As a small business owner, I can unequivocally tell you it has almost zero net impact. There is one thing and one thing only that tilts the balance for us, and that is regulation. It's reason numero uno that Obama is full of shit with his Main St talk. The end game of his regulatory goals is four MegaCorps™ that provide the entirety of the U.S. economy. A company like Coca Cola has compliance departments that dwarf the size of the average small business, it's about .000001% of their gross. Meanwhile, mom and pop are working through the middle of the night to fit that in their schedule.

We exist in the middle of those extremes, but it hurts us vis a vis a MegaCorp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but anecdotes and personal experience/observation have very little place in addressing a question which can only be answered with data. Unless you are politician looking for votes, in which case that's about the only thing you should rely on (your own or the voters').

And as I speculated, it may have its most pronounced effect on small businesses through its disproportionate benefit to big businesses.
 
InstaHate said:
Yeah, but anecdotes and personal experience/observation have very little place in addressing a question which can only be answered with data. Unless you are politician looking for votes, in which case that's about the only thing you should rely on (your own or the voters').

And as I speculated, it may have its most pronounced effect on small businesses through its disproportionate benefit to big businesses.
Click to expand...

I know what my eyes have seen.
 
Legislation also can favour the big entities, some of the employment legislation over here introduces unacceptable risk for small businesses.

In my business sector, it's game over for the small regional outfits, you're either a global enterprise able to deliver services locally or your days are numbered. There are some exceptions, but they're on borrowed time. It's all global contracts these days. And the market is mature enough now for it to be next to impossible for some small new player to compete with the big boys.

Of course, another factor is that the big entities, function differently from the corporations of the past. Gone are jobs for life. They're much more fluid entities and management positions, particularly executive positions, you probably only have until the next reorganisation or merger to fill your boots. Then there's the reliance on freelancers within these big organisations.

The effect for the small business of the above, is that it is impossible to build up decent working relations with personnel in such an organisation. So your reputation stands for not that much. Because no one's around long enough to care, or remember.

One of our competitors based out of Singapore, but only covering South East Asia, lost out on a big contract recently. The owner was convinced that they would make an exception to his company and issue a regional contract to his outfit. He was relying on the fact that he had had an unbroken contract for the last 34 years and had an excellent reputation. However, the contract called for global services and the bid process was being handled from a new contract office in an emerging market. Under such conditions, your professional reputation and close working relationship with client representations counts for nought. That's the way it is going.

Globalisation benefits the transnational and transcontinental organisation as it eliminates more cost effective smaller enterprises. Then when you and a couple of chums are left, you can start forming back room cartels and up the price.
 
Lord Buckley said:
Globalisation benefits the transnational and transcontinental organisation as it eliminates more cost effective smaller enterprises. Then when you and a couple of chums are left, you can start forming back room cartels and up the price.
Click to expand...

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 25 (members: 0, guests: 25)
Back
Top Bottom