bickster Posted February 11 Moderator Share Posted February 11 17 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: All those mountains, reservoirs, rivers, those vast plains, all that sea, all that sun and wind and geothermal energy. All that capacity for energy saving and efficiencies and insulation. I would agree, the centrist would likely await a report on whether we need to drill for oil in the arctic. Which could lead to drilling for oil in the arctic. At which point any idea of any leadership or example on climate control would be gone and everyone else can also drill for more oil anywhere and everywhere for as long as there is oil left in the ground. To work differently to that would not in my opinion be dangerous left / right extremism. Perfect example of why the linear scale is bollocks and why centrism doesn’t exist. Firstly the extreme left wouldn't give a shit about the wildlife just like the extreme right. Both would be ok with it, one wants the jobs the other wants the profits. The Green don’t drill position is neither socialist nor capitalist, it’s actually a more central view, it has to be if the extremes want the drilling surely? Green politics isn’t remotely left wing, it’s partly the politics of NImbyism and partly the politics of those that genuinely do care for the environment, which is why the greens often do better in disaffected Tory areas (another indication that it is indeed a more central position) You have the extremes wrong in your thoughts, the extremes on the linear scale want the same thing. There are far more differing positions in the centre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 9 hours ago, sne said: OK. His old line was that he wanted NATO members to spend 2% BNP was it? on defense or his US would let them rot or something. I'd hazard a guess that he wanted them to spent it on US made weapons so they'd get the money rather than on weapons made in France, Germany, England, Sweden and so on. He’s right that most NATO members were taking the piss by not bothering to have a proper military safe in the knowledge that the US would just defend them if there was ever an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, bickster said: Perfect example of why the linear scale is bollocks and why centrism doesn’t exist. Firstly the extreme left wouldn't give a shit about the wildlife just like the extreme right. Both would be ok with it, one wants the jobs the other wants the profits. The Green don’t drill position is neither socialist nor capitalist, it’s actually a more central view, it has to be if the extremes want the drilling surely? Green politics isn’t remotely left wing, it’s partly the politics of NImbyism and partly the politics of those that genuinely do care for the environment, which is why the greens often do better in disaffected Tory areas (another indication that it is indeed a more central position) You have the extremes wrong in your thoughts, the extremes on the linear scale want the same thing. There are far more differing positions in the centre. It’s not me trying to impose a linear scale on it. I haven’t suggested its straying from the status quo is a step towards left / right extremism. It’s me pointing out that this lovely middle ground is a cop out by people that are comfortable. To try and suggest we could wait on a report to see if we should drill for oil in the arctic is proof this compromise actually is just accepting what the nutters want, but with the performance of competent admin.. Lots of centrists appear to think they’ve found the ultimate put down, that if you don’t agree with them, you are the extreme. That presumes that what we currently have, is about right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 7 minutes ago, LondonLax said: He’s right that most NATO members were taking the piss by not bothering to have a proper military safe in the knowledge that the US would just defend them if there was ever an issue. Being the self appointed world police will make people believe you would/should. Doubt he cares about what's right or fair thou. He want's countries to spend money on US weapons to line the pockets of US weapon manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, sne said: Being the self appointed world police will make people believe you would/should. Doubt he cares about what's right or fair thou. He want's countries to spend money on US weapons to line the pockets of US weapon manufacturers. Well he’s running to be the US President. It would be pretty weird if he wasn’t looking out for US interests wouldn’t it? For better or worse Trump is also the one who keeps telling the world the US are not the worlds police and the rest of the world need to start looking after themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 4 minutes ago, LondonLax said: Well he’s running to be the US President. It would be pretty weird if he wasn’t looking out for US interests wouldn’t it? For better or worse Trump is also the one who keeps telling the world the US are not the worlds police and the rest of the world need to start looking after themselves. Not sure it's in the best interests of the US to have Russia attack more European countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 minutes ago, sne said: Not sure it's in the best interests of the US to have Russia attack more European countries. well Russia will not be making its military decisions based on a Trump campaign speech. If you watch what he said, it’s some hypothetical scenario where a NATO member says “I am not going to pay my NATO share but the US is just going to defend me from Russia anyway right?” and he respond to the effect that he is not going to be the world police on their behalf and if you are not going to pay your share then Russia can do what they want to you. It plays to his isolationist base who are sick of seeing the US involved in foreign wars that they don’t have any direct reason to be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 (edited) Will Farange-types in the U.K. view Trump's open hostility and threats to NATO as something to be worried about, or do they share a similar antipathy? It is truly incredible that the GOP is now unofficially platforming the idea that it's nominee for President is willing to extort America's historical allies under the threat of military annihilation. Or perhaps there would be no extortion at all, he'd just green light Putin and pull the US out of NATO, the bases in Germany and Italy, and whatever installations we have in Poland. Edited February 11 by maqroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted February 11 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted February 11 I guess the problem is that we're living under an incredibly extreme ideology and failing to acknowledge it - one of the great triumphs of corporate doctrine is that any attempt to change it is 'extremism' and any attempt to maintain it is 'centrism' or 'moderate' - when it's actually a system so extreme that it considers the potential extinction of the species and the impoverisation of huge swathes of its population to be an acceptable price for it's success - and indeed sees democracy as its enemy. US politics is the perfect place to see that in action - the beliefs of huge sections of the public run counter to public policy and therefore they have to be given a succession of candidates with novelty values to distract them from notions of real change. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 If Trump gets back in, it'll only be a matter of time before the army is unofficially operational inside Northern Mexico, commerce be damned. For the MAGA GOP it all boils down to brown people at the border, owning the LIbs in the culture wars and gutting the government agencies (and regulations) they don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted February 11 Author Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: It plays to his isolationist base who are sick of seeing the US involved in foreign wars that they don’t have any direct reason to be in. The thing is, if Trump gets back in power and decides to carpet bomb Venezuela, they will enthusiastically get right back on board the bomb brown people bus (which is their traditional inclination as Republicans). It's a cynical position taken only out of political convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, LondonLax said: He’s right that most NATO members were taking the piss by not bothering to have a proper military safe in the knowledge that the US would just defend them if there was ever an issue. Honestly. The USA do nothing that isn’t in what they consider their own best interests. NATO protects their markets as much as anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 (edited) 3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: I guess the problem is that we're living under an incredibly extreme ideology and failing to acknowledge it - one of the great triumphs of corporate doctrine is that any attempt to change it is 'extremism' and any attempt to maintain it is 'centrism' or 'moderate' - when it's actually a system so extreme that it considers the potential extinction of the species and the impoverisation of huge swathes of its population to be an acceptable price for it's success - and indeed sees democracy as its enemy. US politics is the perfect place to see that in action - the beliefs of huge sections of the public run counter to public policy and therefore they have to be given a succession of candidates with novelty values to distract them from notions of real change. I consider myself a centrist. I vote for the Green Party then the centre parties. (We have PR here). You are making some assumptions there and ai resent that. In Ireland we have a coalition govt at the moment with the Green Party in it alongside the two larger parties. Centrist Democracy, and international cooperation is our best hope for saving the planet rather than continuing to let Brexiters and Trumpists win given their anti expert stance. Edited February 12 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 I think there’s an awful lot of people jumping to the assumption that Trump actually cares about the 2% spend of NATO, especially as some kind of master plan to sell more weapons. I think it’s a lot more likely he’s an isolationist who doesn’t consider any of the US allies as being worth fighting for. I don’t think he’d be willing to go to war with Russia if they attacked Poland, even though Poland spends 4% of GDP on its military. The 2% thing is just a convenient fig leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 12 Moderator Share Posted February 12 2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I think it’s a lot more likely he’s an isolationist who doesn’t consider any of the US allies as being worth fighting for. I don’t think he’d be willing to go to war with Russia if they attacked Poland, even though Poland spends 4% of GDP on its military. The 2% thing is just a convenient fig leaf. I think there are very strong arguments to suggest that it's the spending that is the key, and that the notions of war and global politics are just a convenient fig leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 13 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I think there are very strong arguments to suggest that it's the spending that is the key, and that the notions of war and global politics are just a convenient fig leaf. What are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 12 Moderator Share Posted February 12 Just now, Panto_Villan said: What are they? US policy. The make up of the groups that decide US policy. The way in which US democracy is set up and operates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 12 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: US policy. The make up of the groups that decide US policy. The way in which US democracy is set up and operates. If there’s a secret cabal of global corporatists who run US politics, why would they pick Trump for President instead of someone that’s actually good for their interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 12 Moderator Share Posted February 12 1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said: If there’s a secret cabal of global corporatists who run US politics, why would they pick Trump for President instead of someone that’s actually good for their interests? It's hardly a secret cabal - when he first came into power he installed the Strategic and Policy Forum, a group of corporate leaders that helped set policy - he later alienated them all, but these are the people that got him into power and wrote the policies that matter, the policies that go on quietly making money while the big orange distraction shouts about whatever works for him - that was good for their interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: It's hardly a secret cabal - when he first came into power he installed the Strategic and Policy Forum, a group of corporate leaders that helped set policy - he later alienated them all, but these are the people that got him into power and wrote the policies that matter, the policies that go on quietly making money while the big orange distraction shouts about whatever works for him - that was good for their interests. They didn’t get him into power, though. If they had the power to choose the next President then they’d surely have picked literally any other candidate from the 2016 primary field? They were all far more reliable low-tax pro-corporate Republicans, who weren’t trying to undermine the trade and globalisation that made corporate America rich. I get the point that US corporations wield outsize political power, but you’re exaggerating it there. I know it doesn’t suit your political narrative but the fact Trump is anywhere near power should prove that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts