Originally about tariffs and watches ... now just political rambling

Locked
Posts
468
Likes
1,173
As a big Obama fan (I took my daughters to the rallies and my oldest got to shake his hand), I was disappointed by some of the same results (without agreeing completely with your analysis. For example, if he had stood up for Crimea, things might be different in Ukraine now, but we almost might have been in a war earlier.)

Regardless, there is simply no comparison between prior administrations and Trump. Imagine if Obama had issued his own bitcoin trading floor and written executive orders to have no oversight, or arrested a judge, or used the DOJ to investigate his opponents, etc, etc? Republicans would have rightfully gone nuts. What happened to states rights, less federal government? From where I sit, it looks like freedom is only for straight, white, evangelicals.

Why stop at Obama (although for some reason Obama pisses off Republicans alot)? Why not Reagan and Clinton? Keep going, there're many obvious failures.

It is intellectually dishonest to not acknowledge that Trump is acting unconstitutional (illegally) in a manner that this country has likely never seen, outside of a few extremes inacted during the civil war and WWII.

It's like his supporters are afraid to acknowledge any of Trump's failings. Any "what about.." are ludicrous.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akq0xeu-RHE&ved=2ahUKEwiqv4Kl84yNAxWbFTQIHZUhFsUQz40FegQIDxAJ&usg=AOvVaw0Z6cFp81YykJTS_TCZ3Q1m
To be clear: I'm a lifelong democrat, volunteered for Obama (and, before him, Wellstone in MN). I'm not at all trying to equate the policies of presidents Obama and Trump.

The point I understood @Tony C. to be making, and which I agree with, is that Obama was (along with being, in my opinion, a largely great president) an excellent communicator, such that some of the more unsavory things that happened under his watch were, for many folks, sort of overlookable. Contrast that with president Trump, whose schtick seems to involve, at least in some part, flouting all he can (norms, facts, decorum, laws) as often as he can.

For anyone tempted to take offense to that last line: Trump's just a bit more than 100 days out from his taking the oath of office, at which he literally swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." On an interview that aired Sunday, he said he didn't know if he had to "uphold the constitution." As someone who literally writes for money, I cannot imagine the tortured gymnastics required to claim those two statements aren't in obvious and flagrant opposition. If any other president were to say that, both parties would (rightly, imo) freak out. Whatever else the current president's appeal, that part—a sort of wallowing in grotesqueries—seems unignorable.

That fact—the president to some degree appeals precisely because he says things he 'shouldn't'—seems paramount to understanding politics in the US presently. Whatever else the democrats have done, a significant swath of the population doesn't feel things have gotten better under their policies. As @ErichPryde wrote a few pages back, One of my biggest criticisms of Biden is that he did not cheerlead his achievements in employment, the economy, foreign relations. It's almost hilarious that there is this perspective amongst the Republican Party that he was a bad president, because on paper, his administration did well.

The numbers aren't all that difficult to find: jobs, unemployment, and GDP are better under democratic presidents than republican presidents (source), going back more than 40 years. The fact that this thread is now hundreds of posts long seems, to me, indicative of the fact that there's a huge disconnect between the numbers undergirding American life, and the felt reality experienced by most Americans.
 
Posts
380
Likes
442
I don't want to derail the thread further.
I don't think that's possible. If you have something to share I think you should post it.
 
Posts
6,030
Likes
20,733
I don't think that's possible. If you have something to share I think you should post it.

Just don't post any watch pictures.

😉
 
Posts
972
Likes
1,743
Just don't post any watch pictures.

😉
Unless the dial has a picture of Pope Donald blessing the new Alcatraz. 🤠
 
Posts
2,779
Likes
14,818
You are badly misinformed. If you'd like me to provide numerous factual sources that confirm the essence of what I wrote, I'd be happy to do so, though privately, as I don't want to derail the thread further.
Sock it to us Tony
 
Posts
972
Likes
1,743
As a previously self-confessed "a) idiot"* who, due to being a non-citizen immigrant in Australia, hasn't voted in decades and tries to avoid politics and just make the best of whatever situation arises;
What is a simple way to remember who is who with the American "sides"?

Democrats v Republicans
Blue v Red (UK upbringing already jumps to Blue/Fascist v Red/Commies)
Elephants v Donkeys
Good guys v Bad guys

* I still have to put my hands out when driving and see if my thumb makes an "L" to remember my Left and Right. So maybe there's no hope.
 
Posts
8,004
Likes
28,103
If you have something to share I think you should post it.
I have reams of material to support what I wrote, and posting anything other than a tiny percentage of it would derail the thread further.

However, here are a couple of examples, and from Western sources. The first, excerpted below, is from a 38 page paper authored by Ivan Katchanovski, a Professor at the School of Political Studies and the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, former Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, etc. he has written several books, including The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World (pdf download link)

The paper, written in 2022, is entitled The Russia-Ukraine War and the Maidan in Ukraine

This is from the conclusion (bold emphasis mine). The full article is linked below the excerpt (click on the pdf link to access).

The analysis shows that the Maidan combined elements of mass protest, political revolution, coup, and US-led regime change. The last two were dominant in political transition.The Yanukovych government was overthrown not by peaceful mass protests but by means of the false-flag Maidan massacre of the Maidan protesters and the police and assassination attempts.There is overwhelming evidence that the massacre and assassination attempts were perpetrated with covert involvement of small number of the Maidan oligarchic leadership and the far-right members. Various evidence shows that the US government was involved in the political transition in Ukraine during the Maidan in order to replace the pro-Russian government with the pro-Western government and turn Ukraine into a client state in order to use it to contain Russia.

Katchanovski article


The second is from a February 2023 article by Jeffrey Sachs, a Professor at Columbia University, and prior to that for twenty years at Harvard University. The article is entitled The ninth anniversary of the Ukraine war

Again, the full article is linked below the excerpt (bold emphasis mine).

We are not at the 1-year anniversary of the war, as the Western governments and media claim. This is the 9-year anniversary of the war. And that makes a big difference.

The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government (see also here). From 2008 onward, the United States pushed NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia. The 2014 coup of Yanukovych was in the service of NATO expansion.

We must keep this relentless drive towards NATO expansion in context. The US and Germany explicitly and repeatedly promised Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge “one inch eastward” after Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact. The entire premise of NATO enlargement was a violation of agreements reached with Soviet Union, and therefore with the continuation state of Russia.

The neocons have pushed NATO enlargement because they seek to surround Russia in the Black Sea region, akin to the aims of Britain and France in the Crimean War (1853-56). US strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski described Ukraine as the “geographical pivot” of Eurasia. If the US could surround Russia in the Black Sea region, and incorporate Ukraine into the US military alliance, Russia’s ability to project power in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and globally would disappear, or so goes the theory.

Of course, Russia saw this not only as a general threat, but as a specific threat of putting advanced armaments right up to Russia’s border. This was especially ominous after the US unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which, according to Russia, posed a direct threat to Russian national security.

During his presidency (2010-2014), Yanukovych sought military neutrality, precisely to avoid a civil war or proxy war in Ukraine. This was a very wise and prudent choice for Ukraine, but it stood in the way of the U.S. neoconservative obsession with NATO enlargement. When protests broke out against Yanukovych at the end of 2013 upon the delay of the signing of an accession roadmap with the EU, the United States took the opportunity to escalate the protests into a coup, which culminated in Yanukovych’s overthrow in February 2014.

The US meddled relentlessly and covertly in the protests, urging them onward even as right-wing Ukrainian nationalist paramilitaries entered the scene. US NGOs spent vast sums to finance the protests and the eventual overthrow
. This NGO financing has never come to light.

Three people intimately involved in the US effort to overthrow Yanukovych were Victoria Nuland, then the Assistant Secretary of State, now Under-Secretary of State; Jake Sullivan, then the security advisor to VP Joe Biden, and now the US National Security Advisor to President Biden; and VP Biden, now President. Nuland was famously caught on the phone with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, planning the next government in Ukraine, and without allowing any second thoughts by the Europeans (“fυck the EU,” in Nuland’s crude phrase caught on tape).

The intercepted conversation reveals the depth of the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan planning. Nuland says, “So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So, Biden's willing.”

Sachs article


For those who prefer to watch and listen, rather than read, here is a relatively short (~30 minutes) video of Sachs speaking at Cambridge University in England, on "Understanding the Ukraine conflict". It is a very good primer, and the facts that serve as the foundation for his claims can be confirmed through many different sources.

 
Posts
23,482
Likes
52,207
I have reams of material to support what I wrote, and posting anything other than a tiny percentage of it would derail the thread further.

However, here are a couple of examples, and from Western sources. The first, excerpted below, is from a 38 page paper authored by Ivan Katchanovski, ...
I know very little about this episode, but none of it surprises me. Enacting regime-change (or supporting existing "friendly regimes") is a standard American tactic, pursued by Democrats and Republicans alike, in the pursuit of what appeared to be American interests at the time. I would guess that most major powers act similarly. At least in this case, we were not supporting a brutal dictator, as we have done on numerous occasions.

To put this particular history in full perspective, it is also interesting to go back to the Budapest memorandum, which is important context. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in order to convince Ukraine to give up their significant nuclear arsenal after the end of the Soviet Union, Russia was part of a coalition that guaranteed Ukrainian independence and sovereignty.
 
Posts
6,593
Likes
26,641
Justify this.


I don't understand why Trump got elected but it sure as shit wasn't because Kamala and Hillary weren't good candidates.

I mean, WTF!

“Fake news”

🤔🙄
Edited:
 
Posts
6,030
Likes
20,733
“Fake news”

🤔🙄
He sounds like an eight year old. I'm not trying to demean him. He honestly sounds like an eight year old boy. It's astounding
 
Posts
1,781
Likes
4,272
@pdxleaf True.

ALL of the previously mentioned Presidents and prospective Presidents mentioned in this thread have/had a degree of gravitas, seriousness, statesmanship and political intelligence, regardless of party politics.
The contrast is shocking, horrifying and, apologies, laughable from an outsiders point of view.

Again, thank you to the mods for keeping the thread open as the discussion it is most informative.
 
Posts
274
Likes
581
Back to the tariff discussion:
I did ask my AI tool Perplexity on trade and service balance EU - USA and got an answer:

"The EU's trade deficit with the US, including services, is significantly smaller than with regard to pure trade in goods:

* In terms of trade in goods, the EU had a surplus of about 198 billion euros in 2024 compared to the US.

    • In terms of services, on the other hand, the US recorded a surplus of around 109 billion euros over the EU in 2023.
    • Taking both areas into account, the US trade deficit with the EU is reduced to around 48 billion euros.
    • However, official statistics do not fully cover many digital services of large US corporations (e.g. Google, Amazon, Meta), as their sales often pass through European branches (e.g. Ireland, Luxembourg) and do not count as US exports.
=> The actual US deficit is therefore likely to be even lower or even more balanced if these sales are correctly taken into account."

So easy speaking, I am German and we have 3 Volkswagen in our posession, they simply fit better in Europe than US cars. But the house is full of Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Whatsapp, Paypal, Mastercard a.s.o., these services fit better (not Apple as its mainly Chinese).
=> So why does the tariff discussion over there mainly not includes services?
Konrad
Edited:
 
Posts
380
Likes
442
I have reams of material to support what I wrote, and posting anything other than a tiny percentage of it would derail the thread further.

However, here are a couple of examples, and from Western sources. The first, excerpted below, is from a 38 page paper authored by Ivan Katchanovski, a Professor at the School of Political Studies and the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, former Visiting Scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, etc. he has written several books, including The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: The Mass Killing that Changed the World (pdf download link)

The paper, written in 2022, is entitled The Russia-Ukraine War and the Maidan in Ukraine

This is from the conclusion (bold emphasis mine). The full article is linked below the excerpt (click on the pdf link to access).



Katchanovski article


The second is from a February 2023 article by Jeffrey Sachs, a Professor at Columbia University, and prior to that for twenty years at Harvard University. The article is entitled The ninth anniversary of the Ukraine war

Again, the full article is linked below the excerpt (bold emphasis mine).



Sachs article


For those who prefer to watch and listen, rather than read, here is a relatively short (~30 minutes) video of Sachs speaking at Cambridge University in England, on "Understanding the Ukraine conflict". It is a very good primer, and the facts that serve as the foundation for his claims can be confirmed through many different sources.
I knew it was going to be Katchanovski.
His writings is filled with inconsistencies and lots of jumping to concussion. Plenty of people have pointed them out here are 2 that go into details.
https://ukrainian-studies.ca/2014/12/01/taras-kuzio-study-ukrainian-nationalism-university-ottawa/
https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/23/the-snipers-massacre-in-kyiv-katchanovski-marples/

He speaks like he's some kind of ballistic expert with zero background or training. Actual scientific analysis don't line up with his claims.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html

Not surprising he's also made appearances on Russian state-controlled TV

As for Sachs i think this real humdinger says it all "a violation of agreements reached with Soviet Union, and therefore with the continuation state of Russia"
 
Posts
972
Likes
1,743
“Fake news”
🤔🙄
At this point I'd love to see "the Press" unite as a whole and just not turn up.
One day would be a start.
No one who already sees him as 'completely out of place' is learning anything. Its not like we 'need' any more 'ammunition', for want of a much less violent phrase.
He has no respect for the Office, shows no respect to reporters or their questions. So, without being confrontationally disrespectful, just stop showing him the respect of turning up.
I can dream.
 
Posts
1,414
Likes
2,894
Personally I like AI, but you have to be super accurate with your prompts.

90% of everything your read or hear is crap [*], "social media" on the internet takes that to 99.8% utter crap.

So Ai was programmed by humans, with the usual % of errors, and with help from programming software, once programmed by humans with the usual % of errors, to absorb all the knowledge of the internet that was filled by humans, with about 99.8% of crap.

Being super accurate with a prompt may not be good enough i think....
 
Posts
8,004
Likes
28,103
I knew it was going to be Katchanovski.
In his book to which I linked, there are four pages of references, and you respond with that ad hominem, and a couple of critical links?

I could provide numerous corroborating sources.

He speaks like he's some kind of ballistic expert with zero background or training. Actual scientific analysis don't line up with his claims.
That is a straw man, as he has never claimed to be an expert on ballistics, and your second claim is false.

It appears that you didn't even bother to read the linked paper. In it he references evidence from a trial that was held in Ukraine itself. That trial was completed in October of 2023. Here is an excerpt from an article written by Kit Klarenberg, an excellent independent journalist, and published in The Grayzone in December of that year:

Littered throughout the 1,000,000 word document are passages demonstrating conclusively that the sniper fire emanated from buildings controlled by the opposition to Yanukovych. Collectively, these excerpts strongly suggest the Maidan massacre was a false flag carried out by nationalist elements who aimed to ensure the president’s ouster.

The evidence “was quite sufficient to conclude categorically that on the morning of February 20, 2014, persons with weapons, from which the shots were fired, were in the premises of the Hotel Ukraina,” the court found.

Another section reveals “Hotel Ukraina” was “territory… not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time.” Numerous video recordings show that before, during, and after the massacre, the building was overrun by the far-right opposition party Svoboda, whose leaders used the premises to coordinate their anti-Yanukovych activities on the streets below.

"Forensic examinations of the bullet holes by the government experts for the Maidan massacre trial suggested that Berkut policemen were shooting in the Hotel Ukraina snipers above the Maidan protesters and in trees and poles.

To attempt to discredit Katchanovski on the basis of his lack of ballistics expertise, when a Ukranian court found that the evidence “was quite sufficient to conclude categorically that on the morning of February 20, 2014, persons with weapons, from which the shots were fired, were in the premises of the Hotel Ukraina,”, is, at best, suggestive of a bias on your part.

Katchanovski asserts that "the trial produced an extraordinary volume of evidence proving protesters were shot at from various buildings controlled by pro-Maidan elements,”, and that "over 100 witnesses, including 51 anti-government activists injured during the shooting, testified to having been shot from these areas, or seeing snipers located there.”. Again, that was evidence that came from a trial held in Ukraine, where there would have been tremendous pressure to produce very different results.

The conclusions arrived at in the Ukrainian court case were arrived at five years after the NY Times article to which you linked was published, and fly directly in the face of the author's claims.

Klarenberg article

As for Sachs i think this real humdinger says it all
What really "says it all" is that of the numerous fact-based observations that he presented in the material that I posted, your only attempted rebuttal is a wave of the hand dismissal of that one line.
Edited:
 
Posts
972
Likes
1,743
Being super accurate with a prompt may not be good enough i think....

There was a notorious fella of these upside-down parts who was attributed with saying
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

I think we need to update that for AI research.
(not aimed at anyone here who has used it to try and educate themselves.)

I can't quite get it yet.
.... get in the way of 10 seconds of solid research?

The other one is
Give an infinite number of humans an infinite number of AI devices and...

All knowledge is lost
You've all drowned in crap in 10 seconds
You find out what Don McLean's American Pie was really about

It's still a work in progress.

Edit:
It would be nice (understatement!) if the answer was "we all come together in peace, love, harmony, understanding and agreement" but my money is not on that outcome.
Edited:
 
Posts
1,053
Likes
4,264
It would be nice (understatement!) if the answer was "we all come together in peace, love, harmony, understanding and agreement" but my money is not on that outcome.
As a guy patrolling the streets today, one could wish for that outcome, locally and worldwide.
 
Posts
1,414
Likes
2,894
Maybe this will help ;

1. If you prefer arguments over solutions, dont let solid research get in the way of Ai .

2. As with politicians and economists, the use of Ai gets you infinite more opinions then members present in the room. And then you drown in crap.

An American pie is a pizza, duh 😁

There was a notorious fella of these upside-down parts who was attributed with saying
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

I think we need to update that for AI research.
(not aimed at anyone here who has used it to try and educate themselves.)

I can't quite get it yet.
.... get in the way of 10 seconds of solid research?

The other one is
Give an infinite number of humans an infinite number of AI devices and...

All knowledge is lost
You've all drowned in crap in 10 seconds
You find out what Don McLean's American Pie was really about

It's still a work in progress.

Edit:
It would be nice (understatement!) if the answer was "we all come together in peace, love, harmony, understanding and agreement" but my money is not on that outcome.