-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 10, 2020, 05:39:43 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 32   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Politics: 2016 Lame Duck and 2017 New Administration  (Read 132854 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11217


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #175 on: December 07, 2016, 03:13:14 PM »

I'd rather the ghost of Randy Savage be the Minister of Slim Jims(tm) but hey
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
________________________________________________

https://fear2stop.bandcamp.com/album/dance-of-the-dead
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8218



View Profile
« Reply #176 on: December 07, 2016, 03:16:47 PM »

 LOL
Billy Castillo minister of summer means fun!
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #177 on: December 07, 2016, 03:20:36 PM »

Your post above seems to be relying on 'if some group or person controls an area by force, that area is a country and the controllers are the government.' Is that your definition? That is indeed a way of looking at it. What would you say re: Tibet, Eastern Europe during the Cold War, areas controlled by ISIS and rebel groups throughout the world, in Colombia, say? Is Colombia really two countries we? Do you consider the Civil War of the US not a civil war but an invasion of the south, one country, by the north, another country?

That's a large part of it, yes. My criteria for a country would be 1) permanent population 2) defined territory 3) government with domestic sovereignty

This definition is very similar to The Montevideo Convention definition, with the exception of adding the phrase “domestic sovereignty”. I chose that to denote de facto control over a state exercised by an authority organized within the state. De jure sovereignty in the absence of actual control would not be sufficient. Countries must not be dependent on or subjected to the rule of other states. Furthermore, I don’t think recognition in and of itself determines the existence of a country.

My posts have been written from this perspective. I should have outlined my thoughts, but I hadn’t formed them yet, nor do I consider them complete. Also, you may notice that I’ve left out: 4) capacity to enter into relations with other states. It seems redundant (or unnecessary?) to me, but that could just be my ignorance. If it’s necessary to add that, to make sense of my position, then please do so.

As for your examples, well, if any of those situations had met my definition, then, yes, they should have been considered a country. I know very little about some of these situations, but I’ll try…Tibet? I couldn’t say, but perhaps condition #3 would not be met? Hong Kong, for instance, while quite independent of China, still depends on China for its military force and its highest political position is appointed by the PRC. The USSR exerted significant influence over numerous Eastern European countries. So called “puppet states” would not meet condition #3.  I’m not sure if the situation in Colombia meets any of these conditions. Granted, my knowledge of Colombia consists of a quick skim of Wikipedia, but I read about numerous political groups fighting different causes over a 50 year civil war. I found a map indicating the “presence” of one of the groups, but I’m not sure condition #2 could be met, nor #3. ISIS could conceivably meet my definition in the future, as with any other group. Theoretically, during conflict, I imagine the boundaries of a territory shifting as actual control shifts, but in practice the territory must be settled (which typically won't happen until the fighting ends). As for the US civil war, states seceded and formed the Confederacy. At that moment did they meet my definition? Possibly, yes. Had they won the war, absolutely they would have formed a new country. At which time, the illegality of the succession (from the North's point of view) would be irrelevant. Instead, the states were reinstated into the union and no amount of Confederate flag bumper stickers will change the fact that the driver of the car is a citizen of the USA.

Emily, just to be clear, what is your position? Do you think Taiwan meets my definition, but not yours? As you are a proponent of the constitutive theory of statehood? If so, what combination of recognition is adequate? You mentioned Tibet. Mongolia recognized Tibet, yet Tibet was not considered a country.

The definition you use can be logically consistent and adheres to the latter of the two logical definitions I described: countries are defined by force and there are no actual ethics or laws that apply.
In real life the details of the Montevideo definition didn't apply until the realpolitik of the early-mid twentieth century and it stopped applying almost immediately thereafter.
I, also in theory, object strongly to the notion that we should all be perpetual victims of other people's force, so I choose the opposite. Each person should be their own country.
Regarding Taiwan, that's a question regarding reality, so neither of our preferred theories apply. Do I think they should or shouldn't be recognized?  In terms of practical reality, it would be a mistake for the US to do so at this point; there is neither a strong argument to do so in terms of international law, human rights, justice, cynical benefit, global stability, ethics, anything really.  There are not many strong arguments to not do so either, but stability and cynical benefit would lean toward not doing so.
I also don't know how you conclude that I am a proponent of the constitutive theory of statehood. I am not. I think there is no consistent theory of statehood other than pure force. And I reject that on ethical grounds.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11217


🍦🍦 fear2stop.bandcamp.com ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #178 on: December 07, 2016, 03:25:46 PM »

LOL
Billy Castillo minister of summer means fun!

Cool
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
________________________________________________

https://fear2stop.bandcamp.com/album/dance-of-the-dead
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8218



View Profile
« Reply #179 on: December 07, 2016, 03:29:41 PM »

You beat out Bruce Johnston dammit!
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: December 07, 2016, 03:31:01 PM »

I, also in theory, object strongly to the notion that we should all be perpetual victims of other people's force, so I choose the opposite. Each person should be their own country.

That's the most interesting thing I've read in a while. If it's a common idea, forgive my ignorance. (Do it! I'll say Hail Marys or something!)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: December 07, 2016, 03:39:25 PM »

I, also in theory, object strongly to the notion that we should all be perpetual victims of other people's force, so I choose the opposite. Each person should be their own country.

That's the most interesting thing I've read in a while. If it's a common idea, forgive my ignorance. (Do it! I'll say Hail Marys or something!)
It's not common, but it's also not original. I would probably except people who are by their own necessity dependents, like children to a certain age. But association with a governing body should be voluntary.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: December 07, 2016, 03:41:35 PM »

I, also in theory, object strongly to the notion that we should all be perpetual victims of other people's force, so I choose the opposite. Each person should be their own country.

That's the most interesting thing I've read in a while. If it's a common idea, forgive my ignorance. (Do it! I'll say Hail Marys or something!)
It's not common, but it's also not original. I would probably except people who are by their own necessity dependents, like children to a certain age. But association with a governing body should be voluntary.

Re that last sentence, I've wondered about that exact thing: should citizenship be an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, situation? But from a practical perspective, how could such a thing work? (I mean in terms of protection and such. If I live in XYZ, America, and I don't opt in to citizenship, how can I expect public services?)
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: December 07, 2016, 03:48:40 PM »

started typing but now must wait until after daughter's bedtime.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8218



View Profile
« Reply #184 on: December 07, 2016, 04:05:23 PM »

 Thumbs Up
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: December 07, 2016, 07:28:47 PM »

....'kay
Let me premise this with the fact that I haven't thought this through to all the gory details because I'm not that much of a philosopher. I can't push my brain too far along a path that I know has no practical reality.

From a practical perspective, such a thing could not work until after the apocalypse or something because it would only work if we gave up the idea that land should be divvied up among states. However, territorial government, codified government, and power rulers were not common until around the biblical era and were rare in the Americas and Africa until the colonial era. There's indication that they existed - they popped up here and there in Egypt, Cambodia, Tibet, around the fertile crescent. Interestingly, very little in Europe before Greece. While the types of populations we have now didn't exit then, population density didn't seem to be key to whether power-based government existed. While Montezuma had a pretty serious power structure happening, the Navajo and other Arizona region nations didn't, with similar population sizes.
"My" idea was floated a bit here and there by colonists in the Americas in the 17th and 18th centuries - during the weird transitional stateless moments. Thomas Jefferson considered that free association and territory-free government was an ideal but was already too cynical to think it an option for Europeans, even those in the Americas. The idea evaporated pretty quickly as new power structures engulfed the continents. 

In our current reality, you must belong to some state because all land belongs to some state. And, really, you only can belong to the state you were born to unless you get permission to join a different state. We're all basically forcibly owned by a state from birth to death.
Theoretically, however, governing bodies could be free associations that do not own land. Let's say New York City has a primary governing body that virtually everyone belongs to. The association doesn't own the land. You can live in the city without being a member of that association. If you aren't, however, that association can deny you services. So, given that it's a big city, it would probably be best to be a member. But if enough people in NY decide to form a different association, they could probably have 2 or 3 functioning associations and make it work. An association would also be free to sell services.
Out in Wyoming, however, there may be many people who do not belong to any governing association. And if you really don't like the options (of any of the associations or of not being in an association) in NY, you're free to leave.

Essentially, there would be many, small, flexible, varying and optional governing bodies that fluctuate according to people's fluctuating demand. People would be likely to choose where to live based on the sort of association they'd like to join, because the associations would most likely be regional - an association mainly in New Jersey isn't likely to be able to provide useful services to someone living in Buenos Aires.

The basic and obvious flaw is how do you keep associations from violating the 2 organizing principles - that of free association and that of non-territorialism? Once an association violates the principles, it becomes a threat to other associations. I haven't thought that through but I imagine it's been thought through by someone and someone has a theory.





Logged
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 691



View Profile
« Reply #186 on: December 07, 2016, 09:52:22 PM »

What authority (if any) would an association have over none members?

Edit: I don't know. If humanity had a 'redo' and started from here, i think it could very well end up right where we are now. I'm concerned this would be less secure and less stable. Especially, if there are more than one association in a region. In the absence of a 'law of the land', where everyone is subject to the same rules, how can order be maintained? I still think it's gonna come down to force (unfortunately). Can my association protect me? There probably wouldn't be much of a choice between joining or not joining the more powerful association (or the association), unless you have the means to relocate. Perhaps it's just my mind trying to comprehend a foreign idea, but it's freaking out over the potential dangers...the only way I could see multiple associations existing peacefully within the same region is if they were very similar (and worked together). That would be cool, to have that freedom.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2016, 11:17:34 PM by B.E. » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: December 08, 2016, 03:48:59 AM »

My personal opinion is that it's the structures we have in place that create most of the dangers you fear. You're kind of assuming that people have an essentially violent and criminal nature. I'm assuming not. Some few people, yes, but most violence and criminality arises from conditions. That's fairly evident because everywhere in the world at every point in history violence shows up in repeated conditions. Eliminate the conditions, you eliminate the majority of the violence.

ETA: Let me reiterate that power-states really existed only sporadically for 99% of history. It's only a very recent phenomenon that the broad population became subject to states. Obviously technology changes circumstances, but we're not a stupid species. If we overcame the inclination of the states to keep us ignorant, brutal and unthinking, all kinds of things are possible.

EATA: now I'm going down the rabbit hole: let me reiterate also that I expressed the distance that this has from our current reality and that there would have to be a destructive shock of major proportions to even open the door to this possibility, which I wouldn't wish for. I spend more time thinking about realistic possibilities. I don't follow nonrealism very far.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 04:54:51 AM by Emily » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: December 08, 2016, 05:12:14 AM »

Trump voters chose a big absurd TV show instead of a Presidency.  The TV show is playing and they're entertained as desired. Meanwhile...

- what do you wanna bet that there was actually a conversation involving Trump and top advisers early in this process in which they decided to drag out SoS explicitly to keep up suspense and viewership?
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 05:23:52 AM by Emily » Logged
RJM
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 713


Woof!!!


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: December 08, 2016, 07:13:29 AM »

I would rather it be Vince! Grin

Vince can barely run WWE!
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8218



View Profile
« Reply #190 on: December 08, 2016, 07:31:10 AM »

True that, have Shane or Step. then! LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: December 08, 2016, 09:55:49 AM »

The hits keep coming: who better to advocate for labor than multimillionaire CEO of Hardee's/Carl's Jr, with a long history of opposing raising minimum wage, overtime pay, and assorted worker protections. The DOL will be in such good hands... Wall
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: December 08, 2016, 10:15:09 AM »

Hear, hear! An opinion piece on the political correctness on the right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/07/the-right-has-its-own-version-of-political-correctness-its-just-as-stifling/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.07b0281c670b
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #193 on: December 08, 2016, 10:27:57 AM »


Great article. Have been saying this for years. There are so many leftist positions that you simply cannot express in the United States. And this is far more pervasive that the kinds of claims that the alt right have been making.
Logged
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 691



View Profile
« Reply #194 on: December 08, 2016, 11:23:54 AM »

Trump has chosen Iowa Gov. Terry Brandstad as China Ambassador. Apparently, Brandstad has a relationship with the President of China which goes back to the '80s. I just thought it was interesting that in the wake of the Taiwan phone call and Trump's recent tweets that I turned on the TV to China's praise of his pick. I was surprised and not surprised considering how Trump operates. For those who follow politics much more closely than I, is this a good pick? Or at least a reasonable one?
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: December 08, 2016, 03:32:05 PM »

While I live next door to the north, I have to admit I don't know a ton about Gov. Branstad other than that he's been hugely popular in Iowa. He was governor there throughout most of the 80s and 90s, and then again for the past couple of terms. I think he's more an old-school Midwestern Republican, historically, in that with so much agriculture in Iowa, one would historically almost have to support various government programs. (Think about how unpopular it has been for the Rand Paul and Ted Cruz types to say that ethanol ought not be subsidized, for example: a good point for their doctrine, but wildly unpopular to say in Iowa.)

But as far as his potential impact as ambassador, I have no idea. I'd assume it's a reward for Branstad's surprising and unpopular early loyalty to Trump.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: December 08, 2016, 03:51:03 PM »

There's another demographic with whom Trump already has problems who might not be so pleased with the nomination of Puzder
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EPOcxNMzNhc
"I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it's very American."

But I shouldn't mention that because people like me mentioning that creates Trump voters so I should shut up and sit down and let the bros handle things.
As if that attitude doesn't create Trump voters.
Oh. And yeah. Women are commercial products.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.entrepreneur.com/amphtml/246487?client=safari
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 03:55:52 PM by Emily » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: December 08, 2016, 04:11:34 PM »

I can just hear Steve Bannon responding to you right now.

I have to admit, the oversized, over-baconed burgers, low-wage employees, and utterly sexless oversexed commercials were the first things that occurred to me when I heard of the impending appointment. And I thought, "yeah, that's about right."
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #198 on: December 08, 2016, 04:24:26 PM »

I can just hear Steve Bannon responding to you right now.

I have to admit, the oversized, over-baconed burgers, low-wage employees, and utterly sexless oversexed commercials were the first things that occurred to me when I heard of the impending appointment. And I thought, "yeah, that's about right."
Cheesy  it is, isn't it?
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8218



View Profile
« Reply #199 on: December 08, 2016, 05:28:25 PM »

Now my family is trashing Keith Ellison because the right-wing media told them to. Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 32   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.427 seconds with 21 queries.