This is......totally unsurprising. But my favorite thing about it is the dozen or so people who placed Iran in the middle of a large body of water, so apparently some people are under the impression it's some sort of sunken city:
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
This is......totally unsurprising. But my favorite thing about it is the dozen or so people who placed Iran in the middle of a large body of water, so apparently some people are under the impression it's some sort of sunken city:
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
Looking at the choices, it seems some people didn’t really care about having their intelligence questioned by a smug reporter and chose the water based on that.
A lot of people were in the right area hitting either Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran’s two neighbours and it’s looking close or over 50% did.
And people also have to keep in mind, world geography isn’t something that the average person doesn’t use every day. I bet if I lined up a 100 smug journalist and asked them to point out periwinkle or celadon on a colour wheel less than 30% of them would get it right.
This is......totally unsurprising. But my favorite thing about it is the dozen or so people who placed Iran in the middle of a large body of water, so apparently some people are under the impression it's some sort of sunken city:
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
It's easy to miss Canada, all tucked away down there.
And with all the this talk of “No Americans killed, so no need to retaliate further,” when are they going to address the Americans that died in Africa this week and the retaliatory measures they’re going to take there.
Oh, I forgot, the American public isn’t suppose to know about the mission in Africa so it’s dick all (although they can surprise everyone and have the area where the airborne is actually being deployed to).
This is......totally unsurprising. But my favorite thing about it is the dozen or so people who placed Iran in the middle of a large body of water, so apparently some people are under the impression it's some sort of sunken city:
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
Looking at the choices, it seems some people didn’t really care about having their intelligence questioned by a smug reporter and chose the water based on that.
A lot of people were in the right area hitting either Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran’s two neighbours and it’s looking close or over 50% did.
And people also have to keep in mind, world geography isn’t something that the average person doesn’t use every day. I bet if I lined up a 100 smug journalist and asked them to point out periwinkle or celadon on a colour wheel less than 30% of them would get it right.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is lining it up against what I see and hear every time I leave my apartment, which would lead me to believe that giving your average person this much benefit of the doubt is INCREDIBLY generous as to their level of cleverness and intelligence.
And sure, you can say that about world geography, but it doesn't end there. You'd get similar answers of total ignorance if you asked basic civics, grammar, or arithmetic questions. Believe me when I tell you this (because I look at dozens of examples a day), the average person can, I shit you not, barely type out a complete sentence correctly. A full paragraph?? A pipe dream. Most Americans quite likely couldn't name our three branches of government (though immigrants certainly have to if they want to become citizens). Point being, alot of people have very strong opinions about wanting to bomb the shit out of a country that some of them think is located in Central Missouri. And the way to tell off a "smug reporter" is to.......give the correct answer.
It goes back to this breathless repetition in the media of Soleimani being one of the most "dangerous men in the world" and millions of people who had literally NEVER HEARD OF HIM the previous day echoing the sentiment. You know how you create a boogeyman in America?? Find someone with dark skin with an Arab name and use the word "terrorism" in conjunction with them. All of sudden, he's a existential threat to people living in Nebraska.
This is......totally unsurprising. But my favorite thing about it is the dozen or so people who placed Iran in the middle of a large body of water, so apparently some people are under the impression it's some sort of sunken city:
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
Looking at the choices, it seems some people didn’t really care about having their intelligence questioned by a smug reporter and chose the water based on that.
A lot of people were in the right area hitting either Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran’s two neighbours and it’s looking close or over 50% did.
And people also have to keep in mind, world geography isn’t something that the average person doesn’t use every day. I bet if I lined up a 100 smug journalist and asked them to point out periwinkle or celadon on a colour wheel less than 30% of them would get it right.
That's certainly one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is lining it up against what I see and hear every time I leave my apartment, which would lead me to believe that giving your average person this much benefit of the doubt is INCREDIBLY generous as to their level of cleverness and intelligence.
And sure, you can say that about world geography, but it doesn't end there. You'd get similar answers of total ignorance if you asked basic civics, grammar, or arithmetic questions. Believe me when I tell you this (because I look at dozens of examples a day), the average person can, I shit you not, barely type out a complete sentence correctly. A full paragraph?? A pipe dream.
But here is the question: What does it matter?
How did knowing where Iran was on a map related to the rest of the questions which were based solely on current events?
How did this add to the story this reporter wanted to tell about the concerns of an escalating confrontation?
Can I give her a map of Europe and ask her to point out Montenegro and see if she hits it? Does it make her opinion on any current events less important if she misses?
The tweet reeks of smugness and clickbait. It really didn’t provide any new information that wasn’t already out there.
One of the myriad of country songs written in the aftermath of 9/11 was by Alan Jackson, which featured the lyrics "I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you, the difference between Iraq and Iran". So yeah, great, we get it. The saintly "common man" is too busy driving a bread truck or driving to soccer practice to know any better. I guess that's true. But those same people had NO problem supporting a war that killed untolds amounts of people.
But hey, they didn't know any better. And that song (and really an entire culture) told them it was ok not to know. As if certain segments of the public had no culpability for supporting the Iraq War. And, in the end, what they couldn't stand was that the people they had told to "love it or leave it" were right and they were wrong. Dead wrong. And now they pretend like it never happened. So no, I don't buy in to this "stupidity and ignorance because I'm too busy working is a virtue" narrative. Everyone works. Everyone has things to do. They don't know because they don't care to or take the time to know.
One of the myriad of country songs written in the aftermath of 9/11 was by Alan Jackson, which featured the lyrics "I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you, the difference between Iraq and Iran". So yeah, great, we get it. The saintly "common man" is too busy driving a bread truck or driving to soccer practice to know any better. I guess that's true. But those same people had NO problem supporting a war that killed untolds amounts of people.
But hey, they didn't know any better. And that song (and really an entire culture) told them it was ok not to know. As if certain segments of the public had no culpability for supporting the Iraq War. And, in the end, what they couldn't stand was that the people they had told to "love it or leave it" were right and they were wrong. Dead wrong. And now they pretend like it never happened. So no, I don't buy in to this "stupidity and ignorance because I'm too busy working is a virtue" narrative. Everyone works. Everyone has things to do. They don't know because they don't care to or take the time to know.
Awesome... lets see what this article also says...
A 47% plurality support the airstrike that killed Soleimani - so less than half support the assassination. Kinda a good thing there, terrorist or not.
49% said they heard “a lot” about the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. - Only half of them were following world politics.
69% said the strike makes war with Iran more likely, and 50% said it makes the U.S. less safe. - half again think the attack has harmed US, while a good chunk thought it was a start to another war.
So you can probably say people have learnt their lesson with the war in Iraq and a good chunk of them will not support this one or even the actions the US has taken leading up to this point in time.
I think we can safely call this the worst move of his whole Presidency, but if we let things stand as they are at least it won't be a totally unmitigated disaster.
One of the myriad of country songs written in the aftermath of 9/11 was by Alan Jackson, which featured the lyrics "I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you, the difference between Iraq and Iran". So yeah, great, we get it. The saintly "common man" is too busy driving a bread truck or driving to soccer practice to know any better. I guess that's true. But those same people had NO problem supporting a war that killed untolds amounts of people.
But hey, they didn't know any better. And that song (and really an entire culture) told them it was ok not to know. As if certain segments of the public had no culpability for supporting the Iraq War. And, in the end, what they couldn't stand was that the people they had told to "love it or leave it" were right and they were wrong. Dead wrong. And now they pretend like it never happened. So no, I don't buy in to this "stupidity and ignorance because I'm too busy working is a virtue" narrative. Everyone works. Everyone has things to do. They don't know because they don't care to or take the time to know.
Yet somehow you still believe in democracy...
I think of it a bit like Adam Smith's invisible hand theory in economics. That assumes that the aggregate effect of everyone doing what's best for themselves in a free market will be good for society. The theory makes some significant assumptions though - such as individuals knowing what is best for them and who can supply that. In practice most economists now don't subscribe to the idea that the free market is the best solution in all situations, but accept that some level of intervention can improve outcomes. However, most economists (at least in the West) still do believe that the free market is a good basis to start from.
In politics, democracy would be the equivalent to the invisible hand. Given perfect information and understanding from the voters and perfect implementation of their wishes, the aggregate of votes cast would improve society - even though everyone is voting in their own interests. In practice though we're far from perfect information and understanding and, just as there is some regulation of the market in economics, there's some regulation in politics as well. The formation of parties, publication of manifestos and political advertising can (if you squint enough) be seen as an attempt to remedy the less than perfect understanding out there .
Just as with the free market, democracy has its drawbacks - but it may still be a good place to start from when considering what an ideal system might look like.
Democracies are an effective form of representation locally, but fail when applied at scale, entire subsets of the population that would have political freedom at a more local democratic level will never get it just because of the size of their community. Don't even get me started on the monkey wrenches thrown into the system when you apply mass migration to unwilling populations to try to change their voting habits. It's just another form of authoritarianism then.
The American system, I still think, is one of the better models for reconciling the failings of mass democracy by allowing for more locally oriented election processes, checks and balances, etc. Of course it is still not perfect.
Not for nothing, but natutalized citizens (immigrants) have to pass citizenship tests in regards to history and basic civics that I am 1000% sure the majority of the native-born population would spectacularly fail.
The effect migration has on democracy doesn't go away with a mere citizenship test. In large enough numbers it will profoundly impact the voting patterns and political direction of that society, something we see very much today. If a community doesn't want that, and it is forced on them, you are essentially attacking their own ability to control their own lives and destiny. They don't get a choice and lose the ability to make ones in the future. As I said, it's another form of authoritarianism. A way for an unpopular government to maintain a hold on power with the appearance, though not substance, of legitimacy. And a way for corporations to create a perpetual underclass of consumers with little in the way of bargaining power or decent wages. You can see why all the worst elements in society want it.
Wow. Let me tell you folks, Mike Lee is about as conservative as you get. The Administration literally has NOTHING to offer as an explanation for the assassination:
He is signaling he will join Rand Paul and Tim Kaine in their War Powers Resolution. The House is also moving on this. The Legislative Branch has to reign in the war-making abilities they handed to the Executive after 9/11 post-haste.
The Legislative Branch has to reign in the war-making abilities they handed to the Executive after 9/11 post-haste.
They should have done this a long time ago. If it takes a President that is historically unpopular within the government itself, well, I guess it's a good thing.
I see press reports are stating US and Iraqi intelligence officers are confident that the Ukrainian plate shot down over Iran was a victim of a missile attack - it looks like @smeagolheart was right . The current theory is that the Iranians had switched on their air defenses following their attack on the US bases in Iraq and those defenses failed to identify the nature of the plane targeted.
I see press reports are stating US and Iraqi intelligence officers are confident that the Ukrainian plate shot down over Iran was a victim of a missile attack - it looks like @smeagolheart was right . The current theory is that the Iranians had switched on their air defenses following their attack on the US bases in Iraq and those defenses failed to identify the nature of the plane targeted.
Again, none of this should have ever taken place. We also have zero legs to stand on when it comes to this subject. We shot down a civilian Iranian aircraft in the '80s that killed 300 people and Ronald Reagan gave the soldiers involved medals. I'd place the amount of Americans who know this at less than 3%, and that's being generous.
I see press reports are stating US and Iraqi intelligence officers are confident that the Ukrainian plate shot down over Iran was a victim of a missile attack - it looks like @smeagolheart was right . The current theory is that the Iranians had switched on their air defenses following their attack on the US bases in Iraq and those defenses failed to identify the nature of the plane targeted.
Again, none of this should have ever taken place. We also have zero legs to stand on when it comes to this subject. We shot down a civilian Iranian aircraft in the '80s that killed 300 people and Ronald Reagan gave the soldiers involved medals. I'd place the amount of Americans who know this at less than 3%, and that's being generous.
I doubt any Iranian medals will be given out for this particular mishap, since the plane was half-full of Iranians. Real consequences to what amounted to a bunch of bullshit showing off and dick measuring. Why am I not surprised? We're so lucky that this kind of crap didn't happen more often during the Cold War...
I see press reports are stating US and Iraqi intelligence officers are confident that the Ukrainian plate shot down over Iran was a victim of a missile attack - it looks like @smeagolheart was right . The current theory is that the Iranians had switched on their air defenses following their attack on the US bases in Iraq and those defenses failed to identify the nature of the plane targeted.
Again, none of this should have ever taken place. We also have zero legs to stand on when it comes to this subject. We shot down a civilian Iranian aircraft in the '80s that killed 300 people and Ronald Reagan gave the soldiers involved medals. I'd place the amount of Americans who know this at less than 3%, and that's being generous.
I doubt any Iranian medals will be given out for this particular mishap, since the plane was half-full of Iranians. Real consequences to what amounted to a bunch of bullshit showing off and dick measuring. Why am I not surprised? We're so lucky that this kind of crap didn't happen more often during the Cold War...
Trump ended up backing off because he likely saw hints of these numbers before we did. He thought it would be a huge public relations victory in the face of impeachment. He was......incorrect:
In the end, CANADA ends up paying a bigger price than America for Donald Trump's reckless move here. What are the chances the Iranian missile defense is on the kind of high alert that causes this to happen if American hadn't just assassinated their top military commander?? From what I understand, dozens of citizens of Toronto were on this flight. This is, in fact, why it matters who is in office. When two countries enter a military stand-off, anyone can be the next victim. And you don't see Trudeau acting like a goddamn madman hopped up on adderall in response. Because he's an adult who thinks things through. Trump ordered a wide-open, for all the world to see assassination of one of the 3 most powerful leaders in the Iranian government because some people threw rocks at our embassy. A week later, 300 innocent people on a commercial airline flight are dead.
In the end, America is just like Trump. Constantly evading responsibility and consequences for anything and everything, not matter how egregious. This isn't to say the Iranian military is blameless, but we all know this plane crash never takes place if the events of the last week don't unfold the way they do. There was a conflict in the early 20th century that taught us why you don't assassinate foreign leaders on a whim. If you're the most powerful nation in the world, act like it, and don't fly off the handle at every slight provocation.
The effect migration has on democracy doesn't go away with a mere citizenship test. In large enough numbers it will profoundly impact the voting patterns and political direction of that society, something we see very much today. If a community doesn't want that, and it is forced on them, you are essentially attacking their own ability to control their own lives and destiny. They don't get a choice and lose the ability to make ones in the future. As I said, it's another form of authoritarianism. A way for an unpopular government to maintain a hold on power with the appearance, though not substance, of legitimacy. And a way for corporations to create a perpetual underclass of consumers with little in the way of bargaining power or decent wages. You can see why all the worst elements in society want it.
Could you give some concrete examples of places where you think this is occuring please? In my opinion 'communities' where a single opinion with regard to migration rarely exist, because its impact upon individuals varies greatly. Typically younger persons are more favourable and see greater economic benefits, and are also more likely to intermarry. Groups that tend to be negatively impacted are older workers, and earlier waves of migrants who have similar skills to newcomers. The claim that migration leads to wage deflation is often made, and can be true for specific groups, but in my opinion migration is usually beneficial for economies as a whole. There is also the aspect that if you argue against the free movement of peoples while it exists for goods then you tend to end up in situations where a can of beans has more rights than people. This is also an outcome which corporations would tend to endorse, and harks back to eras when modern states restricted the movement of persons far more strictly than now. Migrants tend to have insufficient rights & representation in most societies, and yet throughout history they have been blamed for a variety of ills... often by the 'worst elements of society', and in violent fashion. Extreme examples are easy to cite, but even in recent times the UK's treatment of EU citizens and the Windrush scandal (chiefly concerning migrants and their families from the West Indies) suggests that to be a migrant is to be vulnerable. I know quite a few people who are taxed without representation!
I couldn't disagree more with the idea that corporate America is anti migration. That they want "beans to have more right than people". Before Trump came on board and essentially flipped the script on the right regarding the question, both parties at the time were essentially pro migration and even open to amnesty deals such as the one Rubio and others proposed.
Now if you accept the notion that U S politics is essentially governed by money on both sides, and I tend to agree with that, it seems obvious that this is a consensus of the donor class, as examples of bipartisan, pro working class economic policies that go against the will of the donor class and are supported widely across the breadth of the political spectrum, are exceedingly rare.
Also, I reject free trade because I don't like destroying third world economies. I'd much rather them have a higher standard of living even if that means I pay more for luxuries. So I reject the notion that these two are in conflict.
Hate to use other peoples words, but they work here.
As an aside, corporate America is woke AF right now. You can't miss this obvious fact if you live in the U.S and take in the slightest bit of American culture as it is shoved in our faces every single day. Their messaging is genius, really. They can advance anti working class policies in the name of the obscure notion of social justice, not to be confused with economic justice. There will be none of that. And why would you care about money in politics anyway? They are on the side of the good guys, after all. I'm not saying they have totally co-opted the messaging of the left, but they clearly have to some degree.
Bernie Sanders himself made reference to this very fact, that this is a corporate America backed policy to destroy economic gains for the vast majority of people. I will remind you that they target both high and low skilled individuals directly.
I've posted this before, of course, but I can't expect everyone to have memorized years of conversation, so forgive me if this is redundant to you.
Also, and this is most important imo, long term trends are for jobs to become *more* scare, not less, due to automation. This will eliminate entire fields of work. Meanwhile, mass migration forces an ever larger competitive labor pool when the natural trends would be for there to be less people because of birth rates. What was a natural economic equilibrium becomes massively tilted towards corporate power.
As for mass migration patterns changing the fabric of society, I dunno, did the migration waves of Europeans into the North and South Americas change the fabric of that society? Basically on every single level. Of course, this is an extreme example, but we can name any number of times in history where this truth holds, to greater or to lesser extents. It is simply the default consequence of mass migration and demographic shifts. Of course, we are never informed of this fact, and are fed a steady stream of misinformation from private think-tanks on the matter. We can also look at a wide variety of countries today and see negative social backlashes in very quick time frames
What exactly are we supposed to do, NOT embrace automation?? How is that even possible?? Let's say in the 1950s a company that produces pickles needed people to literally put the lids on and tighten them before they were shipped out. Now this is done by machines. Of course those jobs aren't coming back. For that matter, neither are jobs at Sam Goody and Blockbuster. Robotics is one thing, the internet is another. I was struck at how prescient David Bowie was in predicting what the internet would do way back in 1999:
There are types of businesses that literally don't exist anymore because of the internet. Music stores, video stores. I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing the old-fashioned camera industry isn't doing so well in the wake of smart phones either. I mean, who is buying them besides professional photographers?? Do they even sell film anymore?? In many cases, malls are 75% abandoned, because no one wants to drive to depressing wasteland of former department stores to buy something for twice the price they can get it delivered to their front door.
I guess my point is, isn't it incumbent AT ALL upon people to recognize when the industry they are in is literally collapsing around them?? When I worked in a warehouse, if I had seen news stories of forklifts that could drive themselves that companies could purchase for less than my annual salary, I would have sure as shit been concerned. What @WarChiefZeke is talking about isn't entirely without merit, but there also seems to be this expectation in the "real America" that everyone is entitled to the same factory job with full-time benefits from the ages of 18-65, oblivious that world, in fact, moved on from 1980 to 2020. That's a delusional sense of entitlement. Nevermind the fact that unions have been gutted to a state of near impotency since Reagan took office.
Of course I'm not saying don't embrace automation, I'm saying don't embrace mass migration. Both of them at the same time very clearly have the impact of hurting wages across a wide variety of sectors at a time when real wages have been stagnant for decades and the fundamentals of life, housing, health care, and education, are less affordable than ever before. Something has to change.
There's no necessary conflict between the 2 suggestions that:
1) immigration makes the receiving countries better off; and
2) immigration exerts downward pressure on living standards of workers.
Studies show consistently that immigrants are prepared to work harder, for less, than long-term residents of a country. The average age of immigrants is skewed towards young adults, i.e. they are more economically productive for that reason. They also receive, on average, significantly fewer benefits. Immigrants tend to be better educated and/or more entrepreneurial than their peers in the original country and that also helps explain why they are generally more economically productive in their new country than existing people there. It should therefore be no surprise at all that immigration makes receiving countries better off, though there are politicians that lie about that fact despite knowing the truth. We've also covered previously in this thread that immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crime than existing citizens and there are plenty of lies about that as well.
If the receiving country is better off, that means it is possible for everyone to be better off, but that need not be the result. Another thing we've talked about before is the level of economic inequality in the US - and the extent to which that has got more extreme in the last 50 years. The benefits associated with the economic productivity of immigrants are not now filtering down through society, but sticking at the top. Without any form of redistribution, public support or an effective minimum wage, if immigrants are willing to work harder for less that has the effect that existing workers get lower wages for longer hours.
In the UK, where inequality is a bit less extreme, there's very little evidence that immigration makes people worse off in a narrow economic sense. However, there can definitely be wider negative effects at a local level. Things like access to health service and schools can be made significantly harder by the tendency of immigrants to 'clump' together in particular areas. Given the economic benefits to the country it should be possible to redistribute public resources to avoid this happening - but the system for this tends to be very slow to respond.
That clumping of immigrants also results in social changes that can seem disturbing at a local level. While it can be argued that there is no real impact on individuals if they for instance regularly hear people talking in other languages on the bus, or see local shops starting to specialize in foreign goods, many such individuals would perceive those as real impacts - and I don't think we should ignore that.
Comments
Most Americans couldn't find Canada on a map, let alone Iran...
Looking at the choices, it seems some people didn’t really care about having their intelligence questioned by a smug reporter and chose the water based on that.
A lot of people were in the right area hitting either Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran’s two neighbours and it’s looking close or over 50% did.
And people also have to keep in mind, world geography isn’t something that the average person doesn’t use every day. I bet if I lined up a 100 smug journalist and asked them to point out periwinkle or celadon on a colour wheel less than 30% of them would get it right.
Oh, I forgot, the American public isn’t suppose to know about the mission in Africa so it’s dick all (although they can surprise everyone and have the area where the airborne is actually being deployed to).
That's certainly one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it is lining it up against what I see and hear every time I leave my apartment, which would lead me to believe that giving your average person this much benefit of the doubt is INCREDIBLY generous as to their level of cleverness and intelligence.
And sure, you can say that about world geography, but it doesn't end there. You'd get similar answers of total ignorance if you asked basic civics, grammar, or arithmetic questions. Believe me when I tell you this (because I look at dozens of examples a day), the average person can, I shit you not, barely type out a complete sentence correctly. A full paragraph?? A pipe dream. Most Americans quite likely couldn't name our three branches of government (though immigrants certainly have to if they want to become citizens). Point being, alot of people have very strong opinions about wanting to bomb the shit out of a country that some of them think is located in Central Missouri. And the way to tell off a "smug reporter" is to.......give the correct answer.
It goes back to this breathless repetition in the media of Soleimani being one of the most "dangerous men in the world" and millions of people who had literally NEVER HEARD OF HIM the previous day echoing the sentiment. You know how you create a boogeyman in America?? Find someone with dark skin with an Arab name and use the word "terrorism" in conjunction with them. All of sudden, he's a existential threat to people living in Nebraska.
But here is the question: What does it matter?
How did knowing where Iran was on a map related to the rest of the questions which were based solely on current events?
How did this add to the story this reporter wanted to tell about the concerns of an escalating confrontation?
Can I give her a map of Europe and ask her to point out Montenegro and see if she hits it? Does it make her opinion on any current events less important if she misses?
The tweet reeks of smugness and clickbait. It really didn’t provide any new information that wasn’t already out there.
But hey, they didn't know any better. And that song (and really an entire culture) told them it was ok not to know. As if certain segments of the public had no culpability for supporting the Iraq War. And, in the end, what they couldn't stand was that the people they had told to "love it or leave it" were right and they were wrong. Dead wrong. And now they pretend like it never happened. So no, I don't buy in to this "stupidity and ignorance because I'm too busy working is a virtue" narrative. Everyone works. Everyone has things to do. They don't know because they don't care to or take the time to know.
Yet somehow you still believe in democracy...
A 47% plurality support the airstrike that killed Soleimani - so less than half support the assassination. Kinda a good thing there, terrorist or not.
49% said they heard “a lot” about the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. - Only half of them were following world politics.
69% said the strike makes war with Iran more likely, and 50% said it makes the U.S. less safe. - half again think the attack has harmed US, while a good chunk thought it was a start to another war.
So you can probably say people have learnt their lesson with the war in Iraq and a good chunk of them will not support this one or even the actions the US has taken leading up to this point in time.
I think we can safely call this the worst move of his whole Presidency, but if we let things stand as they are at least it won't be a totally unmitigated disaster.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/08/republican-hawks-trump-iran-conflict-096233
I think of it a bit like Adam Smith's invisible hand theory in economics. That assumes that the aggregate effect of everyone doing what's best for themselves in a free market will be good for society. The theory makes some significant assumptions though - such as individuals knowing what is best for them and who can supply that. In practice most economists now don't subscribe to the idea that the free market is the best solution in all situations, but accept that some level of intervention can improve outcomes. However, most economists (at least in the West) still do believe that the free market is a good basis to start from.
In politics, democracy would be the equivalent to the invisible hand. Given perfect information and understanding from the voters and perfect implementation of their wishes, the aggregate of votes cast would improve society - even though everyone is voting in their own interests. In practice though we're far from perfect information and understanding and, just as there is some regulation of the market in economics, there's some regulation in politics as well. The formation of parties, publication of manifestos and political advertising can (if you squint enough) be seen as an attempt to remedy the less than perfect understanding out there
Just as with the free market, democracy has its drawbacks - but it may still be a good place to start from when considering what an ideal system might look like.
The American system, I still think, is one of the better models for reconciling the failings of mass democracy by allowing for more locally oriented election processes, checks and balances, etc. Of course it is still not perfect.
He is signaling he will join Rand Paul and Tim Kaine in their War Powers Resolution. The House is also moving on this. The Legislative Branch has to reign in the war-making abilities they handed to the Executive after 9/11 post-haste.
They should have done this a long time ago. If it takes a President that is historically unpopular within the government itself, well, I guess it's a good thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/climate/trump-nepa-environment.html
Yeah cuz Lord knows we need more of these kinds of stories...
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/green-liquid-detroit-highway-trnd/index.html
Again, none of this should have ever taken place. We also have zero legs to stand on when it comes to this subject. We shot down a civilian Iranian aircraft in the '80s that killed 300 people and Ronald Reagan gave the soldiers involved medals. I'd place the amount of Americans who know this at less than 3%, and that's being generous.
I doubt any Iranian medals will be given out for this particular mishap, since the plane was half-full of Iranians. Real consequences to what amounted to a bunch of bullshit showing off and dick measuring. Why am I not surprised? We're so lucky that this kind of crap didn't happen more often during the Cold War...
Trump ended up backing off because he likely saw hints of these numbers before we did. He thought it would be a huge public relations victory in the face of impeachment. He was......incorrect:
In the end, America is just like Trump. Constantly evading responsibility and consequences for anything and everything, not matter how egregious. This isn't to say the Iranian military is blameless, but we all know this plane crash never takes place if the events of the last week don't unfold the way they do. There was a conflict in the early 20th century that taught us why you don't assassinate foreign leaders on a whim. If you're the most powerful nation in the world, act like it, and don't fly off the handle at every slight provocation.
Could you give some concrete examples of places where you think this is occuring please? In my opinion 'communities' where a single opinion with regard to migration rarely exist, because its impact upon individuals varies greatly. Typically younger persons are more favourable and see greater economic benefits, and are also more likely to intermarry. Groups that tend to be negatively impacted are older workers, and earlier waves of migrants who have similar skills to newcomers. The claim that migration leads to wage deflation is often made, and can be true for specific groups, but in my opinion migration is usually beneficial for economies as a whole. There is also the aspect that if you argue against the free movement of peoples while it exists for goods then you tend to end up in situations where a can of beans has more rights than people. This is also an outcome which corporations would tend to endorse, and harks back to eras when modern states restricted the movement of persons far more strictly than now. Migrants tend to have insufficient rights & representation in most societies, and yet throughout history they have been blamed for a variety of ills... often by the 'worst elements of society', and in violent fashion. Extreme examples are easy to cite, but even in recent times the UK's treatment of EU citizens and the Windrush scandal (chiefly concerning migrants and their families from the West Indies) suggests that to be a migrant is to be vulnerable. I know quite a few people who are taxed without representation!
Now if you accept the notion that U S politics is essentially governed by money on both sides, and I tend to agree with that, it seems obvious that this is a consensus of the donor class, as examples of bipartisan, pro working class economic policies that go against the will of the donor class and are supported widely across the breadth of the political spectrum, are exceedingly rare.
Also, I reject free trade because I don't like destroying third world economies. I'd much rather them have a higher standard of living even if that means I pay more for luxuries. So I reject the notion that these two are in conflict.
Hate to use other peoples words, but they work here.
As an aside, corporate America is woke AF right now. You can't miss this obvious fact if you live in the U.S and take in the slightest bit of American culture as it is shoved in our faces every single day. Their messaging is genius, really. They can advance anti working class policies in the name of the obscure notion of social justice, not to be confused with economic justice. There will be none of that. And why would you care about money in politics anyway? They are on the side of the good guys, after all. I'm not saying they have totally co-opted the messaging of the left, but they clearly have to some degree.
Bernie Sanders himself made reference to this very fact, that this is a corporate America backed policy to destroy economic gains for the vast majority of people. I will remind you that they target both high and low skilled individuals directly.
I've posted this before, of course, but I can't expect everyone to have memorized years of conversation, so forgive me if this is redundant to you.
Also, and this is most important imo, long term trends are for jobs to become *more* scare, not less, due to automation. This will eliminate entire fields of work. Meanwhile, mass migration forces an ever larger competitive labor pool when the natural trends would be for there to be less people because of birth rates. What was a natural economic equilibrium becomes massively tilted towards corporate power.
As for mass migration patterns changing the fabric of society, I dunno, did the migration waves of Europeans into the North and South Americas change the fabric of that society? Basically on every single level. Of course, this is an extreme example, but we can name any number of times in history where this truth holds, to greater or to lesser extents. It is simply the default consequence of mass migration and demographic shifts. Of course, we are never informed of this fact, and are fed a steady stream of misinformation from private think-tanks on the matter. We can also look at a wide variety of countries today and see negative social backlashes in very quick time frames
There are types of businesses that literally don't exist anymore because of the internet. Music stores, video stores. I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing the old-fashioned camera industry isn't doing so well in the wake of smart phones either. I mean, who is buying them besides professional photographers?? Do they even sell film anymore?? In many cases, malls are 75% abandoned, because no one wants to drive to depressing wasteland of former department stores to buy something for twice the price they can get it delivered to their front door.
I guess my point is, isn't it incumbent AT ALL upon people to recognize when the industry they are in is literally collapsing around them?? When I worked in a warehouse, if I had seen news stories of forklifts that could drive themselves that companies could purchase for less than my annual salary, I would have sure as shit been concerned. What @WarChiefZeke is talking about isn't entirely without merit, but there also seems to be this expectation in the "real America" that everyone is entitled to the same factory job with full-time benefits from the ages of 18-65, oblivious that world, in fact, moved on from 1980 to 2020. That's a delusional sense of entitlement. Nevermind the fact that unions have been gutted to a state of near impotency since Reagan took office.
1) immigration makes the receiving countries better off; and
2) immigration exerts downward pressure on living standards of workers.
Studies show consistently that immigrants are prepared to work harder, for less, than long-term residents of a country. The average age of immigrants is skewed towards young adults, i.e. they are more economically productive for that reason. They also receive, on average, significantly fewer benefits. Immigrants tend to be better educated and/or more entrepreneurial than their peers in the original country and that also helps explain why they are generally more economically productive in their new country than existing people there. It should therefore be no surprise at all that immigration makes receiving countries better off, though there are politicians that lie about that fact despite knowing the truth. We've also covered previously in this thread that immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crime than existing citizens and there are plenty of lies about that as well.
If the receiving country is better off, that means it is possible for everyone to be better off, but that need not be the result. Another thing we've talked about before is the level of economic inequality in the US - and the extent to which that has got more extreme in the last 50 years. The benefits associated with the economic productivity of immigrants are not now filtering down through society, but sticking at the top. Without any form of redistribution, public support or an effective minimum wage, if immigrants are willing to work harder for less that has the effect that existing workers get lower wages for longer hours.
In the UK, where inequality is a bit less extreme, there's very little evidence that immigration makes people worse off in a narrow economic sense. However, there can definitely be wider negative effects at a local level. Things like access to health service and schools can be made significantly harder by the tendency of immigrants to 'clump' together in particular areas. Given the economic benefits to the country it should be possible to redistribute public resources to avoid this happening - but the system for this tends to be very slow to respond.
That clumping of immigrants also results in social changes that can seem disturbing at a local level. While it can be argued that there is no real impact on individuals if they for instance regularly hear people talking in other languages on the bus, or see local shops starting to specialize in foreign goods, many such individuals would perceive those as real impacts - and I don't think we should ignore that.