Can't tell. Effective at what? Digging Russia deeper into a problematic alliance with the current odious government? Killing civilians?
Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.
- Thread starter wellwisher
- Start date
Can't tell. Effective at what? Digging Russia deeper into a problematic alliance with the current odious government? Killing civilians?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
in fact, more than 50 % of Syrians even when polled by western firms, want Assad to continue being President of Syria, and more than 80 % blame the US for backing the jihadists
The vast majority of the illegal military forces in Syria are jihadists who had been hired by the Saudi government and the Qatari government, and supplied with U.S. weapons, to overthrow the Syrian government. Most of the other illegal forces in Syria are Kurdish forces, supported by the U.S. government to break Syria apart so as to create a separate Kurdish state in the majority-Kurdish far north-eastern tip of Syria.
The primary U.S. goal in Syria is to overthrow the Syrian government, which is led by the Baath Party, Syria’s secular Party. Many Arabs insist upon Sharia, or Islamic law, but Syria’s Arabs are an exception; the Baath Party is and has always been supported by the majority of the Syrian people, including by most of Syria’s Arabs. Most Syrians are strongly opposed to Sharia law. Syria is the most secular nation in the Middle East.
For example, when Western-sponsored polls were taken in Syria, after the start in 2011 of the importation of jihadists into Syria, those polls showed that 55% of Syrians want Bashar al-Assad (the current leader of the Baath Party) to remain as Syria’s President, and “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’.” Furthermore, only “22% agree ‘IS is a positive influence’,” and that 22% was the lowest level of support shown by Syrians for any of the presented statements, except for, “21% agree ‘Prefer life now than under Assad’” — meaning that Syrians believe that things were better before the U.S.-sponsored jihadists entered Syria to overthrow Assad.
The vast majority of the illegal military forces in Syria are jihadists who had been hired by the Saudi government and the Qatari government, and supplied with U.S. weapons, to overthrow the Syrian government. Most of the other illegal forces in Syria are Kurdish forces, supported by the U.S. government to break Syria apart so as to create a separate Kurdish state in the majority-Kurdish far north-eastern tip of Syria.
The primary U.S. goal in Syria is to overthrow the Syrian government, which is led by the Baath Party, Syria’s secular Party. Many Arabs insist upon Sharia, or Islamic law, but Syria’s Arabs are an exception; the Baath Party is and has always been supported by the majority of the Syrian people, including by most of Syria’s Arabs. Most Syrians are strongly opposed to Sharia law. Syria is the most secular nation in the Middle East.
For example, when Western-sponsored polls were taken in Syria, after the start in 2011 of the importation of jihadists into Syria, those polls showed that 55% of Syrians want Bashar al-Assad (the current leader of the Baath Party) to remain as Syria’s President, and “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’.” Furthermore, only “22% agree ‘IS is a positive influence’,” and that 22% was the lowest level of support shown by Syrians for any of the presented statements, except for, “21% agree ‘Prefer life now than under Assad’” — meaning that Syrians believe that things were better before the U.S.-sponsored jihadists entered Syria to overthrow Assad.
Do those polls include all the millions of Syrians who have fled the country or just the ones Assad hasn't bombed? Who conducted these "polls"?
How do you conduct a poll in a war torn country with large swaths of the country controlled by different terrorist groups like ISIS, where infrastructure is nonexistent?
The US wants a political solution. Russia and Assad want a military solution. The US doesn't believe a military solution is viable.
This civil war began when Assad began killing peaceful protestors. Do you really think Syrians like Assad because he murdered their families?
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Which explains our supporting armed murderous rebels and sending in our war planes to illegally bomb another country?
"Shoot first and ask questions later" is the wrong sort of "political solution" which is precisely why I will not vote for HRC.
...............................................................................
On another note.
After bombing Lybia: Did Obama offer to give back his "peace" prize and the @ 1.5 million dollars that came with it?
Or, do we add hypocrisy to the list?
That was Iraq, under Hussein - Baath Party and all. Your point?sculptor said:
Russia's military is bombing civilians and so forth, in alliance with an odious strongman government. Generally, that creates problems down the road - the efficiency calculation needs to account for that.
They are much more effective at bombing hospitals than the US and their allies. Not so sure that is such a great thing....
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Ice:
Know your facts. Bashar Hafez al-Assad is Baath.
And secular.
Profile: Syria's ruling Baath Party
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18582755
"During nearly five decades in power, Syria's Baath Party has evolved from an Arab nationalist movement into a vast organisation that has infiltrated every aspect of public life."
..............................................................
It seems that our government is intent on destroying every secular government in the middle east.
Know your facts. Bashar Hafez al-Assad is Baath.
And secular.
Profile: Syria's ruling Baath Party
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18582755
"During nearly five decades in power, Syria's Baath Party has evolved from an Arab nationalist movement into a vast organisation that has infiltrated every aspect of public life."
..............................................................
It seems that our government is intent on destroying every secular government in the middle east.
And Assad's troops are not murderous? Well, I'm sure that's news to many Syrians.
Yeah, I'm sure life is Syria would be so much better for Syrians if the US would just let Assad and his Russian buddies slaughter his citizens,and gas women and children. But most folks don't see it that way. So you don't think Assad's attacking and murdering his own people and his use of weapons of mass destruction against his own people isn't murderous? OK. But again, I don't think that's how most people see it. Nor do I think the 7 or 8 million Syrians who have fled the country see it that way either. Additionally, that many immigrants can cause significant political instability in the receiving nations. It already has. The last thing we need is a destabilized Europe. You may recall, that led to not one but two world wars and tens of millions of people died as a result.
The US isn't intentionally bombing Syrian hospitals. Assad and your beloved Mother Russia are intentionally bombing Syrian hospitals. The US is bombing ISIS i.e. terrorist targets, you know, the people who have murdered, raped, and enslaved innocent Syrians. The US is not intentionally bombing hospitals as are Assad and Putin. The US abstained from Syrian involvement for a long time. When it became clear something needed to be done, when millions of Syrian's began fleeing the country, something needed to be done, and the US began supplying the rebels with limited weapons so they could at least defend themselves.
The US believes and has worked to effect a peaceful solution in the country. Peaceful doesn't mean allowing one group to annihilate the other as you apparently think it means. Peaceful doesn't mean genocide. It means both sides need to find an amicable solution. Assad and Russia think the annihilation of rebel groups will solve Assad's problem. The US doesn't share that view. The US believes both sides need to negotiate a peaceful resolution. You cannot negotiate with corpses.
When ISIS took root in the country and began invading its neighbors and began attacking neighboring states, enslaving people and raping murdering people because those people didn't subscribe to their brand of Islam, well that became another matter. We have seen what happen when terrorists groups like ISIS are allowed to run amuck in failed nation states. It wasn't pretty, thousands of people in the US were murdered. Thousands of innocent people were murdered. What we have learned is that failed states are prime breeding grounds for terrorism.
The US isn't bombing Assad's troops. It's bombing ISIS targets, the terrorist group which has orchestrated terrorists attacks across the globe. That's who the US is bombing. Are you willing to tell me you support terrorists?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
OVER 40 CIVILIANS KILLED AND WOUNDED IN US-LED COALITION BOMBING OF AL BAB HOSPITAL IN NORTHERN SYRIA
On August 18, the coalition’s coalition warplanes started air raids on ISIS targets in Al Bab with air strikes on on the town’s hospital, Fars reported, citing Kurdish sources in the area. According to the report, up to 45 civilians were killed and wounded in the air strikes. The town’s infrastructure, including the water and power departments, was also the target of air raids.
Such actions were likely aimed to push the Arab population to flee the town and will be repeated in the nearest future. The same strategy was implemented by the US-led air power in the city of Manbij.
...
We remind, in July, the US-led coalition confirmed that its air strikes killed over 70 civilians in the area of Manbij. The real number of civilian casualties in coalition air raids remain undisclosed.
.....................
At least four medical facilities operated by the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders have been bombed by the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition in Yemen in the past year.
.............
But for the Saudi coalition, bombing medical facilities has become business as usual. In October, the coalition bombed an MSF-supported hospital in Yemen’s Haydan district, destroying the only emergency medical facility serving 200,000 people. (Doctors Without Borders is also known as Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF.) In December, airstrikes destroyed an MSF clinic in Taiz while doctors were treating the wounded from a nearby Saudi airstrike in a park. And in January, the coalition destroyed a hospital in Razeh district, killing five people — and killing an ambulance driver working for MSF later that month.
Those strikes have been widely reported because they targeted a prominent Western charity, but the coalition has likely carried out far more attacks on Yemeni-run hospitals.
...........................
The Airwars project, an NGO, released a report in June claiming that over the course of the American air operations in Iraq and Syria, 459 civilians, including 100 children, have been killed during 52 air raids.
Airwars has analyzed 118 air raids, relying on the testimony of eyewitnesses and other reliable sources. Just in early July, 15 civilians died during an air attack on Manbij, as well as 23 people in two hospitals in Idlib that were bombed by American planes.
........................
One must wonder..................... Are we to be known by our "friends"?
Where is the evidence to support your assertions?
I said the Russians are more effective than the US at bombing hospitals.
Yes, and so was Saddam Hussein - a similar strongman. Your point?sculptor said:
Mine was that Russia's military seems to be digging them into a familiar hole here - their allies are not good people. In the long run, that will cost them.
Too late to worry about it - the US has been buddying with swine for a generation or more, especially in the Middle East and the Americas. White men aged 30 - 65 in the US, especially Republicans, made sure of that.sculptor said:
Bells
Staff member
Is this meant to be a joke?
Because Trump has a history of employing illegal immigrants. Be it for construction on his beloved Trump tower, to his modeling agency, where young girls were brought to the US, and made to put up with appalling conditions, where Trump then made a ridiculous amount of money off these girls and they got very little.
As reported by Mother Jones, Trump Model Management regularly hired models who were undocumented immigrants.
Through the stories of Rachel Blais and two more anonymous women, referred to in the article as Anna and Kate, we see a pattern of behavior in Trump Model Management that runs contrary to Trump’s attempt to brand himself as the “law and order candidate.” Trump’s modelling agency often hired foreign aspiring models who were in the U.S. on tourist visas. The agency provided the models with stories to tell Customs officials should they ask questions. In true sweatshop form, the agency charged inflated and questionable fees, to eat up most or all of the models’ incomes.
For a cot in a small room with five other people, Trump Model Management charged the women $1600 a month. But Trump had these models right where he wanted them as reflected in “Anna’s” observations.
Employees living in fear of the consequences that come with working illegally don’t ask questions, nor do they complain about living in a sweatshop environment.
If there’s any doubt about Trump Model Management’s complicity, one need only read the letter Trump Model Management’s lawyer, Eric Bland wrote to Rachel Blais on September 21, 2004.
The fact that Trump Model Management acquired the H1B3 visa on Blais’ behalf means they knew that she was working illegally.
Then there’s the “advice” two former Trump models were given if questioned by Customs.
In a pattern all too familiar to anyone who worked for Donald Trump, undocumented Trump models had little to show for their work.
Rachel Blais was paid a total of $8,427.35 for the three years she worked for Trump Model management.
Incidentally, hiring people who are not allowed to work in the U.S. is a violation of the law that can result in fines up to $16,000 per employee in some cases, six months in prison.
Through the stories of Rachel Blais and two more anonymous women, referred to in the article as Anna and Kate, we see a pattern of behavior in Trump Model Management that runs contrary to Trump’s attempt to brand himself as the “law and order candidate.” Trump’s modelling agency often hired foreign aspiring models who were in the U.S. on tourist visas. The agency provided the models with stories to tell Customs officials should they ask questions. In true sweatshop form, the agency charged inflated and questionable fees, to eat up most or all of the models’ incomes.
For a cot in a small room with five other people, Trump Model Management charged the women $1600 a month. But Trump had these models right where he wanted them as reflected in “Anna’s” observations.
Each of the three former Trump models said she arrived in New York with dreams of making it big in one of the world’s most competitive fashion markets. But without work visas, they lived in constant fear of getting caught. “I was pretty on edge most of the time I was there,” Anna said of the three months in 2009 she spent in New York working for Trump’s agency.
Employees living in fear of the consequences that come with working illegally don’t ask questions, nor do they complain about living in a sweatshop environment.
If there’s any doubt about Trump Model Management’s complicity, one need only read the letter Trump Model Management’s lawyer, Eric Bland wrote to Rachel Blais on September 21, 2004.
The fact that Trump Model Management acquired the H1B3 visa on Blais’ behalf means they knew that she was working illegally.
Then there’s the “advice” two former Trump models were given if questioned by Customs.
Anna and Kate said the company coached them on how to circumvent immigration laws. Kate recalled being told, “When you’re stuck at immigration, say that you’re coming as a tourist. If they go through your luggage and they find your portfolio, tell them that you’re going there to look for an agent.
When the models asked questions, Trump Model Management dodged, with vague promises of rectifying the situation eventually. Eventually only came if the models “earned” the coveted H1B3 visa, the costs of which were deducted from their pay.
In a pattern all too familiar to anyone who worked for Donald Trump, undocumented Trump models had little to show for their work.
Rachel Blais was paid a total of $8,427.35 for the three years she worked for Trump Model management.
Incidentally, hiring people who are not allowed to work in the U.S. is a violation of the law that can result in fines up to $16,000 per employee in some cases, six months in prison.
$8,000 for 3 years of work.
And you don't think he is corrupt?
Uh huh. He paid his construction workers $5 on the rare occasions they were even paid. And they were illegal immigrants, so he probably felt he could get away with not paying them or paying them so little, because if they complained, they would be deported. It got so bad, they sued him. He has a history of being sued for failing to pay for work he contracts people to do.
Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.
At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.
Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according toU.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.
At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.
Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according toU.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.
Do you think this is lawful, Wellwisher? I mean, that's just some of them. The article goes on to discuss even more. Do you think this is lawful?
Not only is he not willing to pay more for labor, he is not willing to pay anything at all for a large portion of the time. But let's look at his willingness to pay more for labor, because this is what is lawful... Let's look at his suits, shirts, ties and other apparel, that he has made in cheap labor countries in South America and China, because he refuses to pay American workers an actual salary to make his suits.
CNN purchased several Trump brand items online including a $16.95 dress shirt made in Bangladesh, a $166.88 pinstripe suit made in Indonesia, and even a dollar-shaped tie clip made in China bought for $24.
[...]
Shipping documents obtained by CNN show that in 2014 Trump shirts were shipped to the U.S. from a factory in Honduras, where nationally the average factory worker earns about $1.30 an hour. Even that hourly wage may have been too high for Trump's licensed manufacturer. The Honduran factory's contract ended in 2015.
That same year, shipping forms obtained by CNN show Trump shirts were being manufactured and shipped from Bangladesh, where the average factory worker makes just 33 cents an hour, according to Nova. CNN cannot determine if the people making Trump's clothing were paid a different amount or the conditions they were working under.
Bangladesh "has the lowest wages and the worst and most unsafe working conditions of any major apparel exporting country," Nova said.
[...]
Shipping documents obtained by CNN show that in 2014 Trump shirts were shipped to the U.S. from a factory in Honduras, where nationally the average factory worker earns about $1.30 an hour. Even that hourly wage may have been too high for Trump's licensed manufacturer. The Honduran factory's contract ended in 2015.
That same year, shipping forms obtained by CNN show Trump shirts were being manufactured and shipped from Bangladesh, where the average factory worker makes just 33 cents an hour, according to Nova. CNN cannot determine if the people making Trump's clothing were paid a different amount or the conditions they were working under.
Bangladesh "has the lowest wages and the worst and most unsafe working conditions of any major apparel exporting country," Nova said.
Law and order, pro-American worker candidate my arse.
The man is a parasite.
I know many people are saying that Donald Trump is a hardline campaigner.
I prefer to think of him as a hairline campaigner.
I prefer to think of him as a hairline campaigner.
Not Quite Nostalgia
Click to sing along: Don't ask. I just haven't used this picture for anything, yet.
Perhaps it sounds obscure, but this is actually one of the reasons I've never gotten along with Republicans.
When I was a kid, my father would have reminded that those girls should be thankful to even have a job. There was a time when he and I argued child labor in Nepal―during a celebrity merchandise manufacturing scandal―and he dropped the line about how the kids should be thankful for the opportunity to help their families, and when I asked why those kids weren't in school, well, then I was just being crazy.
Not specifically; I don't think he actually, explicitly said it on this occasion. But that's the attitude.
And where the proverbial rubber meets the proverbial road, this is right near the heart of why I loathe Republicans and will never be one. Every time I heard a capitalist talking about creating jobs, and what business does for the community, I knew they were lying. When businesses asked cities and states for tax breaks, and then packed up and left with the money instead of providing the jobs, there were some who were horrified, some who shrugged and asked what anyone expected, and then there were Republicans, who seemed to think this sort of thing was right, good, and proper.
When we see performances like Wellwisher's, they are generally either willfully corrupt or else quite literally so incompetent.
Because it's one thing to suggest or remind that sometimes people are malicious, sometimes slothful, sometimes just confused; there comes a point, though, at which someone like Wellwisher is so wrong it seems inappropriate to continue pretending this is innocent and without malice.
At the end of the day, pitching Donald Trump's business acumen will lead right back to the old argument about how everything wrong is everyone else's fault. When cornered over the conflict between lawful business and lawbreaking, the good capitalist always savages the law: The problem won't be that Donald Trump broke the law exploiting these girls; the problem will be that it was illegal to do so―gawd dam guvmint intrudin on the good fam'ly bus'nessm'n.
You know, like every once in a while you come across a child labor argument, and even though the business perspective won't state it explicitly, the only way the argument works is if we presume that there was no child labor exploitation before the rise of child labor laws.
We'll redefine words like "truth" and "reality" because it's bad for the economy if we don't.
Here's an example: Remember video rental? In my early twenties, I got jobs working for a video rental chain; I would say I made a living working for video stores except working a forty hour week didn't make a living. Working an eighty hour week wouldn't have made a living. (There's a reason why we have this weird minimum wage fight.)
The company I worked for ran massive debt. In the late nineties, they expanded at a rate peaking over one new store opening a day. They tapped their credit, failed as so many businesses did to plan for the rising internet phenomenon, and eventually collapsed.
But money was so tight in their business plan that they expanded into Washington state without attending the labor laws. Their business plan required that employees should wear uniforms, but was not capable of accommodating the law in a place like Washington where employers are required to provide those uniforms. The Oregon-based video rental chain proceeded to try to fight it out with the state.
In 2005 the company was bought out; in 2010 it disappeared entirely, resurfacing the next year as a blog.
Naturally, what wrecked the company was the government. If only the government had cleared the decks for their greedy business plan, maybe then they would have succeeded.
It does not seem so incredible to me that we recently reached the point where American employers were telling their employees to seek benefits normally considered established for the unemployed. That's right: We, the People, were supposed to underwrite the board of a fast food chain, so that the business model could continue to exclude decent pay for employees.
And, honestly, it turns out any number of lamentations I heard in youth, about the decline of society, are kind of true. It's true, for instance, that overspecialization and the lack of a "well-rounded" education appears to be having its impact. Consider for a moment the idea of a place for everything and everything in its place. That is to say, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the generation of businessmen my early political conscience learned to contend with would have gaffed up that way; they hated unemployment benefits, and while plenty were safety net neoconservatives―Social Security, Medicare―the idea of institutionalizing food stamps, for instance, by insisting they should bulwark payroll would have been something of a psychotic betrayal, the stuff of unthought mythic legend.
The MBA yuppie generation in the States was as myopic in its work as any in our history. Very few who exploited the institution expected slavery would last forever; the MBA generation looked at its dangerous paper chases and simply dismissed the question of whether they could carry on forever as irrelevant.
Children born into that ethic are now adults with degrees and careers of their own; we've been at this a while.
Donald Trump is actually kind of a test. That is, as crazy as Wellwisher's line sounds, consider the idea that there are a lot of American businesspeople who would, viscerally at least, agree. That's the problem with leaving the less capable to formulate what the more capable are smart enough to not say explicitly. The American business psyche that produced and presents Donald J. Trump as an emblem of success is rather quite unhealthy; like any such corruption, it relies on the facts of the wealth and influence it has attained to justify itself.
When faced with the true horror of what people fought tooth and nail to protect and encourage, those fighters will blanch, and then demand to know why anyone let the evil get away with itself. That is to say, after winning the argument over and over at ballot box and in courtroom, faced with the destruction they have wrought, the guilty will look at those who tried to forestall the disaster and accuse: How dare you fail to stop me!
The number of things wrong with Wellwisher's statement might well exceed the number of words in the sentence. But it's just an article of faith, not quite catechismal for the catechism never being properly written, repeated without any attachment to anything. And in these United States, this is how we have done it for a long time.
When dealing with American conservatives―indeed, much of American influence, but the conservative politic presently relies on it especially―consider the idea of an outline document, like you're sketching a synopsis brief to explain to the court what everyone is shouting about. In outline form, you might construct a logical argument―I, IA, IA1, IA2, IA2a, IA2b, IA3, IB, II, IIA, &c.―leading the narrative from one aspect to the next until you can explain without a shadow of a doubt what is going on. The phenomenon I'm describing has one basic difference: None of the points in the conservative outline necessarily have anything to do with one another. There is no guarantee that IA has anything to do with I, or that II does not contradict I.
As logical support for various aspects of the American conservative outlook demonstrably fell apart, each plank found itself more and more isolated, with nothing but stubborn, "Oh, yeah? I'll show you!" puffery to hold the line. And when you have the sentiments of a majority, that actually can work for quite a while.
But, you know, the difference 'twixt now and my youth is that purity cult now stands out as strange, homosexuals just won, supply side is widely disdained, the concept of economic justice is now taken seriously enough that even conservatives are trying to exploit it .... Traditional sentiments aren't majority sentiments, anymore. Across the spectrum, "old guards" of American political tradition have fallen into disrepair, and depending on which plank we're looking at, the desperation becomes so normalized that it is pretty much the whole of the argument. In these cases―i.e., more and more of the American conservative argument I have known my whole life―we are well into the range in which it is considered unfair and elitist to expect that one point should be relevant to another, and not contradictory, and so on.
All of which simply comes back to no, not really; there are plenty who aren't joking about stuff like that, because this is what the discussion has looked like throughout the period of my political awareness.
Or, you know, so says me.
Click to sing along: Don't ask. I just haven't used this picture for anything, yet.
Bells said:
Perhaps it sounds obscure, but this is actually one of the reasons I've never gotten along with Republicans.
When I was a kid, my father would have reminded that those girls should be thankful to even have a job. There was a time when he and I argued child labor in Nepal―during a celebrity merchandise manufacturing scandal―and he dropped the line about how the kids should be thankful for the opportunity to help their families, and when I asked why those kids weren't in school, well, then I was just being crazy.
Not specifically; I don't think he actually, explicitly said it on this occasion. But that's the attitude.
And where the proverbial rubber meets the proverbial road, this is right near the heart of why I loathe Republicans and will never be one. Every time I heard a capitalist talking about creating jobs, and what business does for the community, I knew they were lying. When businesses asked cities and states for tax breaks, and then packed up and left with the money instead of providing the jobs, there were some who were horrified, some who shrugged and asked what anyone expected, and then there were Republicans, who seemed to think this sort of thing was right, good, and proper.
When we see performances like Wellwisher's, they are generally either willfully corrupt or else quite literally so incompetent.
Because it's one thing to suggest or remind that sometimes people are malicious, sometimes slothful, sometimes just confused; there comes a point, though, at which someone like Wellwisher is so wrong it seems inappropriate to continue pretending this is innocent and without malice.
At the end of the day, pitching Donald Trump's business acumen will lead right back to the old argument about how everything wrong is everyone else's fault. When cornered over the conflict between lawful business and lawbreaking, the good capitalist always savages the law: The problem won't be that Donald Trump broke the law exploiting these girls; the problem will be that it was illegal to do so―gawd dam guvmint intrudin on the good fam'ly bus'nessm'n.
You know, like every once in a while you come across a child labor argument, and even though the business perspective won't state it explicitly, the only way the argument works is if we presume that there was no child labor exploitation before the rise of child labor laws.
We'll redefine words like "truth" and "reality" because it's bad for the economy if we don't.
Here's an example: Remember video rental? In my early twenties, I got jobs working for a video rental chain; I would say I made a living working for video stores except working a forty hour week didn't make a living. Working an eighty hour week wouldn't have made a living. (There's a reason why we have this weird minimum wage fight.)
The company I worked for ran massive debt. In the late nineties, they expanded at a rate peaking over one new store opening a day. They tapped their credit, failed as so many businesses did to plan for the rising internet phenomenon, and eventually collapsed.
But money was so tight in their business plan that they expanded into Washington state without attending the labor laws. Their business plan required that employees should wear uniforms, but was not capable of accommodating the law in a place like Washington where employers are required to provide those uniforms. The Oregon-based video rental chain proceeded to try to fight it out with the state.
In 2005 the company was bought out; in 2010 it disappeared entirely, resurfacing the next year as a blog.
Naturally, what wrecked the company was the government. If only the government had cleared the decks for their greedy business plan, maybe then they would have succeeded.
It does not seem so incredible to me that we recently reached the point where American employers were telling their employees to seek benefits normally considered established for the unemployed. That's right: We, the People, were supposed to underwrite the board of a fast food chain, so that the business model could continue to exclude decent pay for employees.
And, honestly, it turns out any number of lamentations I heard in youth, about the decline of society, are kind of true. It's true, for instance, that overspecialization and the lack of a "well-rounded" education appears to be having its impact. Consider for a moment the idea of a place for everything and everything in its place. That is to say, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the generation of businessmen my early political conscience learned to contend with would have gaffed up that way; they hated unemployment benefits, and while plenty were safety net neoconservatives―Social Security, Medicare―the idea of institutionalizing food stamps, for instance, by insisting they should bulwark payroll would have been something of a psychotic betrayal, the stuff of unthought mythic legend.
The MBA yuppie generation in the States was as myopic in its work as any in our history. Very few who exploited the institution expected slavery would last forever; the MBA generation looked at its dangerous paper chases and simply dismissed the question of whether they could carry on forever as irrelevant.
Children born into that ethic are now adults with degrees and careers of their own; we've been at this a while.
Donald Trump is actually kind of a test. That is, as crazy as Wellwisher's line sounds, consider the idea that there are a lot of American businesspeople who would, viscerally at least, agree. That's the problem with leaving the less capable to formulate what the more capable are smart enough to not say explicitly. The American business psyche that produced and presents Donald J. Trump as an emblem of success is rather quite unhealthy; like any such corruption, it relies on the facts of the wealth and influence it has attained to justify itself.
When faced with the true horror of what people fought tooth and nail to protect and encourage, those fighters will blanch, and then demand to know why anyone let the evil get away with itself. That is to say, after winning the argument over and over at ballot box and in courtroom, faced with the destruction they have wrought, the guilty will look at those who tried to forestall the disaster and accuse: How dare you fail to stop me!
The number of things wrong with Wellwisher's statement might well exceed the number of words in the sentence. But it's just an article of faith, not quite catechismal for the catechism never being properly written, repeated without any attachment to anything. And in these United States, this is how we have done it for a long time.
When dealing with American conservatives―indeed, much of American influence, but the conservative politic presently relies on it especially―consider the idea of an outline document, like you're sketching a synopsis brief to explain to the court what everyone is shouting about. In outline form, you might construct a logical argument―I, IA, IA1, IA2, IA2a, IA2b, IA3, IB, II, IIA, &c.―leading the narrative from one aspect to the next until you can explain without a shadow of a doubt what is going on. The phenomenon I'm describing has one basic difference: None of the points in the conservative outline necessarily have anything to do with one another. There is no guarantee that IA has anything to do with I, or that II does not contradict I.
As logical support for various aspects of the American conservative outlook demonstrably fell apart, each plank found itself more and more isolated, with nothing but stubborn, "Oh, yeah? I'll show you!" puffery to hold the line. And when you have the sentiments of a majority, that actually can work for quite a while.
But, you know, the difference 'twixt now and my youth is that purity cult now stands out as strange, homosexuals just won, supply side is widely disdained, the concept of economic justice is now taken seriously enough that even conservatives are trying to exploit it .... Traditional sentiments aren't majority sentiments, anymore. Across the spectrum, "old guards" of American political tradition have fallen into disrepair, and depending on which plank we're looking at, the desperation becomes so normalized that it is pretty much the whole of the argument. In these cases―i.e., more and more of the American conservative argument I have known my whole life―we are well into the range in which it is considered unfair and elitist to expect that one point should be relevant to another, and not contradictory, and so on.
All of which simply comes back to no, not really; there are plenty who aren't joking about stuff like that, because this is what the discussion has looked like throughout the period of my political awareness.
Or, you know, so says me.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
And now, where do you see those sentiments?
...........................................
Is Brexit just the first wild card in a deck full of jokers?
A perspective from rural Louisiana:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue-collar-supporters
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-white-blue-collar-supporters
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Looks like the Saudi Patriot systems are even unable to defend their camps against Iranian "high-tex": https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/houthi-missile-strike-blows-saudi-camp/
LOL..How about using a credible source every once in a while? But then you wouldn't have any sources.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
A source you would accept as "credible", that means, a NATO propaganda source? Sorry, no, too many lies.