Нет, Китай не причина наших проблем, а их следствие. Этим проблемам уже несколько веков. Не всё так просто, как может показаться. Никакие "арабские революции" в стране, напичканной ядерным оружием, не нужны. Вы же не хотите, чтобы ядерная кнопка осталась без присмотра, или попала в руки террористов? У нас уже была революция и гражданская война сто с небольшим лет назад. Тогда погибли миллионы людей. Ещё больше погибло в результате последующих репрессий и "красного" террора. Никто не хочет повторения. Чтобы развить демократию, нужно вырастить средний класс. У нас его мало. Сейчас освободилось много ниш на рынке, и для малого и среднего бизнеса это шанс. Высокий курс доллара и евро делает китайские и тем более западные товары уже не такими уж и дешёвыми. Становится выгодно многое производить самим. Ваш Трамп со своими инициативами нам совсем не нужен. Нам выгоднее санкции. Не верхушкам и олигархату, а именно народу санкции только на пользу. Они дают новые возможности.
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You worked it out? Great. English from now on then?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
And obviously I do not need her mail, I can write in English.
No, I just remember a little English from school. Not good enough to communicate freely.
It's clear. I thought you were looking for her.
Тогда почему бы не запретить въезд в западные страны всем работникам бюджетной сферы и членам их семей? Это было бы справедливо и очень действенно. А то получается, что на словах они противники Запада, а на деле живут на Западе, и даже если попали под санкции, то всё равно их семьи живут в Европе и США.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
That's pretty good, practice makes perfect.
I feel a bit bad for reporting you, I don't want you to get banned, I want you to get off your arse and fix the problem.
If you go to the full Google Translate website (https://translate.google.co.uk/?sl=auto&tl=en&op=translate), that has a 5,000 character limit. Should suffice. It's what I've been using.
Alternatively Olga/ольга could do that herself and post the English translation, which would mean any subsequent quotes would also be in English.
So, there are reports that as the G7 are trying to put together a statement marking the 3rd anniversary of the Ukraine/Russia war, it is the US that are now opposing language that refers to Russia being the "aggresor", and to "Russian aggression". Beggars belief. Truly.
As the ongoing war claims yet more lives, I can only imagine that Trump and his cronies are rubbing their hands with glee, as every death brings increasing pressure for Ukraine/Zelensky to sign away 50% of their mineral resources to the US (or whatever the US is asking for). But, as yet, there appear to be no firm security guarantees for Ukraine to even start contemplating such an agreement.
Is it me being too cynical to think that all Trump and Putin were discussing was how to carve up Ukraine's mineral resources between them? Trump probably asked Russia to ramp up the missile and drone attacks to put more pressure onto Zelensky to make the deal on resources.
Beggars belief.
As the ongoing war claims yet more lives, I can only imagine that Trump and his cronies are rubbing their hands with glee, as every death brings increasing pressure for Ukraine/Zelensky to sign away 50% of their mineral resources to the US (or whatever the US is asking for). But, as yet, there appear to be no firm security guarantees for Ukraine to even start contemplating such an agreement.
Is it me being too cynical to think that all Trump and Putin were discussing was how to carve up Ukraine's mineral resources between them? Trump probably asked Russia to ramp up the missile and drone attacks to put more pressure onto Zelensky to make the deal on resources.
Beggars belief.
Вы хотите чтобы я решила вашу проблему с переводом? Но каким образом? Я же не могу заставить Гугл позаботиться о своих пользователях так же, как это сделал Яндекс.
Если бы я могла, то уже сделала бы это. Но я пользуюсь Яндексом, а не Гуглом, потому что сервисы Гугла у нас сейчас плохо работают. В мобильной версии Яндекса нет обратного перевода, а стоит предустановленная функция автоматического перевода с любого иностранного языка. Т.е. я получаю ваш текст уже переведённым. А перевести мой текст на английский и затем отправить вам программой не предусмотренно.
Все войны затеваются ради денег. Древняя истина. Всегда так было.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I dont have a problem Olga I can translate any language to English and back just fine.
Hopefully you will find a solution OR post in the English you have in your head, which so far has been good!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Disgusting, I hope Starmer stands up to this cretin.
Неплохо получаются только какие-нибудь совсем простые предложения. Когда их бывает достаточно для выражения своих мыслей, я пишу на английском.
We do both. I know a few companies that have very high quality standards who manufacture in China. They hold them to those standards by US-side inspections, regular visits to their factory with a QC team and a well thought out set of process documents. Most countries can support build-to-print transactions like this, but few countries can go with labor costs as low as China's.
As always you get what you pay for.
Agreed, although ironically government spending just got a lot more opaque. Under the Obama-era Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, there is now a website (https://www.usaspending.gov/) where you can track down all government spending. But more recently no one knows what DOGE is doing (or cutting) and all the claims so far have been unsupported.
It should also be noted that people don't want to do the work to see what the government is spending. They just want a politician to tell them that they are going to get a fat check.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
Since We Have the Moment to Spare
Yeah, it's real easy to stand on crackpottery by saying, "Yeah I stand on that".
To remind↗ what you skipped over:
I accept you're not capable of answering that part, and thus passed it over to stand pat: Of course you will stand on what you are not capable of explaining. Still, the point remains. Your use of the word, "improved", is subjective, and, compared of your own behavior, dubious.
Also remember the part you skipped out on:
And now we have an answer: You would seek shelter in cacophony.
Unfortunately, that day wasn't today.
Remember, my interest in the cacophony is how it affects discourse; your interest in cacophony seems to be that you need it for cover. That is to say—
—it's not really that you can't work out what I'm saying, there, but, rather, would be inconvenient if you did. Think of what you said↑ to Parmalee: "As I have told [Trek] before, if he comes out with something I can report him on I will. Every chance I get." Now think about what it means if Trek hasn't achieved your reporting threshold, yet.
It's always an interesting question: Those who don't bother reporting because they know people like Trek are already allowed to behave this way, and those who don't report his behavior because it doesn't exceed their threshold. Compare those two ideas, Pinball, and you'll start to understand why some injurious superstitions are permissible, but others are not, and why actual critical consideration of what people post around here upsets so many people. It's how we come to worry more about ufology than Nazis↗.
It's one thing if, as Sartre put it↑ people like Trek "are amusing themselves", believing they "have the right to play" in order to "discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors", "to intimidate and disconcert", but it is for the most part unclear why people who are aware of this would risk legitimization.
And from there, maybe things start to get subtle. Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.
To the one, it seems almost ridiculous, but if we invoke psychology, please understand that it's not at all surprising when someone outs themselves as a pink Tory↗, or labour purple with some right-wing views↗.
The thing is, pandering to rightist sympathizers holding out because liberals are unsatisfactory is how Americans got into this mess. The "horror show across the pond" you describe comes about in no small part because of people similarly splitting hairs in search of a middle road, who used to say things about being liberal on social policies and more conservative fiscally, but, as we found over the years, never really were so socially liberal. Now that Britain is going through it, too, it's kind of hard to believe the grift anew. From Reagan to Trump, including stops along the way for David Duke, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Clay Higgins, and, really, more supremacist bigots than I can count; from afar, you probably wouldn't understand the joke about Colorado Five/Fifteen, but the area is a generational locus of Christian nationalism, white supremacism, and the United States Air Force, where the respectable version is being too ignorant to know when he's uttering well-known racism. And then consider that the approximate crossover range on this is to criticize liberals for expecting a Gen X white guy to at least know why he shouldn't be saying such things. So, for instance, when you see me referring to notas, that's part of what I'm referring to. There are many people who don't want to be seen as something, whether it's supremacist, conservative, or GOP, for instance, but still carry the line because some part of the critique against those things somehow offends them.
When it was gay rights, for instance, there were fence-sitters with nonspecific worries that liberals were being too rough on Christians, and then there were those who appealed against some imagined gay cruelty because, sure, they believed in gay rights, but homosexuals were going too fast, and needed to slow down, and wait until some unspecified future circumstance when their rights would finally be fulfilled. It's as if gays were supposed to convince conservative Christians the same way women are supposed to convince men. And that failure is what people seem to be on about when accusing liberals of certain condescension, paternalism, and elitism.
And over the period, if, for instance, you don't know who Scott Lively is, that might make a certain point; if you don't know who David Barton is, that might make a certain point. The thing is, these notorious figures are still held respectable in conservative circles, and have had access to the halls of power for decades. (Indeed, they are examples of why the bawling about cancel culture was complete bullshit that pretty much anyone ought to be embarrassed for perpetuating. I mean really, how stupid do we have to be?)
The road to trumpism is paved with purple pretense laced through with some views that are right-wing↗ and complaints about unions. In this sense, the whole thing with cancel culture is kind of like the question of what constitutes "improved" discourse. For these middle-road pretenders, the discussion is much improved if others should be discouraged from criticizing, speaking up, or participating in any way that does not satisfy them.
So, yeah, there remains a question of what you mean by "improved". Aesthetics are among the most unreliable metrics of improvement.
Look around.
Yeah, it's real easy to stand on crackpottery by saying, "Yeah I stand on that".
To remind↗ what you skipped over:
Meanwhile, "Traffic has definitely increased and improved in the last 12 months or so," is subjective at best and, as you're treating the statement, meaningless. Yet, compared to literally editing out the explanation in order to ask why↗ (hardly honest), or expecting we should skip out on history↗ in order to "respect" you (hardly novel), it isn't any surprise you're so willing to spelunk this particular rabbit hole: The distraction is the point, toward which, remember, there's more to it than just numbers, i.e., "increased and improved", and we could waste an entire thread on what you mean by "improved" without you ever actually saying.
I accept you're not capable of answering that part, and thus passed it over to stand pat: Of course you will stand on what you are not capable of explaining. Still, the point remains. Your use of the word, "improved", is subjective, and, compared of your own behavior, dubious.
Also remember the part you skipped out on:
• I've seen this bit many times, before. It's right on schedule … The only real question is whether you stake your analysis on its own merit or seek shelter in the cacophony.
And now we have an answer: You would seek shelter in cacophony.
• In its way, I'm fascinated; the day someone finally makes the argument, I'll learn something.
Unfortunately, that day wasn't today.
• No, it's not how we get to fascism, but it's as much part and parcel of the Trump experience as it was what came before, both here at Sciforums and in daily living experience.
Remember, my interest in the cacophony is how it affects discourse; your interest in cacophony seems to be that you need it for cover. That is to say—
• Remember, this manner of distraction is part of the Trump experience, both how we got here and how it sustains. It's one thing if G does his little turn, another if someone else wants to waste any discussion on him, but to bullshit through it like you did only reminds that the distraction is the point.
—it's not really that you can't work out what I'm saying, there, but, rather, would be inconvenient if you did. Think of what you said↑ to Parmalee: "As I have told [Trek] before, if he comes out with something I can report him on I will. Every chance I get." Now think about what it means if Trek hasn't achieved your reporting threshold, yet.
It's always an interesting question: Those who don't bother reporting because they know people like Trek are already allowed to behave this way, and those who don't report his behavior because it doesn't exceed their threshold. Compare those two ideas, Pinball, and you'll start to understand why some injurious superstitions are permissible, but others are not, and why actual critical consideration of what people post around here upsets so many people. It's how we come to worry more about ufology than Nazis↗.
It's one thing if, as Sartre put it↑ people like Trek "are amusing themselves", believing they "have the right to play" in order to "discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors", "to intimidate and disconcert", but it is for the most part unclear why people who are aware of this would risk legitimization.
And from there, maybe things start to get subtle. Whether an algorithm or a vertically-sequential discussion, the main contribution of such noise, in either experience, is to dramatically reduce the significance of the topical subject.
†
To the one, it seems almost ridiculous, but if we invoke psychology, please understand that it's not at all surprising when someone outs themselves as a pink Tory↗, or labour purple with some right-wing views↗.
The thing is, pandering to rightist sympathizers holding out because liberals are unsatisfactory is how Americans got into this mess. The "horror show across the pond" you describe comes about in no small part because of people similarly splitting hairs in search of a middle road, who used to say things about being liberal on social policies and more conservative fiscally, but, as we found over the years, never really were so socially liberal. Now that Britain is going through it, too, it's kind of hard to believe the grift anew. From Reagan to Trump, including stops along the way for David Duke, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Clay Higgins, and, really, more supremacist bigots than I can count; from afar, you probably wouldn't understand the joke about Colorado Five/Fifteen, but the area is a generational locus of Christian nationalism, white supremacism, and the United States Air Force, where the respectable version is being too ignorant to know when he's uttering well-known racism. And then consider that the approximate crossover range on this is to criticize liberals for expecting a Gen X white guy to at least know why he shouldn't be saying such things. So, for instance, when you see me referring to notas, that's part of what I'm referring to. There are many people who don't want to be seen as something, whether it's supremacist, conservative, or GOP, for instance, but still carry the line because some part of the critique against those things somehow offends them.
When it was gay rights, for instance, there were fence-sitters with nonspecific worries that liberals were being too rough on Christians, and then there were those who appealed against some imagined gay cruelty because, sure, they believed in gay rights, but homosexuals were going too fast, and needed to slow down, and wait until some unspecified future circumstance when their rights would finally be fulfilled. It's as if gays were supposed to convince conservative Christians the same way women are supposed to convince men. And that failure is what people seem to be on about when accusing liberals of certain condescension, paternalism, and elitism.
And over the period, if, for instance, you don't know who Scott Lively is, that might make a certain point; if you don't know who David Barton is, that might make a certain point. The thing is, these notorious figures are still held respectable in conservative circles, and have had access to the halls of power for decades. (Indeed, they are examples of why the bawling about cancel culture was complete bullshit that pretty much anyone ought to be embarrassed for perpetuating. I mean really, how stupid do we have to be?)
The road to trumpism is paved with purple pretense laced through with some views that are right-wing↗ and complaints about unions. In this sense, the whole thing with cancel culture is kind of like the question of what constitutes "improved" discourse. For these middle-road pretenders, the discussion is much improved if others should be discouraged from criticizing, speaking up, or participating in any way that does not satisfy them.
†
So, yeah, there remains a question of what you mean by "improved". Aesthetics are among the most unreliable metrics of improvement.
Look around.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Except that you don't get more just by paying more for labor.