Tainari88 wrote:Blackjack thinks the PRC is going to be the same as the Yankee dumbasses from the past. They are not going to do that BJ. They are going to regulate and stabilize those places and then they will negotiate like hell. Watch them.
And that negotiating like hell will mean a better deal for China and a worse deal for Central and South American states. Why, because instead of owing the United States money, or European powers money, you will owe China money. They aren't doing this for free--or at least that's what they think.
Tainari88 wrote:@blackjack21 thinks the Chinese think like Yankees in imperialism. They don't. They think like they always have thought like Confucius followers. A bunch of administrators who control every individual move a member of their planning scheme comes up with. They are going to think that the way to win is to negotiate with markets.
They are going to cancel debt and send in the Mandarins.
They are essentially repeating the post-WWII FDI model that the US used to do throughout the world. The reality is that nations do not like foreigners owning all that shiny new infrastructure. If they don't own it, then the state ends up owing the money--and they typically hyperinflate it away.
Tainari88 wrote:They went for a narcissistic sociopath who loves some fake Casino Capitalism.
Donald Trump has had almost nothing to do with Latin American debt crises. Why do you put the blame on Trump for things like that when this has been going on decade after decade? Lots of people dislike Trump's personality, but why put the blame on him for things he had little or no hand in?
Tainari88 wrote:The Chinese are going to unburden the problem with debt that Chile has, Brazil has, Argentina has and send in some administrators to get the economy running again. They will then control the market.
Sounds like the IMF...
Tainari88 wrote:But unlike the Yankees before them? The governments in Latin America are going to be left alone. Why?
Well, if you are letting a foreign nation control your finances and your markets, you've pretty much already handed over control of the government to foreigners.
Tainari88 wrote:Because the important thing for them is to continue to feed their own society. Not to control and overspend on military ambitions.
Who's we in this sentence?
Tainari88 wrote:Japan sure did. They had a go at China and they lost.
They didn't lose to China. They lost to the United States. Russia fought the bulk of WWII against Germany. The US fought the bulk of it against Japan.
late wrote:Biden was going nowhere until North Carolina. James Clyburn knew how politics works, and threw his full support behind Biden. That made all the difference.
South Carolina, not North Carolina. So how did James Clyburn get all of Biden's competitors to drop out of the race when they were ahead of Biden in delegates? It's too pat. The only establishment person who stayed in was Elizabeth Warren to serve as a foil to Bernie Sanders.
late wrote:Clyburn is an old Civil Rights guy, not some shadowy power broker. His support was as subtle as a 10 pound hammer. He got the Black community to rally behind Biden, and after that happened, he was going to get the nomination.
Clyburn, kingmaker but never king? Trump increased his percentage of the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Asian vote and the LGBTQ vote. You can't spin these yarns forever. Well... maybe you can, but nobody believes Clyburn made the difference in the 2020 election, except maybe you.
Tainari88 wrote:They need to get rid of the filibuster and deal with McConnell and all those Republicans who would rather burn down the republic of the United States of America than give up power.
The filibuster ensures broader support for legislation. They can certainly get rid of it, but then you have legislation that doesn't have cross party support like ObamaCare. It's constitutional to do things that way, but it's politically unstable. I think a smaller United States could have handled that. A big country as it is today cannot be ruled exclusively by Washington, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco.
Tainari88 wrote:Accept that and put the pressure on the liberals who don't do what is necessary and are not much different than the Republicans.
Late isn't anti-capitalist as such. He's a progressive. Remember the history of progressives? Eugenics? Prohibition? etc?
Tainari88 wrote:The Republicans are committed to violent takeovers.
Yes, but the Democrats are committed to voter fraud. Look at HR1. What's that about? I'll tell you. It's not about getting people to vote. It's about compelling people to register to vote. It's not about voting deadlines and absentee ballots. It's about muddying the deadlines and vitiating signature verification. Why? Trump got 12M more votes. They need to have a big list of registered voters who don't vote so that they can stuff ballots late at night or the next day once they figure out how many votes they need to steal elections. That's why they always magically "find" a box of uncounted ballots with no signatures to verify after the election is over and the votes have mostly been counted.
Trump won that election. By gaining 12M votes, it made stealing the election obvious and we have rather clear signs of a politically weak central government as a result. That's why getting rid of the filibuster and pushing radical change right now is actually a dangerous thing to do. If Biden had won 81M votes and Trump done worse than he did in 2016, we'd be having a very different discussion.
The reality of the situation is that we're not discussing Biden. We're discussing Trump. As I said, this was going to be like Darth Vader killing Obi Wan Kenobi. It strangely made Trump even more of an obsession with people, while everyone is ignoring Biden.
late wrote:The FBI is off the leash, they are investigating hundreds of Right wingnuts.
Yes, while dropping felony assault charges for BLM/Antifa rioters--making the entire Department of Justice look like a purely third world political operation. The problem with this sort of thing is that you cannot then go on and on about how Putin is corrupt, or Assad is a dictator, and so forth. The establishment has flushed its soft power down the toilet, if it still had any left. There is no more pretense of justice, fairness or anything of the kind. Why should Myanmar listen to the Biden administration about respecting elected officials and so forth? Everyone knows late. Maybe some will say it and some won't. Everyone knows.
Tainari88 wrote:Allende despite every attempt to paint him as a threatening dictator was neither. He was a democratically elected leader. But he was not approved by Nixon or Kissinger and they moved on him.
Wat0n has a point. I'm not saying you should agree with him; however, the narrative that the US simply decided for no particular reason to depose Allende isn't true. Allende promised not to appropriate US firms in Chile, but then reneged. This was true in places like Guatemala too. The US tax system is fairly corrupt, and allows companies to under declare the value of their assets for tax purposes but report different numbers to shareholders. The US has had companies seized and had foreign governments use the tax records to say to the effect, "Based on the tax records, on a discounted cash basis the company is worth x" when the market value of the company is 10x. They did this sort of thing so that they didn't have to pay fair market value for the companies they wanted to seize. That wasn't right. So the US deposed their governments. That's not right either. So I'm not trying to provide endless excuses, but that door swings both ways.
Tainari88 wrote:It is...fuck democracy and votes from the wrong people whom we want to eliminate. They will burn that society down to the ground before they lose their grip on power.
Well, if things go socialist, I could see violence. So it's not about a temporary loss of power. It's about a loss of money and freedom. That's not negotiable for many of them.
Tainari88 wrote:They are violent people Late. The FBI can't stop millions of people who are angry and pissed off. The sixties happened and the FBI tried to stem that tide. It could not stop the cultural changes. This is another one of those decades.
We are in agreement here. I don't think we agree on what the outcome will look like, but I think one aspect of the outcome is that the elite will have to come to heel if it wants to survive. Top hats, tuxedos, and limousine drivers went out of fashion during the Great Depression for a reason. Look how Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg dress--or that weirdo elf who runs Twitter. During the Great Depression, the upper classes had to content themselves with keeping what they had, not with getting even more. This is likely going to come back again if they want to survive the upheaval they are going to create with their policies and stealing elections.
Tainari88 wrote:Because McConnell is trying to avoid voting in senators in Kentucky via the ballot. You are dealing with hypocritical power hungry types.
No. That's not what's going on. McConnell is 79 years old. A year older than Biden, but mentally in good shape. He's probably not physically in the best of health and his term expires in 2027. He's anticipating that he's not going to be in the Senate in 2027 and maybe not even alive, but they ran a milquetoast guy for governor who pissed off all the parents with school age children and lost an otherwise easily winnable governor's race--why McConnell shouldn't be picking candidates anymore, as he's too old. So if McConnell steps down, the Democrat governor gets to appoint his replacement and McConnell is scheming (more like dreaming) that he can find a way to appoint his own successor. I don't think that's going to work out for him. It's actually only if he steps down at a time when they have to run a candidate and the governor can't appoint a successor for the remainder of the term that McConnell has a better chance of getting someone he wants.
Tainari88 wrote:That model only works for the Americans who killed off some 98% of their Natives and enslaved the African Americans for a couple of centuries, and did x and y to have the advantages.
That's a fairly bitter cultural Marxist treatment of history that even Marx probably wouldn't agree with. Up to 90% of the native populations died from European diseases for which they had no immunity within about 100 years of the arrival of Europeans. Think of pandemic after pandemic of smallpox, tuberculosis, influenza, measles, pertussis, bubonic plague, malaria, yellow fever, and dysentery to name a few. It wasn't some Hitler-like extermination camp. Most of that population died from disease. As for enslaved Africans, very few European settlers owned slaves. Most whites were poor. Actually, the major impetus for African slavery is that they didn't die the way either natives or white Europeans did.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden