I am going to leave it there. This thread is not the place to discuss economic realities. — Fooloso4

I would concur.

Elizabeth Warren's concerns with income inequality is not egalitarian ideology or anti-capitalism. She thinks that based on past history when there is great disparity between rich and poor the result will be depression. Right now that disparity is greater than it was before the Great Depression. She has a pretty good record on things like this. But again, the economy right now is defying predictions. — Fooloso4

I like Warren, although I do still seriously question her loyalty to what she espouses, especially given the fact of her having endorsed Hillary Clinton despite her words aligning with Bernie Sanders and against Hillary regarding the financial sector...

Given the cause of 08..

Well, I remain reserved. I would like to hear a detailed explanation of that endorsement in light of the above concerns...

In the beginnings of this country, many a founder spoke harshly against a "capitalist" in terms of having no loyalty to his country or countryman(of course this smacks of misogyny). "Her/his/their fellow citizens" works just as well. The only loyalty they have is to profit margin/accumulation of wealth.

This is exactly what has been taking place over the past fifty years - first in the guise of the greater good and now in our faces. Trump's doing little differently aside from not hiding it. Why should he? As I said earlier, he could easily point to many a precedent happening without public attention let alone punishment.

...the US is just one player in the global economy. It is not really in control of what happens to the US economy. — Fooloso4

That's what happens when a government takes actions that result in foreign entities having power over their own people. Such power is usurped. It is not granted to the foreign entity by the people.

It is common wisdom that the better the economy the better the incumbent president's chances of being re-elected. There are worrisome signs that Trump's trade war with China pose an increasing threat to the health of the economy. In today's NYT:

Chinese direct investment in the U.S. fell to $5.4 billion in 2018 from $46.5 billion in 2016, a drop of 88 percent, according to data from Rhodium Group.

In addition, China is the largest importer of US goods. It is also the largest creditor.

Like it or not the two countries' economies are tied to each other and Trump's attempt to hurt China hurt the US. To be fair, it is not just the trade wars. Concern over security is also a factor. And this has global repercussions that may further hurt the US economy.

Timing is everything. Even if the dire predictions turn out to be true if they are not apparent to the average voter before the election Trump will be ahead of the curve, and if he looses the Democrats will be blamed for the downturn. — Fooloso4

All good stuff to consider. Someone earlier - was it you? - mentioned that for whatever reason the average American credits and/or discredits the current president - at that time - for the economy - at that time. Well, this sort of thinking has all sorts of problems inherent to it...

"The economy" is a topic riddled with bullshit irrelevant language to begin with. There is no measure of what ought be done. Most often the language is used to argue for actions based upon profit as the sole motive for action(especially with the sheer number of stocks prevalent). Satisfying stockholders is in direct conflict with having well paid workers/employees where and when this is applicable. The standards of measurement for success/good are suspect to say the least. A different topic in it's own right. That being said...

Timing is everything.

New American Industry. Self-sufficiency. Small business. Sole proprietorships. Employee owned businesses. Larger corporations that reward their workers and the public stockholders. Etc.

Quality American Craftsmanship.

There's never been a better time than the present.

You're not the boss of me.

Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it.
— creativesoul
A condescending attitude towards your fellow citizens doesn't help. Or you don't believe in democracy?

Reaching for some utopia or what, creativesoul? — ssu

My apologies for the condescension, even though the charge does resemble pots and kettles.

Edited to add:

I just re-read and realized that you may have been implying that I was being condescending towards those Americans who do not have a good grasp upon how monetarily corrupt the government of the United States of America has become in the past forty or fifty years. That's not condescending. The people ought be able to trust that elected officials will act on their behalf. That is their job. There's nothing wrong with trusting elected officials. That is a requirement for a republican form of government to work. There's something wrong if the politicians cannot be trusted.

Nah, not utopia. Just a situation where those who wield the power over less fortunate people be knowledgable and do so with great care about the consequence that their actions have upon those people's lives and livelihoods. Not utopia. Just honest, forthright politicians doing their job.

The United States of America is not a democracy. Rather, it is a republic.

Sigh...

Since 'meaning' is contingent on 'speech acts' , your title 'let's talk about meaning' could be construed as 'lets eat our tongues' ! — fresco

The term "meaning" is existentially dependent upon speech acts. So is the term "Mt. Everest". Neither of those things(the referents themselves) are also existentially dependent upon speech acts. Although, obviously linguistic meaning is, it's not the only 'kind', it's not the only way to attribute meaning, and it's certainly not the first way one does.

So...

I'm failing to get your point.

In short, 'meaning' is about 'what matters' both individually and socially and we attempt to organise that shifting state of affairs via a socially acquired combination of gestures we call 'language'. — fresco

The term "meaning" is not about the terms "what matters".

So, again...

I'm failing to get your point.

Did you know that most fish evolved from a fish that had a lung? They didn't use it, so it became detached from the esophagus and became an air bladder used for positioning. — frank

I've heard/read something along those lines.

I was posing the debate to those who hold that all belief content is propositional.
— creativesoul

Yes. A person who takes that stance is pushing a certain way of using "belief."

John believes that Stephen King's first novel was Christine.

That usage does relate belief to a proposition. There are other ways to use the word, though. — frank

Indeed. The belief that approach is a position arguing for the idea that all belief content is propositional, because it is always a statement/proposition which follows the terms "believe that". I would argue for and against such an approach, in that I would 'sharpen' it by showing how it suffers from conflation as it is.

As far as other ways to use words...

Such is the ground for semantic arguments, argument by definitional fiat, etc. Here, again, I would grant the sense/definition and then show it's inherent inadequacies wherever they may be. Such a debate could become an exercise in comparison/contrast, although an adequate criterion for what counts as belief could be agreed upon. The debate could proceed in a few different directions.

You're moving in the right direction with the talk about evolution. Belief being amenable to evolutionary progression is imperative. As it stands, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such academic understanding. The reason this is lacking is - in part at least - because of the idea that all belief has propositional content. That's just not true.

Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. Or has the Supreme Court made it illegal to vote for some other party than the two?

If people don't like the two party system, why then vote the parties? You really think that your vote is "wasted" by voting a third party? When there is a will, there's a way... — ssu

Rubbish. Cliche bullshit. One can try and try and try... and fail anyway. That is always the case if the goal is unattainable to begin with. Not saying that that is true regarding changing what needs changing within the American political landscape. Just saying, it's not so simple as willing it into existence.

Voting a third party is not some magical fix to the American political landscape. Naivety does not even begin to describe such thought.

Knowing what that change would take includes knowing that it takes the average American citizen to have knowledge about the inner workings of government that they quite simply do not have. It would take American voters knowing what the problems actually are and believing that they are able to do something about it.

Knowing what the problems actually are would require politicians to admit of knowingly causing unnecessary harm to average Americans while increasing their own personal wealth as a result. It would require admitting to either having lied to the American people or admitting of having been too ignorant of the inevitable consequences of their own actions(the harm caused by certain government action).

All of this requires honest reasonable politicians who place the utmost value upon Americans knowing the truth about how the situation has become what it has. That requires Americans also knowing what they do.

It would require knowing things like how the '08 bailout, agreed to by Bush Jr. and signed into law by Obama was carefully designed - in part at least - by those who stood to benefit the most. It was also based upon false pretense. Chicken little syndrom, as it were. It certainly did not correct the problem causing the crash. In fact, it actually rewarded those responsible, and further punished the average American(and foreigners too) who had been taken advantage of by the predatory lending practices.

The biggest financial sham ever...

Paying off the mortgages would have solved every problem caused by depending upon them being satisfied aside from those who depended upon the future interest. Those people lost out anyway. Those who knowingly created and sold these predatory financial instruments wielded power over people that they did not care about. Dishonesty does not even begin to describe that situation. None of those people were punished for their behaviour.

Will that boulder up the hill...

Why on Earth would you feel powerless? That's the whole problem here. — ssu

I do not. The feeling of powerlessness is not a problem. It's a symptom. A result.

Care to actually address the response about theft that I gave in it's entirety? This question above indicates that you've neglected to carefully consider that answer.

At least I have one fan...

:wink:

I was posing the debate to those who hold that all belief content is propositional.

The stagnant structure of the two party system creates the environment for deeply entrenched corruption as the two parties simply share power in the US: they know that they can at worst be for 8 years in the opposition until the voters want "change". Add to this the revolving door to the private sector, hopping from being a lobbyist to being a government official, being a career politician is a good paying job. — ssu

This again points in the right direction at least...

And of course, investment in corruption pays off well, because the price of something stolen is always far cheaper than something legal. What is worse is that the corruption is made totally legal. Your really have to be an idiot or far too greedy to get into trouble in the system.

The cost of theft is much higher than the purchase price. The theft of a working representative form of government has had high costs. Power over people is attained is one of two ways. It's either gained by consent, or it is usurped. The power of corporations over people has been usurped by means of collaboration with those given consent. The lines are blurred, as your mention of lobbyists above indicates.

When people believe nothing cannot be done about something, that is equivalent of being OK with the issue. — ssu

No, it's not. It's equivalent to feeling powerless about the issue. One can feel powerless to change a situation that s/he does not like in the least without ever being ok with it.

What do Jeremy Corbyn and Trump have in common in terms of message... campaign promises?

Are they both accused of nationalism?

Jim Comey suffered from disbelief when his eyes were opened.

Basically corruption has been made quite legal in the US and Americans are totally OK with it. Just like they are with the most expensive health care system in the World. Corruption has likely increased a bit with Trump.

Or at least with inept players as Trump's son-in-law, the corruption is even more evident and straight forward than with others. What was telling is that Trump was himself so surprised that his "drain the swamp" comment got so much response. Trump supporters simply pin totally ludicrous hopes to the guy and are basically unified about their hatred of the democrats. And since any kind of critical view of the doings of the Trump administration is "pinko-liberal media propaganda", anything will go.

Especially if the country stays out of recession. — ssu

This is better, in terms of direction...

I'm less certain that Americans are ok with monetary corruption in government, and more certain that there is an overwhelming majority of citizens who do not believe that there is anything that can be done about it. Healthcare is part of that corruption. Legislation written and passed by unelected individuals acting on behalf of corporate profits(aka 'big pharma').

The bi-partisan system is corrupt... both sides.

The debate is about the content thereof. The topic presupposes that belief has content. Both sides must agree there, lest there is nothing to debate.

One of the symptoms of genital Herpes (a notable feature of Trump's alternative Vietnam) are small red blisters that break open and cause sores. They are the result of the disease. Funnily enough, like Trump, they are also ugly, painful, and most definitely a problem.
— Baden

Well said. Hopefully that'll shut him up from repeating that silly point ad nauseam. — S

Somewhere, out there, is a playground in need of someone to push the merry go round.

One of the symptoms of genital Herpes (a notable feature of Trump's alternative Vietnam) are small red blisters that break open and cause sores. They are the result of the disease. Funnily enough, like Trump, they are also ugly, painful, and most definitely a problem. — Baden

At least someone is trying...

Blisters are manifestations of the herpes virus. The virus causes blisters. The virus is the problem. The problem can be avoided to begin with, but take this analogy too far(equate Trump to the virus) and one can never be rid of Trump(the virus).

If Trump is the result of contracting the virus(if he's the blistering), then Trump's blistering racial undertones and overtones are manifestations of racist sentiments and thought that have been around since long before the first continental congress. The virus - here - would be racist thought/belief.

Racism is a problem. It's manifested in Trump. It's not the only problem and Valtrex won't help the others.

Trump is not the problem.

It was sobering to listen (with your own ears) what US politics has become during the age of Trump. — ssu

The above presupposes new problems. Trump is not the problem.

It's also not the just the US that has these problems. There are farce governments called "democracies" all over the world that share the same despicable amount of monetary corruption.

Yet it's obvious that what is infected is the Republican party. It simply cannot shake the Trump disease. — ssu

Trump is not the problem.

I don’t think Mandela would appreciate your invoking his example in this situation, however. That’s just my opinion. — Noah Te Stroete

I think Mandela and I would get along just fine. I didn't invoke 'his example'(whatever that is supposed to mean).

Emoluments being ignored.

Corporate entities writing laws which place corporate interest above the American public's while simultaneously creating the conditions that will require choosing between. Politicians hiring them to write such laws and then adopting/passing them.

Allowing people to decide the fate of public schools who do not care enough about the children to guarantee the best possible education and opportunity for all of the kids that have no better choice.

There are all sorts of problems. Trump is not one of them. He is a symptom. He is the result.

That's way too broad a brush stroke.
— creativesoul

That’s the issue as I see it. If you don’t, then I don’t know what to say. I live in a small town in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue here. As you may know, Trump won this state by only a few thousand votes mostly from rural areas with his promise of bringing back “millions and millions” of jobs.

He hasn’t delivered and won’t. That was the con job. — Noah Te Stroete

I do not disagree. That's unacceptable for Trump to have made promises and not kept them.

However...

It quite simply does not follow from that that globalism hasn't helped John and Jane Doe at all. Lot's of people have been helped. Lots of people have been harmed as well. The number of American people who have been harmed was not given the utmost priority in the minds of the legislators long before Trump. Those pieces of legislation are part of the problem.

Trump promised to bring back jobs to places that used to have more of them. Not all of those job losses were avoidable. None of those jobs will ever return. New American Industry is quite possible. Easily attainable actually. It would take a genuine concerted effort and the right steps.

The problem is not globalism. The problem was it's implementation. Legislation originally touted and/or proposed as a means for increasing one's available choices to inexpensive goods and services took people's livelihoods away unnecessarily so. In cases just like the one you're describing, as a result of being financially motivated by profit margin alone, many corporations and/or employers in the building trades and/or manufacturing sectors were legally incentivized to put corporate profit above and beyond the livelihood of the workers and their families by moving operations overseas and/or knowingly hiring immigrant workers(documented and undocumented).

Ohio, for example, has had more than it's fair share of corporations busted for having an entire workforce riddled with undocumented immigrants. Koch Foods comes to mind. I don't think that there is a connection to the infamous Koch Bros.

Many lost their livelihood and future due to trade policies. Some families lost the ability to carry on traditions. Imported goods do not have the same positive monetary benefits to everyday Americans that domestically sourced goods have. They are not a source of American employment opportunity aside from having some profit potential when sold at markup to the right people.

There's nothing wrong with increasing the general populations' available choices.

There's something wrong with a representative government that is not taking actions that could be, and thus ought be, easily taken that would inevitably result in dramatically increasing the overall qualitative state of most Americans. As a bonus, all of those disproportionately negatively affected/effected Americans could also have a return to comfortable lifestyles where people co-exist in harmonious fashion. Infrastructure? American Industry. Building trades. Manufacturing. All of these things have direct positive long term effects/affects on American cities, towns, and people.

We could easily achieve this. We don't. We create the socio-economic landscape.



Trump may lie. Trump's father may have been reported to have signed his name at a KKK sponsored function/event. Trump may say all sorts of shit that's unacceptable to many and/or most Americans. Trump may be making money hand over first as a direct result of being president. Trump may be all sorts of things. Trump may have profit as the sole motive for doing most things he does. Financial gains may be one of the main reasons Trump ran for office... to increase the financial value of his namesake.

Anyone trustworthy seen his personal financial documents. I mean, has anyone looked? Is there any other way to know? Clearly, what's been happening justifies our knowing if actual records clearly show nefarious activities.

Legally, he doesn't have to show such things. Fifth amendment rights.

Legally, I suppose several scenarios are plausible. He's not broken any laws, so there's nothing that can be done to remove him aside from allowing the eligible voters that we allow to be included to do so. Or, perhaps he has, but he's just following in the footsteps of those before him. He's perfectly capable of invoking precedent without penalty.

Trump is a symptom.

Doesn’t seem like a fitting analogy to compare this situation to Mandela’s, but have at it. — Noah Te Stroete

Did I?

Show me where, and when I made such a comparison. One can be doing many things when mentioning one's attitude towards what counts as justified aggression.

We're also cross-posting...

I'll hold off a bit.

Globalism hasn’t helped the average person to the degree it has benefitted the owner class. It hasn’t helped Joe or Jane Blow at all in the good ol’ USA. — Noah Te Stroete

That's way too broad a brush stroke.

The Dems need to have a clear plan of how they will make Joe and Jane’s life better, and show that Trump has pulled off a con job.

I'm not much of a fan of a bi-partisan political system such as the one currently taking place in the US. The intentional and deliberate aim to enter into the US political arena as a primary means to increase one's personal wealth is allowed. As it should be. Everyone has to make a living, after-all. Politicians salaries are paid by means of government collection.

However, if one's sole motivation for entering into US politics was to intentionally use the experience as means to acquire much more wealth than they could foreseeably acquire by any other means...

Well...

That's a problem.

My attitude towards justified aggression is similar to Mandela.
— creativesoul

And that was? — Noah Te Stroete

There is such a thing.

When given no choice but for one to have to fight for their right to self direction, when during a heated confrontation, one is not afforded the ability to escape the situation with their dignity intact, when one's life and livelihood is being carelessly cast aside...

Actually, it seems we don’t disagree, so what is the gripe exactly? — Noah Te Stroete

With you? None, that I'm aware.

Here, in this thread?

Trump is not the problem. He is a symtom. A consequence. A result.

My attitude towards justified aggression is similar to Mandela.

Let me ask you this: are you a naturalized citizen or were you born here (assuming you are an American)? — Noah Te Stroete

I've lived and thrived in a multitude of different places, people's, and cultures. I've made lots of friends.

...so here is a reminder for you to put your pants on first tomorrow morning and then your shoes. Seems like you need to hear that every day. — Maw

All that based upon... what, exactly?

...you said I was a "fucking media puppet"... — Maw

That's false.

Immigration is necessary and should be made easier, not less restrictive. Care to argue? — Noah Te Stroete

As long as I can argue in the affirmative.

I've nothing further until someone has an original opinion is some small kine way.

he questions and set of answers are very clearly presented in each of the polls I've provided, all of which have been from PEW Research which is a very reputable fact tank that is used by both liberal and conservative commentators. Sorry that they aren't providing you with the answers you want to see or the answers provided to you by your (assuming they are real) clearly idiotic family/friends/acquaintances, but there's no need to whine about it — Maw

Name calling and personal insults.

Brilliant.

Fucking media puppets...

Believe what you like.

Polls can be designed for results, and are.

You wouldn't be the first.

Well Maw. The bit about legal immigrants having issues with those who enter illegally is real. Neither your opinion nor the polls matter. You should talk to real people in real places a bit more.