Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Helgoland]

About that shrine: I actually like the idea of it. It's dedicated to all the people who fought and died for their emperor, regardless of whether they were successful or not. And it's the single thing on this planet that the emperor bows to. That's a strong message, isn't it? I like that concept. And that's why it's so difficult to exclude the war criminals: They were fighting for Japan. In horrible, genocidal ways, but they did.

Doesn't mean that the government's visits should be misused to send nationalist signals, but there's really more to it than "They worship war criminals!!!1!"

[mainiac]

For what its worth, if the Chinese continue to properly manage their economy, and the US (and parts of Europe) continue to manage ours wrong, I could see a future where in 20 or 30 years where China no longer relies on the west for their economy, instead fueling their economy with internal consumption. That isn't to say that a war wouldn't be super economically damaging and far more expensive then it would be worth (even excluding the possibility of such a war killing everyone on earth), but it wouldn't lead to instant economic collapse.

In order for the Chinese to continue to properly manage their economy, the Chinese would need to start properly managing their economy.  China has some hugely troubling economic trends that they are completely failing to address.  The US congress embarresses itself but it does so by genuinely trying to solve problems (albeit hamfistedly) like the deficit.  The US budget deficit has plunged in recent years.

But China has good growth so people think it must be doing something right.  Yes of course it's doing something right, it's rapidly increasing it's capital stock and doing construction.  That's a good thing to do but it's the low hanging fruit.  The thing is that US can't do that because we finished doing that about 50 years ago.  Now we only add to our capital stocks and construction to keep up with long term technological and population changes.  Although the US could make some wise investments right now in transportation and energy infrastructure we have nothing resembling the obvious, obvious avenues that are available to China.

China seems to be just one more example showing that centralized authoritarian states are good at investing a large fraction of GDP to investment and resulting in the sort of growth we are seeing in China from 1990-2014 or the Soviet Union until the 80s.  It's not a complicated formula, you spend money on something and it gets done.

Nothing China has done yet indicates they know how to navigate the middle income trap and keep growing when the easy export boom has run it's course.  In fact there are some really, really troubling signs of mis-investment in industrial and high end residential real estate.  They might come through this smoothly, unlike the Soviets, but in order for that to happen they would need to start making difficult political decisions, something they have not done yet.

[Zangi]

Might indeed be a cultural thing, in Germany that cognitive dissonace existed too to some degree, but it was pretty much dissolved in a cultural rebellion of the post-war generation. With traditional Japanese values concerning honour and family, and the strong notions of shame caused by anything that might endanger someone's (family-) honour, this is difficult to pull off.

I would think that the actively enforced thought-crime laws in Germany would have a more significant effect.

[Helgoland]

What are you talking about? We ain't got no thought-crime laws!

[Mephansteras]

The problem is that nationalists feel that the best defense is a good offense.

That sentiment is rife here in the US. Many of the more "conservative" bent actually take pride in the excessive military expenditures and actions our country engages in. It makes them feel safer, somehow, knowing that if WW3 erupted, we could turn half the planet into glowing ash.

I share your sentiment about self-defense forces vs standing armies.

One of the big reasons that this thinking exists, I believe, is because to a certain extent it is very true.

Look at the US in WW2. We got hit on our own soil exactly once, Pearl Harbor. Now look at all of the other parts of the world where that war was fought. Europe, North Africa, East Asia...all of those areas suffered greatly because of the war regardless of whose side they were on or who ultimately won.

Yes, the US lost a lot of people to the fighting and expended a lot of resources, but our core was never attacked and never in any real danger precisely because the US military went out and fought everywhere else.

That truth, and the strong position it left the US in after WW2, has influenced US policy making ever since. That is, to an extent, why the US is running around the world playing Cop. Because if we can curtail actions and contain them in areas outside of the US then the actual costs of those wars remain much less than the potential costs of things snowballing and the US itself being threatened.

WW2 was a long time ago and it looks like attitudes are slowly starting to shift away from that mindset, but it's a powerful message for anyone who looks at history. Who came out ahead in WW2? The country that went out and joined in long before the war proper reached it. (Pearl Harbor was a strike, not an invasion, and mainland US was far from being in danger of invasion at that point).

Lessons like that take root in institutions and policy and take a very long time to change.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Glenn Beck: Bill Nye is literally Urban VIII.

[Zangi]

It is not just nationalistic thinking... it is pragmatic.

1. Who has to spend more on rebuilding/relocation after the war is over? 
2. Who takes more collateral damage?

The country where the war was waged?  Or the one that invaded?

[Culise]

...

The main difference is that Germany and France or Poland are allies, Japan and China are not. Also Shinzo Abe was a prime minister already, and he was a pretty moderate man in office. No one gets nervous about such proclamations from Japan or from China. Such things are par of the course for diplomatic discourse. Japan and China are pretty much openly hostile to each other, but covertly good trading partners. Their relationship isn't bad at all.

In 2008 Hu Jintao (big boss of China) came to Japan and Japan's prime minister (it was Abe or Aso?) went to China, they forged a treaty of friendship and trade. They are posturing for people in their countries, like politicians love to do. When Japan makes some remarks, it is great for two Chinas and the two Koreas (sometimes Indonesia and Vietnam too!), their leaders can also get on soapbox and say how much they hate Japan. In reality, when there is no media coverage, they trade like no tommorow.

Also DPJ had its time in power and many people in Japan saw them as clowns without any backbone. They were almost broken by being in power and their government was mired in scandals and corruption. Not to mention they didn't even manage to pass many laws.

Korea and Japan are a bit more friendly, though, even officially.  I do agree it's mostly posturing and don't think there'll be a serious war, but by the way, a fun fact - in 1939, Germany's largest single trading partner was France, and in 1942, the Soviet Union.  As for the DPJ, that is pretty much my reason for regret.  They had their chance to establish themselves as a viable alternative, and completely blew it. 

I'd go into a bit more, but honestly, we're kinda derailing here, which is mostly my fault for making up that brick of a post in the first place.  So, on the topic of American politics...Virginia governor leaves office, promptly indicted on 14 counts of criminal corruption. 

"If it were applied as the law of the land, then nearly every political official, from President Obama on down, would have to be charged for providing tangible benefits to donors," he added.

He's saying it to try and protect himself, but you know, that actually doesn't sound like a half-bad idea... ^_^

[Lord Shonus]

I do agree it's mostly posturing and don't think there'll be a serious war, but by the way, a fun fact - in 1939, Germany's largest single trading partner was France, and in 1942, the Soviet Union.

That's quite impressive, since BARBAROSSA was launched on June 22, 1941.

[Culise]

I do agree it's mostly posturing and don't think there'll be a serious war, but by the way, a fun fact - in 1939, Germany's largest single trading partner was France, and in 1942, the Soviet Union.

That's quite impressive, since BARBAROSSA was launched on June 22, 1941.

...blasted typos. >_< Actually, thinking on it again, I don't think it was the single largest in 1939, either, actually, but I know trade between Germany and France was quite significant right up to Danzig. 

[Reelya]

Whilst unlikely, it wouldn't be unknown. e.g. IBM's subsidiaries that were making money from the holocaust, even when America was technically at war with Germany.

[FearfulJesuit]

GOP candidate for state legislature in (of course) Florida calls for hanging the president.

[Max White]

GOP candidate for state legislature in (of course) Florida calls for hanging the president.

His not leaving the GOP

Why not just kick him out?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not easy to make somebody leave one of the big two. They're free association parties without official membership lists. If you say you're in, you're in.

[wierd]

With how much biting and slashing INSIDE the party there is about "rinos"? Are you kidding? Kicking somebody of high status out of the party would initiate a phyrric blood letting!

(Yes, I know the president is not actually a member of thr GOP. I am just pointing out that even if it WERE true, they could not do that.)