North Korea and US politics

[Kelly Jo]

There more to this world than the US constitution. And Twitter is not public domain. It's a private company. Not a state actor.

Sure, if Trump chooses to post on his personal account about the greatest cheeseburger ever, then more power to him. But public officials do need to be very careful how they distinguish their persona from their office.

We had a similar conversation here few years ago, where the (then) foreign minister spewed some intolerant shit about something and claimed it was his personal view. Problem was, that he was visiting a foreign country and most would see him as the foreign minister of Finland making a statement and not some tourist expressing his personal views.

The owls are not what they seem

I was hoping you were gonna say--->

 

[Kelly Jo]

Bonanza tourney is live! Gotta run...

 

[mack341]

Yeah me too, I get a bit heated with these debates, no offence to anyone if I seemed a bit blunt.

I'm more interested now in that owl article than twitter

 

[ternur]

^ what does this mean then in the context of the discussion about conservative posters being banned/blocked from twitter?

You still haven't answered the question re trump and morally or intellectually dishonest messages, he has that privilege to post them but the public don't due to market forces? Seems a bit of a morally bankrupt an idea in itself.

First of all, I'm not here to answer questions.

Secondly, if someone is banned or blocked from Twitter, it's not about free speech. Twitter is not a state actor which is required to ensure free speech. It's a private company. How many times I need to say this?

Morally and intellectually dishonest messages was a reference to the fact, that many times the ones quoting free speech are just using it as a smoke screen. It was not a comment about Trump. It's Twitter's platform, they have their own terms and algorithms to determine how they do their business. If Trump has privileges other users don't, then he does. I have no clue how Twitter conducts their business.

Your use of Twitter or other platforms is subject to that service provider's terms. For the last time, a private company is not a state actor which is obligated to protect your free speech. And you most certainly are not entitled to claim they have to.

 

[ternur]

I just realised I keep saying Twitter is private company. What I mean of course it's a private actor (in regards to this conversation).

Legal disclaimer: Stating Twitter is a private company should not be construed as a statement of fact about Twitter's legal status a company or corporation.

 

[Kroffe]

I just realised I keep saying Twitter is private company. What I mean of course it's a private actor (in regards to this conversation).

Legal disclaimer: Stating Twitter is a private company should not be construed as a statement of fact about Twitter's legal status a company or corporation.

Objection!! Hearsay!
Overruled, your honor!

 

[sufferinsilence]

You would be happy for twitter to ban Trump's account then, perhaps, as his views don't always coincide with the liberal's more intellectually'honest' and 'moral' messages?

I don't see how you can hold to democratic values if the internet is largely biased in favour of one side's beliefs/policies and other conservative voices are to be silenced.

Where's the debate and competition, the liberals have all the msm outlets apart from one or two, but no that's not enough, conservative posters on twitter also need to be removed just in case they persuade/ influence other people.

The communist approach to public discourse sounds similar imo.

I can't see how you can hold to conservative values and be a Trump supporter...

But here we are

 

[mack341]

I can't see how you can hold to conservative values and be a Trump supporter...

But here we are

That is a good point, is he really conservative in his personal outlook and behaviour, you do get a broad church of opinion in the conservative movement, and you couldn't really say he was a liberal. The wikipedia definition of 'american conservatism' seems pretty accurate and probably fits Trump:

American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism and a defense of Western culture. Liberty within the bounds of conformity to conservatism is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur.

The major conservative party in the United States is the Republican Party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party). American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade, as the fundamental traits of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on social equality and social justice.

How the liberals intend to obtain social justice and equality not only for the current americans but also anyone else who wants to move there is the sticking point for many on the conservative side of the fence, how do you achieve these things without massive interference, nannying and big govt, and who picks up the bill. Note it says 'modern', trump would've fitted into the 80's democratic party without too much fuss, and I think he was a member of the party at some point in the past and certainly donated to them.

Also from wikipedia on that point

In 1987, Trump spent $94,801 to place full-page advertisements in three major newspapers, proclaiming "America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." The advertisements also advocated for "reducing the budget deficit, working for peace in Central America, and speeding up nuclear disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union". After rumors of a presidential run, Trump was invited by then U.S. senator John Kerry (Democrat from Massachusetts), House speaker Jim Wright of Texas, and Arkansas congressman Beryl Anthony Jr. to host a fundraising dinner for Democratic congressional candidates and to switch parties. Anthony told The New York Times that "the message Trump has been preaching is a Democratic message."

 

[sufferinsilence]

That is a good point, is he really conservative in his personal outlook and behaviour, you do get a broad church of opinion in the conservative movement, and you couldn't really say he was a liberal. The wikipedia definition of 'american conservatism' seems pretty accurate and probably fits Trump:

American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, support for Judeo-Christian values, economic liberalism, anti-communism and a defense of Western culture. Liberty within the bounds of conformity to conservatism is a core value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur.

The major conservative party in the United States is the Republican Party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party). American conservatives consider individual liberty, as long as it conforms to conservative values, small government, deregulation of the government, economic liberalism, and free trade, as the fundamental traits of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on social equality and social justice.

How the liberals intend to obtain social justice and equality not only for the current americans but also anyone else who wants to move there is the sticking point for many on the conservative side of the fence, how do you achieve these things without massive interference, nannying and big govt, and who picks up the bill. Note it says 'modern', trump would've fitted into the 80's democratic party without too much fuss, and I think he was a member of the party at some point in the past and certainly donated to them.

Also from wikipedia on that point

In 1987, Trump spent $94,801 to place full-page advertisements in three major newspapers, proclaiming "America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves." The advertisements also advocated for "reducing the budget deficit, working for peace in Central America, and speeding up nuclear disarmament negotiations with the Soviet Union". After rumors of a presidential run, Trump was invited by then U.S. senator John Kerry (Democrat from Massachusetts), House speaker Jim Wright of Texas, and Arkansas congressman Beryl Anthony Jr. to host a fundraising dinner for Democratic congressional candidates and to switch parties. Anthony told The New York Times that "the message Trump has been preaching is a Democratic message."

Trump as a president's political views are very nationalistic (no, not patriotic) and especially populistic. Take those "tariffs" for farmers for example, that's a prime example of government involvement and socialism. Now mix that in with some of that nationalism and take a guess what you get... It's not very liberal or democratic at all if you ask me... He just cashed in when Hillary called a certain group of Americans "deplorables".

 

[mack341]

'nationalistic' having or expressing strong identification with one's own nation and vigorous support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Well he is the president, if he expressed a weak identification with the US and looked out for other nations interests on an equal footing, I think it would be a bit odd?

I understand what you mean though, trump appears to take the rhetoric too far, but the previous presidents and politicians have been failing: offshoring manufacturing in order to line their pockets, letting social problems rise unchecked, illegal wars, etc etc..people noticed these things and were fed up, so they wanted change to make america great again, but they would probably be happy with any significant improvement imo.

'democratic' as in the party, trump was fraternising with john kerry and other high up democrats back in 87 according to wikipedia. It's a bit like old skeletor, he's running as a democrat now but was a two term republican mayor of NY, and it looks like some democrats aren't bothered one bit by his part allegiances.

 

[sufferinsilence]

We don't have to go far back into history to see what nationalism can do when taken too far. Just look at Yugoslavia around 1990.

 

[mack341]

If trump declared war on mexico or canada then that would be an example of nationalism too far, the wars in the ME aren't connected to US nationalism more like geopolitical manoeuvres in the dark. They could be argued unpatriotic due to the cost in lives and money that could've been spent back home in the US.

All the successful countries are nationalistic, looking out for their own interests, but they do it in a more quiet, circumspect way without war drums.

 

[Kroffe]

If trump declared war on mexico or canada then that would be an example of nationalism too far, the wars in the ME aren't connected to US nationalism more like geopolitical manoeuvres in the dark. They could be argued unpatriotic due to the cost in lives and money that could've been spent back home in the US.

All the successful countries are nationalistic, looking out for their own interests, but they do it in a more quiet, circumspect way without war drums.

Would you then rate the nordic countries as unsuccessful?

 

[mack341]

look at ikea, invading other countries retail furniture markets, cutting down all those lovely trees to make the swedish owners a few bob...serving up swedish meatballs to every one...very nationalistic if you ask me

I was actually thinking more japan, switzerland, germany, france, uk.

I think the nordic countries are careful how they spend money, they have high taxes but get good quality services in return. norway apparently has had the same socialist govt for yonks, but they don't waste money like we do in the uk.

However I'll need to investigate the matter more before making a conclusive post

 

[Kroffe]

I wouldnt say all the countries getting high marks on this list are nationalistic.
I guess there are different ways to measure success for a country tho.
But happy citizens ranks pretty high for me personally for what makes a country successfull.

 

[mack341]

singapore is another country that always has its own interests firmly in mind, portugal quality of life no1 in the world???

germany 22 and below ecuador 13 and just above costa rica 23, how are they judging this

 

[Kroffe]

singapore is another country that always has its own interests firmly in mind, portugal quality of life no1 in the world???

germany 22 and below ecuador 13 and just above costa rica 23, how are they judging this

I honestly didnt read up on how the based the ratings.
I think they explained it on the website, but it was so much text, and im busy with sng over at vs.

 

[sufferinsilence]

look at ikea, invading other countries retail furniture markets, cutting down all those lovely trees to make the swedish owners a few bob...serving up swedish meatballs to every one...very nationalistic if you ask me

I was actually thinking more japan, switzerland, germany, france, uk.

I think the nordic countries are careful how they spend money, they have high taxes but get good quality services in return. norway apparently has had the same socialist govt for yonks, but they don't waste money like we do in the uk.

However I'll need to investigate the matter more before making a conclusive post

Yeah, nationalism in Germany worked so great. I mean, we can all agree they needed more space to live back in the mid and late 1930's.

 

[mack341]

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Not when you're talking about nationalism as a successful policy. But alright, I'll stop talking about nationalism then.

 

[mack341]

It is relevant to nationalism but you could discuss world war 1 too, it does rather signify the end of the debate.

You're in belgium SIS, is there still much hostility between the walloons and flemish?

In a way looking at maps like this of europe, the potential danger of nationalism is more apparent. Channeled correctly I don't see it as a massive problem though, education is the key. The wars of the past and today are always top down affairs, the public end up getting riled up by the propaganda the govt and media push at them. Hopefully people are starting to get wise to it and ask more questions.

I did read somewhere or hear it proposed that international football matches have replaced some aspects of nationalism through war, if you think of the olympics etc it is all very focused on which nation is superior and winning the most medals. so the underlying psychology is still there. But when the smaller nations do well against a bigger nation, it is an achievement, kind of the underdog winning, so I do understand people getting a buzz from that.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Yes, there's animosity between Flemish right wing nationalists and the more left Walloon part. But like you pointed out it's mostly fueled by propaganda from the Flemish part, when you actually talk to people who live close to the language borders they'll call it "bullshit" and most of them are fluent in both languages. As you might've noticed I'm not a nationalist and I think we'd be better off with less politicians and going back to a federal state instead of what we're doing now because obviously it doesn't work either.

 

[sufferinsilence]

I'd like to add people forget very fast. It used to be the rich Walloon part which funded Flanders, now the southern part needs help the Flemish nationalists are quick in pointing out "look how much money is flowing south, oh my god...". And ofcourse the "deplorables" eat it up because they want the money to be spent on their social security and infrastructure and...

 

[pinnit2014]

I just realised I keep saying Twitter is private company. What I mean of course it's a private actor (in regards to this conversation).

Legal disclaimer: Stating Twitter is a private company should not be construed as a statement of fact about Twitter's legal status a company or corporation.

You are now, to private actors, what Harry is to eye rolls.

I shall open another tab on the spreadsheet.

But i've got it - Twitter is a private actor, not a private company.

 

[pinnit2014]

singapore is another country that always has its own interests firmly in mind, portugal quality of life no1 in the world???

germany 22 and below ecuador 13 and just above costa rica 23, how are they judging this

Plus, are they not a socialist utopia who baulked at conservative austerity?