Good thing the GND does not say that; as usual, the right wing media specially, has been pumping the misinformation up.
The meta point here is that it is clear that lies like that will be used a lot to convince many in a war, as pointed, the problem is that in war lies do tend to be found to be harmful sooner rather than later.
I think you employed the wrong article. It’s not “AN absolutely key move”, it’s THE absolutely key move.
Everything would depend on what the military does (or doesn’t do). I am not quite as sanguine as you (with sanguine and its root being ironically appropriate here).
Out of curiosity, what exactly are you saying I fell for? You seem to have an incorrect belief that I’ve been reading American far-right commentary on the Green New Deal, believing it, and using that commentary as a basis for a left-wing dystopia. I read two UK-based articles on the Green New Deal, read the first page of the resolution and skimmed most of the rest, and read some of the commentary here. For what it’s worth, I thought it was big sky thinking, agreed with some of it, disagreed with some of it, and thought it was covering way too much to be a realistic start to legislation, but that really didn’t matter because it was only a resolution.
And as far as coal goes, is anyone seriously disputing that a far left American government would shut down the coal industry?
Interesting counter-theory. I like the Tolkien reference. Thanks.
As it turns out in the real world, market forces did that. For the world building I’m talking about I follow what Trump and others are doing: not using the market and making command economy moves to increase the coal use, that is already a very asshole move. The problem I see here is that you can not let go of some not quite accurate assumptions. Not good for creating a fictional or real world.
Let me know then Democratic senators are displaying the Chinese flag in their office and protesting the removal of statues of Lenin from public places.
No, it doesn’t say it…directly. But I think that it’s debatable exactly what this part means:
Certainly there are some groups other than right winger types who think she meant meat (not ‘hamburgers’) when she was talking about ‘remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible’, as well as ‘by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food’, so you can’t say it’s JUST them who think she meant more than you seem to think she did. Personally, I’ve already given my thoughts on her crazy plan, and if it’s meant to just shake people up, make Republican heads explode and not be taken seriously, I think it does all that. But I also think that it’s more than 2% of the population, which was my point.
I think the meta point is that ‘lie’ in this context is in the eye of the beholder, and the fact that she has come out and said she isn’t, in fact, going after ‘hamburgers’ doesn’t make it a lie, as she has back tracked on some other aspects of the NGD. I think the meta point is that both sides do stuff that could, potentially, lead to a war, at least in theory, and it’s an assumption who will be the ones who will be the ‘rebels’ and who will be ‘the government’…and how much support either side gets is going to hinge on what the actual issue is.
Well, I could show you Democratic senators in the past displaying CONFEDERATE flags. As for Chinese flags, that’s a bit of a ridiculous request. Would you like to see a list of Senators of either strip that have sympathies towards or have gotten money or other incentives from the CCP? Because that I could do.
I’m unsure what it would prove, however, wrt the discussion. I’m pretty sure the poster in question was referring to the various starvation events that have happened (and are happening even as we speak in, oh, say Venezuela) as leftist, and they are, at least as much as the Confederacy is ‘right wing’. It’s an inconvenient fact that both left and right wing organizations in the past and up to today do bad shit, and when folks want to start pointing fingers there are ready examples of extreme stuff that can be pointed to.
I’m not right wing (except maybe to you and some on this board) and I’m unclear what exactly she meant in a lot of her NGD. I’ve read it several times, debated it in several threads, seen her follow ups and back steps and still not sure. I know what she SAYS she actually meant, but that takes me believing that it’s true, and I am not sure. It’s not a ‘lie’, and no amount of trying to paint me as a right winger is going to make it one at this point. If she wanted to be clear she should have written her manifesto better, with less room for dispute.
Here’s the thing though; those are all things that various entities on the far left espouse, but it’s far from a unified agenda.
Similarly, any “far right” agenda that anyone cares to name is going to be similarly fragmented- just because someone’s a fervent anti-abortionist, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re also rabidly pro-gun, or that someone who’s very libertarian and personal-choice oriented is going to be pro-life (probably not, in fact).
I mean, I’m probably what today’s Republican party would call a leftist (despite being probably just right of what used to be the center), and I’m only for maybe two things on that “agenda” you post- shutting down the coal industry and high carbon taxes. The rest are mostly ideas that are either not the human rights people claim they are (free internet), or they’re things that would be disastrous if actually implemented (UBI, outlawing hate speech, draconian gun controls). Or they’re just absurd and nobody really takes them seriously except for frothing types at either side of the political spectrum, (does anyone really, seriously believe that we’d outlaw meat? Of course not)
My point was that the Confederacy is currently being actively and publicly embraced by substantial portions of the American right, while there is nothing remotely similar happening on the American left. The closest I could think of would be Che Guevara, and he’s pretty much out of fashion by now.
Ah, I see you are missing the point, and showing what I was getting to also: one issue I refer to is the propaganda, and I do think that it is designed to also get fence sitters or centrists confused, with the eventual result to turn them to follow the designs of the Red side in a war situation.
Of course I expect the Blue side to do the same in favor of their side, but as in the old civil war, one side was doing the right thing.
I’m not an armchair general, more like a lounge chair general, but I would think controlling coastal ports alone would be almost definitive. Of course a lone charismatic red-minded admiral could fuck everything up.
Why do you think that? Setting aside, for a moment, that there are ports in areas likely to be under / fall quickly into red control, the US’s GDP is ~$20T. We import ~$2T in goods (and a significant portion of that comes from Canada / Mexico which seems less likely to be disrupted by control of the ports). Why would controlling ports be “almost definitive”?
I was more saying “the rest of the world exists, they’re nigh-certain to support the blue side in virtually every conceivable conflict, and they’re likely to offer some form of support if things get dire in some way that imperils the noncombatants.”
As for the weirdness where you seem to be clumsily trying to make things personal, that’s clumsy and weird.
I assume you mean that it’s not a strawman when it’s the assertion that the ‘American right’ embraces the Confederacy, but it is one on the other side because the American left doesn’t embrace Stalin or Mao? Is that your point? Because that wasn’t my point. I suppose that the use of the term strawman might have been off, but I think that both sides try and tar and feather the other with bad things that their ‘side’ has done or is doing currently. This tactic has and is used all the time, on this board and off.
Well, I’m still missing it. Are you speaking broadly of (presumably right wing) propaganda, or about the NGD that I’m some how being confused by all the right wingers I’ve seen posting on this board in the debates I’ve participated in about the NGD? Or about my own reading of the text of the thing? Somehow right wingers are infiltrating the few sources of news I read (CNN and the BBC) to confuse and befuddle me into not grasping what she actually meant? I was in threads on this board where left leaning posters made the case that it was all just bullshit that was there to spark talk, get folks to think and explode Republican heads, not a serious proposal. The meat thing, in the context of the rest of the craziness is minor, IMHO…and it might or might not be there. I haven’t looked deeply into the authors beliefs or view point wrt eating meat, veganism. I know that a lot of environmentalists do think that the meat industry contributes a lot towards global warming, and it’s a major issue, so doesn’t seem that far fetched in such a manifesto that it might be a point raised.
The scenario seems on par with the probability of any other scenario offered thus far. After all, there actually was a Calexit movement, convincing enough to even dupe one of our own Dopers into donating to the cause.
Do you think the rest of the world is “nigh-certain to support the blue side” in that scenario? It seems unlikely to me, and anyways, a long LONG ways off from a certainty.
I suspect the world’s support to be split, and quite limited. I doubt much of anybody would send many of their own forces to intervene. A few enterprising nations may be willing to supply one side or the other with weapons and other equipment. Most would send nothing more than thoughts and prayers.
