5 ms·

Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. That is the differ

by wolco 9y ago

Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. When you change leaders by dragging them down a street you get the types of leaders who will drag you down the street if need be.

mschuster91 9y ago
> Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him? The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.
- katastic 9y ago
  >You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? 1) He hasn't in over a year of office. 2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing. 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in. Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? Only if you've been drinking the coolaid. So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton: They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you’re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create.”
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. For now, they hold. Trump has (more or less) silently nominated huge numbers of federal judges (http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominations-2017-7?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominat...). Once these go through, or a SC judge dies/retires, these are lifetime positions and will shape US justice for decades. > 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shoudln't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. "Three felonies a day" and "selective enforcement" are the key points here. Of course it's fine if Hillary really did commit a crime by mishandling her emails - but if his inner circle gets off free for the same offense (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email...), it's not fair any more. > Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. The Electoral College was designed to keep a unfit person from office, and Trump with his many failures (from bankruptcies over countless accusations of sexual misconduct, some even confessed by himself, to being in collusion with the Russians and the simple fact that many professionals regard him as mentally unfit) still passed. I do not place trust in a system that has been rotting since decades. > So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. Burning the country to the ground is what Trump and his destructionist friends (the Bannon circle) are right in the middle of doing! By defunding critical parts of the state, they're eroding public service and thus the trust of the population in the government! > You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? This is the thing that scares me: A President obviously unfit for office and chaos across the world - including, to come back to the original topic, Romania and many other Eastern European countries. A competent president would be literally doing everything to keep the US in influence and the Russians in check - Trump is embroiled in so many scandals that Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un have free rein. And, maybe a bit funny because I identify as far-left, but what Putin has been doing in (Eastern) Europe (not just invading Ukraine, but also supporting right-wing and pro-Russian parties in France, Germany, Poland or Hungary) is really scaring me. Putin is dangerous, Europe is way too far split to be any kind of opposition and the US cannot be relied upon any more. Not really nice prospects.
eecc 9y ago
Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that the classification is of economic development. It’s not
- adventured 9y ago
  You're using an old defintion that is very rarely used today. It's now considered archaic, relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, you're attempting to educate the parent precisely because of how old and out of use that defintion is. Further, it's so out of use, the most common dictionary references to eg first world, are always about level of development / industrialization and not cold war political alignments. First, second and third world is now drastically more commonly used as a reference to the level of development.
  - eecc 9y ago
    It’s not an “old”, it’s “the” definition for this expression. One thing is to make mistakes in genuine good faith and appreciate when something new comes across one’s way. Another is to brush away anything that points to one’s mistakes. It’s called arrogance. Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway613834 9y ago
> Violence? [...] That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. "Third-world" doesn't mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world country.
- mc32 9y ago
  In parlance 3rd world didn't just mean non aligned as it did in political circles, for the hoi polloi it just meant underdeveloped economy --whether that was misuse of the term is irrelevant because that's how most people used it when a politically bipolar world existed.
- bjelkeman-again 9y ago
  Interesting. I have never met anyone in Europe that uses the term that way, but apparently it was used that way in some contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- pmontra 9y ago
  I upvoted you for historical merit but the meaning of words change. Third world means poor countries now.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    > Third world means poor countries now. A citation would be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition? EDIT: Note that I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with this definition. Not third-world.
    - CamelCaseName 9y ago
      >A citation would be nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World >Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition? In present-day English, the Third World is "the developing countries of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa".[1] Third world countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa include Russia, Albania, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, South Africa, and Armenia. The term usually suggests poverty and low level of industrial development and thus it is the opposite of the term developed nations. This usage is considered by some to be offensive.
confounded 9y ago
> Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. Or, an ICE agent, police officer, border agent, private security guard, etc. etc.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  Exactly this is what I meant with "inherent violence in the capitalist system".

by wolco 9y ago

mschuster91 9y ago

> Some people may hate trump but they also know in a few years people will have the option of voting for someone else. This is the thing where I am not sure of, and this is the problem. You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? Who can guarantee that Trump will not again cooperate with the Russians in order to get reelected? Or for what its worth who can guarantee that Trump won't pardon himself (or fire Mueller) when the fire of the Mueller investigations grows too hot - and then, who can guarantee that the Republicans will grow the spine to impeach him? The perspective of a possibility of change in three years is growing slimmer and slimmer by the day, with each moderate Republican getting replaced by an alt-righter. And you better hope no other Supreme Court justice dies or retires as long as Trump is in power - because then nothing that challenges gerrymandering will pass the SC.

katastic 9y ago
>You remember "Lock her up"? Who can guarantee that Trump is not going to follow through on this promise? 1) He hasn't in over a year of office. 2) He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. Which is why ALL of his major plans go no where. No Muslim ban. No reproductive rights changes. Nothing. 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shouldn't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. And back to #2. That is why your worldview is both insane, and dangerous. Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. And that's a horrific reason to plunge a country into chaos. You're basically arguing to plunge the country into the very chaos you claim we're already in. Dragging bodies through the streets? Burning down buildings, and neighborhoods? Smoke bombs? Throwing bottles of piss at veterans? Does that sound like something that brings freedom and liberty and peace? Does utopia come from evil? And how in the world can you be sure "your vision" of utopia is going to be the one that comes when you pull a revolution? You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? Only if you've been drinking the coolaid. So let me end with a quote from Bill Clinton: They need to be for something specific and not just against something because if you’re just against something, somebody else will fill the vacuum you create.”
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > He can't do anything that overrides the judicial and legislative branches. For now, they hold. Trump has (more or less) silently nominated huge numbers of federal judges (http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominations-2017-7?r=US&IR=T http://www.businessinsider.de/trump-judges-attorneys-nominat...). Once these go through, or a SC judge dies/retires, these are lifetime positions and will shape US justice for decades. > 3) If she commits crimes, why should she be above jail time? Shoudln't everyone who major commits crimes be in jail? Trump, Hillary, what's the difference? A crime is a crime--regardless of whether you like that candidate. "Three felonies a day" and "selective enforcement" are the key points here. Of course it's fine if Hillary really did commit a crime by mishandling her emails - but if his inner circle gets off free for the same offense (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email...), it's not fair any more. > Even when you have a "Bad president" the rest of the country keeps ticking along fine because the other branches are designed from the ground up to prevent dictators of all types. The Electoral College was designed to keep a unfit person from office, and Trump with his many failures (from bankruptcies over countless accusations of sexual misconduct, some even confessed by himself, to being in collusion with the Russians and the simple fact that many professionals regard him as mentally unfit) still passed. I do not place trust in a system that has been rotting since decades. > So you basically just want to burn the country to the ground because "your candidate" didn't win. Burning the country to the ground is what Trump and his destructionist friends (the Bannon circle) are right in the middle of doing! By defunding critical parts of the state, they're eroding public service and thus the trust of the population in the government! > You think when you destabilize the most powerful country in the world, that nobody else in the world is going to try and swoop into that power vacuum? This is the thing that scares me: A President obviously unfit for office and chaos across the world - including, to come back to the original topic, Romania and many other Eastern European countries. A competent president would be literally doing everything to keep the US in influence and the Russians in check - Trump is embroiled in so many scandals that Putin, Xi and Kim Jong-Un have free rein. And, maybe a bit funny because I identify as far-left, but what Putin has been doing in (Eastern) Europe (not just invading Ukraine, but also supporting right-wing and pro-Russian parties in France, Germany, Poland or Hungary) is really scaring me. Putin is dangerous, Europe is way too far split to be any kind of opposition and the US cannot be relied upon any more. Not really nice prospects.

eecc 9y ago

Nope, the difference between first, second and third world is whether a country aligns to the USA block, the USSR bloc or remain unaligned and pretend to stay out of the Cold War stand-off. That Third World Non-aligned countries tended to be piss-poor, plundered failed states, and theaters for proxy wars between USA and USSR helped the confusion that the classification is of economic development. It’s not

adventured 9y ago
You're using an old defintion that is very rarely used today. It's now considered archaic, relegated to the dustbin of history. In fact, you're attempting to educate the parent precisely because of how old and out of use that defintion is. Further, it's so out of use, the most common dictionary references to eg first world, are always about level of development / industrialization and not cold war political alignments. First, second and third world is now drastically more commonly used as a reference to the level of development.
- eecc 9y ago
  It’s not an “old”, it’s “the” definition for this expression. One thing is to make mistakes in genuine good faith and appreciate when something new comes across one’s way. Another is to brush away anything that points to one’s mistakes. It’s called arrogance. Oh and BTW, understanding that “1, 2, 3rd world” are not a success scale enshrining the winner position to one’s own moral system does help a lot in not coming through as an arrogant fool.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

throwaway613834 9y ago

> Violence? [...] That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third. "Third-world" doesn't mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world country.

mc32 9y ago
In parlance 3rd world didn't just mean non aligned as it did in political circles, for the hoi polloi it just meant underdeveloped economy --whether that was misuse of the term is irrelevant because that's how most people used it when a politically bipolar world existed.
bjelkeman-again 9y ago
Interesting. I have never met anyone in Europe that uses the term that way, but apparently it was used that way in some contexts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pmontra 9y ago
I upvoted you for historical merit but the meaning of words change. Third world means poor countries now.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > Third world means poor countries now. A citation would be nice. Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition? EDIT: Note that I asked what countries would be SECOND-world with this definition. Not third-world.
  - CamelCaseName 9y ago
    >A citation would be nice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World >Also, what countries would be second-world with that definition? In present-day English, the Third World is "the developing countries of Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa".[1] Third world countries in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa include Russia, Albania, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Dominican Republic, Cuba, South Africa, and Armenia. The term usually suggests poverty and low level of industrial development and thus it is the opposite of the term developed nations. This usage is considered by some to be offensive.

confounded 9y ago

> Violence? Drag his body down the street? Attacking innocent people until everyone does what you say? Those groups get labelled terrorist. Or, an ICE agent, police officer, border agent, private security guard, etc. etc.

mschuster91 9y ago
Exactly this is what I meant with "inherent violence in the capitalist system".