American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

 China's economy is already hurting because countries and companies are very minorly starting to think about the repercussions of trade sanctions.

I am surprised you didn't say China's economy is collapsing like you are told. Hurting yourself more just to hurt your enemy a little bit is not a sustainable strategy, and is not recommended. 

See how US is falling behind and cannot compete so it has to use suppression tactics instead? Yes we know about US and the allies, the mafia. Speaking of which even though us managed to stay afloat, the rest of the gangsters are suffering. Even if we only use US for comparison (never mind them sucker allies), How are you worry about China's suffering while we only saw a 2.5% growth?

Freshly Googled by Google Search AI:
The US overall increase in GDP for 2023, was 2.5%
China’s GDP growth for 2023 was 5.2%
And we are not even talking about Purchasing Power Parity yet. 

greenline
It's likely that the Chinese population would be willing to suffer material deprivation during a war to see Taiwan annexed. Do the math.

Exactly! Unification is the will of The People. The average Chinese saves 1/3 of their income, which means if they have worked a few years they can weather years of hardship. While, the average American would be ( a few pay checks away from) bankrupted and homeless in a short time. 

Freshly Googled by Search Google AI: 
2019-2022: Nearly 327,000 people in the U.S. experienced homelessness and lived in shelters, 
2023: The population of people experiencing homelessness reached an all-time high of over 653,000. Yes, that's doubled in one year.

[Mjmd]

Anyone who thinks an economy like Russia or China's is collapsing is being deceived, but neither are they what they could be. And to be clear I don't want to suppress China. I just don't want to see them taking everything they say is "mine".

Foreign direct investment in China was down from $180B in 2022 to $33B in 2023 (lowest since 1994). Small change to China nowadays, but shows that investors are spreading their risk more.

[Charr Babies]

Foreign direct investment in China was down from $180B in 2022 to $33B in 2023 (lowest since 1994). Small change to China nowadays, but shows that investors are spreading their risk more.

Yea, uncertain times and bullying by uncle sam has its effects on foreign investments on China, at least for the short term. Just as there are/were major dumping of us bonds. Surprisingly Japan, our loving brother, dumped the most.

[Mjmd]

I mean their currency being weak was also a major contributing factor. Wouldn't want to go mono-causal on complex issues (this is a joke; its the internet; that is just what happens here).

[greenline]

Why has Earth seen warmer climates in the past hmmm? I wonder if there are direct linkages with the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? And its not just about future models it is about what is happening now. If you look how fast its warmed up since industrialization for instance. When you see worlds warmest temperature both on land and in the seas do you just shrug and say "this is fine" (yes I almost inserted the meme).

The burden of proof for why a warm record average temperature is inherently disastrous is on the IPCC and climate scientists. The only way in which hot temperatures directly kill is through more intense heat waves - which is unfortunate for the elderly and frail who can't afford air conditioning. But it does not make sense to reorient entire economies to give the elderly and frail a few more years at life. Something else would kill them soon.

Have the number and intensity of hurricanes increased. Yes. There isn't any denying that.

It's actually been trending slightly downward for the past 50 years.

What use are the resources if there isn't much of a market for what those resources produce? I'm not saying they may not choose to pay a price. I hope they don't. Let me be very clear about that. But a lot of our major conflicts have been because some idiot thought the other side wouldn't make them pay a price, so I want to make sure the price is high and very clear. At least that way maybe they don't decide to take more of what they consider theirs.

The price China would pay for attacking Taiwan has always been clear. Sanctions were a given, and Clinton had a carrier battle group sail through the strait in the 90s. But since a carrier battle group is far less threatening to China now than it was in the 90s, all that remains are sanctions and the blockade, and it's clear as day that China is now investing in resources to endure said blockade. I don't bring all this up because I believe fighting China in this area should be America's #1 priority, but the current administration seems to have rather naively buried their heads in the sand on what the plan is.

[T-hawk]

This is the problem with climate deniers. Here is this peer reviewed scientific article. "ITS BIAS"

Every study of anything is biased. Every one.

For every study you ever read about, it was designed to get the result they already wanted to get. Every study chose its methodology, cherry-picked and selectively omitted its data points, and chose its peer review group so that it would all lead to the result they already wanted to get. And if the result still somehow didn't come out that way, the study just won't get published, bias by omission. No study is credible, every study is deliberately designed to get what its studiers already wanted to see.

If you didn't do the experiment yourself, you're not following science, you're following propaganda.

[AdrienIer]

Do you also count your doctor's advice as propaganda when they're treating you ? You're not doing the science yourself, you're just blindly following his advice that this dangerous radiation will cure you from the weird spot on your skin killing you, what does he know.

[greenline]

If climatologists were held to the same standard as medical doctors, imagine how many of them could be sued for malpractice!

[T-hawk]

If you don't know if he's getting paid by the radiation machine manufacturer, then no you should not believe that advice.

Such advice or a study isn't necessarily wrong. They can be right. The point is that it's not credible, you can't know if what you read or hear is truth or a a product of bias. And motivations for bias vastly outnumber motivations for truth.

[Boro]

This is the problem with climate deniers. Here is this peer reviewed scientific article. "ITS BIAS" Never mind that the actual bloody fossil fuel industry is on the other side of the argument.

Every study of anything is biased.  Every one.

For every study you ever read about, it was designed to get the result they already wanted to get.  Every study chose its methodology, cherry-picked and selectively omitted its data points, and chose its peer review group so that it would all lead to the result they already wanted to get.  And if the result still somehow didn't come out that way, the study just won't get published, bias by omission.  No study is credible, every study is deliberately designed to get what its studiers already wanted to see.

If you didn't do the experiment yourself, you're not following science, you're following propaganda.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with
reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science,
into its paid wage labourers. (Manifesto of the Communist Party)

Now I'm not here to accuse T-Hawk of reinventing the wheel (he did that enough in Civ 3-4) and stating the obvious (but omitted knowledge), but perhaps a more fruitful approach would be identifying the "renewable/clean energy" interests, both regular companies and investor groups.