Nations divided by a common language

[oldsalt1]

If Hillary wins we will only continue on our path to third world status that Obama has started us on.

We've been on that trajectory since 1980, save that nobody noticed it then because it started so slowly. The rate-of-fall has grown exponentially since then, and passed the point of no return sometime around 2010. There are no brakes now that can arrest it, the last vestiges of control having been stripped away.

.

If we can't arrest it we can at least take our foot off the gas pedal.

When you boil it all down it is simply Power and Money. Or actually Money because Money is Power. I have said it in the past If you can remember the movie ROLLER BALL
the entire world is going to be run by Businesses. Sometimes being 70+ has its benefits .I probably won't be around for it. I just feel sorry for our children

[Judah14]

If we can't arrest it we can at least take our foot off the gas pedal.

When you boil it all down it is simply Power and Money. Or actually Money because Money is Power. I have said it in the past If you can remember the movie ROLLER BALL
the entire world is going to be run by Businesses. Sometimes being 70+ has its benefits .I probably won't be around for it. I just feel sorry for our children

Also, check the video game Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere, which is in a futuristic setting where megacorporations wage wars among each other, and a "neutral" organization, whose intended role is just like UN peacekeepers in the wars between the corporations, ends up at those corporations' whims.

[crfriend]

Also, check the video game Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere, which is in a futuristic setting where megacorporations wage wars among each other, and a "neutral" organization, whose intended role is just like UN peacekeepers in the wars between the corporations, ends up at those corporations' whims.

Video games are fine, but sadly we're dealing with reality here -- no matter how much it might seem to be a very bad dream.

Now, if it turns out that the video game has enough inputs and sufficient controls that can be tweaked, and can be played in "faster-than-real-time" it might be potentially useful as a predictor mechanism, but if such a thing existed, I rather suspect that someone would have not only harnessed it by now but published the findings.

[Judah14]

Well, I brought up the game as it is about what will happen if large companies are able to have a great political influence, including waging wars against other companies right in the faces of governments (whom the companies likely bribe anyways).

[Ray]

Trump is a pathological liar, mentally questionable, and deranged. I'm no fan of Clinton but Trump? Seriously? If he gets in, the US is toast. Bear in mind that the EU has greater economic clout than the USA (25% of GDP vs 22%). Trump in power will exacerbate that difference. I take no pride in that, and I'd look askance st those who would wish for the USA to retain its preeminent economic position at all costs (China WILL overtake the USA; it's a matter of time - less than 30 years).

Trump is an imbecile. If the USA elect him, the world will gasp with horror, then make hay while laughing at the same time. I'm not sure that is a good thing for anyone.

[oldsalt1]

if you want to comment on Trumps ability I would appreciate it if you would do it without the name calling. If you wish to continue I am sure I can find a few choice terms for You political leadership Her majesty the Queen and her Family.
As for clout it may be true that the Us only has 22% of the Gdp While the EU has25% but what is the Eu But a rag tag assembly of 28 countries many of which are on the verge of going bankrupt. That cant even decide on a common currency.

[skirted_in_SF]

Well, I see this is another topic I no longer need to read.

[oldsalt1]

and to think this all started because I tried to make a stupid joke. I guess you can never bring politics into a discussion with out it eventually screwing everything up.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Oldsalt I will grant you this, the name-calling adds nothing to the discussion.

So let's just consider some very recent examples: At the end of the debate Hilary calls out Trump for his treatment of the 1st Miss Universe selected after he had acquired the contest. Instead of explaining his positions on the issues he's spent the week trying to justify his reprehensible behavior.

Earlier when he was asked how he would respond to the taunts Iranian sailors directed toward our Navy, Trump said he would order our sailors to "blow them out of the water!!"

Really? Trump is too self-important to acknowledge he made a mistake and apologize? Apparently, you point out a mistake he made and he doubles down. Always.

Taunting is just that, taunting. Firing on another sovereign nation's people and vessels is an act of war. We're going to respond to taunting by starting a war?

How much sense does either of those responses make? You really want someone like that holding the nuclear codes.

No nation on Earth would support us in such a scenario. Nor should they support such bullying.

[Disaffected.citizen]

Lots of neat stuff. A good thread to read. Always like learning about different cultures and how they tie in to mine.

In my limited and humble opinion this site has the most convivial atmosphere on the 'net.

Oh, dear, I think I may have been a little premature with this comment; but I'm going to stand by it. The thread has suffered not just drift, but a complete change (and I'm just as guilty with my entry about DT.)

Gentleman; the debate about HRC v The Donald has many of the hallmarks of degenerating into a flame war. Please do not allow it to do so.

Some of the correspondents here are from overseas; we (I am one of them) have no direct influence on the outcome, but we do have valid opinions.

Similarly, each of our US cousins has a valid opinion, too.

Where we are today in the world order (economically, politically and militarily) is a culmination of many influences and administrations - worldwide. I'd posit that we have to look back at least 25 years to get a proper perspective. To avoid the mistakes of the past, I believe we need to look back over the past 100 years; maybe more!

In any event, I would like to see this thread return to the exchange of our language differences, usage, etc. May we do so?

[Ray]

Okay, back on topic:

UK - bottom/bum. US - fanny (which is uk slang for a lady's private parts, or Scots English slang for an idiot, fool etc)

UK - my fault. US - my bad ( which if said in the UK would get the response "my bad what?"

UK - petrol. US - gas.

UK - co-op. US - seven eleven.

UK - do the maths. US - do the math

UK - nursery school. US - kindergarten (that's German! How?)

[crfriend]

Where we are today in the world order (economically, politically and militarily) is a culmination of many influences and administrations - worldwide. I'd posit that we have to look back at least 25 years to get a proper perspective. To avoid the mistakes of the past, I believe we need to look back over the past 100 years; maybe more!

To even get the narrowest context that plausibly explains the current fiasco one must go back at the very least into the 1960s and '70s, even from a purely US-centric perspective. One gets a better context by including the military conflagration (we might as well call it one big one with a short recess in the middle) that pretty much destroyed a good chunk of the planet in the first half of the 20th Century, and if one backs up another 50 years from that we can get a slightly better perspective of how money influences and corrupts the political systems. So we're talking a minimum of 45-50 years just to get the opening perspective of how the current mess we're in today got set up and enabled. There's only one problem with that approach -- it takes time and effort to research unless one happened to be paying close attention all along and has almost total recall. Few today have the time to devote to independent study on the matter, and most of the studies that have already been done tend to be slanted very badly in one direction or another so as to prove a hypothesis or retroactively justify bad decisions.

To accurately describe where we are today means finding not the highlights of activity in the past 160 years, but rather the "lowlights" -- the mistakes and outright bad decisions that had intentional bad consequences for other parties. Lots of those are military, but vastly more are commercial, financial, or otherwise business-related as one corporate entity strives to vanquish another. This sort of behaviour got so bad in the late 1800s that various governments pretty much had to get involved to keep the "Robber Barons" from tearing the fabric of various countries apart by way of repeated financial panics (the term "depression" having not then been coined). The financial excesses that resulted in the global depression of the 1930s is fruitful ground to study, especially given what the fallout from that spawned as hope dwindled in many countries, especially one in central Europe. When hope for a decent future is lost, humans tend to do things that would otherwise seem overtly insane. (That hope was lacking then, and once again, it's lacking now.)

So take the time and do some research -- but, for heavens' sake be sure of your sources -- and make the connections. Draw the parallels. Come to your own conclusions. And then see how those conclusions stack up by performing some thought experiments on them to see if they predict outcomes reasonably accurately; if they don't refine the hypothesis and re-run the thought experiments. Be prepared though, to abandon any sort of ethical stance you may hold; in the worlds of business and finance playing ethically is a death-sentence.

[oldsalt1]

Dave just a Question If the Iranians thought that they might have been blown out of the water do you think that they would have taunted the navy in the first place. "speak softly and carry a big stick" But the big stick is of no use if your enemy knows you ain't gonna use it. Just like the Iranians were afraid of what Regan might due . We are not going to get anywhere with them if they don't fear us.

[oldsalt1]

cr That's a big meal to digest this early in the morning. People have to do their research and not just comment on what they heard on the news or read in the internet. As far as drawing parallels I honestly think that everything is the same as it was 50 100 or 150 years ago The only thing is back then we didn't know what was going on. Today with the internet, social media etc. if someone farts it is immediately known world wide. Maybe ignorance us bliss.

[crfriend]

cr That's a big meal to digest this early in the morning.

That's precisely the problem -- it is a big task, and it's one that takes time, attention to detail, persistence, intelligence, and a discerning eye. In short, it's not for the faint-of-heart; it's hard work, and not many people are up to that what with all the other pressures coming at them from all quarters at once. (This is by design.)

As far as drawing parallels I honestly think that everything is the same as it was 50 100 or 150 years ago The only thing is back then we didn't know what was going on. Today with the internet, social media etc. if someone farts it is immediately known world wide. Maybe ignorance us bliss.

There is some merit to that observation, but there are many things that are entirely disjoint with a century and a quarter ago. The culture, for instance, is entirely different and the technology of today was the stuff of science-fiction then.

The Internet is not an unalloyed force for good. There's likely more misinformation out there than accurate information as any crank who so wishes can put anything he wants on the "Net (this includes State-level actors as well). Sorting the wheat from the chaff on the 'Net is like running a screening-facility at the intake to a sewage-treatment plant; your job is to get the chunks that even the main plant can't (or won't) process out of the stream before they cause trouble -- and even then the results aren't entirely clean. Speed has gone up, volume has gone up, but the overall quality of the feed is remarkably low. I sort of like the immediacy because sometimes stuff leaks out early that later gets covered up, and those sorts of data are usually valuable or at least interesting.

But, indeed, it is a large meal. And it doesn't taste particularly good, either.