President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
the debate is about whether it was good or bad for America itself.
I wouldn't say this was the frame of my university education. I would describe the frame as:
What were the objectives?
Were those objectives rational and defensible?
Was it rational to believe that that there was a reasonable chance of achieving the objectives?
Were the risks and costs (loss of life, loss of culture, loss of property, breakdown of society, future instability, moral erosion, degradation of standing, hard money costs, etc.) properly understood and defined?
Were the objectives in fact achieved?
Without the benefit of hindsight, were the chances of achieving the objectives sufficient to justify the anticipated risks and costs?
With the benefit of hindsight, were the actual objectives achieved (if any) sufficient to justify the actual risks and costs?
In answering the last two questions, how should American interests be weighed against the interests of other parties?
This discussion started with a characterization of CRD, who i suspect does have a university degree.
it was more than money. the elites and deep state further strengthened their hold on power.
maybe you had a good professor. did he advocate for the downfall of America?
so much of the analysis I see is criticism of the bad things that America does. over and over. theres no awareness that the America does bad things bc its innately bad and fully beyond changing.
Ya I don't think he ever went full on dissolve the country but he def had some quality rants on the quality/character of our politicians lol
Victor,
At the university level, I would say I was discouraged from having a romanticized view, either of the U.S. (and its leaders) or of states in conflict with the U.S. (and their leaders).
I wouldn't say this was the frame of my university education. I would describe the frame as:What were the objectives?Were those objectives rational and defensible?Was it rational to believe that that there was a reasonable chance of achieving the objectives?Were the risks and costs (loss of life, loss of culture, loss of property, breakdown of society, future instability, mora
That's a bit ivory-tower and academically recreational. The US doesn't consider other parties' interests to carry any weight at all. The commitment to NATO in 1949, and to the defence of South Korea the following year, both successful, with coincidental benefits to others, were undertaken purely to further an American imperium, just as much as the seizure of Spanish colonies in the 1890s.
Operation Overlord in 1944, and the Berlin Airlift in 1948, couldn't have been done without the Americans, or only with much greater difficulty. But America's overt aim in the Second World War in Europe was to undermine and replace British and French global influence. At that time, and almost to the last weeks of FDR's life, the Americans imagined that the Soviets were their fellow progressives in this endeavour. When, on Truman's watch, the Soviets clearly turned out to be the new bad guys, once they refused free elections in Poland, it made little difference and the US imperial machine just rumbled on, probably glad of a new rival to justify the empire's military expenditure, dominance over client states and domestic political control.
That's a bit ivory-tower and academically recreational. The US doesn't consider other parties' interests to carry any weight at all.
I wasn't purporting to be describing the actual decision-making process of the U.S. executive branch.
Chomsky has a quote about how lively debate along a narrow spectrum is encouraged. typically, when America does another mass slaughter fest, the debate is about whether it was good or bad for America itself. I highly doubt your university was criticizing America for what it is - a Supremacist genocidal Empire built on theft and slavery.and even on that note,
Being an extremely profitable endeavor does not make it good for the country. So I would deny your implicit conclusion (therefore the Iraq war was good for the country) based on your argument not being sound. you would have to have another premise showing why profitability is inherently good for the country (it’s not, it can only be an instrumental good). You’d also need to show why it was profitable (I’ve never seen anything to indicate it was anything but a costly blunder).
As for the first part of your post, the idea that it’s a “Supremacist genocidal Empire built on theft and slavery” could probably ONLY be discussed in universities. So of all places not to doubt that this discussion took place, it would be at universities. I mean when you just think of who said that quote (a celebrated academic who has been one of the most lasting public intellectuals in American history) you’d realize how silly and self-defeating it actually is.
People like you take your cues from university, not the other way around. University is where people learn how to hate America, because many professors do. I say that descriptively, not normatively. It’s an observation on university culture.
As for the first part of your post, the idea that it’s a “Supremacist genocidal Empire built on theft and slavery” could probably ONLY be discussed in universities. So of all places not to doubt that this discussion took place, it would be at universities. I mean when you just think of who said that quote (a celebrated academic who has been one of the most lasting public intell
Yeah. There is a reason why dumb **** American nationalists hate the university system. And it isn't because universities are promoting American exceptionalism.
Are you going to explain how?
Yeah. There is a reason why dumb **** American nationalists hate the university system. And it isn't because universities are promoting American exceptionalism.
Ok. So what is CRD's reason for hos American Exceptionalism beliefs?
Since it’s not a term I’ve ever attributed to myself and it’s not a term that I’m aware has a technical, academic definition, I assume since you’re unwilling to define what you mean the question was ill-formed and in bad faith.
And just straightforwardly it’s an objectionably loaded question. It assumes that I am an American exceptionalist and then asks to explain why I am that. It’s like asking “so then why is CRD a misogynist?”
Putting aside whether your characterization is correct, do you think that university graduates are just perfect reflections of the views they are exposed to at university?
In my experience, university grads believe in American Exceptionalism much more than non grads . Ofc, most grads don't do polysci so maybe they are actually indoctrinated to hate America. Ofc Chomsky himself always vehemently advocated voting for Democrats so I find that hard to believe.
In my experience, university grads believe in American Exceptionalism much more than non grads .
In my experience, most university grads don't think much one way or the other about American exceptionalism. A lot of American higher education, especially in the last 30 years, has been geared toward getting a job as a nurse, accountant, engineer, or whatever. Social sciences have been in serious decline.
He makes pretty detailed arguments about things I never really considered. A lot of the time, after reading his posts, what ends up happening is that I end up with a better understanding of my own worldview.
Putting aside whether your characterization is correct, do you think that university graduates are just perfect reflections of the views they are exposed to at university?
Interesting question. I imagine this fluctuates due to all kinds of outside factors.
In my experience, most university grads don't think much one way or the other about American exceptionalism. A lot of American higher education, especially in the last 30 years, has been geared toward getting a job as a nurse, accountant, engineer, or whatever. Social sciences have been in serious decline.
From my experiences, everyone seemed to either want to be a software engineer or an entrepreneur. My non college buddies were the ones wanting to be the engineers.
Best Wishes
Nearly everyone I met who is a really far leftist is either in college or has a college degree.
Nearly everyone I met who is a really far leftist is either in college or has a college degree.
And lots of rightwingers when you listen to them talk clearly want more left-aligned things. They're just more easily convinced they're going to get them by voting right which isn't going to happen 😀
This is how you get literal unions full of rightwing voters lol
Since it’s not a term I’ve ever attributed to myself and it’s not a term that I’m aware has a technical, academic definition, I assume since you’re unwilling to define what you mean the question was ill-formed and in bad faith.And just straightforwardly it’s an objectionably loaded question. It assumes that I am an American exceptionalist and then asks to explain why I am that.
You can assume what you want.
I’ll go with this
The belief that the US is a unique and even morally superior country. Proponents of American exceptionalism generally pair the belief with the claim that the United States is obligated to play a special role in global politics.
And I think it fits your posts pretty well.
so much of the analysis I see is criticism of the bad things that America does. over and over. theres no awareness that the America does bad things bc its innately bad and fully beyond changing.
How convenient. No need to wrestle with the complexity of reality when you can simply label a country with hundreds of millions of people and 2.5 centuries of history as “innately bad”.
