Re: Why, Yes, Marc. Our sky is blue. What's yours?
I saw the Democratic party primary, in 2016, as an example ( the best example) of the amazing lies that pass for informatjon & debate, and which tells us alot about the con job involving labels.
The media kept referring to Martin O'Malley as "the progressive Governor from Maryland", but the guy was nothing of the sort. Poor people, who had Medicaid, would did from mouth infections, because Medicaid would not cover "dental" ailments until the deadly infection spread far enough beyond the mouth ( often to the brain) to count as " medical". Known as "too late", for many.
O'Malley liked to bash Sandets over the "socialist" label (like many Klobuchar types would, 4 years later), but he basked in his "progressive" label. He wanted to be a "progressive" alternative to Hillary.
He endorsed H Clinton, after he got his much deserved 0% in Iowa. It is amazing that no Democrat has gotten more than 52% in Maryland governor's races, since Glendening got 56% in 1998. (O'Malley got 52% in 2006 and 51% in 2010). That roughly corresponds to the O'Malley ascendancy. (Biden won 65 to 33, and Obama won 62 to 37 and 61 to 36)
Democrats are the ones who like to twist labels. The GOP just sits back and watches.
You mentioned jobs being lost when currency is strong, but failed to mention the job losses from a weaker currency.
The People's Bank of China (PBOC) officially declared a strong currency to be vital to the nation's economy. The allowed fluctuations are precisely limited.
As for the claims that China undervalues its currency, see this article:
Does China Devalue Its Currency?
By Daniel Fernandez
September 4, 2019
The article looks at the long term fluctuations since the big 2005 change (current to 2019).
The Wall Street Journal has a 2021 article describing the higher Yuan value as well.
(Until the last few years, China has seen wage increases that are so high, it is hard to believe that it has come with so little inflation. 2014 to 2019 saw weaker currency, but it was really just a correction. Frankly I always felt China had a supernaturally too strong currency. The GDP & income increases from 2000 to 2014 just did not seem real, and I thought 3014 was going to be the beginning of a massive correction.)
I don't think China wants a weak currency. I just found out that the 6 months, since the February 21 WSJ article, have seen the Chinese Yuan gain 10% in appreciation against the Dollar.
The Yuan was at a 21st century high, January 2014, against the dollar. 6.04 Yuans traded for a dollar.
There was a slide that started in 2015, with some devaluations.
Now, the Yuan is back to 6.21 for a dollar. The difference is just under 3% lower than the century high.
Since 1995, the Yuan gained strength every year, verses the dollar, until 2015. The 2019 article showed that, despite the slump since 2014, the Yuan was still in a position of being 10% appreciated, verses the dollar, since 2005.
(I just read a 6 day old article which reported that the IMF explicitly stated that China is no currency manipulator)
(The article gives reasons why China wants a strong currency, but there are, of course, reasons for depreciation given as well)
I dare to ask Jar for a substantive explanation about a complex situation.
He said something about supporting the "democratic" will of a list of nations.
(Just the use of the aspirational term "democratic" being applied to a country, that has beed meddled with, reeks of imperialism and imperialist propaganda, but that aside)
My question is, basically, "how in hell can you claim to know what the 'democratically determined will' is of the majority of the population is in the respective countries"?
(As somebody who has an ethnic-Iraqi roommate, who fought in the Iran-Iraq 1980-1988 war, I know less about the "will" of people, as I learn more. I was just arguing today that the "democratic" will-idea should assume most Middle Easterners would (should have) support the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. I was saying that the average Middle Easterner was hurt badly by the very existence of Kuwait and there was a possibility that the actions of the Iraqi president would have been supported by a genuinely free vote. )
That aside, why did you end your list with Cold War overthrows (Iraq aside)?
What about the overthrow/killing bombing of Lybia, jar?
Does your list of our invasions end when Bush 43 left office?
I had a checklist, under the title "How do you know you are a racist?".
(Skipping most points, but they were roughly 10 to 12 total)
"You oppose NAFTA" was one.
(I don't want to use my exact poster words, so allow me to deviate)
"You only buy 'Made in the USA' "
You try to 'Buy Local' "
I disagree with your idea that buying local is somehow anti-racist.
(You economics are off too, but that is another story)
If a native Hawaiian tells a migrant, "You flew here, we grew here", then is that possibly a statement against racism or for racism? I knew homeless people who tried Hawaii out, and they said the hatred for migrants is just unreal. From both the poor, and non poor.
I have known people who had to come out of retirement due to marriage. One 70 year old lost $400,000 due to his marriage to someone who got I ll. I. L l spell check weont allow I ll.lower I is made cap.
Better to "shack up" and let Medicaid cover the other spouse.
Spell check kept doing that.
Google just allowed "i" ll. Spell check wont. Keeps capping it or putting in " ' "
George Wallace wins 90% of the black vote! Fiction?
He did just that in the 1982 governor's race.
(I have no clue what this has to do we with anything)
(My roommate, who loves western movies, just showed me who John Wayne was. I never saw him on t.v. before. I knew he was a right wing government guy, who had propaganda films. Just researched his career a bit, and came across a little on Wallace)
Re: George Wallace wins 90% of the black vote! Fiction?
You said John Wayne was not rabid?
(You said Republicans are "rabid", today, right? Liz Cheney comes to mind, but Republicans are actually putting up a fight for free-speech, and it is not just against fascism, but there is a fight for free speech - waged by Republicans - which seems to be a fight for avaliable platforms, for those with dissenting views, even before taking on the existential threat from criminalizers/fascists like Cheney)
John Wayne worked for Joe McCarthy, and Wayne blacklisted actors, infact it was his job for 5 years to be dictator of movie storyline's before approval. Call it "cancel culture" before the show could go on to be produced & cancelled.
John Wayne was an admitted white supremacist, and he attacked the education level of black Americans. Remember, most blacks opposed the Vietnam war, and Dr King was critical of far more than the single Vietnam War.
You can rest assured that John Wayne would have attacked the Biden pullout of Afghanistan and with racist accusations that implicated genuine liberals (white supremacist "liberals" attacked Biden too) and minority communities.
(I will just respond to you last part, which seemed to disagree with me saying Wayne was a white supremacist who opposed "helpful" U.S. troops being pulled from the foreign occupation zones - often an entire country, like Vietnam and - like - Afghanistan)
You said Trump did something (like) "bad" when it came to Afghanistan.
I dont know what you consider "good", and I conversely don't know what you consider to be "evil"-ish.
Is it "bad", to you, that Biden pulled out?
(I should warn you that I consider a Democrat who holds this position to probably be on the white supremacist side of things, and probably many Republicans opponents of the pullout to be the same, though the partisan political issue complicates the Reoublican moaning and the meaning of the meaning of such complaints)
Liz Cheney is a genuine racist, and her opposition to the pullout was very sincere. Very sincerely racist.
I need to know what you just described as a Trump position. I know you called it a bad thing. What are you saying he did or intended to do?
(I have not watched Fox in over 2 years, fyi. I have little clue where the commentators stood. Or even who the talking heads are.
Re: George Wallace wins 90% of the black vote! Fiction?
John Wayne was a pro-war fascist. He felt that support for the war would gave been impenetrable if not for African American opposition. (I feel blacks were divided enough, on Vietnam, that they were a bit on the irrelevant side - but for the power of the (late) Dr King Beyond Vietnam 1968 speech)
To maliciously sweep away the contrary views, of Black Americans, because they are lacking in "education" (in forked toung speech, that means many things at once, including the fact that the accused refuse to completely swallow propaganda), is just to eerily parallel to the voter literacy laws that came up just after the viral 1896 De Jure segregation movement began in Louisiana.
The beloved FBI was run by 1 single fascist, from 1924 to 1972: J Edgar Hoover.
He felt that the Civil Rights movement was a "Soviet plot" for a Marxist democratisation of the southern United States, which would lead to far-left politicians getting elected. Blacks were smeared by the elite institutions of the country. Their vote simply should not be cast, nor counted.
Learn your history, Ringo.
(See the John Wayne Playboy interview, for starters)