TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.31%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    49 34.51%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 35.21%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.82%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.15%
Page 12 of 546 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314151617222732374247525762112262512 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 13639

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #276
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Is it not, in fact, we who are neurovariably disadvantaged, with our hegemonic cisphallogokapitalocryptic "thinking"?
    We could all learn something by listening to the voices of those of us blessed by Down's Bounty.
    And needless to say quotas should be set up to ensure them over-representation in industry and political leadership positions, post haste, to combat the long history of horrific microaggressions such as these.
    It's not about political correctness. It's about time.
    [/arrogant eyebrow arch looking down on you insufferable chauvinists from my fucking 10-story high horse]



    Edit: That sounded better before Renz ninja'd me. FFS, how can I high-horse-eyebrow-arch down on you if you mea culpa before I get my chance to unleash my righteous fury too? Ugh... Being better than everybody else is hard work.
    Last edited by demagogue; 21st Apr 2016 at 01:59.

  2. #277
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Masturbatory indignation morelike, OLOL!

  3. #278
    It might be fun to castigate me as "hating leftists", but in reality I don't think that way anymore. According to this site(https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz) I align very closely with Libertarian candidates, and very poorly with Trump, Clinton, and Sanders.


    I view "left" and "right" as being completely useless terms in the context of logical dialogue. It's idiotic, partisan branding. It's the same "logic" that allows a "small government conservative" to immediately turn around and argue that the government should regulate what toys you use in the bedroom, and the same "logic" that allows "Anti-fascists" to immediately turn around and support mass censorship and using a surveillance state against dissidents.

    I've gotten into some pretty severe arguments on Facebook with the Cruzbots and Bushbots over those issues. I even had one so mad that he launched a curse filled tirade before blocking me. You know what I said? I mocked his assertion that Bush was "conservative" because of Bush's protection of Bulge Bracket bank fraud, military interventionism, and surveillance state policies.

    It cuts both ways. I don't hate "leftists", I hate bullies and always have whether that's "conservative" fascists like establishment Republicans or ones who brand themselves "progressive" like Hillary and her ilk.

    The only use of the terms "leftist" and "rightist" is as a label to describe ideological loyalists.

  4. #279
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Maybe use a little more precision and you won't come across so one-dimensional. I actually take zero issue with any of that - if those are your actual thoughts, then you've been tragically misrepresenting yourself.

    How do you align your libertarianism with your stances on LGBT people? Personally I find libertarianism dangerous for two reasons:

    1) It is usually just a cover-word for "there should be no wealth redictribution".

    2) It usually contains zero provision for how one person's liberty encroaches on another's - e.g. freedom to pollute.

  5. #280
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    Faetal, why do I have a feeling that you are still wondering why British Leyland is gone?

  6. #281
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    No idea bjack - that sounds like your issue.

  7. #282
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    Nope, I know very well why the entire British car industry (except for Morgan, TVR, and a few tiny others) died. Stagnation due to Socialism and terrible planning. Free markets tend to lead to a better life for most, but not all. Planned economies tend to provide equal misery for all except a tiny ruling few. My objection to Progressives (aka Socialists) is they seem to have blinders on and will not look at the evidence of failure over the last 100 years.

    But back to Trump. He is the best Democrat running as a Republican in a long time. Not in style, but in actions he seems to be a clone of Bill Clinton. He is a “hope and change” for 2016. Say what is popular today and flip the next. He has just enough of the old fashion Democrat in him to possibly pull off a win. I am not really for him, but not particularly against him either. I wish he would think more before speaking off the cuff. It is not his strong suit. He sometimes comes off as a drunken fool to me... And his understanding of international banking leaves a lot to be desired.

  8. #283
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    For your two statements begging the question, evidence them or expect them to be ignored. As for your blanket "progressives aka socialists" spiel, kindly re-read what I wrote above and maybe try to add some nuance to your discussing style, rather than wasting people's time. There is zero point in debating with someone who relies on binary constructs of something as complex as the political and economic views of society to make their point.

    Either up your game or find someone else to talk to who doesn't mind trading empty generalisations - I'm done with it.

  9. #284
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Prince, wrote a romantic ballad about Donald Trump...called, "Donald Trump (black version)":





    Donald Trump (Black Version) ~ Prince

    Honey baby, you truly know it. You truly know it.
    You look good. Tryin' your best to show it.
    If I were you, I would. True love and affection.
    These are nice, so nice but when a money man walks in the room, girl, you look more than twice.
    You look once, you look twice. Can I rap to you sugar tonight?

    (chorus)
    Donald Trump (black version), maybe that's what you need.
    A man that fulfills your every wish, your every dream.
    Donald Trump (black version), come on take a chance.
    A 1990's love affair, the real romance.

    Honey baby, you are the finest. I have seen.
    And your disposition's so kind you're never mean.
    Girl, you're to good to be true. But last night when you were asleep, you slipped big time.
    I heard you. You said your favorite color was green.
    So guess what?

    (repeat chorus)

    Now look here baby. I ain't tryin' to be 90 proof.
    But a super strong woman. She needs a super strong dude.

    Sweet words of love are helpful.
    But what goes a lot farther than that?
    A hundred dollar dinner at Adriano's?
    A brand new coat or a brand new hat?
    Yes, I can do this!

    ... Donald Trump (black version), maybe that's what you need.
    Come on, come on take a chance.
    .... A man that fulfills your every wish, your every dream.
    I can fill your every dream, baby.
    .... Donald Trump (black version), come on take a chance.
    You and me, baby... and me!
    .... A 1990's love affair.
    So many things.
    ... The real romance.
    So many things.

    .... Diamonds and pearls.
    I wanna buy you things.
    .... (Oooooh, I can hear you talkin' to me baby)
    .... Maybe that's what you need.
    'cause I want all the other girls to bug.
    .... A man that fulfills your every wish.
    My name is Morris, baby.
    .... Your every dream.
    And I dig you. And when I dig somebody.
    .... Donald Trump (black version).
    They stay dug.
    .... Come on take a chance.
    They stay dug baby.
    .... A 1990's love affair, the real romance.

    I..., I..., I..., I got what you need baby.
    Come on baby, come on take a chance.
    Last edited by Vae; 23rd Apr 2016 at 16:46.

  10. #285
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    Faetal, you mean to tell me that they do not teach about the failures of British Socialism in schools in the UK? For shame. Simply go to YouTube and search for the failure of the British car industry. Of course many of the posts will be Clarkson’s work, and I know how much you hate him... There are some others that are fascinating though.

    https://youtu.be/Hi1FhI_YGyg

    It is a subject that is dear to my heart. I love old Rovers (50s and 60s), pre-Leyland Jags, Morris, MG, Humber, etc. The UK used to make some of the best cars in the world... and then it didn't. Yes, the topic is more complex than just Socialist economics, but this is a chat site and I am trying not to write tomes.

    Oh, and Progressives in the USA call themselves "Democratic Socialists". Their agenda is not far removed from your typical redistributionist Robin Hood. Not saying our current American crony capitalist system is any better, really. As a semi-Libertarian (pretty much a strict Constitutionalist) I find all current parties in power to be corrupt nasty shit bags.

  11. #286
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Threshold not crossed. Chat with someone else.
    Even Tony has stopped referring to YouTube links which prop up his existing views as evidence of anything.

  12. #287
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    My other half and I are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, hence (old fashioned word so maybe shouldn't use it) we never discuss politics. But even he doesn't think socialism was responsible for the downfall of British Leyland. And if he could blame it for anything, he would.

  13. #288
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    While it is prevalent in today’s America too, Socialism is the grand promoter of the Peter Principle (and the Peter Pyramid). Leyland died because of stupidity at all levels. And greed. Very human traits.

    I just got through watching a bit about the “Golden Dawn” in Greece. Not surprising in the least. The difference between Greek fascism and American fascism is who the targets are. In America, it is straight white men and our history. A spotted history at that, with many parts that are not to be celebrated. Nevertheless, the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and demonize a huge part of the USA. That is part of what Trump is about when he says, “It will be great!” Hillary tries to do the same and is shouted down by Bernie supporters (aka Progressive Socialists that want free everything and think they should be paid $100K a year just for showing up at work...)

    But Nickie, I really do dig your comment. I while ago I typed that I would be quiet for a time. I will go back to that now. Frankly, I am tired myself...

  14. #289
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by bjack
    and is shouted down by Bernie supporters (aka Progressive Socialists that want free everything and think they should be paid $100K a year just for showing up at work...)
    I think the biggest problem with todays politics is that everyone is too busy calling everyone else an overly entitled twit to see what's actually going on in front of them.

  15. #290
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    And Renzatic, you are my hero of this day. A short sentence and all that needs to be said. I love that! Excellent.

  16. #291
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Cool! Okay, so now that I've got the one-liner out of the way, I'll make a long post explaining what I believe to be the status of our current political situation. I'll start this off by offering my take on each of our current candidates. Starting with...

    Bernie Sanders.

    I see him as more in line with the likes of FDR or Eisenhower. He's more socially liberal than either, but his government policies are basically extensions of theirs. The saddest thing is that everyone, including himself, is working under the rather mistaken belief that he's some sorta socialist. If you're going by the old Marxist definition of the word, he's anything but. Even by the modern definition of the word, which is the slightly more marketable term for a welfare statist, he only just qualifies. Compared to the current standard bearers over in Europe, he's fairly centrist.

    To me, Sanders is a modern taken on a New Dealer. A Rockerfeller Republican. For this reason, he's my preferred candidate.

    Donald Trump

    Let's be honest here. None of us really know what he stands for, or where he's positioned on the political spectrum. He is the ultimate projection candidate. Yeah, he's played that nativist card to the hilt, and it's primarily for this reason that he's managed to sway the disenfranchised working class Republican vote, and probably a good number of blue dog Democrats as well. Though playing that particular populist card, along with his generally unprofessional, boorish demeanor, has earned him the ire of the always loud, ever outspoken progressive Democrats. That other equally loud, ever outspoken branch of our political machine, the Religious Right, have for reasons entirely unknown decided to fall in lockstep behind him.

    But what are his social and political policies? Is he a conservative? Most definitely not. Let's not forget that it wasn't too long ago that he was a Democrat. When it comes to social issues, he becomes strangely politic and mealy mouthed, giving, at best, snappy non-answers and deft deflections. Let's take his "doctors who perform illegal abortions should be punished" soundbite as an example. It managed to enrage his detractors, and spur on his supporters to ridiculous extremes. BUT IT MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! It says zilch about his opinion regarding the current legality of abortion as an institution in and of itself. Makes no arguments pro or con on the subject. It's an empty tautology dressed as a stance. Of course doctors who perform illegal abortions should be punished. THEY'RE ILLEGAL ABORTIONS! As for the rest of the great social issues of the day, he has proven himself in the past to be rather left leaning, and hasn't actually done anything to contradict any of his previous statements now.

    What about his policy? On those rare occasions when he slips up, and mentions his agenda for the presidency, he shows himself to be an uncomfortable mix of the economic left and right. For instance, healthcare. We won't get single payer through Trump, and he's stated that he intends on repealing Obamacare. The Republicans love him for this. Though he's also gone on record stating that he intends on tearing down the government protection built around our large insurance companies, forcing them to compete, which will hopefully drive down prices through a renewed state of fierce competition in a now more open market. The Republicans loathe him for this. The rest of his policies follow a similar pattern.

    I don't like Trump because, quite frankly, I don't know what he really is. I'd sum him up as a loudmouth demagogue who seems to harbor secret moderate right politics while preaching to the extremes for easy votes.

    Hillary Clinton

    Well, if you liked all our presidents from Reagan on, you'll like Hillary, since she's more of the same. I don't particularly like her, since she strikes me as more than a little self serving, a little too grossly pandering to anyone who'll throw money her way, and is far from being what we need.

    That said, I also don't think she's the shrill, crazed harridan some people make her out to be. She's smart. She's experienced. She knows what she's doing. She is the Safety Option. The choice to hold onto our long since proven to be rather dysfunctional status quo for another 4-8 years.

    Likely to be our next president, though in a better world...

    Ted Cruz

    Of all our candidates, he's the only one I consider to be truly dangerous on all levels. Loathed by his peers, supports borderline insane politics, and has the charisma of a shark fist fucking a baby seal. Maybe I'm being a little overly judgmental, but the man strikes me as a flat out psychopath.

    Ted Cruz actually makes me thankful for Donald Trump.

    John Kasich

    I don't agree with his politics at all, but he's really is the only candidate running on both sides of the aisle that has something of the oldschool statesmen style about him. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a Kasich presidency. Not because I like him, but because he isn't crazy.

    He's the Hillary of the Right to me. The Safety Choice.

    But because he isn't crazy, he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican primary.

    So there.

  17. #292
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    That's a good summary. But to me, Trump and Clinton are two sides of the same coin. Both are too authoritarian, too hawkish, lie to our face, and represent the plutocracy. I want someone who is going to cut the legs off the surveillance state, step back a bit from being the world police, and address terrorism in proportion to the relatively minor threat that it is. I also want someone who is going to stop the wave of corporate consolidation that seems to turn every industry into an uncompetitive near-monopoly, reform health care in a way that has a hope of reducing cost, and generally try to help the whole country dig out of debt.

  18. #293
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Does anyone get the impression that Trump isn't actually interested in politics other than as another status symbol for his trophy cabinet? That maybe he's just picked a demographic who is very gullible and easy to get riled to up his chances of getting to say he was president?

  19. #294
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Lockdown... if only
    I dunno, making a serious run for POTUS requires an immense amount of effort and sacrifice. And the job itself is grueling, frustrating, and not very rewarding as far as I can tell. It's hard to imagine putting yourself through this unless you REALLY want the job. I'll bet he really thinks he can do better than the clowns down in Washington D.C.

  20. #295
    I'd bet on it. Trump remind me of some of my banker friends: they're enormously overconfident. Trump is enough of an arrogant asshole that he might actually believe he's a savior.


    Regarding my comments way back in the thread about this being a GLOBAL contagion of anti-establishment and isolationist sentiment, one of our exchange students from Vienna posted this. It corroborates:

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...ial-elections/


    Now, Austria’s Freedom Party, an anti-Europe and anti-immigration far-right political party, won more than a third of the vote in the presidential election on Sunday. This should be no surprise. Norbert Hofer will now face an independent in next month’s run-off. We are witnessing the collapse of Austria’s two-party system since neither will make the cut for the first time. The national election is turning very anti-immigration with a campaign that focuses on the impact of the crisis that was created after approximately 100,000 asylum seekers poured into the country beginning last summer.

  21. #296
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    He's extremely self-insecure so that he sublimates everything into an endless impulsive stream of self-affirmations to perpetually shelter himself from facing a second of self doubt, most of all in public view. Everything is about explicitly orchestrating shows of power and overthrowing weakness. (The thing to google is Freudian defense mechanism). He's so transparent about it, it's a wonder he could keep it up without him or his audience being conscious of him doing it so transparently, over and over and over, to the point of distraction.

    The point is the impulse is so overwhelming it has to come out. It couldn't come out so strongly without the extreme sublimation. He's like my gay friend that has the most cartoonishly extreme homophobia you could imagine, in public.

    Edit: Quick way to find these people --> beauty pageants. It's like a crack den for them. Trump's & my gay homophobic freind's obsession with beauty pageants surprises me about zero-percent. (The etiquette instructor in Borat is another example of this type.) What's more surprising is the forum threads out there where people are bewildered about and trying to figure out the certain phrases or obsessions like that that Trump displays. It's sublimation/defense mechanism 101 stuff. They should be predicting it before even hearing about it. And no surprise that those who are compelled to sublimate themselves are always the most bewildered to be confronted by it.
    Last edited by demagogue; 26th Apr 2016 at 01:53.

  22. #297
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Points taken, but I just hear the things he says and they're so cartoonishly pandering that they don't seem like they could come from any actual honest opinions. Just feels like theatre.

  23. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    Maybe use a little more precision and you won't come across so one-dimensional. I actually take zero issue with any of that - if those are your actual thoughts, then you've been tragically misrepresenting yourself.

    How do you align your libertarianism with your stances on LGBT people? Personally I find libertarianism dangerous for two reasons:

    1) It is usually just a cover-word for "there should be no wealth redictribution".

    2) It usually contains zero provision for how one person's liberty encroaches on another's - e.g. freedom to pollute.
    1)
    First off, you don't even comprehend my "stances on LGBT people. I am vehemently opposed to using LGBT advocacy as an excuse to impair on other people's rights (especially free speech). Other than that I don't care on a personal level and I believe that they should have completely equal rights under the law...and for that matter I believe that law should be blind with regards to any "isms" that apply to people.

    This MIGHT have something to do with me having spent years working in living in environments which have far more authentic "diversity" than most first world, white collar urban white people would ever be able to handle. Ever worked in a position where your immediate report is a mexican guy who grew up in the bad side of LA, your best buddy is an ex gang-banger from Philly, and your cross border peers aren't even from the same continent.....all in charge of a group with 40 people of extremely diverse backgrounds, sexualities, and demographics? Didn't think so.


    2)
    "Usually" isn't much of an argument Number 3-C here applies. If you want me to answer a specific philosophical question then it's much easier for me to discuss if you clearly state exactly what you believe it is and why you think it's a problem.

    In your specific example that's fairly clear. In theory the legal concept of direct liability would apply fully.

    What you're really getting at ("Libertarians would just let everyone pollute and pillage!!") isn't as clear cut as you imagine: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ho...e-environment/


    )3
    Regarding "transfer of wealth", You're buying into the Republican lie that the money is redistributed to (lazy) poor people Look at where that transferred wealth actually goes, which is primarily to those with incestuous government relationships. For example the US defense budget alone dwarfs the amount spent on social welfare programs. Add in the other crony-capitalist schemes and the picture becomes even more skewed.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 28th Apr 2016 at 23:26.

  24. #299
    Also I'm curious if anyone say the foreign policy speech.


    It's one of the few that's left me legitimately torn. Trump came across as fairly unlikeable, but he's also advocating a non-interventionist US foreign policy.....which is one of the best things that could happen for the world since the US tends to destabilize anywhere it gets involved.

    I don't like Trump because, quite frankly, I don't know what he really is. I'd sum him up as a loudmouth demagogue who seems to harbor secret moderate right politics while preaching to the extremes for easy votes.
    Look up his old interviews and speeches all the way back to the early 90's, or skim his old books.

    It's both simple and hard to understand. Hard to understand because his way of thinking doesn't fit into conventional "left/right" politics. However it's easy to sum up: he's entirely pragmatic. Trump doesn't give a crap about the social issues that define American politics and only cares about issues that impact the country's economic health and power in the world.

    There's been a number of key tells. Look closely at how Cruz addresses rural "right-wing" voters vs. how Trump does. Cruz's ads in my state consisted almost entirely of bragging about his Bible-thumping credentials, and Cruz's campaign speeches closely resemble the diction of your typical mega-church pasture. Trumps attempts to do so have been pitifully inept.

    From one thing that popped up on my feed:

    Trump’s blunder was believing that pro life activists mean these kinds of statements. If they really believed abortion was murder, a woman who put a hit out on her unborn child would merit the same punishment as any murder-for-hire conspiracy. After all, she is entrusted by God to protect this child, and legally she is the only one who can decide to kill it. What Trump didn’t understand until after the interview is these kinds of cartoonish demonstrations are not to be taken seriously.

    The pile on from the pro life leaders was a histrionic objection to Trump implying that a woman who kills her unborn child bears some culpability for the child’s death. The official pro life position states that women who have abortions are merely victims.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 28th Apr 2016 at 23:19.

  25. #300
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Ok, where to start.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    1)
    First off, you don't even comprehend my "stances on LGBT people.
    Never said I did, but the way you comport yourself is all I have to go on. I don't think every discussion necessarily begins with the assumption that we're BFFs or mind-readers. Finding out is half of the point.

    I am vehemently opposed to using LGBT advocacy as an excuse to impair on other people's rights (especially free speech). Other than that I don't care on a personal level and I believe that they should have completely equal rights under the law...and for that matter I believe that law should be blind with regards to any "isms" that apply to people.
    This is very vague. Which impairment of free speech are we talking about?

    This MIGHT have something to do with me having spent years working in living in environments which have far more authentic "diversity" than most first world, white collar urban white people would ever be able to handle. Ever worked in a position where your immediate report is a mexican guy who grew up in the bad side of LA, your best buddy is an ex gang-banger from Philly, and your cross border peers aren't even from the same continent.....all in charge of a group with 40 people of extremely diverse backgrounds, sexualities, and demographics? Didn't think so.
    No, I've never worked in those exact circumstances, but there's no logic which says that is the only way to understand how diversity works. In fact, if you think that there's only one way to understand diversity, the irony is staggering. Since I've worked in research, finance, IT and retail for years, I've worked with a huge range of people from a every ethnic background imaginable and economic background possible. I've worked with the disabled, I've taught underprivileged kids and helped them get into university. It's kind of surreal that you think your Diversity CV is somehow so rare as to be a basis to assume no one else can see what you see. All part of your weird narcissism I guess.

    2)
    "Usually" isn't much of an argument Number 3-C here applies. If you want me to answer a specific philosophical question then it's much easier for me to discuss if you clearly state exactly what you believe it is and why you think it's a problem.
    I don't want you to answer anything - the two points I made were statements, not made to anyone in particular. If we're talking about dishonest debate tactics though, your assumption that I've only worked around white European men above is a shining example.

    In your specific example that's fairly clear. In theory the legal concept of direct liability would apply fully.

    What you're really getting at ("Libertarians would just let everyone pollute and pillage!!") isn't as clear cut as you imagine: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/ho...e-environment/
    That article is a hilariously biased opinion piece from a website rabid about libertarianism I take back what I said earlier about you no longer just linking to things which prop up your existing views. It does caveat itself by specifying only private property however, which is amusing in terms of how much it invalidates itself as being an argument against general environmental pollution. Who owns the sea?

    Why not just repeatedly link to a webpage with the words "I agree with Tony" in huge red letters and save a bit of googling? It's just as robust an argument. One of the key features of Libertarianism is de-regulation. The idea that the market will take care of the environment is fallacious because the environment is able to buffer a lot of changes before reaching a critical point.

    )3
    Regarding "transfer of wealth", You're buying into the Republican lie that the money is redistributed to (lazy) poor people Look at where that transferred wealth actually goes, which is primarily to those with incestuous government relationships. For example the US defense budget alone dwarfs the amount spent on social welfare programs. Add in the other crony-capitalist schemes and the picture becomes even more skewed.
    No, I'm not - I never mentioned anything about where I think it is going. I know full well that the largest sinks for public money are business subsidises and contracting / purchasing from private entities (military industry being a huge one). I know Libertarians who think of taxation as theft and of socialism as being the same thing as the third Reich (as in, complete overlap). The Libertarian dogma is that any regulation on wealth accumulation is a cap on liberty, whereas using that wealth to create or contribute to a system which crushes those at the bottom of it is some kind of Malthusian social refinement process. Obviously there are many different ways to interpret Libertarianism and I'm sure there are a bunch of No True Scotsman arguments impending. It's probably pointless to discuss because I doubt you are going to change your mind based on anything I say and I'm still unlikely to take partisan opinion-pieces or YouTube videos as "evidence" of anything other than someone having said something once.

    Regarding "lazy poor people", I'm actually in favour of the existence of such a thing, since there are demonstrably fewer jobs than there are working age people and this is only going to get worse with consolidation and streamlining of large multinationals buying everything and centralising operations. In addition, technology is improving to the extent where there are fewer people needed for a wide range of jobs from retail assistants to manufactures. Rather than treat the disenfranchised as the "surplus population", giving them a universal basic income will re-purpose them as a de facto economic stimulator, since by and large, people who don't have a lot of excess money tend to spend all of it in the area where they live. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that the most important driver of an economy is the movement of money ie the momentum generated by spending. Because of marginal propensity to consume, 10 people with $10,000 per year will spend more than 1 person with $100,000 per year. The problem this poses for the oligarchs of course is that the spending in unpredictable, so while it would be a great stimulator of demand-oriented success, it would not allow for targeted investment to deliver a predicted return, whereas subsidy of a specific industry or entity can be harnessed to make "fixed gambles". But that's a whole other topic.
    Last edited by faetal; 29th Apr 2016 at 04:39.

Page 12 of 546 FirstFirst ... 27891011121314151617222732374247525762112262512 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •