Previously 'The big ol' 2020 debate', turned Baruch's personal waste bin.

Started by Mr.Obvious, January 27, 2020, 06:37:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu


Really been impressed with the Green's candidate on everything I've seen.

I might take trdsf's advice and vote for him, since it's really more about giving the Green's a chance at winning local elections rather than a serious bid for the presidency.

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Baruch

Libertarian party, not working toward local elections (except in Alaska) is what has kept them off the radar.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

Quote from: Baruch on April 28, 2020, 10:16:39 PM
Libertarian party, not working toward local elections (except in Alaska) is what has kept them off the radar.

I haven't slept alot... are you saying the libertarian party + not working towards local kept the Greens off the radar or that the Libertarian party hasn't worked towards local elections?
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hydra009

#513


Me:  Well, let's just stick to stuff we know works from other countries currently doing it.

Centrists:  Sounds insanely and totally radical.  Also, might be apocalyptic.

Me:  ???

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Shiranu on April 28, 2020, 05:02:53 PM
This video actually criticizes leftists like Bernie and AOC using some very lose definitions and sketchy logic, but starting around 7:40 Pool absolutely sums up my issue with the American system of running things better than anyone else I have seen by explaining how a progressive tax tier would help.

All systems are destined to fail as power creeps into the hands of the few rather than the many, but what we can try to do is slow down that failure for as long as possible. Unfortunately that's not happening, and in truth we are currently going in a direction that expedites the failure of the system.



I'm generally on the same page as Tim Pool and I become frustrated when people like Rogan start framing the problem in a capitalist/socialist dichotomy. Rogan considers universal healthcare "socialism" but from my perspective healthcare should have never been the responsibility of corporations any more than law enforcement, national defense or education. I don't think the purpose of government should be to ensure economic equity but to maximize the freedom of individuals. Part of the responsibility of government is to put restrictions on corporations and wealthy individuals so they can't rig the system in their favor, exploit people or destroy the environment. I agree with progressive taxation but don't have a problem with people being rich, I don't agree with AOC that "every billionaire is a policy failure." I have a problem with how billionaires and corporations can influence government policy and the justice system for their own interests. The blame doesn't entirely lie with the wealthy individual or corporation but with a government that allows these entities to get away with self-serving actions. A libertarian will disagree and it may sound paradoxical but I believe to maximize the freedom of individuals, the government needs to set limits. For example, the wealthy have far too much power to influence elections (e.g. Bloomberg). A roadblock would to amend the Constitution to limit campaign spending or enact something like Andrew Yang's Democracy Dollars.

Hydra009

#515
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 29, 2020, 08:14:15 AMI agree with progressive taxation but don't have a problem with people being rich, I don't agree with AOC that "every billionaire is a policy failure." I have a problem with how billionaires and corporations can influence government policy and the justice system for their own interests.
Imho, AOC probably fully agrees with that as well as nearly everyone in the "eat the rich" camp.  It's not like we have it out for wealthy people on an individual basis - it's that being rich enough to buy senators and judges - being rich enough to buy policy - is far too much power for individuals to have.  We can't expect people to always be benevolent with unchecked power - there's simply too much temptation to use it selfishly.

Also, we have to ask ourselves how much inequality we're willing to tolerate as a society.  I consider myself pretty solidly on the left, and frankly, I would tolerate quite a bit.  Not everyone has the same education, ability, and opportunity, so of course some people are going to be richer than others.  Some people are going to have nice houses and some people are going to have much more modest houses.  That's fine.  What is not fine is people having multiple mansions and yachts and private jets while others die in the street.  That's a cruel and horrific system.  And I think that if you sit down with most people and show them the true extent of the situation, most people will acknowledge that there's a problem.

Baruch

Quote from: Shiranu on April 28, 2020, 10:29:24 PM
I haven't slept alot... are you saying the libertarian party + not working towards local kept the Greens off the radar or that the Libertarian party hasn't worked towards local elections?

Used them as an negative example, to reinforce your point regarding competing in local elections.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#517
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 29, 2020, 01:43:48 AM


Me:  Well, let's just stick to stuff we know works from other countries currently doing it.

Centrists:  Sounds insanely and totally radical.  Also, might be apocalyptic.

Me:  ???

Chinese Communism works.  Thanks Emperor Xi ;-)  So when we all become Chinese communists, who will remain to buy our cheap shit?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on April 29, 2020, 09:48:07 AM
Imho, AOC probably fully agrees with that as well as nearly everyone in the "eat the rich" camp.  It's not like we have it out for wealthy people on an individual basis - it's that being rich enough to buy senators and judges - being rich enough to buy policy - is far too much power for individuals to have.  We can't expect people to always be benevolent with unchecked power - there's simply too much temptation to use it selfishly.

Also, we have to ask ourselves how much inequality we're willing to tolerate as a society.  I consider myself pretty solidly on the left, and frankly, I would tolerate quite a bit.  Not everyone has the same education, ability, and opportunity, so of course some people are going to be richer than others.  Some people are going to have nice houses and some people are going to have much more modest houses.  That's fine.  What is not fine is people having multiple mansions and yachts and private jets while others die in the street.  That's a cruel and horrific system.  And I think that if you sit down with most people and show them the true extent of the situation, most people will acknowledge that there's a problem.

This is why, letting people in the 3rd world, see a fictional US/Europe on TV, was suicide on our part.  Per Somalis you are middle class, so you are what's for dinner.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Shiranu

QuoteI agree with progressive taxation but don't have a problem with people being rich, I don't agree with AOC that "every billionaire is a policy failure."

I agreed with everything else you said, but I will respond to this...

I personally think a billionaire is an example of policy failure, because there is literally no way you can become a billionaire without major exploitation of people beneath you. A little "exploitation" is a necessity for any business, that's just the nature of business... but when an individual is making that type of money, the only way that is possible is by exploiting their workers, exploiting their clients and exploiting flaws in paying your due share as well as often times finding foreign countries to use slave labour.

Not only that, but when individuals have more wealth than small nations... they have to therefor have a disproportionate amount of power in their society.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Shiranu on April 29, 2020, 12:18:52 PM
I personally think a billionaire is an example of policy failure, because there is literally no way you can become a billionaire without major exploitation of people beneath you. A little "exploitation" is a necessity for any business, that's just the nature of business... but when an individual is making that type of money, the only way that is possible is by exploiting their workers, exploiting their clients and exploiting flaws in paying your due share as well as often times finding foreign countries to use slave labour.

I guess it depends on what is considered exploitation. J.K. Rowling's net worth is $1 billion. Did she get that by exploiting people? I don't know.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 29, 2020, 12:18:52 PM
Not only that, but when individuals have more wealth than small nations... they have to therefor have a disproportionate amount of power in their society.

Agreed. I think that is why governments need to limit the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations. The Walton family has clearly been allowed to game the system to the detriment of almost all involved. The way state governments and municipalities were openly bribing Amazon to get their second headquarters is another example of the problem. We need a government that is going to protect its citizens but the people we have in office are prime offenders.

Hydra009

Quote from: Shiranu on April 29, 2020, 12:18:52 PMNot only that, but when individuals have more wealth than small nations... they have to therefor have a disproportionate amount of power in their society.
Right.  Combined with the policy that money = speech (two guesses for who lobbied for that) and you have a disproportionate squared influence, seriously undermining our (ostensible) previous policy of "one man, one vote".

Baruch

#522
Quote from: Shiranu on April 29, 2020, 12:18:52 PM
I agreed with everything else you said, but I will respond to this...

I personally think a billionaire is an example of policy failure, because there is literally no way you can become a billionaire without major exploitation of people beneath you. A little "exploitation" is a necessity for any business, that's just the nature of business... but when an individual is making that type of money, the only way that is possible is by exploiting their workers, exploiting their clients and exploiting flaws in paying your due share as well as often times finding foreign countries to use slave labour.

Not only that, but when individuals have more wealth than small nations... they have to therefor have a disproportionate amount of power in their society.

Billionaires aren't natural.  They are the product of democratic government approved oligopoly and monopoly, and corrupt politicians on the take.  Of course such private power, a modern equivalent of the old aristocracy, is corrupt as shit.  The Rothschilds, from 1694 founding of the Bank of England (first central bank) and their fellow travelers in the (King William and Queen Mary) Dutch takeover of the British Empire in 1688 (anti-Catholic Glorious Revolution) ... have continued in power, with increasing power, and spreading central banks all over the world, which owe their prosperity to the Bank of England.  Only enemies of GB, like Russia, India, Iran and China have stayed out.  See Bank of the United States (twice) and the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, as a partner of the Bank of England, to fund the anticipated WW I.  As it was, the Bank of England nearly went bankrupt over WW I.  Without US funding and support, the British Empire would have had to drop out of WW I, in 1917 at the latest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz4jbEZzlc

If you don't take the long view, and the world-wide view, then you are lost in the trees.

The Panic of 1908 (which speculators profited from, just like in 2008) was underwritten by J P Morgan.  As the country got bigger, it was clear that a trust/combine of billionaires would be necessary to underwrite the nation's economy.  With anti-trust action by the Federal Government, you couldn't rely on John D Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie for example, to control industry, as J P Morgan controlled finance.  So a Trust was formed to counter anti-Trust, and politicians like Taft and Wilson were bought, and Teddy Roosevelt defeated.  Today even bigger swings in the economy occur, for example the self inflicted wound of pandemic shutdown (but not Sweden).  The Fed, rather than a cabal of billionaires, provide the insurance for the financial and banking industry.  Mostly as liquidity, not as cash.  And liquidity not only keeps the money velocity up, but also can be used as collateral for other loans.  Of course the Bank of England and the Fed are private corporations, not government agencies.  So the billionaires still control, but indirectly.  Trump is a threat because he is a rogue elephant property developer.  He has benefited from modern finance, but he doesn't sit in the secret society meetings like the Bilderbergers, Davos etc.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#523
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 29, 2020, 01:06:15 PM
Right.  Combined with the policy that money = speech (two guesses for who lobbied for that) and you have a disproportionate squared influence, seriously undermining our (ostensible) previous policy of "one man, one vote".

Government policies always have ironic names, even SCOTUS decisions.  That one was "Citizen's United" ... it can be overturned by Congress, but Congress is completely corrupt.  J K Rowling was assisted because her early books were required reading in all schools.  Who runs schools?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#524
Hillary endorses Biden ... no surprised ... she is a monster like Biden.

Stacey Abrams endorses Biden ... surprised!  Seems all Dem women will fuck anyone to be VP ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.