USA Politics

LooseCannon said:
theoretically, you're supposed to get the $250 back but no mechanism for returning funds has been created, so...

It's a shame, Vegas is a ton of fun. I'd go again if it wasn't for the whole "the American president is an enemy of the free world" thing.
Click to expand...

I always viewed Vegas as a very American thing. Never got the alure TBH. Maybe because I don't gamble.
 
Lost in a lost world said:
For a long time, it persisted under the illusion that capitalism = freedom and democracy. When, really, freedom and democracy are their own things and capitalism is just an economic system.
Click to expand...
True, though trying to insert capitalism into an authoritarian system is often an awkward fit, as we’ve clearly seen in China. If the government can quickly change the rules and pull the rug out from under companies, it makes it very difficult to plan and very risky to do business in that country. We’re seeing this on a smaller scale with Trump’s authoritarian moves within the executive branch in the U.S.

Lost in a lost world said:
I think a form of socialism (as in state guaranteed healthcare, education, measures to ensure housing affordability, worker protections against being fucked over by their employers, etc) with some free market elements around things that aren’t basic necessities, along with a democratic government can work fine.
Click to expand...
Someone needs to tally up the per capita cost of implementing that approach in the U.S. and see what it would really mean, and what would be required to cover it with tax revenue. I don’t think Americans would respond well to European-level gas prices and a 20% VAT.
 
Vaenyr said:
Communism isn't inherently authoritarian; it's an economic model.
Click to expand...
True, but once corruption sets in on a system without extensive checks and balances, the march toward authoritarianism becomes inevitable, either to impose control on a system that’s spiraling out of control, or to impose the will of the corrupt people who managed to weasel their way into decisionmaking roles.

Vaenyr said:
There's no reason why this shouldn't be scalable to larger models.
Click to expand...
Why is that, and why are there no real world examples of it succeeding at scale, then?

Vaenyr said:
Before we start with the "but human greed, corruption, yadda yadda yadda", we are already experiencing these very same things under capitalism.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s the whole point. Capitalism tends to work better because it harnesses greed for the greater good, but it requires extensive checks and balances and regulation to prevent that greed from biting the hand that feeds. Just like harnessing dangerous animals and putting them to work, you have to have and enforce strict safety protocols to avoid having your head bitten off.

Basically, any place where the profit motive acts against the wellbeing of the people, you need a regulation to keep that danger in check. But you need to temper that with risk assessment so you don’t go overboard like California frequently does.

Vaenyr said:
They use child slavery so that we can get cheap phones or chocolate.
Click to expand...
…and yet I assume you still own a phone and eat chocolate…?

Vaenyr said:
The CEOs are getting paychecks in the millions-range, while the workers are dreaming about becoming a millionaire, at the same time as they are becoming poorer and poorer.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is obscene. We should consider capping total executive compensation at 40x the total compensation of the lowest-paid employee or contractor at the company. That way they can still be paid a massive premium, but if they want more, they have to raise all the boats with them, or start to dump unrealistically cheap overseas labor.

Vaenyr said:
We are consuming resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, even though there's absolutely no reason to do that except for corporate greed.
Click to expand...
Well, there’s also the standard of living that richer countries have become accustomed to, and whose populations would be unlikely to give up willingly.
 
Jer said:
Why is that, and why are there no real world examples of it succeeding at scale, then?
Click to expand...
The Sweden (and in part others, although multiple historians claim Sweden were in many ways the most leftist of the democratic western states) of the late 1960-1970s were doing this, but in a light version and more importantly, pre internet and pre globalization (the late 70's saw the first election of a right-center coalition that started to implement european liberal policy). It was a mix of capitalism and socialism, though with some obvious flaws with authoritarian, or at least, non-capitalist overtones with few or none non-public options of core services like TV, Radio, infrastructure etc with mountains of bureaucracy and non-individualist policies. Hell, the early 80s had the Social Democrats adopt (although with the party leader and Prime Minister in an under-the-radar internal opposition) wage earner funds - though it never materialized in any meaningful way and was a contributing issue in getting the right-center elected in 1977.

Would I want to live in the 60's-70's Sweden? No, though I wouldn't mind a variation of the late 80's as I think the U.S. economic neo-libereralism influences here have gone too far (after all, Sweden has one the largest western ratios of GDP/billionaires, an ever shrinking welfare state and more and more capitalist and upper middle-class policies).
 
Last edited:
Yax said:
The Sweden (and in part others, although multiple historians claim Sweden were in many ways the most leftist of the democratic western states) of the late 1960-1970s were doing this, but in a light version
Click to expand...
Vaenyr was talking about scaling up pure communism, though.
 
Jer said:
…and yet I assume you still own a phone and eat chocolate…?
Click to expand...
we should improve society somewhat.jpg

Not intending to just dunk on you here especially because I think you and Vaenyr are actually having a discussion worth having, but I do think this jab is a bit silly. Vaenyr never said he's against phones or chocolate, just the way they are often produced under capitalism. You've pointed out a lot of fallacies on the board before so I'd hoped you'd be above a tu quoque.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Vaenyr never said he's against phones or chocolate, just the way they are often produced under capitalism.
Click to expand...
Just checking his level of commitment to his principles. It’s actually possible to get phones and chocolate that don’t fall prey to his stated concerns, but you have to pay a premium for them. I should have been more clear about that in how I worded my response, but he still had (and has) an open-ended opportunity to explain his walk vs. his talk.
 
www.rollingstone.com

Trump White House Rages Over 'South Park' Episode, Calls Show 'Fourth-Rate'

The White House is furious at "South Park" after the show's premiere lampooned Donald Trump, depicting him in bed with Satan.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

It's funny that the White House feels compelled to respond to what is said and shown in a tv show that apparently hasn't been relevant for 20 years.

It's almost as if they're desperately trying to stop people from talking about the Epstein files.
 
I think the house is pretty much gone. Perhaps the only bright light for Dems in 2024 is that they minimized house losses and it actually ended up being pretty close with a couple republicans in bluer districts hanging on. Especially with Medicaid cuts and tariff stuff really kicking in by November of next year I don’t see how republicans hold the house.

The senate is a more interesting story and just like it seems to be every year it’s tough because of the map and the GOP’s rural advantage, but doable for democrats. As long as Kemp doesn’t get in (and why would he want the job?) I think Georgia is safe for Dems. I don’t think Republicans will win Michigan in an off year with Trump as president. Maine in an off year seems doable, despite Susan Collins being a formidable candidate. She says she's running but I won't be surprised if she changes her mind, at any rate I think with the right candidate it's possible. Similarly, an open seat in North Carolina makes it much more of a possibility for Democrats, especially if that lunatic who ran for governor gets in. Roy Cooper seems like an obvious choice for the Dems here but even then I would hedge my bets in NC.

Despite all of this, if everything works out for Democrats in the above states and they pull off four victories, they're still only at 50/50 with Vance as a tie breaking vote. It would still be a massive victory and basically pumps the breaks on Trump achieving anything in congress in his last two years, but a lot has to go right for that to work out. After that you're looking at longshots like Iowa and Texas, and if Democrats are winning those the Republicans might want to seriously look at getting on board with impeaching Trump because that means he seriously fucked up.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Been a couple days, so I feel like it’s time to remember that Trump is definitely in the Epstein files for being a rapist pedo.
Click to expand...
Way to go Trump voters (and non-American Trump supporters who helped spread the propaganda)! Anyone who votes Republican supports the coverup and protection of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and any of the pedos and rapists who may be in the Epstein files. I knew a lot of them were nazis but this is a new extreme.
 
Man, imagine if Clinton went down and took Trump with him. Two presidents serving 25-30 years apart implicated in the same pedophile ring would be a wild moment for the history books even for today's wacky standards.
 
They can have Clinton if they take Trump with him.

Actually, scratch that, they can just have Bill, I don't give a shit what happens to Bill Clinton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top