Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 348

On January 16 2024 10:25 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On January 15 2024 22:25 Baalim wrote:   On January 13 2024 05:19 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 13 2024 01:23 Baalim wrote: I think you formated your post wrong with the quote tags. lol @ the 100kmh autobahn speed limit, absolutely god awful approach, how about not closing down all the nuclear plants? but I've talked ad naseum about the way to go regarding energy production, all these draconian degrowing ideas are retarded. I know you dont support Stalin, but you were the one saying neolilberals are watered down anarcho capitalist so as I said then what you believe is watered down soviet communism, can't have it both ways. What fake quotes? All those countries while still had restrictions they were among the freest economies in the world how did they fare compared to more restricted ones? and are now only surpassed in free trade by countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, I think I see a pattern here... also the country with the freest trade in latinamérica is Chile, wich happens to also be the richest country in latinamerica, funny how that works Taiwan and Singapore are not examples in your favour lol. The research on the east Asian miracle is the opposite. Hong Kong is kind of an outlier of a nation and its pretty hard to judge. If you think curbing a significant amount of emissions by driving less than 100kmh is draconian then that's childish. Most countries have that kind of speed limit and the cost to peoples every day lives is miniscule compared to the environmental impact. They are pretty authoritarian for sure but they are examples of the prosperity brought through free markets. Yes they are draconian, paternalistic and minimum common denominator laws, that aren't there for the environment but for safety (Yes in some cases to save oil during war time) and the fact that they've remained virtually unchanged despise cars being vastly safer now at higher speeds shows typical state illogical overreach, also absolutely retarded way reduce CO2 production ask Germans if they rather drive at miopic grandma speed at the autobahn or they would rather not close a nuclear plant lol. Yes speed limits are mostly a safety thing, but cars becoming safer isn't a reason to skimp on them, because the goal should be to reduce traffic deaths, not to keep them at a constant rate. Like if the speed limit is 110khm and 100 people die on that road every year and then cars become safer over a 20 year period and you have the choice between a) now having 40 people die at that road but keeping it at 110 or b) still having 100 people die but now having the speed limit at 130 kmh then keeping the speed limit at 110 isn't draconican.

It's a trade off between safety and freedom, time, etc, if the limite were 10kmh not a single person would die but obviously the downside is too big, cars and roads are massively safer today than 50 years ago, this means that all the technological progress in this area was spent in safety and none of it on freedom, time etc, if we went the opposite way it would feel crazy to you that we retained a 1950s car letality but going 300kmh in school zones, yet the status quo unsurprisingly feels fine to you since you've always favored safety for freedom and to be precise more than draconian or paternalistic this is toxic maternalistic imposing safety above else.

On January 17 2024 01:17 Stroggoz wrote: I mean the point is, there such a speed limit in Germany would reduce emissions by more than the amount Uganda produces every year. At least if that eesearch was to be believed. I just gave that as one example of a clear cut policy that would have a significant effect at minimal cost. So its a far bigger effect than reducing deaths from a few crashes. That's another point that can be argued though and yes irs obviously a fallacy. There's no paternalism behind the idea since the goal is to show people the data on this and let them decide. 100km an hr is not grandma speed either. And yes some Germans are that selfish. However democracy means everyone who's effected should have a say in decisions that effect them. That means I should have some degree of influence on German policy. Most people laugh at this idea even though it follows from the definition of democracy. Most Russians should have a say in US elections because their lives are influenced by them. Totally a pro democracy view. Same for the other direction. If not elections then I has to be global governance institutions. I rarely ever meet someone thats legitimately pro democracy

reducing the speed to 100kmh is not "minimal impact" at all lol, if thats the case I'm veeeery certain that germans would rather pay for a nuclear plant so that they can drive over 100kmh, and yes 100kmh in the autobahn certanly is granda speed, I can do that in fucking reverse.


People laugh at that idea because its a terrible idea, I assume with "democracy" you mean some kind of direct world wide voting wich can dictate policy in any country, yeah world vote on Taiwans sovereignity, what could go wrong? World vote on China shutting down its carbon energy plans, what could go wrong? LMAO... come on man, that is some half assed idea from a 16yo smoking weed.

Bad faith take. I said influence on elections or international agreements. Not your imagined scenarios. It has to be worked out through figureitoutism. These ideas are standard ideas from liberals such as kant and bertrand russell. Both smoked tobacco not weed. Sixteen year old weed smokers can have respectable ideas as well tho

Whether or not I'm advocating this, it follows by definition that you can't have democracy without that. International governance is a thing but it's currently not democratic.

On January 18 2024 08:37 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 16 2024 10:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On January 15 2024 22:25 Baalim wrote:   On January 13 2024 05:19 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 13 2024 01:23 Baalim wrote: I think you formated your post wrong with the quote tags. lol @ the 100kmh autobahn speed limit, absolutely god awful approach, how about not closing down all the nuclear plants? but I've talked ad naseum about the way to go regarding energy production, all these draconian degrowing ideas are retarded. I know you dont support Stalin, but you were the one saying neolilberals are watered down anarcho capitalist so as I said then what you believe is watered down soviet communism, can't have it both ways. What fake quotes? All those countries while still had restrictions they were among the freest economies in the world how did they fare compared to more restricted ones? and are now only surpassed in free trade by countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, I think I see a pattern here... also the country with the freest trade in latinamérica is Chile, wich happens to also be the richest country in latinamerica, funny how that works Taiwan and Singapore are not examples in your favour lol. The research on the east Asian miracle is the opposite. Hong Kong is kind of an outlier of a nation and its pretty hard to judge. If you think curbing a significant amount of emissions by driving less than 100kmh is draconian then that's childish. Most countries have that kind of speed limit and the cost to peoples every day lives is miniscule compared to the environmental impact. They are pretty authoritarian for sure but they are examples of the prosperity brought through free markets. Yes they are draconian, paternalistic and minimum common denominator laws, that aren't there for the environment but for safety (Yes in some cases to save oil during war time) and the fact that they've remained virtually unchanged despise cars being vastly safer now at higher speeds shows typical state illogical overreach, also absolutely retarded way reduce CO2 production ask Germans if they rather drive at miopic grandma speed at the autobahn or they would rather not close a nuclear plant lol. Yes speed limits are mostly a safety thing, but cars becoming safer isn't a reason to skimp on them, because the goal should be to reduce traffic deaths, not to keep them at a constant rate. Like if the speed limit is 110khm and 100 people die on that road every year and then cars become safer over a 20 year period and you have the choice between a) now having 40 people die at that road but keeping it at 110 or b) still having 100 people die but now having the speed limit at 130 kmh then keeping the speed limit at 110 isn't draconican. It's a trade off between safety and freedom, time, etc, if the limite were 10kmh not a single person would die but obviously the downside is too big, cars and roads are massively safer today than 50 years ago, this means that all the technological progress in this area was spent in safety and none of it on freedom, time etc, if we went the opposite way it would feel crazy to you that we retained a 1950s car letality but going 300kmh in school zones, yet the status quo unsurprisingly feels fine to you since you've always favored safety for freedom and to be precise more than draconian or paternalistic this is toxic maternalistic imposing safety above else.

It's not paternalistic if the public votes for it. It's an idea that the public can be informed on. It's paternalistic to prevent the public from knowing how many emissions it causes. You seem to be assuming that literally any policy proposal implemented by a government is paternalistic whether people decide they want it or not. Your view on freedom is basically selective as well. Anyone can say that safety is a pro freedom view if they want, for whatever reasons they want.

Whats wrong with these people?

All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.

- Freidrich Nietzsche

truth always comes out in the end though might take some time but it does

Trump is still popular even after the truth came out

On February 17 2024 18:06 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is still popular even after the truth came out

You sure that is the truth?

“Many undoubtedly owe their good fortune to the circumstance that they possess a pleasing smile with which they win hearts. Yet these hearts would do better to beware and to learn from Hamlet's tables that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

On February 18 2024 00:48 lostaccount wrote: Show nested quote + On February 17 2024 18:06 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is still popular even after the truth came out You sure that is the truth?

I mean, unless the claim is that his speeches and his actions are somehow completly made up by, yes im sure...

On February 20 2024 10:13 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On February 18 2024 00:48 lostaccount wrote:   On February 17 2024 18:06 VanDerMeyde wrote: Trump is still popular even after the truth came out You sure that is the truth? I mean, unless the claim is that his speeches and his actions are somehow completly made up by, yes im sure...

Exactly could be made up only God always know the truth

If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire. - Freidrich Nietzsche

Believe n inquire is a good combo prayers

trump will win and Europe will tremble in fear when he is president again, this is gonna be popcorn

On February 09 2024 06:09 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On January 18 2024 08:37 Baalim wrote:   On January 16 2024 10:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On January 15 2024 22:25 Baalim wrote:   On January 13 2024 05:19 Stroggoz wrote:   On January 13 2024 01:23 Baalim wrote: I think you formated your post wrong with the quote tags. lol @ the 100kmh autobahn speed limit, absolutely god awful approach, how about not closing down all the nuclear plants? but I've talked ad naseum about the way to go regarding energy production, all these draconian degrowing ideas are retarded. I know you dont support Stalin, but you were the one saying neolilberals are watered down anarcho capitalist so as I said then what you believe is watered down soviet communism, can't have it both ways. What fake quotes? All those countries while still had restrictions they were among the freest economies in the world how did they fare compared to more restricted ones? and are now only surpassed in free trade by countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, I think I see a pattern here... also the country with the freest trade in latinamérica is Chile, wich happens to also be the richest country in latinamerica, funny how that works Taiwan and Singapore are not examples in your favour lol. The research on the east Asian miracle is the opposite. Hong Kong is kind of an outlier of a nation and its pretty hard to judge. If you think curbing a significant amount of emissions by driving less than 100kmh is draconian then that's childish. Most countries have that kind of speed limit and the cost to peoples every day lives is miniscule compared to the environmental impact. They are pretty authoritarian for sure but they are examples of the prosperity brought through free markets. Yes they are draconian, paternalistic and minimum common denominator laws, that aren't there for the environment but for safety (Yes in some cases to save oil during war time) and the fact that they've remained virtually unchanged despise cars being vastly safer now at higher speeds shows typical state illogical overreach, also absolutely retarded way reduce CO2 production ask Germans if they rather drive at miopic grandma speed at the autobahn or they would rather not close a nuclear plant lol. Yes speed limits are mostly a safety thing, but cars becoming safer isn't a reason to skimp on them, because the goal should be to reduce traffic deaths, not to keep them at a constant rate. Like if the speed limit is 110khm and 100 people die on that road every year and then cars become safer over a 20 year period and you have the choice between a) now having 40 people die at that road but keeping it at 110 or b) still having 100 people die but now having the speed limit at 130 kmh then keeping the speed limit at 110 isn't draconican. It's a trade off between safety and freedom, time, etc, if the limite were 10kmh not a single person would die but obviously the downside is too big, cars and roads are massively safer today than 50 years ago, this means that all the technological progress in this area was spent in safety and none of it on freedom, time etc, if we went the opposite way it would feel crazy to you that we retained a 1950s car letality but going 300kmh in school zones, yet the status quo unsurprisingly feels fine to you since you've always favored safety for freedom and to be precise more than draconian or paternalistic this is toxic maternalistic imposing safety above else. It's not paternalistic if the public votes for it. It's an idea that the public can be informed on. It's paternalistic to prevent the public from knowing how many emissions it causes. You seem to be assuming that literally any policy proposal implemented by a government is paternalistic whether people decide they want it or not. Your view on freedom is basically selective as well. Anyone can say that safety is a pro freedom view if they want, for whatever reasons they want.

by a majority or not is actually irrelevant, in many muslims countries a majority will vote for burkas and honor killings and throwing gays off rooftops, it doesnt make it any less backwards

On February 23 2024 05:58 lostaccount wrote: trump will win and Europe will tremble in fear when he is president again, this is gonna be popcorn

It seems like the most likely scenario and I think anything that isn't the democrats is good, the thing they are doing in the courts with him and Musk is nauseating the judicial system is compromised but sadly Trump won't do shit about it as he didn't do shit in his first term, he is just a corrupt cynical man and not what the US needs, but at least is not the DNC i guess.

On February 23 2024 05:58 lostaccount wrote: trump will win and Europe will tremble in fear when he is president again, this is gonna be popcorn

This time its far more serious than in 2016. Trump will probably let Putin win in Ukraine.

Anyone see the debate?

Seems like there is a bandwagon starting (or was already in place) to replace Biden.

I don't know the phases of collapse exactly but the USA is in one of them!

Was a complete disaster from Biden. With Trump being inclined to ignore the biggest issue of our time, that's not a good thing. Dunno if there are any viable options really, but Biden does not look like one. (Obviously still vastly prefer him to Trump.)