Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 81

I am always amazed that a case study like Portugal exists on this Earth irt drugs and it hasn't spread like wildfire but that is basically what Stroggoz is talking about.

On June 30 2018 21:15 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2018 17:21 jax5466 wrote:   On June 25 2018 21:02 Baalim wrote:   On June 25 2018 07:31 jax5466 wrote: Couldn't give less of a fuck about some illegal alien kids. good for you buddy. Adults who actually care about suffering and the human condition are having a dicussion you clearly are not fit to have I think you are too emotionally invested in this. Mexicans are all economic migrants. They are not running away from misery, they simply want more money from doing nothing. I am against illegal immigration you dimwit, yes they are economic migrants, when I say misery I didn't mean war, I mean't poverty, and what do you mean "more money"?, do you think people doing nothing get money in México? lol, they migrate looking for jobs but naturally they are a burden in a structure where poor people are a financial net loss.

So there's no suffering then.

On July 01 2018 07:25 jax5466 wrote: Show nested quote + On June 30 2018 21:15 Baalim wrote:   On June 30 2018 17:21 jax5466 wrote:   On June 25 2018 21:02 Baalim wrote:   On June 25 2018 07:31 jax5466 wrote: Couldn't give less of a fuck about some illegal alien kids. good for you buddy. Adults who actually care about suffering and the human condition are having a dicussion you clearly are not fit to have I think you are too emotionally invested in this. Mexicans are all economic migrants. They are not running away from misery, they simply want more money from doing nothing. I am against illegal immigration you dimwit, yes they are economic migrants, when I say misery I didn't mean war, I mean't poverty, and what do you mean "more money"?, do you think people doing nothing get money in México? lol, they migrate looking for jobs but naturally they are a burden in a structure where poor people are a financial net loss. So there's no suffering then.

no, it's just sunshine and butterflies and they leave their homes for more.
what an incredible combo of ignorant and inhumane posts you've made right there

On July 01 2018 02:43 RiKD wrote: I am always amazed that a case study like Portugal exists on this Earth irt drugs and it hasn't spread like wildfire but that is basically what Stroggoz is talking about.

No it is not, Stroggoz thinks its because the rich want to enslave poor people and the government do their bidding, yet that hypotesis falls flat when drugs are still illegal in socialist countries and instead of contemplating the idea of changing his mind given the irrefutable evidence he just said he doesnt know why and carried on with the same belief.

The cognitive dissonanse is strong on this one with you two.

On July 01 2018 00:35 Stroggoz wrote: The first two statements yes i think both are true. Not sure why your implying they seem to be inconsistent statements. They arn't, in fact the first seems almost necessarily true given the second. But the first is a generalisation, it is a judgement based on the actions of the rich as a whole. The institutions are more psychopathic than the people, though. I agree that it is monstrous to smuggle cocaine into america while saying your waging a war on drugs that results in many poor blacks being imprisoned, and doing research at the same time that says it's better to do treatment. And then trying to make profits off prison labour. Yes, i think that is monstrous. But i guess it isn't as monstrous as what other countries do. When other countries want to cleanse the underclass they don't enslave them, they just shoot them all, like in phillipines recent war on drugs, run by another autocrat who has seen research done by neuroscientists who visited his country, so he can't claim ignorance on that one. So by comparison the US is not as bad as other societies. But it is still monstrous. There are always good people who attain positions of power, but when they become good, all institutions act against them and they will lose power very quickly. You can see from the actions of the rich as a whole that they largely don't care. I'm sure they care about their families and loved one's but when it comes to different classes, they are at war with them. A lot of documents out their to back that up, i can give you some of those if your interested. We can make an educated guess at what society would be like in a capitalist or communist society. A lot of bad things could be said about capitalism. markets have serious flaws as elementary economic theory points out, a capitalist society wouldn't be able to fix those. There would also be a long of good things about it, third world countries would be allowed to make cheap medicine for example because there wouldn't be protectionist laws like intellectual property rights.

I didn't say they were inconsistent, I just said they are remotely close to each other, not caring about somebody and wanting to enslave somebody is a very different thing.

Yes, people who smuggle cocaine in the USA and people who wrongfully imprison people for a profit are monsters, but characterizing rich people as that is the same thing as characterizing poor people as gang members, thieves etc. this postmodernist lens that see the world as an interaction of opresssers and opressors is ironically the same lens any supremacist group sees the world through, categorizing people, lazy bigotry.

The world is an interaction of oppressers and opressors. If you can't see that, then you'll never understand much about politics. I happen to be right on this, It's an empirically testable statement that the rich don't care about the poor, and it is backed up by evidence. And it is also true that the rich are waging a class war, and have been basically forever. They are pretty open about it and i can show you the literature which they have written on how best to go about this war.

Like i said i don't know why non socialist countries that you call socialist are making drugs illegal, my guess is it is for similar reasons of social cleansing. If you have any research on the topic i'd be happy to read it.

I mean looking at derterte's phillipines, which i've followed a bit, it's clearly social cleansing. A lot of the people he has killed with death squads during this 'drug war', are street children. Those are people who do not serve the interests of elites in any country, so a practical policy is to kill enough of them off. (or enslave them if your more humane), and it makes the rest afraid of you.

On July 01 2018 22:12 Stroggoz wrote: The world is an interaction of oppressers and opressors. If you can't see that, then you'll never understand much about politics. I happen to be right on this, It's an empirically testable statement that the rich don't care about the poor, and it is backed up by evidence. And it is also true that the rich are waging a class war, and have been basically forever. They are pretty open about it and i can show you the literature which they have written on how best to go about this war. Like i said i don't know why non socialist countries that you call socialist are making drugs illegal, my guess is it is for similar reasons of social cleansing. If you have any research on the topic i'd be happy to read it. I mean looking at derterte's phillipines, which i've followed a bit, it's clearly social cleansing. A lot of the people he has killed with death squads during this 'drug war', are street children. Those are people who do not serve the interests of elites in any country, so a practical policy is to kill enough of them off. (or enslave them if your more humane), and it makes the rest afraid of you.

No the world isnt an interaction of opressed*and opressors, that is a ridiculous simplification and if you can't see that then you'll neer understand much about politics... this discussion can't go very far that way.

You didnt just claim the rich didn't care about the poor, you said the rich want to enslave them, either defend that or take it back, but dont move the goal posts with "dont care about".

People dont care about each other, its not a rich to poor or viceversa thing, there is no correlation between wealth and morality, your argument is as wrong as rich people claiming poor people are criminals.

what does that mean "oppressers and opressors"

did you mean oppressors and oppressors or oppressors and oppressed?

On July 01 2018 23:25 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2018 22:12 Stroggoz wrote: The world is an interaction of oppressers and opressors. If you can't see that, then you'll never understand much about politics. I happen to be right on this, It's an empirically testable statement that the rich don't care about the poor, and it is backed up by evidence. And it is also true that the rich are waging a class war, and have been basically forever. They are pretty open about it and i can show you the literature which they have written on how best to go about this war. Like i said i don't know why non socialist countries that you call socialist are making drugs illegal, my guess is it is for similar reasons of social cleansing. If you have any research on the topic i'd be happy to read it. I mean looking at derterte's phillipines, which i've followed a bit, it's clearly social cleansing. A lot of the people he has killed with death squads during this 'drug war', are street children. Those are people who do not serve the interests of elites in any country, so a practical policy is to kill enough of them off. (or enslave them if your more humane), and it makes the rest afraid of you. No the world isnt an interaction of opressers and opressors, that is a ridiculous simplification and if you can't see that then you'll neer understand much about politics... this discussion can't go very far that way. You didnt just claim the rich didn't care about the poor, you said the rich want to enslave them, either defend that or take it back, but dont move the goal posts with "dont care about". People dont care about each other, its not a rich to poor or viceversa thing, there is no correlation between wealth and morality, your argument is as wrong as rich people claiming poor people are criminals.

your just wrong. the rich vs poor paradigm is the main paradigm for understanding politics. I'm not using it as a simplification, but it is the main social paradigm in society, in which there is a lot to be gained from understanding. If you don't look at the literature on this then you won't understand much about the economy, for example. I've said i can direct you to the literature. If your not interested in reading the literature you should stop making claims you are clearly ignorant about.

I never said the rich want to enslave them, that's your terminology-i merely said they want to incarcerate them-which is kind of a slave like system, in my opinion. So i have no problem with you calling it enslavement, if you want to. I never moved the goal posts, i've said like three times now that i defended both statements.

Your last point, there are differences in attitudes and opinions between the two classes, as polling and interviews show. I agree to some extent that the poor are apathetic in western countries, i guess, by global standards. Although I don't have anything to back that up. There are certainly different moral values between different cultures, groups, and classes.

On July 02 2018 03:38 Santafairy wrote: what does that mean "oppressers and opressors" did you mean oppressors and oppressors or oppressors and oppressed?

typo, corrected but I obv meant opressed and opressors

On July 02 2018 05:59 Stroggoz wrote: your just wrong. the rich vs poor paradigm is the main paradigm for understanding politics. I'm not using it as a simplification, but it is the main social paradigm in society, in which there is a lot to be gained from understanding. If you don't look at the literature on this then you won't understand much about the economy, for example. I've said i can direct you to the literature. If your not interested in reading the literature you should stop making claims you are clearly ignorant about. I never said the rich want to enslave them, that's your terminology-i merely said they want to incarcerate them-which is kind of a slave like system, in my opinion. So i have no problem with you calling it enslavement, if you want to. I never moved the goal posts, i've said like three times now that i defended both statements. Your last point, there are differences in attitudes and opinions between the two classes, as polling and interviews show. I agree to some extent that the poor are apathetic in western countries, i guess, by global standards. Although I don't have anything to back that up. There are certainly different moral values between different cultures, groups, and classes.

You argue very similarly to Loco and that is not a good thing lol.

No I dont want you to "show me the literature", I want you to argue and elaborate how society is an interaction between opressed and opressor... I can also show point you to a lot of literature that argues against your point but that not how discussions work.

Actually I consider myself quite well knowledgable economy-wise, and I find it quite rich that somebody who leans left makes such comments.


Yes you literally used the word enslave:

The wealthy are not a big portion of society.... it is rather obvious that the war on drugs is designed to enslave poor

Of course values are different betwen cultures and classes, but you are saying wealthy people are moreally inferior than poor people, since well they will even enslave others for profit and I get the feeling you dont see poor people as monsters too.

On July 03 2018 07:20 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On July 02 2018 03:38 Santafairy wrote: what does that mean "oppressers and opressors" did you mean oppressors and oppressors or oppressors and oppressed? typo, corrected but I obv meant opressed and opressors

I was asking Stroggoz

because the former actually has a degree of wisdom to it while the latter is a cliche cultural marxist mantra

The powell memorandum is 8 pages long, it offers some good insight into how the rich are waging the class war. It kind of reads like marxist rhetoric but in inverse-the rich have to dominate society, rather than society have to dominate the rich. He basically argues that the economic system is under attack from various groups, which happen to make up the bulk of society.

I'll just quote the jist of what powell says in it:

"‘The day is long past when the chief executive officer of a major corporation discharges his responsibility by maintaining a satisfactory growth of profits, with due regard to the corporation’s public and social responsibilities. If our system is to survive, top management must be equally concerned with protecting and preserving the system itself. This involves far more than an increased emphasis on “public relations” or “governmental affairs” — two areas in which corporations long have invested substantial sums."

Alex Carey who is a historian on industrial psychology, documented similar ways the rich wanted to control the poor in his essays. One example taken from his work in 'corporate propaganda':

The president of the Institute of Directors in Australia, Sir Robert Crichton Brown, in 1977 gave a speech to other executives, and said that:

‘We cannot relax until… we have convinced society at large that our influence is indeed for its good. That … will take up some of your time and some corporate systems money. The expenditure of both will be well worthwhile if it succeeds in obtaining for the corporate system society’s seal of approval thus relieving our successors of the need to spend their resources of time and money on the further promotion of the system.’ -Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty, p111

Thus it was understood that without the intensification of the public relations industry in its role of indoctrinating people with the values of capitalism, that this system wouldn’t be around for much longer.

The goal isn't just to make profits, since this idea meets a lot of resistance, you gotta find ways of overcoming the resistance, and one way is to wage war on society using public relations, as edward bernays puts it in the 1st line of his 1928 book, 'the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits of men is an essential element of democracy', going on to say that they can 'regiment the minds of men as well as an army regiments it's soldiers'. He was basically the main PR guru for business right through the 20th century, as stuart ewan noted in his book PR: a social history of spin, in which he interviewed bernays in the late 1990's i think it was.

I'm not interested in arguing that the rich are waging a war vs everyone else. It's just a basic fact. They are open about it, and if you listen to or read what the rich say you will occasionally see them delcare it.

I don't think you're well versed in economics at all.

Two examples:

You once said that the great recession was caused by regulation. It isn't, it is the result of the rise of shadow banking and deregulation. That's the version accepted in mainstream economics-krugman being a mainstream economist has written on. He wrote about it every week in the new york times. I don't see any evidence for krugman being wrong on this matter.

You once said it would be very difficult to get rid of the deficit in america. Actually, it would be extremely easy. There are a lot of things that could be done. One would simply be to tax the rich the same amount they were taxed in the 1960's. (undoing trumps massive tax break would contribute a lot). Another would be to adopt policy that employs everyone. That would add extra trillions of dollars to gdp. These arn't impossible options, they just arn't favoured by the architects of policy

I don't consider myself to be an expert on economics, i've read content from a broad spectrum of economics, including some of the neoclassical school that is taught at university. but you talk as if you've never even studied the content from one class. I don't think you understand how much work you need to do to know anything about it.

yeah i used the word enslave, I thought i hadn't. I don't really have a problem with that terminology.

The thing is when you are wealthy you have more responsibility to the rest of the world. The poor don't have much, since they can't do anything. I would say that wealthy who neglect their responsibility to the rest of society are immoral, and that means about 99% of the wealthy are immoral. So yes i blame the rich and i think the blame is well deserved. While the poor are not immoral, since they don't have the ability to make choices. But the inability to make choices is a form of amorality. So i would say the poor are amoral, but not immoral. I think wage slaves are amoral.

Trump is leading an amazing policy. He s probably the first world leader of the leading nation who forces his allies into a corner making them get a bigger army and more weapons. I wonder why nobody else has done that before. I hope they reelect him, so that by the time he s done with the country they'll no longer be the global leader.


He s currently threatening the EU and especially Germany that he'll withdraw all American forces unless they increase the spending in the military sector. Sure, cool move in the short run, but as a short-sighted buffoon, this is literally the worst case scenario for the US. The EU's main "advantage" coming from the partnership with the USA is the military protection, once we are protecting ourselves USA instantly loses its role of a leader and will have a potential threat in the face of the EU

Guess he doesn't realize that the EU puts up with US shit because of legit reasons, take a portion of the main reasons away and the situation will look quite different. The worst part is he targets Germany, which could be his worst choice. If the EU manages to withstand a potential massive political pressure coming from the USA then the world leadership situation will be in a pretty fckin tricky situation, cause the EU has never even bothered to even hint at wanting that role

edit:

Stroggoz the only thing I disagree with is the amoral/immoral part. Do you really believe that the larger portion of the rich isn't just as ignorant as the average Joe? They're amoral except the top 0.1% people like Chief XX ( insert 2 letters more) of Goldman Sachs and so on in every industry worldwide. Those people are also not necessarily the top 0.1% of wealth either, but rather of influence/power.

Immorality isn't something easily taken by any human being, no matter what social status you've grown up to, it is borderline to sociopathy in many ways, so no I can't agree with that. You can't honestly believe there are hundreds of thousands of people fully aware of those social issues, their access to better education doesn't necessarily mean they acquire a good education, especially in places like the USA, whose educational system sounds like a complete joke up until Ivy League colleges.

Look at this bright example of a HARD question in the math SAT - https://collegereadiness.collegeboard...uestions/math/calculator-permitted/30

On July 03 2018 13:21 Stroggoz wrote: ...

None of those quotes speak about waging war to the poor, they speak about lobbying which I think any reasonable human being is against, and manipuating the public which is marketing 101.

I think the main problem is how wide your bursh is, you say its not the 1% but the 0.1%, thats still 300,000 people, but indeed there are people missusing power and wielding ammounts of it that wouldn't be possible in a free market and only happens because they bough the government, that is the common denominator in these tragedies, not wealth.

I dont recall ever saying that the great depression happened because of regulation, mind quoting me?, I said the 2008 depression happened because of the moral hazard created by the goverment guaranteeing subprime loans.


On the subject of the great depression I lean towards Keynes explanation, theres strong evidence pointing that it was initiated by monetarists in pursuit of imposing fiat over gold standard creating panic about banking insolvency, it would have been a normal market correction but the government should have operated in red numbers or even better, reducing taxes and they didnt turning a regular depression into a great one.

Of course monetarists got exactly what they wanted, deflation and a strong argument to how simply expanding the money supply would have solved it, and thats exactly what was done in 2008, the economy recovered amazingly because of the monetarist approach which is essentiallly the opposite to keynesian approach, you force the public to bail out people and while it works momentarely it creates a massive deficit problem that will blow up in a future that will make the great depression like a hiccup.

I said the US deficit can't be solved as in "the way things are arent changing so it wont be solved", all that is required is getting rid of most of the military budget and the US would pay debt, but we know perfectly well that aint happening.

Your purposal of 1960 taxes is ridiculous, because its not 1960 lol, we live in a much more "global" world now, impose 91% of taxes to the top 1% and you will have the biggest leak of capital in history. I have no idea what you mean with full employment because I dont mean a strong economy that naturally archieves that, I kind of think you mean subsidizing millions in useless bureacratic jobs with no purpose, is that what you mean?

I'd like to understand his definition of full employment as well cause I highly doubt he means a 100% employment rate. Even in a utopian world that would be rationally unachievable (ignore the oxymoron)

Also purely logical, decreasing the military budget would instantly result in a huge employment gap. I'm guessing the US military is the biggest employer in the country the same way China and Turkey are (cba bothering stats but even if I'm wrong it wont really be by a lot). That might be a short-term effect only, but if we go into the long-term ones we'd have to take shittons of other factors into consideration as well to even make an assumption e.g. loss of influence, innovation and w/e. Not saying I'm pro-military spending, just saying what it would result into

On July 04 2018 22:39 Spitfiree wrote: I'd like to understand his definition of full employment as well cause I highly doubt he means a 100% employment rate. Even in a utopian world that would be rationally unachievable (ignore the oxymoron) Also purely logical, decreasing the military budget would instantly result in a huge employment gap. I'm guessing the US military is the biggest employer in the country the same way China and Turkey are (cba bothering stats but even if I'm wrong it wont really be by a lot). That might be a short-term effect only, but if we go into the long-term ones we'd have to take shittons of other factors into consideration as well to even make an assumption e.g. loss of influence, innovation and w/e. Not saying I'm pro-military spending, just saying what it would result into

Well of course paying back debts will always hurt people, but it has to be done.

On July 01 2018 17:09 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On July 01 2018 07:25 jax5466 wrote:   On June 30 2018 21:15 Baalim wrote:   On June 30 2018 17:21 jax5466 wrote:   On June 25 2018 21:02 Baalim wrote:   On June 25 2018 07:31 jax5466 wrote: Couldn't give less of a fuck about some illegal alien kids. good for you buddy. Adults who actually care about suffering and the human condition are having a dicussion you clearly are not fit to have I think you are too emotionally invested in this. Mexicans are all economic migrants. They are not running away from misery, they simply want more money from doing nothing. I am against illegal immigration you dimwit, yes they are economic migrants, when I say misery I didn't mean war, I mean't poverty, and what do you mean "more money"?, do you think people doing nothing get money in México? lol, they migrate looking for jobs but naturally they are a burden in a structure where poor people are a financial net loss. So there's no suffering then. no, it's just sunshine and butterflies and they leave their homes for more. what an incredible combo of ignorant and inhumane posts you've made right there

Cuck.

User was banned for this post.

Santifary and Baalim make very sound, logical, and persuasive points, bravo fellas.

Baalim has the banhammer again ?

(I see a lot of bans lately, i guess justified thou)