Führer Trump - Page 5
Register

User Tag List

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 253

Thread: Führer Trump

  1. #201

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Kind of a moot point seeing as the dude acted in self defense.
    Anyways I think Helz needs to nuance a bit. Like if the pedo in question actually rapes children... yeah, fuck him. If on the other hand, the dude doesnt act on his attraction, then no.
    Im kind of an extremist here. That would probably be the moral option but I personalty think threes some lines that should just be a flat out 'you cross it you die' kinda thing. I could understand a guy banging a 16 year old he thought was 18 but if he is sexually attracted to a 10 year old whatever wires are crossed in that guys brain should just be eliminated from our gene pool. Same goes for overt rape imo.

    Im sure this is not a popular position to take but any person who removes either of those two kinds of human beings from existence I would support. Decisions in this life have consequences and people do not recognize how hard bringing consequences to actions echos within society.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  2. #202

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Not only are you fixated on a detail Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't have been aware of (and is hence irrelevant to the judgement of his character), you're baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto. How does proving Kyle Rittenhouse is a saint or the devil change anything whatsoever in the grand scheme of things? We'd all have exactly the same opinions if the incident played out totally differently or never happened.

    Meanwhile you're also stanning the idea of... indiscriminately killing people we believe to be paedophiles, irrespective of context, because apparently the only alternative is "allow(ing) them to rape their way through generations of our society." Quite an insight.
    Thats a bit of a jump. I did not intend "baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto" if that is what I did.

    But yeah. I 100% support indiscriminately killing pedophiles. The 'We think are' bit causes quite a bit of issues but I don't think that can of worms is worth going into
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I respect your insights into a lot of topics, but this was like watching you puke over your computer screen lol.
    As terrible as it is to say I had to discover what I said by reading my post. To be blunt if I am rambling about politics on an internet forum I am almost certainly hammered drunk. For years SC2Mafia has been the place I vent my drunk/crazy/whatever which is a questionable decision but also kinda interesting to me. On a meta-cognitive level I am a little fascinated at seeing what I ramble on about when I am black out drunk even if I am quite honestly embarrassed about it. I kinda throw it into the model of Johari's window recognizing my posts represent a part of myself I wouldn't otherwise see if that makes sense?
    So anyways. Well put with the 'this was like watching you puke over your computer screen' bit. Lol
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  3. #203

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Thats a bit of a jump. I did not intend "baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto" if that is what I did.

    But yeah. I 100% support indiscriminately killing pedophiles. The 'We think are' bit causes quite a bit of issues but I don't think that can of worms is worth going into

    As terrible as it is to say I had to discover what I said by reading my post. To be blunt if I am rambling about politics on an internet forum I am almost certainly hammered drunk. For years SC2Mafia has been the place I vent my drunk/crazy/whatever which is a questionable decision but also kinda interesting to me. On a meta-cognitive level I am a little fascinated at seeing what I ramble on about when I am black out drunk even if I am quite honestly embarrassed about it. I kinda throw it into the model of Johari's window recognizing my posts represent a part of myself I wouldn't otherwise see if that makes sense?
    So anyways. Well put with the 'this was like watching you puke over your computer screen' bit. Lol
    Don't sweat it man. I kinda clocked you were drunk but didn't wanna say in case it really was just a sober take on a terrible day lol. I read everything I post 2-3 times and wince when I mispell something. You have my sympathies 😅
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  4. #204

    Re: Führer Trump

    So for those who are interested in a breakdown of the objective facts of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting:
    -Kyle Rittenhouse ran around with a gun to defend businesses in a town he didnt live in. This is specifically illegal because he was 17 and also because it was in violation of the local curfew.
    -Every other civilian that was out at that time was also in violation of curfew.
    -Earlier in the night Joseph Rosenbalm is recorded yelling 'Shoot me nigga' at another armed individual who may have been part of the group Kyle Rittenhouse was with
    -At some point the 'protesters' light a dumpster on fire with the intention of rolling the dumpster at some police. Rittenhouse walks up with a fire extinguisher and puts out the literal dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher which makes people mad. Rittenhouse then begins to run away pursued by some of the protesters.
    -Rosenbalm catches up to Kyle at a dealership and throws 'something' in a plastic bag at Rittenhouse. (Its obviously something heavy but not a Molotov like some people claim)
    A second or two later an unidentified individual fires a handgun from the direction Rittenhouse was running away from. Rittenhouse turns around and Rosenbalm (according to Richard McGinnis witness statements) attempts to grab hold of the Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse fires 4-5 times fatally injuring Rosenbalm. The medical examiners report shows a graze to the head, hit to the right groin, hit to the back which pierced both the lung and liver, shot through the hand, and a graze to the lateral left thigh.
    -Rittenhouse hangs around for a bit immediately getting on the phone. It turns out he was not calling 911 but instead was calling his friend Dominic Black (supposedly someone who was in his 'armed anti-riot group')
    -The crowed starts to turn on Rittenhouse and he runs north on Sheridan Road. An unidentified individual punches him in the back of the head knocking his hat off as he runs until he trips.
    -Another unidentified individual runs up to him and does a flying kick at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires at the person missing.
    -Anthony Huber then smashes Rittenhouse in the back with a skateboard and attempts to take his rifle (by city's criminal complaint statement, video and eye witness statements) and Rittenhouse shoots him in the heart (according to the medical examiner). The shot was fatal with Huber only making it a few steps before taking the room temperature challenge.
    -Gaige Grosskreutz then runs up (with a pistol in hand) to Rittenhouse and grabs at his rifle (by video and eye witness statements) and Rittenhouse fires hitting Grosskreutz in the bicep.
    -Rittenhouse then repeatedly yells "Stay back" while doing a 360 and other shots from unknown origin are fired (Appears to be 2 separate shooters firing off camera)
    -Police then approach the situation in armored vehicles and Rittenhouse approaches the vehicles with his hands up but police ignore him.
    -Gaige Grosskreutz later posts photos on social media of him holding his injured arm with a gun in his hand in spite of his possession of a firearm being illegal due to his status as a multiple felon.


    Joseph Rosenbalm has a criminal record:
    sexual conduct with a minor
    a second count of sexual conduct with a minor
    interfering with a monitoring device
    Along with some 40 counts in jail which include at least 5 counts of assaulting staff, 1 count of assault with a weapon, and a count of arson

    Anthony Huber has a criminal record of:
    2nd degree endangering safety with a modifier of using a deadly weapon and a modifier of domestic violence
    Strangulation with a modifier of domestic violence
    False imprisonment with a modifier of domestic violence
    Battery with a modifier of domestic violence and using a deadly weapon
    Disorderly conduct with a modifier of domestic violence and using a deadly weapon
    Disorderly conduct with a modifier of domestic abuse
    Battery with a modifier of repeater and a modifier of domestic abuse
    Disorderly conduct with a modifier of repeater and a modifier of domestic abuse

    Gaige P Grosskreutz has a criminal record of:
    Theft of movable property
    Burglary of a building or dwelling
    Criminal trespassing of a building or dwelling
    Disorderly conduct
    Armed with a Firearm while intoxicated

    A lot of this I had to do research to find but here is a pretty good video that seems to have no political motivation detailing a very nice video breakdown. That channel also has some pretty funny points to make about Rittenhous' defense team. Hopefully this will clear the air on some of the Rittenhouse nonsense.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DsU...8xp0f&index=13
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  5. #205

  6. #206

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Im not sure why you are so caught up in American politics for current day or from a hundred years ago but I will say I think your life would probably be better off without the toxicity that it breeds.

    I dislike how American politics has become so global recently and theres this toxic stigma attached to having some beliefs. Just supporting an event is seen as support for a political party and theres a huge push to say anything republican = evil.
    I hate this insistence that American politics are isolated in a bubble, it's such a disingenuous way of shutting down discourse on issues that affect people in their day-to-day lives. America is a major world power, American politics influence global economics and stability. If America goes tits-up because you lot couldn't get your shit together then that hurts my home country and family economically, and in the worst case could affect us even more directly if any sort of conflict spills over. Not to mention the omnipresence of Americans on all sorts of social media and the internet resulting in the exporting of pathological elements of American culture to the rest of the world, resulting in the rise of the alt-right and extremist groups (and also BLM and antifa if you're insistent on both-sidesing this) worldwide, though not entirely attributed to America it is something that was a result of American sentiment and problems spilling over. American interference in the middle east results in conflict that results in conflict and refugee crises in Europe. It was American economic mismanagement that led to the economic crisis of 2008. Americans flexed political power to drag other countries into wars, such as the UK and Canada. Your government shitting the bed on COVID resulted in plague rats spreading the virus to my home country (where the first cases came from America), and an ongoing fight to keep the borders closed. Not to mention Americans continuing to flout the rules by illegally entering and continuing to spread disease.

    So no, fuck off with the "American politics shouldn't be other people's concerns" excuse. They are.

    I'm curious to see what your "other option" is, and why it's so uniquely incompatible with any party that you reject all of them. I think you said before that you like Bernie Sanders, you realize that Bernie also recognizes that people should vote for Biden in this election as the lesser of two evils and with the goal of pushing the Democrat agenda closer to his own vision for America, right?

    The reason people accuse you of being a Republican or conservative is because all I've seen from you so far is a huge amount of concern trolling about the American left and liberals, and not a single admonishment against the right, even in the context of the start of this thread where your response to Trump refusing to say whether he'll accept the results of the election was "well hmm maybe the left won't either so really they're both bad". I don't think I've ever seen you criticize American conservatives, or Republicans, without footnoting it with a statement about how the "other side" is bad too. At best you bust out the "why does it matter, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, etc." argument.

  7. #207

    Re: Führer Trump

    I'm kind of amazed that kid was able to handle himself as well as he did tbh. I would've been shitting my pants and I'm 3 years older than him LOL.
    That situation sounds all kinds of fucked. From people legit shooting him or trying to take away his gun (why? why would you do that?!), to him having to put out a dumpster fire: it sounds like a fucking warzone lol.
    Where's my 'peaceful protesters' in all of this?

  8. #208

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Kyle Rittenshite : play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The prize for him? Guilty on all charges as an adult, a decent amount of jail time, and good luck finding any kind of employment (other than fox news).

    yikes (!!)
    "play stupid games"
    The police called for armed civilians to come help them with the riots. Answering the call is not playing stupid games.
    "Win stupid prizes"
    The defense for him is very strong and at worst he'll spend time in jail for going against curfew/firing a gun at 17. I'm not even sure he's going to get sentenced because of the unique circumstances surrounding the case.
    "Good luck finding any kind of employment"
    Everyone knows who Kyle is, and people familiar with his case will definitely view it in his favour rather than against. I mean already facing off with a few dangerous dudes by yourself in a city you dont know sounds like you have balls of steel, and most employers like that.

  9. #209

  10. #210

    Re: Führer Trump

    Any employer with a big brand won't want to be perceived by higher-ups as risking the company image, surely.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  11. #211

  12. #212

    Re: Führer Trump

    Read the last 5 posts, but I can't believe we're now defending 17 year old vigilantes. Face the fucking fact that if this was an ANTIFA member at the "unite the right" rally, republicans would be clamoring for the chair.

    But even if we want to legitimize the "self defense", it is ILLEGAL (a felony?) to drive across state lines TWICE, AS A MINOR with a fire arm.

    If this was someone OF AGE, and a WISCONSIN resident, this'd be a different story. If you want to be a gun touting hero, go sign up for the fucking military. Trump will deploy you to fight against the blue big bad cities.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  13. #213

    Re: Führer Trump

    And to all y'all shitting on peaceful protesters, actual peaceful protesters have an interest in keeping things peaceful. I've been at peaceful protests, and the protest organizers work with the police to establish grounds. Neither party wants there to be violence, because it's bad for both sides.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  14. #214

  15. #215

    Re: Führer Trump

    i dont really understand this insistence that someone having ideas like helz's has to be republican, i personally know many people who hate trump and aren't republican, who also disagree with whats happening with the protests and shit and have ideas similar to helz's. one of them is also a bernie sanders supporter.
    personally, if i were american i would most probably be a republican since i dont really see any political party that represents me (even though the republicans themselves dont represent me very well).

  16. #216

  17. #217

    Re: Führer Trump

    also, i would like someone who is a socialist to answer me a few questions i have because i think they're pretty original and i think theyre relevant for socialists and socialism:

    a) why aren't co-ops and shit like jewish kibbutzim discussed in the context of socialism? i think theyre the most compelling and successful examples and yet hardly anyone talks about them
    b) why aren't socialists advocating for 'personal socialism' or in any event a socialism that comes from people rather than the government? i mean i dont think the government can grant 'true' socialism for a variety of reasons, and even if it did, it would come through coercion since not everyone wants to partake in a socialist society.
    my idea of 'personal socialism' is that a group of people agree to live in a socialist manner, and form a company thats based on equal pay. when the company gets rich enough they start buying welfare for everyone and shit.
    why isnt that ever discussed? isn't that a 'freer' and even 'truer' form of socialism than the social liberalism thats usually promoted and advocated for nowadays? why wait for the government to give you things when you can just do it yourself?

  18. #218

  19. #219

    Re: Führer Trump

    I'll answer this even though I'm not a socialist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    a) why aren't co-ops and shit like jewish kibbutzim discussed in the context of socialism? i think theyre the most compelling and successful examples and yet hardly anyone talks about them
    They are. Especially worker coops, people talk about them all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    b) why aren't socialists advocating for 'personal socialism' or in any event a socialism that comes from people rather than the government? i mean i dont think the government can grant 'true' socialism for a variety of reasons, and even if it did, it would come through coercion since not everyone wants to partake in a socialist society.
    Isn't this the charity vs welfare debate? The reason that this isn't advocated for as much by socialists is because private determination of where funds go potentially results in conflicts of interest and coercion and lobbying of charities by the wealthy. Additionally, charities that people donate to are often not in line with what a nation might need. People donate for big, glamourous causes such as disasters like hurricanes, but the scale of donations to end poverty and hunger in America are severely dwarfed by what the government does (which is still not enough, at least in the US, since there's still a large amount of poverty). Almost 1/3 of charity dollars in the US are donated to religious institutions, which is conflicting on its own because it ties aid for people to religiousness.

    The "coercion" you're talking about is commonly referred to as "taxes". If we look at this in the context of America, what you'll find is that historically charity giving has remained at 2% of the GDP of the US. This is despite any tax cuts. It doesn't seem that lowering taxes gives people "more money" to donate to charity, thus any cuts to government social welfare won't be redirected through charities due to less taxes, and just results in less social welfare overall even if charities are effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    my idea of 'personal socialism' is that a group of people agree to live in a socialist manner, and form a company thats based on equal pay. when the company gets rich enough they start buying welfare for everyone and shit.
    why isnt that ever discussed? isn't that a 'freer' and even 'truer' form of socialism than the social liberalism thats usually promoted and advocated for nowadays? why wait for the government to give you things when you can just do it yourself?
    So, a worker's coop? Those already exist.

  20. #220

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I hate this insistence that American politics are isolated in a bubble, it's such a disingenuous way of shutting down discourse on issues that affect people in their day-to-day lives. America is a major world power, American politics influence global economics and stability. If America goes tits-up because you lot couldn't get your shit together then that hurts my home country and family economically, and in the worst case could affect us even more directly if any sort of conflict spills over. Not to mention the omnipresence of Americans on all sorts of social media and the internet resulting in the exporting of pathological elements of American culture to the rest of the world, resulting in the rise of the alt-right and extremist groups (and also BLM and antifa if you're insistent on both-sidesing this) worldwide, though not entirely attributed to America it is something that was a result of American sentiment and problems spilling over. American interference in the middle east results in conflict that results in conflict and refugee crises in Europe. It was American economic mismanagement that led to the economic crisis of 2008. Americans flexed political power to drag other countries into wars, such as the UK and Canada. Your government shitting the bed on COVID resulted in plague rats spreading the virus to my home country (where the first cases came from America), and an ongoing fight to keep the borders closed. Not to mention Americans continuing to flout the rules by illegally entering and continuing to spread disease.

    So no, fuck off with the "American politics shouldn't be other people's concerns" excuse. They are.

    I'm curious to see what your "other option" is, and why it's so uniquely incompatible with any party that you reject all of them. I think you said before that you like Bernie Sanders, you realize that Bernie also recognizes that people should vote for Biden in this election as the lesser of two evils and with the goal of pushing the Democrat agenda closer to his own vision for America, right?
    One of the things I feel is very true is how disproportionate peoples political focus is vs the direct impact on their lives. My life has been relatively the same under every president going back to Clinton and very few actions have had any noticeable direct impact on me at all. When I bring this up to people who are consumed by politics its been extremely rare they can point to any direct impact past health insurance going to hell or receiving a small stimulus payment. In a word the attention, stress and conflict generated by politics for the individual is disproportionate to the actual impact it has on the individuals life.

    I agree with you that its not fair for me to say "American politics shouldn't be other people's concerns"; but I do feel even many Americans lives would be better off without the toxic stress generated from focusing on it so much. Although this is true for the American Citizen its even more true for the global Citizen. Yes America has a huge world impact but once again the focus American politics is being given by the global public is disproportionate to the impact it will have on the persons life.

    Additionally consider the ability of the individual to influence the direction of a national election. If I were to spend all day every day screaming at people over the election or protesting in the streets how many individual votes could I swing? Maybe it was an effective use of time at one point but these days I can say that I personally am constantly pushed from all sides on the subject. In a word I would also argue that the ability of the individual to influence an election is once again, disproportionate to the stress and conflict generated by political focus for the individual.

    The most important factor though runs right in line with your question
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I'm curious to see what your "other option" is, and why it's so uniquely incompatible with any party that you reject all of them.
    I do not believe the American Citizen has a voice anymore. Even if we democratically elect our official as soon as they are in office they have no reason to act in our best interest past getting elected again in a few years. At the same time they have a financial interest in acting in favor for corporate lobbyists. This is a systemic issue that neither the republican nor the democratic party's have any intention of addressing and it directly impacts the individuals influence over how he is governed.
    This is heavily reflected in American Tax policy. The basic ethical justification for tax deductions is to say "I support this cause that benefits society so I will give my money to it instead of the government." I feel this is truly democratic allowing for the individual to control the majority of how his taxes will impact society. Yet now corporations take tax deductions for lobbying against public interest to congress. They not only get to have direct influence but they get to avoid contributing to society for the privilege.

    Addressing these sorts of things could create real systemic change allowing for the individual to have more power over how he is governed. One of the more significant issues I take with republicans is that while sanctimoniously pushing to increase corporate influence they also push against increasing corporate liability. I believe the two must be connected. If you are going to declare an incorporated entity to have the rights of an individual and give that 'individual' power over me then he should be beholden and accountable for the impacts of his actions on the individual. This is something the Democrats get right in spirit but do very poorly in execution. I also take critical issue with republican leadership using their positions of power to gain wealth. When COVID started Senators Kelly Loeffler and Richard Burr used privileged information gained from private briefings on the upcoming crisis to move their stock positions around and make millions. Thats flatly illegal but in typical fashion Republican leadership likes to thump about accountability until that means holding someone with wealth accountable.
    The typical cosmetic focus on things like immigration is very hypocritical. In 2001 my buddy started working in the oil field as a floorhand for 18 an hour. In 2011 I started working in the oil field as a floorhand for 18 an hour. In 2019 my buddy started working in the oil field as a floorhand for 19 an hour. Thats a 1$ raise in 18 years while inflation rose 47% in that time. People like to poke fun at the 'They took our jeeerbs' rhetoric but on a very basic level this exists through abuse of the Visa program. Companies are able to refuse to raise wages and then turn around and say 'we cant get laborers, import some.' Then the republican party uses this impact to market to the blue collar American pushing cosmetic promises. Today I literally refuse to take on labor jobs unless I hold the contract because in Texas labor wages have been frozen (and depreciated due to inflation) for the last 30 years or so.

    I could ramble on about issues I take with the Republican party for ever if you would like but this should give you an idea of why I do not see reform as an option. I draw back to the question I asked myself earlier this year of 'Are we actually totally incompetent as a society to influence change or do the individuals with the ability to influence change simply have things the way they want them?' when you consider how little has really changed over the last 40 years.

    The issue I take with the democrats is largely the same at heart. They take a position like "Lets fix healthcare" and then go about it in the most bullshit way of subsidizing capitalism or they push 'lets fix lobbying' while sneaking in clever ways to keep any proposed bill utterly cosmetic. When they push for systemic change its always systemic change in their favor. Eliminate the electoral college because it will help them win elections. Increase the amount of Supreme Court Judges and place term limits when the Supreme Court is not in their favor. It also really irks me to the core to hear the bullshit rhetoric of "I want this good thing done and I want someone else to do it, and (more importantly) to pay for it." Democratically run states are utterly financially incompetent. I get that seeing human suffering and knowing you can do something to end it is a moral and good thing but the policy of pretending money is unlimited is a very juvenile view. I appreciate the sentiment of 'Lets help the homeless' but I have to date never even herd of a democratic politician who has taken on into their home and made a personal sacrifice to back up their would be convictions. I can say on the same coin I have done as much 3 times and may be about to go for a 4th in the next month or so. Theres something very basic to be said about when someone talks a lot and does not act on their own words. One of my favorite storys to date in line with this is the Oxford dean offering to shut of central heating for students who were protesting environmental impacts. Its easy to argue something is 'right' but the true measure of a man is if he is willing to take action and personal sacrifice for his convictions. I believe desire without personal sacrifice is worse than apathy for the cost it brings to others to fulfill the whims and postulated convictions of a coward.

    Local government is a different matter. The individual has a much stronger voice and can directly influence change while also being directly impacted by the decisions made. There it makes much more sense to me to be involved in politics. I could tell you very clear ways myself and my family has been effected by local government.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    The reason people accuse you of being a Republican or conservative is because all I've seen from you so far is a huge amount of concern trolling about the American left and liberals, and not a single admonishment against the right, even in the context of the start of this thread where your response to Trump refusing to say whether he'll accept the results of the election was "well hmm maybe the left won't either so really they're both bad". I don't think I've ever seen you criticize American conservatives, or Republicans, without footnoting it with a statement about how the "other side" is bad too. At best you bust out the "why does it matter, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, etc." argument.
    Thats fair. Feel free to ask me more about what I hate about the republican party and I could go on for days. My biggest problem with america right now is the riots so yeah, Im sure I bitch about democrats more than republicans.

    I realized something yesterday that came from this thread. We have a new issue with social categorization on a global level. Social categorization is something done naturally and subconsciously which Yzb touched on nicely when he said
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    you're baiting people to get into some long argument about the actions of a single individual that we can project our political biases onto.
    This is exactly whats happening- we are pushing political category's onto beliefs and thinking about the issues with political bias. Whats worse is the polarization of politics is so extreme something viewed as detrimental to a persons political affiliation is now taken as a personal attack. Just consider this Rittenhouse situation. If anyone says 'I feel he was defending himself' that is taken as a Republican stance. But why? It use to be that we would cite beliefs and stances as something a political party took as a trait of that party but now we are categorizing the belief or stance as belonging to that political party. The difference is subtle but important and is having a big impact; even on the conversation in this thread.
    What does that say about us as a society when I can't hold a belief without being pigeonholed into a political party for doing so? The more I look at that the more insane I feel it is that its taken as normality. How did we get to the point that beliefs are piratically owned globally by one of two American political party's and nobody bats an eye at those logic jumps? I do not totally understand what process that is thats creating this but its going to be my next little obsessive thought project. This issue represents a systemic change in the way we interact and its an extremely toxic one that bothers me. The answer is somewhere between semiotics and social categorization and I feel that its important to understand on a meta-cognitive level given the impact its having on basic interactions across the globe.

    Im sorry for writing you a book here. I honestly was uncomfortable that the last 2 times I came to this forum I was black out drunk posting and felt that although its something I enjoy, its slightly disrespectful to people who genuinely carry serious discussion. So I kinda felt I owed you a sober response. Regardless of what you think about me I do respect your intelligence and I enjoy the way you challenge my thoughts and beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I think you said before that you like Bernie Sanders, you realize that Bernie also recognizes that people should vote for Biden in this election as the lesser of two evils and with the goal of pushing the Democrat agenda closer to his own vision for America, right?
    Bernies vision for the democratic party makes sense to me. I dislike that he is convoluting socialism with subsidized capitalism but he seems to genuinely push for change outside of the existing power structure. The problem is as you pointed out its moving for "the lesser of two evils." I think thats the largest impediment to really causing positive change in this world. Compromise is good when each side gets what they want but its terrible when your looking at the option between two bad choices; especially when there is a third thats a better way. As long as people focus on ensuring the 'enemy looses' the toxic power structures will maintain their strangle hold on how the world is governed.

    I know you look at my position as one of indecision but I feel its a very focused decision. If you are interested I can go into the actions I am taking to correct things I take issue with. I just do not feel that voting in a national election holds any value.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  21. #221

    Re: Führer Trump

    Helz, I don't really have time or motivation to get into wallpost-replying, but your attitude towards politics, which you are not the sole representant of, is terrible for societies. Democracy only works if the people gets involved and sees further than local, here-and-now issues. If the people doesn't actively take the power it has gained, the power will fall back in the hands of a few powerful people (and that is what is happening, as you correctly highlighted by talking about corporations and lobbyism going against public interest).
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  22. #222

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    also, i would like someone who is a socialist to answer me a few questions i have because i think they're pretty original and i think theyre relevant for socialists and socialism:

    a) why aren't co-ops and shit like jewish kibbutzim discussed in the context of socialism? i think theyre the most compelling and successful examples and yet hardly anyone talks about them
    b) why aren't socialists advocating for 'personal socialism' or in any event a socialism that comes from people rather than the government? i mean i dont think the government can grant 'true' socialism for a variety of reasons, and even if it did, it would come through coercion since not everyone wants to partake in a socialist society.
    my idea of 'personal socialism' is that a group of people agree to live in a socialist manner, and form a company thats based on equal pay. when the company gets rich enough they start buying welfare for everyone and shit.
    why isnt that ever discussed? isn't that a 'freer' and even 'truer' form of socialism than the social liberalism thats usually promoted and advocated for nowadays? why wait for the government to give you things when you can just do it yourself?
    a) They are! Co-ops are a great way for workers to help eachother without major drawbacks. As for kibbutzim, it's a completely different thing: it implies significant way of life-specific changes abiding to that, if I'm not mistaken. Those who wish to live by that will probably find their life significantly improved by it, but those who do not wish to live by that will simply not fit in. Such an organization is infinitely more restrictive than a real socialist (not communist) government, because it goes into its members' way of life, unlike a socialist government which basically only asks you to pay more taxes to give services and redistribute wealth.

    b) Some are; this idea is not new. It even exists since at least a century: I remember reading a manifesto of a socialist who lived not long after the Paris Commune, talking about how the Jacobins became socialists "by necessity" instead of "by conviction", and advocating for a permanent and spontanous movement from the masses to "keep the revolution alive". What you're talking about is called anarcho-socialism, and it has the inherent issue of anarchism: the lack of order and stability, which leads to a lack of means to actually help people on a long-term basis. The state provides order and stability. It's up to the people to make sure it uses order and stability in a way that benefits the people (which is a bit what I was telling Helz in my last post).

    This thread sure derailed a bit lol, it wasn't meant to be about socialism
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  23. #223

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Read the last 5 posts, but I can't believe we're now defending 17 year old vigilantes. Face the fucking fact that if this was an ANTIFA member at the "unite the right" rally, republicans would be clamoring for the chair.

    But even if we want to legitimize the "self defense", it is ILLEGAL (a felony?) to drive across state lines TWICE, AS A MINOR with a fire arm.

    If this was someone OF AGE, and a WISCONSIN resident, this'd be a different story. If you want to be a gun touting hero, go sign up for the fucking military. Trump will deploy you to fight against the blue big bad cities.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    I look forward to the defense from you folk for the domestic terrorists who were just charged with planning to kidnap the Governor of Michigan
    Im curious. Unless you want to argue it was morally wrong of him to use a fire extinguisher on a dumpster that rioters were about to roll at other people what should he have done differently? Should he not have defended himself when a 36 year old man ran him down attacking him with a deadly weapon and hearing gunshots? He should not have been there but nobody out there should have. Every person out there was in violation of the law but the simple difference is that 17 year old man was not the aggressor. He was not the one pushing physical violence- he was running away to avoid it and taking actions to prevent others from using violence. All 3 of the people shot were attacking him as he attempted to run away.

    I would genuinely like to hear you justify Joseph Rosenbalm, Anthony Huber, or Gaige Grosskreutzs actions. The definition of a vigilante is someone who "who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority." How can you be critical of Rittenhouse for putting out a literal dumpster fire but not critical of Rosenbalm attacking him or the other two 'undertaking law enforcement without legal authority' after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbalm? This is a very hypocritical stance if you want to argue Rosenbalm's actions are not ok because of the vigilante aspect. Either being a vigilante is ok or its not but it can not be both if you want to take that position.

    The only tenable position you have is to say "Well Rittenhouse should never have been there" which then puts your only moral argument about him being there and invalidates the shootings from my point of view. I could just as easily say "If we didn't empty the prisons we wouldn't have a bunch of felons attacking a 17 year old" which is a bad faith argument.

    Im not sure how you do not see a moral difference between running away and using violence in defense, vs attacking a person for putting out your act of arson before you attempt to attack other people. I also do not think its fair to compare a plotted kidnapping; although I would personally support an ANTIFA person defending their life. Political affiliation does not invalidate a humans beings right to avoid being hurt in my book.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  24. #224

  25. #225

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Helz, I don't really have time or motivation to get into wallpost-replying, but your attitude towards politics, which you are not the sole representant of, is terrible for societies. Democracy only works if the people gets involved and sees further than local, here-and-now issues. If the people doesn't actively take the power it has gained, the power will fall back in the hands of a few powerful people (and that is what is happening, as you correctly highlighted by talking about corporations and lobbyism going against public interest).
    I agree, but you are connecting two separate points I made. My point that citizens lack influence on government was in the direction of people being consumed by political toxicity while my point about corporate lobbying and governing conflicts of interest was in the direction of not choosing the 'lesser of two evils.' Being involved is important but I do not see casting a vote as a functional solution until people stop picking between the lesser of two evils that preserves the systemic issues.

    With that said if you still feel my position is wrong let me know. I am not advocating for apathy.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  26. #226

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    I agree, but you are connecting two separate points I made. My point that citizens lack influence on government was in the direction of people being consumed by political toxicity while my point about corporate lobbying and governing conflicts of interest was in the direction of not choosing the 'lesser of two evils.' Being involved is important but I do not see casting a vote as a functional solution until people stop picking between the lesser of two evils that preserves the systemic issues.

    With that said if you still feel my position is wrong let me know. I am not advocating for apathy.
    Ah, ok, then it was a misunderstanding on my part, because I completely agree with you.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  27. #227

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I'll answer this even though I'm not a socialist.



    They are. Especially worker coops, people talk about them all the time.



    Isn't this the charity vs welfare debate? The reason that this isn't advocated for as much by socialists is because private determination of where funds go potentially results in conflicts of interest and coercion and lobbying of charities by the wealthy. Additionally, charities that people donate to are often not in line with what a nation might need. People donate for big, glamourous causes such as disasters like hurricanes, but the scale of donations to end poverty and hunger in America are severely dwarfed by what the government does (which is still not enough, at least in the US, since there's still a large amount of poverty). Almost 1/3 of charity dollars in the US are donated to religious institutions, which is conflicting on its own because it ties aid for people to religiousness.

    The "coercion" you're talking about is commonly referred to as "taxes". If we look at this in the context of America, what you'll find is that historically charity giving has remained at 2% of the GDP of the US. This is despite any tax cuts. It doesn't seem that lowering taxes gives people "more money" to donate to charity, thus any cuts to government social welfare won't be redirected through charities due to less taxes, and just results in less social welfare overall even if charities are effective.



    So, a worker's coop? Those already exist.
    "isn't this the charity vs welfare debate"
    possibly although not necessarily since i wasn't referring to private charity (IMO private charity isn't really socialism, any more than welfare in an otherwise capitalist society is).
    "the coercion you're talking about is taxes"
    i suppose it would be in a largely capitalist society with welfare although there are other forms of coercion that would go along with it such as having to sign up for social security.

    "those already exist"
    i'm happy to hear that but they never get talked about, and many of the most popular socialist politicians seem to ignore them or advocate ideas/policies that have essentially nothing to do with worker co-ops.

  28. #228

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    Let's talk about the very related topic of how demoRATs are fearmongering on climate change folks, because that's why republican's aren't nazis.
    Sure. Climate change is objectively true but the presented solutions are cash grabs. The carbon footprint of solar panels and whole home batteries are much larger than burning fossil fuels to generate energy but its presented as a 'green solution.' Moronic ideas like "Using recycled metal studs instead of wood" to build a house are pushed in my industry although, once again, the carbon footprint is higher by a factor of around 10.
    Here we can see the Republicrats pushing against the Democrans on green energy issues with the Democrans grabbing the moral high ground while pushing lucrative nonsensical policy and the Republicrats arguing good sense to justify filling their pocket book while trashing the environment. Either way the planet looses.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  29. #229

    Re: Führer Trump

    That you assert that most people are unaffected by national policy comes from a place of profound privilege, and it's fortunate for you that you have not experienced these effects. I, for one, know many people whose lives and life plans have been changed due to the American federal government's decisions, myself included. I even have family whose lives have been directly positively influenced by Trump being elected. You are essentially faulting people for having empathy, no matter which party they support.

    I'm also not gonna comment on your large post where you talk about Republican/Democrat problems. There are things I take issue with there but my points are largely irrelevant to the discussion and I don't want to get sidetracked. I would like to point out, though, that you notably didn't provide a stance of your own or how that stance would be accomplished (or maybe you did and I glossed over it). Could you, more concretely, talk about that?

    The whole point about the "lesser of two evils" does make it seem quite bleak, yet it's the best you'll get under the flawed structure that we have in the US now. If you want to get anything better, you'll have to go with serious electoral reform (not just the Electoral College thing, but changing the voting system to get rid of a two-party system and allow niche parties to get representation) or some other drastic change. I truly don't believe that will come without a phenomenal paradigm shift, in fact I think it would take no less than armed revolution and/or the dissolution of the US as we know it. That is a very dire outcome, in my opinion. I can't say I love the Democratic party, particularly not the establishment, I actually think they suck in many ways, but I've resigned myself to the real-world facts that it's the best we'll get.
    Last edited by oops_ur_dead; October 9th, 2020 at 10:20 AM.

  30. #230

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    "those already exist"
    i'm happy to hear that but they never get talked about, and many of the most popular socialist politicians seem to ignore them or advocate ideas/policies that have essentially nothing to do with worker co-ops.
    Because socialist politicians deal with national policy, while worker coops are a private concern. National policy on worker coops is just... regular socialism.

    All my socialist friends talk about how worker coops are great all the time. It's not an ignored thing at all.

  31. #231

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    a) They are! Co-ops are a great way for workers to help eachother without major drawbacks. As for kibbutzim, it's a completely different thing: it implies significant way of life-specific changes abiding to that, if I'm not mistaken. Those who wish to live by that will probably find their life significantly improved by it, but those who do not wish to live by that will simply not fit in. Such an organization is infinitely more restrictive than a real socialist (not communist) government, because it goes into its members' way of life, unlike a socialist government which basically only asks you to pay more taxes to give services and redistribute wealth.

    b) Some are; this idea is not new. It even exists since at least a century: I remember reading a manifesto of a socialist who lived not long after the Paris Commune, talking about how the Jacobins became socialists "by necessity" instead of "by conviction", and advocating for a permanent and spontanous movement from the masses to "keep the revolution alive". What you're talking about is called anarcho-socialism, and it has the inherent issue of anarchism: the lack of order and stability, which leads to a lack of means to actually help people on a long-term basis. The state provides order and stability. It's up to the people to make sure it uses order and stability in a way that benefits the people (which is a bit what I was telling Helz in my last post).

    This thread sure derailed a bit lol, it wasn't meant to be about socialism
    a) They are indeed but nobody is talking about them.
    I don't know much about exactly what kibbutzim imply but i believe they enforce communal ownership and equal pay; i.e. exactly what a truly socialist society implies.
    "A real socialist government"
    Please qualify what you mean by 'socialist government' because I feel we have very different notions of 'socialism'
    If we're talking about a generally capitalist society that has a welfare safety net, I don't think thats real socialism because private property still exists and the concept of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't enforced, which I believe it should be in a socialist society (i suppose we can look up exactly what socialism means if need be).

    in any event, a capitalist society with some aspects of socialism is i believe very inefficient because it gives the government power that it doesnt really need and it also restricts capitalists from doing what they do best, e.g. produce wealth. furthermore just as plotato said, nobody can really agree on what the minimum level of sustenance the government should provide is.

    a socialist co-op can agree on that far, far faster than any government; they would just put the matter to a vote and see what the minimum level of security everyone should have is.

    b) im not really convinced by the assertion that it lacks the means to support people in the long-term. many kibbutzim are actually quite wealthy and work in the military industry. i'd also want to state that im not advocating for the dissolution of the government, btw. im advocating for the existence and formation of such organizations or micro-societies in the society we already live. e.g., market socialism rather than anarcho-socialism.
    part of the reason im saying this is because i think people should practice what they preach - someone who believes in an idea should go about living in a manner that is consistent with that idea: hence why i find this idea attractive; it doesnt piss off capitalists, who dont care about restrictions in a society they dont partake in (especially seeing as the people in that society consent to those restrictions), and it doesnt piss off socialists, who can live in a socialist society that actually works.

    people can roll back legislation in a government and it takes time for everyone to even agree on what the government should provide: it takes time for the population to reach a consensus, it takes time for the different branches of government to implement it, it takes time to allocate enough money for it, etc... and on top of it some dude can get elected and rollback all of it.

    i think companies, especially the ones that survive the first ~10-20 uears (i just gave you a number out of my ass) are more stable than the government, though. people can always join or found a new co-op if the one they are in goes bankrupt, too.
    Last edited by Oberon; October 9th, 2020 at 10:26 AM.

  32. #232

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Sure. Climate change is objectively true but the presented solutions are cash grabs. The carbon footprint of solar panels and whole home batteries are much larger than burning fossil fuels to generate energy but its presented as a 'green solution.' Moronic ideas like "Using recycled metal studs instead of wood" to build a house are pushed in my industry although, once again, the carbon footprint is higher by a factor of around 10.
    Here we can see the Republicrats pushing against the Democrans on green energy issues with the Democrans grabbing the moral high ground while pushing lucrative nonsensical policy and the Republicrats arguing good sense to justify filling their pocket book while trashing the environment. Either way the planet looses.
    Don't particularly care about the political aspects of climate change, but are you aware that carbon emissions and the rate at which temperate is increasing have both been going down for the past 20 years in post-industrialized countries?
    carbon emissions are down 20% in the US, if I'm not mistaken.

  33. #233

    Re: Führer Trump

    also, I love the point @Helz made about how many of the people who argue for e.g. the homeless having homes don't actually live in accordance with that idea. thats exactly one of the things i like about worker co-ops and the like - its not an experiment that everyone has to partake in, and if you fuck something up, it's on YOU. people should take more responsibility themselves before pushing for government enforcement of welfare and the like. thats what i like about co-ops: it emphasizes personal responsibility.

  34. #234

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Don't particularly care about the political aspects of climate change, but are you aware that carbon emissions and the rate at which temperate is increasing have both been going down for the past 20 years in post-industrialized countries?
    carbon emissions are down 20% in the US, if I'm not mistaken.
    What you are touching on is "Milankovitch cycles" and yes. I am aware. This does represent cyclical change in temperature but does not invalidate global warming. It relates to the way the world moves around the sun and rotates in context to changes in Eccentricity, Axial Precession, and changes in Obliquity over around 100000, 25000 and 40000 year periods respectively.

    On the most basic level what we know about climate change comes from examination of ice cores. Within very old ice there is very old air bubbles. Those air bubbles can be examined to understand simple things like amounts of greenhouse gases and oxygen levels which can be used to extrapolate things like temperature. In a very basic way global temperature has been extremely strongly correlated with greenhouse gases. I say correlation instead of causation on the same margin you should consider the 'Theory of Gravity' a 'Theory.'
    Basically over the last 300 years Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide numbers have doubled and are higher than they have ever been found throughout history by our understanding of testing ice cores.

    There is also the theoretical connection between the magnetosphere and ice ages but thats a can of worms better not touched on although I think there is something to it.

    In addition the introduction of Chlorofluorocarbons has eliminated massive amounts of ozone (with 1 molecule of Chlorofluorocarbons eliminating around 10,000 ozone molecules.) There is also significant impact of the elimination of rain forests to make room for cattle farming. This translates to less plants that convert Carbon Dioxide into oxygen with more mammals who convert oxygen into Carbon Dioxide while producing substantial amounts of Methane.

    The part most people do not understand is that these temperature changes are gradual because the ocean is big and acts as a thermal dampener. So if right now we were able to stop any increase in greenhouse gasses, stop chlorofluorocarbons influence on ozone, and stop the reduction of plants global temperature would still rise for around 45 years.

    I am not sure where you got the reduction in carbon emissions figure but I feel like even if thats true its probably just exported industry. America loves to pretend to be 'green' by 'recycling plastics' even when that just translates to shipping our plastics to a third world country who then throws it in the ocean, burns it or buries it. America loves to stick up their nose at China citing how much more pollution China makes but in ratio to citizens China is over twice as efficient as America and America is literally the worst in the world.

    I kinda think of global warming like the national debt. Either political party cares about one but pretends the other does not matter and figures their kids will pay for it but both are totally a significant issue.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  35. #235

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    also, I love the point @Helz made about how many of the people who argue for e.g. the homeless having homes don't actually live in accordance with that idea. thats exactly one of the things i like about worker co-ops and the like - its not an experiment that everyone has to partake in, and if you fuck something up, it's on YOU. people should take more responsibility themselves before pushing for government enforcement of welfare and the like. thats what i like about co-ops: it emphasizes personal responsibility.
    I feel like that is the defining difference between the two party's. Republicans focus on personal accountability while Democrats focus on social justice and inequality. For all the flaws each side has their core message generally floats around those justified concepts.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  36. #236

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    What you are touching on is "Milankovitch cycles" and yes. I am aware. This does represent cyclical change in temperature but does not invalidate global warming. It relates to the way the world moves around the sun and rotates in context to changes in Eccentricity, Axial Precession, and changes in Obliquity over around 100000, 25000 and 40000 year periods respectively.

    On the most basic level what we know about climate change comes from examination of ice cores. Within very old ice there is very old air bubbles. Those air bubbles can be examined to understand simple things like amounts of greenhouse gases and oxygen levels which can be used to extrapolate things like temperature. In a very basic way global temperature has been extremely strongly correlated with greenhouse gases. I say correlation instead of causation on the same margin you should consider the 'Theory of Gravity' a 'Theory.'
    Basically over the last 300 years Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide numbers have doubled and are higher than they have ever been found throughout history by our understanding of testing ice cores.

    There is also the theoretical connection between the magnetosphere and ice ages but thats a can of worms better not touched on although I think there is something to it.

    In addition the introduction of Chlorofluorocarbons has eliminated massive amounts of ozone (with 1 molecule of Chlorofluorocarbons eliminating around 10,000 ozone molecules.) There is also significant impact of the elimination of rain forests to make room for cattle farming. This translates to less plants that convert Carbon Dioxide into oxygen with more mammals who convert oxygen into Carbon Dioxide while producing substantial amounts of Methane.

    The part most people do not understand is that these temperature changes are gradual because the ocean is big and acts as a thermal dampener. So if right now we were able to stop any increase in greenhouse gasses, stop chlorofluorocarbons influence on ozone, and stop the reduction of plants global temperature would still rise for around 45 years.

    I am not sure where you got the reduction in carbon emissions figure but I feel like even if thats true its probably just exported industry. America loves to pretend to be 'green' by 'recycling plastics' even when that just translates to shipping our plastics to a third world country who then throws it in the ocean, burns it or buries it. America loves to stick up their nose at China citing how much more pollution China makes but in ratio to citizens China is over twice as efficient as America and America is literally the worst in the world.

    I kinda think of global warming like the national debt. Either political party cares about one but pretends the other does not matter and figures their kids will pay for it but both are totally a significant issue.
    I wasn't claiming that global warming wasn't real; my point is more that it seems to be slowing down: I was reading a book on climate change the month before and one of the things discussed there was the temperature increase. IIRC, one report made by some relatively important committee (don't remember who it was and unfortunately i don't have access to the book right now), showed the temperature increase (by 2100) was lower than the one previously forecast several years back, and they stated that even with an increase as high as the previous estimate, the total cost of adapting to the new global temperature was around 4% in terms of global GDP. not a very serious threat for the coming century at all.

  37. #237

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    a) They are indeed but nobody is talking about them.
    I don't know much about exactly what kibbutzim imply but i believe they enforce communal ownership and equal pay; i.e. exactly what a truly socialist society implies.
    "A real socialist government"
    Please qualify what you mean by 'socialist government' because I feel we have very different notions of 'socialism'
    If we're talking about a generally capitalist society that has a welfare safety net, I don't think thats real socialism because private property still exists and the concept of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" isn't enforced, which I believe it should be in a socialist society (i suppose we can look up exactly what socialism means if need be).

    in any event, a capitalist society with some aspects of socialism is i believe very inefficient because it gives the government power that it doesnt really need and it also restricts capitalists from doing what they do best, e.g. produce wealth. furthermore just as plotato said, nobody can really agree on what the minimum level of sustenance the government should provide is.

    a socialist co-op can agree on that far, far faster than any government; they would just put the matter to a vote and see what the minimum level of security everyone should have is.

    b) im not really convinced by the assertion that it lacks the means to support people in the long-term. many kibbutzim are actually quite wealthy and work in the military industry. i'd also want to state that im not advocating for the dissolution of the government, btw. im advocating for the existence and formation of such organizations or micro-societies in the society we already live. e.g., market socialism rather than anarcho-socialism.
    part of the reason im saying this is because i think people should practice what they preach - someone who believes in an idea should go about living in a manner that is consistent with that idea: hence why i find this idea attractive; it doesnt piss off capitalists, who dont care about restrictions in a society they dont partake in (especially seeing as the people in that society consent to those restrictions), and it doesnt piss off socialists, who can live in a socialist society that actually works.

    people can roll back legislation in a government and it takes time for everyone to even agree on what the government should provide: it takes time for the population to reach a consensus, it takes time for the different branches of government to implement it, it takes time to allocate enough money for it, etc... and on top of it some dude can get elected and rollback all of it.

    i think companies, especially the ones that survive the first ~10-20 uears (i just gave you a number out of my ass) are more stable than the government, though. people can always join or found a new co-op if the one they are in goes bankrupt, too.
    I'm quoting this post but I'm also in part replying to the prior posts, as well. I have a few things to say about this.

    You're right. Actually founding and developing coops is a much more sustainable and ethical way to bring about a democratic socialist society. I don't think this approach gets enough attention given its efficacy. That said, the real efforts people have made to build coops shouldn't be understated. Here in the UK there's a huge co-operative (literally called "the co-operative group"). They have a huge chain of cornerstores, and almost every native would know them (but probably wouldn't know that they're actually a co-op). It's not perfect, but the board members are elected by the employees, and they tend to be meaningfully more ethical than other large-scale companies.

    There's also the Mondragon Corporation in Spain - a conglomerate of co-ops. From what I understand, the workers have even more power than than in the co-operative group. Workers will hire and fire managers depending on their effectiveness (a literal role-reversal) and the pay ratio between the highest and lowest earner ranges from 8:1 and 3:1 depending on the co-op (contrast that with the 350:1 for normal companies, or whatever the exact ratio is).

    I think a lot of people simply don't know about / pay much attention to co-ops in general. This is partially the fault of the left. We tend to get drawn to / fixate on more divisive ideas and strategies. I don't think reparations is an absurd idea for example, but noone would deny that it's a divisive and unpopular position that is not going to happen in any feasible capacity any time soon. We also tend to be impatient and drawn to going through the central government as a primary means to change society. (Though I certainly view this as necessary in some cases like climate change)

    However, there's also a resistance towards talking about co-ops amongst "the establishment". We were never told about the British co-operative party in school, yet we were told about the BNP and UKIP, which have far less seats in UK parliament. We were never told about the history of co-operative movements in my own country - we were never told that the coop we bought chocolate from on the way home is, indeed, a coop lol. And there was never any discussion about Corbyn's proposals to invest in the growth of coops in the UK in the media while he was the Labour leader - Rather than criticizing the idea or even slandering it, discussion on it was simply omitted. I only first heard about co-ops in university, when I happened upon an MIT professor emeritus in economics (Richard Wolff) giving a talk about co-ops to google.

    The British syllabus effectively omits the history of our empire, too. We literally skipped from the English Civil War to WW1, and were effectively given the impression that the empire was a well-intentioned force fighting the spread of autocratic regimes, but that's another matter lol. Using material from "anti-capitalist" groups, irrespective of whether the material is even related to capitalism, was recently banned in the UK. That said, they also banned usage of material from groups that failed to condemn "illegal activity", which technically allows them to forbid any material from groups that have failed to condemn the suffragettes for example lol.

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...al-in-teaching
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  38. #238

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    I'm quoting this post but I'm also in part replying to the prior posts, as well. I have a few things to say about this.

    You're right. Actually founding and developing coops is a much more sustainable and ethical way to bring about a democratic socialist society. I don't think this approach gets enough attention given its efficacy. That said, the real efforts people have made to build coops shouldn't be understated. Here in the UK there's a huge co-operative (literally called "the co-operative group"). They have a huge chain of cornerstores, and almost every native would know them (but probably wouldn't know that they're actually a co-op). It's not perfect, but the board members are elected by the employees, and they tend to be meaningfully more ethical than other large-scale companies.

    There's also the Mondragon Corporation in Spain - a conglomerate of co-ops. From what I understand, the workers have even more power than than in the co-operative group. Workers will hire and fire managers depending on their effectiveness (a literal role-reversal) and the pay ratio between the highest and lowest earner ranges from 8:1 and 3:1 depending on the co-op (contrast that with the 350:1 for normal companies, or whatever the exact ratio is).

    I think a lot of people simply don't know about / pay much attention to co-ops in general. This is partially the fault of the left. We tend to get drawn to / fixate on more divisive ideas and strategies. I don't think reparations is an absurd idea for example, but noone would deny that it's a divisive and unpopular position that is not going to happen in any feasible capacity any time soon. We also tend to be impatient and drawn to going through the central government as a primary means to change society. (Though I certainly view this as necessary in some cases like climate change)

    However, there's also a resistance towards talking about co-ops amongst "the establishment". We were never told about the British co-operative party in school, yet we were told about the BNP and UKIP, which have far less seats in UK parliament. We were never told about the history of co-operative movements in my own country - we were never told that the coop we bought chocolate from on the way home is, indeed, a coop lol. And there was never any discussion about Corbyn's proposals to invest in the growth of coops in the UK in the media while he was the Labour leader - Rather than criticizing the idea or even slandering it, discussion on it was simply omitted. I only first heard about co-ops in university, when I happened upon an MIT professor emeritus in economics (Richard Wolff) giving a talk about co-ops to google.

    The British syllabus effectively omits the history of our empire, too. We literally skipped from the English Civil War to WW1, and were effectively given the impression that the empire was a well-intentioned force fighting the spread of autocratic regimes, but that's another matter lol. Using material from "anti-capitalist" groups, irrespective of whether the material is even related to capitalism, was recently banned in the UK. That said, they also banned usage of material from groups that failed to condemn "illegal activity", which technically allows them to forbid any material from groups that have failed to condemn the suffragettes for example lol.

    https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...al-in-teaching
    The last couple paragraphs of this post were very UK-centric in hindsight. But given that we're all experts on US politics, I'm sure we could extrapolate what I said to the US regardless ^^. All parts of the socialist movement in the US have been deeply scarred by Mccarthyism, afaik. And the big-boy democratic socialist Bernie Sanders... isn't really a democratic socialist. All his policies are social democratic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinkstorteddd02 View Post
    naz, he's claiming to have been at your house last night and infected you. I know u were drunk but PLEASE try as hard as you can to remember... That burning you felt the next morning when you went pee was from me, not him.

  39. #239

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    The carbon footprint of solar panels and whole home batteries are much larger than burning fossil fuels to generate energy but its presented as a 'green solution.'
    Source on this? The only sources I can find state that solar energy has a very low carbon footprint.

    I can fault the Democrats for historically being against nuclear energy, since I think nuclear power is great. This is a stance that they've changed in their 2020 platform, however, and now they fully endorse nuclear energy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Don't particularly care about the political aspects of climate change, but are you aware that carbon emissions and the rate at which temperate is increasing have both been going down for the past 20 years in post-industrialized countries?
    carbon emissions are down 20% in the US, if I'm not mistaken.
    The reason that carbon emissions have been going down in post-industrialized countries is because of the transition to less polluting methods of energy generation. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-14-since-2005

    If your argument is that we should stop trying to be so environmentally conscious because emissions are down, then... well....

  40. #240

    Re: Führer Trump

    Can we make a deal? Highly debatable and contested positions need a source. Stuff like "solar energy has a much higher carbot footprint than fossil fuels"... gotta agree with 100 % of what oops just said here lol, saying otherwise makes no sense unless you can actually prove that the global consensus is wrong.
    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  41. #241

  42. #242

  43. #243

  44. #244

  45. #245

    Re: Führer Trump

    Spoiler : Quotes :
    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Hey peter View Post
    There are two wolves inside you. One is addicted to crack. The other one is also addicted to crack. You are addicted to crack.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    MM IS AN ANTI-VAXXER
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Mallow are you really an anti vaxxer
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    God is a goofy loser.

  46. #246

  47. #247

    Re: Führer Trump

    The carbon footprint of solar panels and whole home batteries are much larger than burning fossil fuels to generate energy but its presented as a 'green solution.'
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Source on this? The only sources I can find state that solar energy has a very low carbon footprint.
    That was something my professor covered in my college course "Green building." A big part of his focus was helping students to understand that the majority of 'green' solutions pushed are not actually very green at all and to identify which solutions actually had a positive impact on the environment.
    I am not sure where he got that figure but he hammered pretty hard on 'basic' solar energy and recycled metal studs. He did mention some new tower design that used mirrors to basically focus solar energy into a laser as being promising specifically because it cut out solar panels. I just spent some time poking around looking for the thing he covered but I couldn't find it.
    He was also excited about wind energy that was attached to blimps which could change their altitude to catch the wind and tidal energy. Although because tidal energy used hydraulics it has a positive carbon footprint but a very very negative economic one. Anything hydraulic is very costly..
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  48. #248

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Source on this? The only sources I can find state that solar energy has a very low carbon footprint.

    I can fault the Democrats for historically being against nuclear energy, since I think nuclear power is great. This is a stance that they've changed in their 2020 platform, however, and now they fully endorse nuclear energy.



    The reason that carbon emissions have been going down in post-industrialized countries is because of the transition to less polluting methods of energy generation. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-14-since-2005

    If your argument is that we should stop trying to be so environmentally conscious because emissions are down, then... well....
    depends what you mean by less polluting methods. i do agree that the more efficient energy collection mechanisms played a (large) role in it, but probably not in the way you're saying.
    coal itself has gotten much, much cleaner in the last ~50 years or so, to give you an example.
    the transition to natural gas also helped considerably because natural gas does not pollute as much coal (even clean coal is 'dirtier' than natural gas)
    theres also the idea that energy usage has become more efficient simply because technologies become more efficient as time passes by. you wont generate as much sulphur in a chemical plant today as you would've in 1960.

  49. #249

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I would like to point out, though, that you notably didn't provide a stance of your own or how that stance would be accomplished (or maybe you did and I glossed over it). Could you, more concretely, talk about that?
    I can't say I have a structured plan for accomplishing anything. I feel like anything I could think up to say "This is how I plan to change national politics" would be some delusion of grandeur. Passively I would like to push to help people understand some of the subtle differences that are very important. As long as people do not see why the pushed changes are cosmetic and do not address the underlying problem they will just focus on 'someone is pushing something to fix a problem I care about' and there can be no real change. I believe ideas are contagious and spreading them can have a positive impact on a large scale.

    Spoiler : Massive rambling on political views and how to change things :
    I would like to see actual capitalism. Not the bullshit oligopoly created by laws that create barriers to entry in markets. Opening markets allows for competition which benefits the consumer and is not a complicated thing to accomplished. It would only require the elimination of laws that prevent competition.

    I would like to see reduction in the cost of healthcare as opposed to spreading the cost of it. Regardless of if thats accomplished through going socialized, or tethering profits to price ceilings; but I feel insurance is not the answer and is actually what has allowed costs to get so high in the first place (as well as enable the healthcare industry to avoid taxes through uncollected fees from in-network insurance.) I could ramble on quite a bit on exactly how the interaction of insurance does this and allows justification of increased pricing every year if you are ever interested.

    I would like to see a flat bottom line tax rate thrown on all publicly traded companies. Currently companies like Apple and Google make crazy money but do not contribute to society because the new iphones 'patent' will be held by some offshore tax haven company that Apple will pay for each phone sold. This allows them to generate wealth while incurring cost to show lower profits which they can then turn around and bill back to that company to recover the money overseas. John Oliver had a nice piece covering some of the business structures and locations this is accomplished in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjk0ECXjiQ) I would like to see legislation pushed to eliminate the grey line of 'Tax avoidance' on the large scale to offset the building financial deficit America carries every year.

    I would like to see the processes of gun control enforced. This is the next gun I am going to buy: https://kalashnikov-usa.com/product/...-12ga-firearm/. I do not think it should be legal. There are laws saying the barrel of a shotgun has to be a certain length and other standards for gun control but this got released as a "12 gauge pistol with a folding brace" to avoid adhering to those laws. Thats as absurd as the bump stock was to circumvent full auto requirements. I am not at all for eliminating fire arms and I dont think that works. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in America and they are not doing very well if you care to look (https://heyjackass.com/); As of right now I see 3411 people shot this year and 635 homicides. Guncontrol from the stance of prohibition does not work because criminals don't follow laws but I do believe gun control needs to be reworked given that I am about to buy a "12 gauge pistol" thats blatantly obviously a shotgun. Hell, I could even pick up some 'engineered oil filters' with a thread crossover that are purpose designed to be a suppressor. I can't say I have any understanding of exactly how to go about accomplishing that outside of saying its just about closing loopholes.

    I would like to see all drugs legalized. In my mind the war on drugs has totally failed. I can go to a city where I don't know anyone and score just about any drug I want. May as well tax it instead of allowing for a black market of organized crime to develop that funds the cartels while costing tax payers an insane amount of money to keep people in cushy 1st world jails. This wouldn't be hard, Many other countries have done it and many states are doing it slowly.

    I would like to see vote reform in the actions of the elimination of the electoral college and provinces that are taxed to be given voting power. Also changing the actual vote system to a different format (I think it was called First past the post if I remember right? Havent looked at the structures in a year or three)

    I would like to see corporate lobbying ended altogether. Its basically legal bribery anyways.

    I would like to see the process of passing laws changed so that a bill cant have erroneous bullshit piggybacked on. It results in congress sneaking on favor crap to 'buy' other congressmens votes to get a bill through. I would also like to see it made a crime to refuse to pass the federal budget as a way to force something to be included. That in my mind is akin to holding millions of peoples financial security hostage and calling it a negotiation. If things do not have the appeal to be pushed through democratically they should not be pushed through at all.

    I would like to see a substantial power shift from the fed to the state. California has very different belief systems than Texas and it makes no sense to govern them the same. Giving local government greater power directly translates to citizens being given more control over how they are governed. It also has the added benefit of forcing financial competence if states are individually accountable. This would be very messy requiring to disentangle a ton of federal regulation while giving states time to put their own law in its place but would be a very positive change imo. Toxic arguments such as "Abortion" would no longer be something even mentioned in federal elections and states could enforce the will of their populations.

    I would like to see immigration opened and Visa programs severely altered. If we need more laborers in X field we should accept them as citizens instead of creating a revolving door of "You can come work in America and pay taxes but you can not be a citizen." I strongly dislike how its currently being manipulated to destroy wages and the current requirements are pretty insane. A friend of mine quizzed me on some of the questions asked to be a citizen and I had no clue even though I have lived in America the majority of my life.

    I would also like to see the federal budget locked to not exceed the governments income. We live like 16 year old girls with daddys credit card running up debt on whatever passion project strikes us at the moment which is a really incompetent way of running a government and is not sustainable. Deficits could simply be taken in ratio across the board for all spending.

    I would like to see an end to "arms grants" as an international policy. America 'supports' nations by basically giving them a huge fund that can be used to purchase guns from american companies. This does little to support global stability while putting a lot of money into the gun industry.

    I would also like to eliminated a number of positions from being politically appointed. It makes sense for a president to choose who he works with to some degree but the idea of having an individual in charge of taxpayers assets, and who makes decisions on their behalf but was not elected is bad.


    I could probably just keep rambling on the subject but I doubt anyone wants to read what I already wrote there about my views or how they could be put into play. If theres something specific you would like to hear about or if I missed what you were asking let me know.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  50. #250

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    Don't particularly care about the political aspects of climate change, but are you aware that carbon emissions and the rate at which temperate is increasing have both been going down for the past 20 years in post-industrialized countries?
    carbon emissions are down 20% in the US, if I'm not mistaken.
    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    The reason that carbon emissions have been going down in post-industrialized countries is because of the transition to less polluting methods of energy generation. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-14-since-2005
    I would point out that post industrialized nations can only exist so long as industrialized nations do. They do not need the dirty machines and factory's required to produce capital goods or harvest the raw goods that make them up. Them reducing their personal carbon footprint in no way reflects a global reduction in the carbon footprint. I would equate it to 1st world nations 'recycling' by passing off their plastics to 3rd world nations because its cheaper than actually recycling; and pointing to less plastic in 'their' landfills as evidence that they are helping the environment.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

 

 

Posting Permissions

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