Election 2020 - Page 564 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15153300
annatar1914 wrote:What is clear at least to me is that under no circumstances would you ever concede the idea of President Trump having a distinct ideology and strategy, for better or for worse, no matter what I said or provided by way of evidence.
What a copout!! :lol: PoD called you out and you backed down in a most cowardly fashion, because you cannot provide evidence for your claim.

As Trump cultists go, you're amongst the worst, @annatar1914, since you won't even admit to it. :knife:
User avatar
By colliric
#15153301
Saeko wrote:Actually, even in that case, she is guilty of both distribution and possession since she copied the illicit materials.

"Hackers hacked my phone and stole my cp of my daughter" isn't a valid excuse.


I don't even know if it was CP since I haven't seen the photo myself and we're going off her 16 year old(and very obviously aggressively rebellious against her parents) daughters word.

We don't know if it was even "she's fully naked and topless" CP or if she was covering up using her arms but felt naked.

One of them is Gaslighting the other, that's all we know for certain.
By Doug64
#15153303
I'm pretty sure everyone has heard of the vote Senator Paul pushed on the constitutionality of the Senate trial of Trump, with 45 Senators (all of the Republicans, no surprise) voting against the trial's constitutionality. While I certainly agree with Paul on Democratic hypocrisy, in this case I tend to lean against those 45 Republicans. Yes, removal from office is the primary penalty, but in addition there is the prohibition from holding future office and in the absence of any evidence of what the Founders and the generation that ratified the Constitution thought on the matter (and I don't know of any) we have to go with what we think makes the most sense. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says the Senate cannot put a former executive officer on trial and imposing the prohibition of holding future officers, and tend to agree that it can. Whether the House could impeach someone no longer in office is another question, and there I tend to lean to say that no, they can't.

@SpecialOlympian, sorry, I try to limit responses to people wanting to have an honest discussion/debate rather than mockers.

ingliz wrote:What is the problem?

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has enforcement power “by appropriate legislation.”

The problem is that the prohibition is against anyone serving in a number of offices, including president, that has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Trump hasn't engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Tainari88 wrote:@Doug64 wrote:

The USA sucks when it comes to being responsible. If you want to avoid dealing with caravans and poverty wages that motivate mass exodus type of situations in Honduras, El Salvador, etc. you need to make life better for those nations. Period.

No. The US government has no duty to improve the economic conditions of other countries--that responsibility lies with their own governments, and no other.

Tainari88 wrote:And capitalism has an expiration date too BJ. It does.

Nope, it'll be rediscovered every time the socialists run out of other people's wealth and need to encourage them to create more.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15153307
Rancid wrote:Free market jesus saves all

Hallelujah, and pass the ammo! :excited:
User avatar
By SpecialOlympian
#15153309
Doug64 wrote:@SpecialOlympian, sorry, I try to limit responses to people wanting to have an honest discussion/debate rather than mockers.


There is nothing illegitimate about my question, even if it's mocking.

If you believe the election was stolen, how do you explain Trumps behavior? Is he a weak little bitch or did he betray you? Because if you assume the election was stolen, and you trust Trump when he claims the election was stolen, how do you justify his behavior in allowing Biden to assume the presidency by theft?

I'm literally thinking out the logical premises you have laid further than you have. You're the one who is afraid to take your thoughts to their logical conclusion. So, is Trump a traitor or is Trump a bitch?
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 28 Jan 2021 06:02, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15153310
Godstud wrote:What a copout!! :lol: PoD called you out and you backed down in a most cowardly fashion, because you cannot provide evidence for your claim.

As Trump cultists go, you're amongst the worst, @annatar1914, since you won't even admit to it. :knife:


@Godstud ;

You're like the biggest liberal Trump cultist on PoFo, almost. You just can't stop thinking about the guy, and in a way that suits him just fine in his arrogance. That's why you must have missed this part of what I said;

One beginning clue however is how this stupid second impeachment will turn out. It is a clumsy attempt to deny President Trump the opportunity to run for a second term in 2024, and may well provide him with plenty of opportunity instead to do some damage to his political enemies.

Another indication of a long term strategy is President Trump's continued control over the GOP, coupled with threats to form a third party as yet another form of leverage. A short term conman doesn't operate in this way for short term benefits. So, he's not a short term conman, despite the propaganda that the propagandists are starting to believe themselves. No, what our enemy is is something different than that.


So there's two indications right there that suggest that you are quite wrong.

It's a genuine puzzlement to me, honestly, this kind of myopia Liberals have for denying everyone any kind moral agency in their actions, even their enemies, such that their enemies are all believed to be ''crazy'', or ''criminal'', or ''stupid''... Only you folks think, and think rationally and long-term, right?
User avatar
By Godstud
#15153312
annatar1914 wrote:You're like the biggest liberal Trump cultist on PoFo, almost. You just can't stop thinking about the guy, and in a way that suits him just fine in his arrogance. That's why you must have missed this part of what I said;
You're the one who said he could make long term plans and defend him while providing nothing to the contrary. Your arguments are DISHONEST, and I'm not the one fixated on defending an immoral unethical piece of shit... You are.

annatar1914 wrote:So there's two indications right there that suggest that you are quite wrong.
Indications are not evidence, but I am sure someone else will point out that obvious point to you.

eg. Clouds are not evidence of rain.

annatar1914 wrote:It's a genuine puzzlement to me, honestly, this kind of myopia Liberals have for denying everyone any kind moral agency in their actions, even their enemies, such that their enemies are all believed to be ''crazy'', or ''criminal'', or ''stupid''... Only you folks think, and think rationally and long-term, right?
You are the one who can't think long term, and that's evident with your constant and unwavering defense of Trump, regardless of what it's about.

I never said you were criminal, crazy, or stupid, but you seem to infer that towards anyone who takes issue with your beliefs. You make a lot of hypocritical statements, it seems.
#15153313
Yeah why would anyone think about the fucking clown POTUS sideshow carnival freak president who led a failed insurrection? What are you, gay for democracy? Why do you care about democracy so much unless you're gay for it?

Yeah, thought you were gay.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15153314
colliric wrote:I don't even know if it was CP since I haven't seen the photo myself and we're going off her 16 year old(and very obviously aggressively rebellious against her parents) daughters word.


She actually posted the picture on twitter where 3 million people saw it and they thought it warranted getting the authorities involved.

We don't know if it was even "she's fully naked and topless" CP or if she was covering up using her arms but felt naked.


It doesn't fucking matter, you pedo apologist! >:
User avatar
By colliric
#15153315
SpecialOlympian wrote:*Pounding the table*

TRAITOR OR BITCH! TRAITOR OR BITCH! TRAITOR OR BITCH!


You sound like a broken record.....
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15153316
@Godstud ;

You're the one who said he could make long term plans and defend him while providing nothing to the contrary. Your arguments are DISHONEST, and I'm not the one fixated on defending an immoral unethical piece of shit... You are.


Saying that a person can be intelligent and capable of long term strategic thought is neither dishonest nor a defense of their moral behavior. In fact, the case can be made that it makes such a person more culpable and responsible for their actions, not less. Evidently again you didn't really read or understand what I'm saying. Maybe it's my fault, but as with other things when reading my writing, you do have a tendency to jump the gun and make comments that are not supported by the facts, as when you thought I was holding to materialism as in a hedonistic lifestyle instead of a literal physical materialism re; matter/spirit. Remember that?

Indications are not evidence, but I am sure someone else will point out that obvious point to you.

eg. Clouds are not evidence of rain.


Most of the time you can't have one without the other. Trump's hold on the GOP as I've said, is not the action of a short-term minded con artist.

You are the one who can't think long term, and that's evident with your constant and unwavering defense of Trump, regardless of what it's about.


I don't defend him, so much as I accuse his enemies of falling time and again into his traps which would be avoided if they considered their enemy's intelligence and abilities more highly. But then any liberal who did that would be suspected of ''defending Trump'', so....

I never said you were criminal, crazy, or stupid, but you seem to infer that towards anyone who takes issue with your beliefs. You make a lot of hypocritical statements, it seems.


No, I'm quite prepared to call evil, evil, and good, good. But I admit a hesitancy to call an individual person that way, only their actions. And I also admit freely of falling short of the standards of my beliefs from time to time. What I am talking about is the Liberal tendency to ironically absolve people of their moral agency by denying their intelligence or saying it's some fault in their environment or whatever, when trying to come to terms with their bad actions.

Therefore with President Trump as with anyone else, I'll say that I think he lies and is sexually immoral and so forth, but I'm not going to deny his intelligence and other natural talents even if I think that he (as with other people including myself) tend to misuse or even abuse those natural gifts sometimes.
User avatar
By colliric
#15153318
Saeko wrote:It doesn't fucking matter, you pedo apologist! >:


No. I just don't know what she actually posted since it all says "allegedly" in the reports, and you and I both know Cancel Culture and Gaslighting exist.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15153320
@colliric It did say in the report. It said it was a nude topless photo of her 16 year old daughter, taken a few months ago. You are being apologetic for this scumbag. pathetic!!!
User avatar
By colliric
#15153321
Godstud wrote:@colliric It did say in the report. It said it was a nude topless photo of her 16 year old daughter, taken a few months ago. You are being apologetic for this scumbag. pathetic!!!


No, I read this one:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world ... ddaf63cb69

It said "allegedly".

Yes I love Murdoch's local newspaper, been a fan of the Herald Sun since I was a kid.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15153322
Doug64 wrote:or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

'Given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof' is good enough. Trump doesn't have to have taken up arms and manned the barricades to be found unfit for office.


:)
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15153337
No @Doug64 it does not lie (the responsibility) with their own government. Why? Because imperialists who fight for United Fruit companies prop up violent dictators and repress democrátic votes in Central América. They make living in those nations impossible.

Your government makes life difficult for other governments in Central América. Do you really want to know how responsible the USA is for Honduras problems, El Salvador's problems, Nicaragua's problems, Panama's problems, Guatemala's problems because greedy American capitalists want to control a tiny nation's land from afar?

You think abuse of power is right? You don't get what running a greedy filled unethical Empire is about till your own nation winds up in a rubble heap. You Will find out about Bad karma sion.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15153340
Tainari88 wrote:Milton Friedman is not interested in capitalism?

Sure he was. Very much a free market capitalist. Early in his life, he was for military intervention. Later in his life he was not. He opposed the Gulf War for example. So he wasn't necessarily in good graces with neoliberal/neoconservative types at that point in his life. However, he supported both legal and illegal immigration. Free movement of labor is very much part of proletarian internationalism.

Tainari88 wrote:Clinton is not into profit or Biden or Obama even though all of them had very powerful Big Pharma and Big Banks contributed to their very expensive campaigns and Chelsea Clinton is married to a banker...bankers have nothing to do with capitalism?

Big pharma is largely fascist. It's not free market at all. Neither is the healthcare system. Neither is the higher education system. You seem to think that capitalism is always and only about profit. It's not. It's a means of aggregating capital to put together industries that individual resources could not do alone.

Tainari88 wrote:Where do you get these lame takes on what the neocons and neolibs get their playbook from?

I thought you knew Irving Kristol started off as a Trotskyist.

Irving Kristol
Kristol was born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of non-observant Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, Bessie (Mailman) and Joseph Kristol.[5][6]

He graduated from Boys High School in Brooklyn, New York in 1936 and received his B.A. from the City College of New York in 1940, where he majored in history and was part of a small, but vocal, Trotskyist anti-Soviet group who eventually became known as, The New York Intellectuals.

Like Trotsky, the neoliberals/neoconservatives believe in permanent revolution too--just not a purely proletarian one. That is part of why they prefer a muscular foreign policy, and while you'll see that Biden will likely be more aggressive with the military than Trump was. Additionally, Biden is reversing Trump on immigration--meaning the establishment learned next to nothing. There are big differences between Trotskyists and neoliberals/neoconservatives for sure. For example, Trotsky ended up opposing the Soviet Union as a degenerated worker's state, much like China is today. The establishment neoliberals and neoconservatives most definitely do not oppose China, even though China is running concentration camps much like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did.

Tainari88 wrote:Kahlo and Rivera are on the Mexican currency. Both Communists. Name me one damn Communist that ever made it on to the USA system of money and banking? None is the answer.

So what does it tell if you have communists on a currency controlled by a central bank?

Tainari88 wrote:Yet somehow the neocons are associated with an eternal revolution proponent like Trotsky who got in huge arguments with Lenin and others....I will tell you something though...the Trotskys were incredibly disciplined in academics.

Many of the neoconservatives and neoliberals are disciplined academics too. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. So was Robert Reich, Strobe Talbot, Roger Porter, Ira Magaziner, Franklin Raines, Russ Feingold, David Vitter, George Stephanopolous, Susan Rice, Cory Booker, Bobby Jindal, Rachel Maddow, Pete Buttigieg, etc. They are a lot of things, but they're not stupid.

Tainari88 wrote:Tell me how Obama and the rest became Trotsky followers?

Trotskyists or liberals mugged by reality. Meaning, they are disillusioned with Trotsky, not embracing him.

Tainari88 wrote:Do you believe in your own theories that somehow they don't like capitalism?

They are all concerned with its present structure. However, they are not interested in a socialist revolution like you.

Tainari88 wrote:Pelosi, Biden, etc all have stated inequivocally that they are pro-capitalist and believe in that fully.

Oh, yes. I understand that. They are also utterly corrupt. Do you know Pelosi bought call options in Tesla before Biden announced the US government would be buying electric cars? Remember all the hemming and hawing about a few senators who sold just before covid broke? Notice that those critics are suddenly silent when it's Nancy Pelosi?

Tainari88 wrote:Critical theory about what BJ?

Encyclopedia Brittanica wrote:Critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.


Tainari88 wrote:They successfully defeated the conman Trump. Trump has a big group of loyalists.

That's a contradiction. They didn't defeat him. They stole an election where he gained 12M more votes than in 2016. Trump's political strength is objectively stronger now than it was in 2016.

Tainari88 wrote:I happen to think violence is inevitable now.

I'm inclined to agree.

Tainari88 wrote:There is always other choices BJ. For all of us human beings. They might not be ideal choices but there is a better choice than a lying conman narcissist from Queens.

If Trump wasn't there, we'd have Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Frankly, I think Trump was the better choice. He also trolled them endlessly, which was and still is very entertaining.

Tainari88 wrote:Working people in the USA need to realize the conman is not caring about working class rights.

Trump is not interested in proletarian internationalism. So his position on taxes, trade and immigration dropped the unemployment level to record lows, especially among minorities; and, they saw their wages rise for the first time in 30 years. You can tell them that they've been conned all you want. People can see what's going on in their bank accounts.

Tainari88 wrote:I don't agree with this statement. Bernie Sanders appealed to the working class.

Yes. You're absolutely correct. I mean at election time, he was the major party candidate on the ballot. Both times, the Democratic establishment killed off Bernie Sanders.

Tainari88 wrote:Since the American public has been BRAINWASHED against any form of socialism at all for years and years?

Really? I've unequivocally stated that there are only two politicians in the United States that can get major crowds--Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In stealing an election from Trump, they did not defeat him at all. In fact, they put on the most humiliating presidential inauguration in my lifetime; and yours too for that matter.

Tainari88 wrote:The USA is the one that has an issue with it. Why?

We like our creature comforts. We look at Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, China, Myanmar, etc. and figure we're much better off without socialism.

Tainari88 wrote:They are threatened by it because it is about losing money and control and the elite wants to squeeze everyone dry that is below them.

Some do. That's true. That's why Trump supporters have been belly laughing about Melvin Capital and Reddit and other folks buying up stocks like GameStop or AMC and forcing wealthy short-sellers into short squeezes. It's quite funny to see them howl and call the SEC for help as they lose billions.

Tainari88 wrote:Roosevelt was hugely popular because he SOLVED a terrible economic depression in the 1930s with socialist social and economic programs.

Look at US GDP stats. The recession in 1938 was brutal. What solved the depression was World War II. We are more or less in a Great Depression now, because there is no pricing power for most things except for healthcare and college educations. Most other things, except real estate and precious metals are going down in value.

Tainari88 wrote:They are going to have to give in again with this pandemic. Because the option of no schools, no hospitals, mass homeless evictions and no unemplolyment insurance is not going to go well for the Republican party or the Democratic party full of neoliberals who fund perpetual wars and who are being sponsored by the Defense industry, banks and private corporations who know American democracy is for sale and is a sham.

Oh, it's the Democrats who are running everything now. Haven't you heard? Weren't you saying that Trump was defeated?

Tainari88 wrote:Have you read the debates in the USA congress during and before and after the American Civil War BJ? The slaveholders truly believed that the hiarchy is there and it is natural and it is right. But some people challenged that thought process. A clip from Harriet the movie. Yeah, for some pigs who belive owning another human being is 'natural'and ínnate....they sound like you do with the bullshit about pecking orders of chickens.

Sure. That has changed, and throughout much of the world as well. It has allowed people with higher IQs to improve their lot in life regardless of their ethnicity, race, color, creed or gender for all practical purposes. However, liberalism cannot do much for people with low IQs. As Jordan Peterson points out, both liberals and conservatives are wrong. When you have people with an IQ of 80 or lower, they cannot perform a gainful role in an information society.

Tainari88 wrote:The USA has people who have come from deep poverty and become bourgeois and elitists. The same person. That lets me know that the pecking order is arbitrary and malleable and not done in concrete.

Yes, and that is usually a function of IQ, hard work, capitalism and risk taking. Most of the ultra rich are what many would call "new money." They also all came from good homes.

Tainari88 wrote:It is not a fixed and natural system. It is artificial BJ.

It is not strictly hereditary. That's true.

Tainari88 wrote:Wasn't the USA about a new society where people were free to choose their own destinies?

Sure. Largely they do. There are people who have screaming high IQs and aren't wealthy. They're frankly not motivated to that end. However, there are not a lot of imbeciles who are wealthy. As the old adage goes, the fool and his money are soon parted.

Tainari88 wrote:and the mass group of HAVE NOTS is enormous and growing.

That's the bigger problem. Who is Elon Musk ruthlessly exploiting? How about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? Ok. I agree that Jeff Bezos is an asshole. I hope his warehouse workers and drivers unionize just to fuck him up a bit. I think a major strike against Amazon would be a good thing. He's got it coming to him. Where do you go next? McDonald's is not a career for people. It's for high school and college kids. Outsource all the manufacturing to China, and you're going to have big social problems. That much should be obvious. It certainly was to Trump.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that he has never shown himself to be capable of long term political strategy, and that this logically implies that his current behaviour is almost certainly not long term political strategy.

Getting elected president of the United States definitely counts as having a long-term political strategy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:this would, of course mean that it would be illogical to claim that President Trump is even more powerful now than when he was President

His support is broader now than it was in 2016.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and this is why Trump will never beat the Establishment. The establishment is capable of thinking farther than four years in advance while Trump is lucky to think about the next four minutes.

The establishment wins, because it cheats. It's not a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Do you honestly think Biden is more popular than Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump? Why didn't anyone come to his inauguration to cheer him on?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have looked at what he has done.

This is how I know there are no examples of him doing anything that could be described as long term political strategy.

His political actions created substantial improvements in unemployment rates and wage increases for working class people. That's why he got 12M more votes in 2020 than 2016. That's why the establishment is shell shocked in spite of having stolen an election. They threw everything at him, and he still got more popular, not less.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, his ability to smear contradictory slogans together and trick right wingers into voting for him is impressive, but this is due to Republicans supporting post factual paradigms for the last few decades and Trump is just conning them.

If that's your opinion, why do you not see that as a long-term political strategy?

Saeko wrote:Holy shit. This is the heist of the century. :eek:

It's hilarious.

Saeko wrote:Could be. But guess what? It's still illegal.

Most law of that sort is commercial. Possession in many cases means possession with the intent to sell. We shall see. But who cares anyway?
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15153352
blackjack21 wrote:Sure he was. Very much a free market capitalist. Early in his life, he was for military intervention. Later in his life he was not. He opposed the Gulf War for example. So he wasn't necessarily in good graces with neoliberal/neoconservative types at that point in his life. However, he supported both legal and illegal immigration. Free movement of labor is very much part of proletarian internationalism.

Relampaguito, you are going to have to forgive me with time. I am in a small window of time here between when my little son starts his virtual lessons on this computer and breakfast having to get done. So I don't have the time I would like to go over the points with you. Free movement of labor so someone can make a killing is part of neoliberalism. I don't understand why these American Yankee patriots don't seem to analyze why these big corporations pull up stakes and go overseas to invest their money instead of staying put in small towns in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan? Someone has to explain shit to them? Why? Oh, because they believe total lies about the principles of capitalism. That somehow they are expendable and it doesn't matter if you are a Ukrainian or a Pole or a German background American---you have a higher wage they need to pay and they don't want to pay it. The Capitalist is not a racist in that sense. He knows one human being's labor value for certain professions and jobs is interchangable with another human being's labor value. So did the slaveowner in the South. Why buy Black people? If they are not really capable of doing human being based work? An ox or a horse can't do the intricate labor of another human being. They know that. They know that a human's productive years has monetary value that is valuable to an exploiter. The capitalist knows that too. You got to keep workers alive to make sure they produce, and you keep slaves alive for the same purpose. The key to both styles of economic organization is about give as little as you can and get as much out of them as you can. Both objectify human beings and make them commodities. The difference between both models has to do with small freedoms. With slaves? You as a slave have no choice but to work, because the law and the society denies you certain rights. Under capitalism you have the right to leave the employ of the owner of the means of production and go and sell your labor to another capitalist or to attempt getting a loan from a bank or credit institution at a reasonable interest rate and open up your own business model. You are not tied to an employer for the course of your life and the slaveowner can sell you without asking your permission. See how the capitalist system has a slight advantage over the slave system because the worker has some kind of bargaining power. That is a trend Blackjack. Greater power over a worker's own labor. Eventually you get to socialism that is democratic and it applies to the workplace. Where the worker is part of the enterprise and controls his own labor investment as well as the means of producing services, goods or commodities. Greater control the worker has in a socialist model over his or her own productive value. It beats out the capitalist old model. It threatens the status quo. So the ones living high off the hog in the old model? Fight that model to the death. Like the slaveowners in the old plantation economy of the south did long ago versus the Northern Carpetbaggers and Capitalist Robber Barons of the late 19th century in the USA. But the models keep evolving and the evolutionary trend is pro socialism BJ. You won't be able to stop that train because it is about greater efficiency and control that works for the largest group. And it is not about emotion. It is about pragmatic indicators based on an evolving need for greater control and distribution of the wealth. The conditions are dictating what works. Not emotions.



Big pharma is largely fascist. It's not free market at all. Neither is the healthcare system. Neither is the higher education system. You seem to think that capitalism is always and only about profit. It's not. It's a means of aggregating capital to put together industries that individual resources could not do alone.

The best analyzers of these systems are Marxist BJ. They are. Capitalism knows exactly where and how mass production happens. It just so happens to be limited to benefitting one small elite group. It is allowed to do that because there is a very corrupt system that works for powerful people. That is reality. Nothing is really new what you are writing to me BJ. I understand it all. What I don't understand is how people think that by being self centered and closed minded and uncooperative and violent and racist--that somehow that is going to improve human societies. It won't. Guaranteed it will lead to a bloodbath. I don't like bloodbaths, but the result of all that suffering seems to be.....solve what the tension is that caused the resentment or perish. And unfortunately that is what will happen with this pandemic. It requires some blood with arms, dead people and lack of efficiency with the solutions. Till the obstruction is removed.


I thought you knew Irving Kristol started off as a Trotskyist.

Irving Kristol

Like Trotsky, the neoliberals/neoconservatives believe in permanent revolution too--just not a purely proletarian one. That is part of why they prefer a muscular foreign policy, and while you'll see that Biden will likely be more aggressive with the military than Trump was. Additionally, Biden is reversing Trump on immigration--meaning the establishment learned next to nothing. There are big differences between Trotskyists and neoliberals/neoconservatives for sure. For example, Trotsky ended up opposing the Soviet Union as a degenerated worker's state, much like China is today. The establishment neoliberals and neoconservatives most definitely do not oppose China, even though China is running concentration camps much like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany did.
Look, BJ, the truth of the matter is that the PRC controls what the banks and the capitalists do in their territory. The USA doesn't. It is the opposite. The PRC knows this and is exploiting that enormous weakness. A weakness brought about by greedy people in both parties in the USA government who were willing to give up their government authority for payoffs. You got to accept that the Chinese nationalistic fascism is more forceful because it doesn't compromise. Eventually that will be a very expensive lesson in power hiarchies for the USA to understand.


So what does it tell if you have communists on a currency controlled by a central bank?

It means BJ that Mexicans are living with tremenous dichotomies. There are two sides to their political life. And it is a fascinating internal fight for power. The USA has lost a very important column in pressuring balance. Because all politics requires the political adherents to hash it out among themselves and refrain from wiping out each other's prsence to gain some kind of inner struggle that results in progress. The Americans eliminated the part that was about worker protections and it has led to the problems on January 6th and your conman (the bitch or the traitor) having to leave the position. Why? because a large group of Americans don't know a damn thing about who is a neoliberal and who is not. Ignorance is not bliss.


Many of the neoconservatives and neoliberals are disciplined academics too. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. So was Robert Reich, Strobe Talbot, Roger Porter, Ira Magaziner, Franklin Raines, Russ Feingold, David Vitter, George Stephanopolous, Susan Rice, Cory Booker, Bobby Jindal, Rachel Maddow, Pete Buttigieg, etc. They are a lot of things, but they're not stupid.

Yes BJ. And that is why being some educated intellectual doesn't mean you have the best interest of humanity at heart. Again character that has to do with true respect for all is more important in my book of values than what many of these people believe. Trump is not a person that really had a true academic grasp of things. He is an instinctual capitalistic lying unethical man who sticks to what he knows. And he doesn't know about government enough to have done a better job at being a caudillo. That is for sure. I don't know of a single Latin American caudillo who would have made the mistakes Trump made. It is due to his lack of experience with political planning. It will cost him everything now.


Trotskyists or liberals mugged by reality. Meaning, they are disillusioned with Trotsky, not embracing him.

In the end power corrupts these people. It is a battle about human tendencies that have been present for a long time in history. In the end? Humanity has to start changing what has given them disappointing results BJ. Period. I got to go now...be back later.


They are all concerned with its present structure. However, they are not interested in a socialist revolution like you.


Oh, yes. I understand that. They are also utterly corrupt. Do you know Pelosi bought call options in Tesla before Biden announced the US government would be buying electric cars? Remember all the hemming and hawing about a few senators who sold just before covid broke? Notice that those critics are suddenly silent when it's Nancy Pelosi?





That's a contradiction. They didn't defeat him. They stole an election where he gained 12M more votes than in 2016. Trump's political strength is objectively stronger now than it was in 2016.


I'm inclined to agree.


If Trump wasn't there, we'd have Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Frankly, I think Trump was the better choice. He also trolled them endlessly, which was and still is very entertaining.


Trump is not interested in proletarian internationalism. So his position on taxes, trade and immigration dropped the unemployment level to record lows, especially among minorities; and, they saw their wages rise for the first time in 30 years. You can tell them that they've been conned all you want. People can see what's going on in their bank accounts.


Yes. You're absolutely correct. I mean at election time, he was the major party candidate on the ballot. Both times, the Democratic establishment killed off Bernie Sanders.


Really? I've unequivocally stated that there are only two politicians in the United States that can get major crowds--Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In stealing an election from Trump, they did not defeat him at all. In fact, they put on the most humiliating presidential inauguration in my lifetime; and yours too for that matter.


We like our creature comforts. We look at Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea, China, Myanmar, etc. and figure we're much better off without socialism.


Some do. That's true. That's why Trump supporters have been belly laughing about Melvin Capital and Reddit and other folks buying up stocks like GameStop or AMC and forcing wealthy short-sellers into short squeezes. It's quite funny to see them howl and call the SEC for help as they lose billions.


Look at US GDP stats. The recession in 1938 was brutal. What solved the depression was World War II. We are more or less in a Great Depression now, because there is no pricing power for most things except for healthcare and college educations. Most other things, except real estate and precious metals are going down in value.


Oh, it's the Democrats who are running everything now. Haven't you heard? Weren't you saying that Trump was defeated?


Sure. That has changed, and throughout much of the world as well. It has allowed people with higher IQs to improve their lot in life regardless of their ethnicity, race, color, creed or gender for all practical purposes. However, liberalism cannot do much for people with low IQs. As Jordan Peterson points out, both liberals and conservatives are wrong. When you have people with an IQ of 80 or lower, they cannot perform a gainful role in an information society.


Yes, and that is usually a function of IQ, hard work, capitalism and risk taking. Most of the ultra rich are what many would call "new money." They also all came from good homes.


It is not strictly hereditary. That's true.


Sure. Largely they do. There are people who have screaming high IQs and aren't wealthy. They're frankly not motivated to that end. However, there are not a lot of imbeciles who are wealthy. As the old adage goes, the fool and his money are soon parted.


That's the bigger problem. Who is Elon Musk ruthlessly exploiting? How about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? Ok. I agree that Jeff Bezos is an asshole. I hope his warehouse workers and drivers unionize just to fuck him up a bit. I think a major strike against Amazon would be a good thing. He's got it coming to him. Where do you go next? McDonald's is not a career for people. It's for high school and college kids. Outsource all the manufacturing to China, and you're going to have big social problems. That much should be obvious. It certainly was to Trump.


Getting elected president of the United States definitely counts as having a long-term political strategy.


His support is broader now than it was in 2016.


The establishment wins, because it cheats. It's not a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Do you honestly think Biden is more popular than Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump? Why didn't anyone come to his inauguration to cheer him on?


His political actions created substantial improvements in unemployment rates and wage increases for working class people. That's why he got 12M more votes in 2020 than 2016. That's why the establishment is shell shocked in spite of having stolen an election. They threw everything at him, and he still got more popular, not less.


If that's your opinion, why do you not see that as a long-term political strategy?


It's hilarious.


Most law of that sort is commercial. Possession in many cases means possession with the intent to sell. We shall see. But who cares anyway?
  • 1
  • 562
  • 563
  • 564
  • 565
  • 566
  • 596

Is this an attempt to justify their slow rollout?[…]

Everything is structured to shrink the American mi[…]

How to deal with Trump?

You don't see a contradiction between these goals[…]

5.3 million vaccines where given just this weekend[…]