2020 Democratic presidential candidate

[preacherman76]

41 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the AI revolution is changing the paradigm which you're discussing.  We need to get ahead of the situation before we are in the same spot we are with FB and google , trying to figure out how to catch up with a quickly changing landscape.  Only this time the potential carnage goes way beyond being hounded by targeted advertising. 

 

 

Its a bad spot, no doubt about it. I think the idea of automation will collapse on its own. You cant take away millions of jobs and think people are still going to buy your products at anywhere near the level they did. What good is automation when no one can afford to buy your products? ETA- Especially if those companies are going to be taxed into oblivion on top of it.

Once enough companies switch over where its actually effecting the market, they will see its a bad idea. To bad we will have to watch it play out though.

Edited April 24, 2018 by preacherman76

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Its a bad spot, no doubt about it. I think the idea of automation will collapse on its own. You cant take away millions of jobs and think people are still going to buy your products at anywhere near the level they did.

Man that would be great. My fear is that as production costs go down corporations can afford to sell less to maintain their profit levels. If they make it a few years then their equipment is paid off and they can afford to sell to the few who can still afford it. I truly believe human greed knows no bounds. 

 

[RavenHawk]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think the AI revolution is changing the paradigm which you're discussing.  We need to get ahead of the situation before we are in the same spot we are with FB and google , trying to figure out how to catch up with a quickly changing landscape.  Only this time the potential carnage goes way beyond being hounded by targeted advertising.

Yes, the economy is changing but human nature remains the same.  The economy is still a function based in human activity.  The only way for humans to build wealth is through a strong work ethic and socialism destroys that.  FB and google is just another excuse to foist socialism on the people.  If you want to stay ahead, then continue with innovation, not socialism.  We need VAI (Value Added Innovation), not VAT.

[preacherman76]

29 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man that would be great. My fear is that as production costs go down corporations can afford to sell less to maintain their profit levels. If they make it a few years then their equipment is paid off and they can afford to sell to the few who can still afford it. I truly believe human greed knows no bounds. 

 

Yeah, the companies that jump in first will make out the best. Especially before the entire market starts taking huge hits.

[RavenHawk]

5 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Its a bad spot, no doubt about it. I think the idea of automation will collapse on its own. You cant take away millions of jobs and think people are still going to buy your products at anywhere near the level they did. What good is automation when no one can afford to buy your products? ETA- Especially if those companies are going to be taxed into oblivion on top of it.

Once enough companies switch over where its actually effecting the market, they will see its a bad idea. To bad we will have to watch it play out though.

Actually, automation is the next step.  We’re still thinking on a monopoly level.  Large companies can control more automation, etc., etc.  But automation will undercut itself in large corporations.  Automation will open it up for more and more small business to take the lead.  There will be more diversity and monopolies will become unprofitable.  Everyone will have a regular job and run their own home business.  The large companies that produce durable goods will rely on local, multiple small home business to acquire a certain part.  The drive will be innovation and small.  And more wealth will be produced.

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually, automation is the next step.  We’re still thinking on a monopoly level.  Large companies can control more automation, etc., etc.  But automation will undercut itself in large corporations.  Automation will open it up for more and more small business to take the lead.  There will be more diversity and monopolies will become unprofitable.  Everyone will have a regular job and run their own home business.  The large companies that produce durable goods will rely on local, multiple small home business to acquire a certain part.  The drive will be innovation and small.  And more wealth will be produced.

 

Man that someone believes that and is willing to see if it bares out is the corporatocracists' wet dream. 

 

[RavenHawk]

47 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man that would be great. My fear is that as production costs go down corporations can afford to sell less to maintain their profit levels. If they make it a few years then their equipment is paid off and they can afford to sell to the few who can still afford it. I truly believe human greed knows no bounds. 

 

With automation means that others can get into the game and compete.  Nobody will be trying to maintain profit levels by making less.  Profit and motivation is based on greed and self-interest.  That is what drives the whole thing.  It is the Invisible Hand.  This attitude benefits more people.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

With automation means that others can get into the game and compete.  Nobody will be trying to maintain profit levels by making less.  Profit and motivation is based on greed and self-interest.  That is what drives the whole thing.  It is the Invisible Hand.  This attitude benefits more people.

 

Sure others can get in the game in 30 or 40 years when the prices for todays technology become affordable to folks who aren't a corporation. Until then megacorporations are going to have the market (i.e our society) cornered. Do you really think they wont be spending that time ensuring they can keep the market cornered? 

[RavenHawk]

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man that someone believes that and is willing to see if it bares out is the corporatocracists' wet dream. 

 

Nope!  It is the free market being realized and individualism celebrated.  And that is bad for big government and socialism.  People will be Entrepreneurs, not corporatocracts.  It’ll be closer to what our Founding Fathers were like.

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Nope!  It is the free market being realized and individualism celebrated.  And that is bad for big government and socialism.  People will be Entrepreneurs, not corporatocracts.  It’ll be closer to what our Founding Fathers were like.

We already live in an oligarchy and somehow you believe that lowering income opportunities while allowing corporations to continue in the same fashion is going to improve the market for our citizens?  

[RavenHawk]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Sure others can get in the game in 30 or 40 years when the prices for todays technology become affordable to folks who aren't a corporation. Until then megacorporations are going to have the market (i.e our society) cornered. Do you really think they wont be spending that time ensuring they can keep the market cornered? 

No doubt they are going to try, but there is nothing that will stop automation.  Socialists keep bringing that up to favor their point, but they don’t take it all the way to its full potential.  It’s not going to take 30 or 40 years for prices to be such that others can get into the game.  Someone may have to make a serious investment for a 3D printer, but once they do and start making some cog that is used in some machine that wears out on a regular basis, it then becomes easier to acquire said cog from the small business to replace the cog in the machine.  That’s innovation.  The corporation, if still in business or still making the machine can’t tool for just the single cog outside of the assembly the cog is in.  But a small company geared for that can do it cheaper.

[Uncle Sam]

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That's exactly the #1 concern with such a system, which is why I would support additional research on it before actually implementing it. It may very well turn out to be a bad idea.

Ideas that usually sound good have the opposite effect they are intended. What usually sounds good will usually turn out bad, remember that, theory vs. reality is the subject of today's discussion.

[RavenHawk]

24 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

We already live in an oligarchy and somehow you believe that lowering income opportunities while allowing corporations to continue in the same fashion is going to improve the market for our citizens?  

We really don’t live in an oligarchy.  At times it gets close, but our system worked.  That’s why Hilary isn’t President.  Obama tried to make this an oligarchy but failed.

Where do I say anything about lowering income opportunities?  Do you not understand what the free market is or who Entrepreneurs are??  Those increase opportunities.  There is nothing inherently evil about corporations.  The great equalizer is the Consumer, well-educated and aware.  Are there corporations that go too far in their practices?  Yes, there are.  And that’s where the two other legs (actually all three) need to reel in the abuses (the three legs being the people/consumer, government, and business).  That’s where we need leadership.  Never had that under Obama but we do under Trump.  But said leadership can and should improve the market for our citizens by laying out expectations.

[Farmer77]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

We really don’t live in an oligarchy.  At times it gets close, but our system worked.  That’s why Hilary isn’t President.  Obama tried to make this an oligarchy but failed.

Yes we do and it has little to do with POTUS and everything to do with congress. They have voted the corporate will over the will of the populace for at least 30 years now. 

If you haven't watched this any of the 3k other times ive posted it please do. Heres the source material : Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

 

8 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Where do I say anything about lowering income opportunities

You didn't but that is the result of automation. 

10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Do you not understand what the free market is or who Entrepreneurs are??  Those increase opportunities.  There is nothing inherently evil about corporations.

No there is nothing inherently evil about corporations. However their goal is to make the most money for their shareholders, that often means by doing things like ensuring small business can not compete with them via legislation among other means.  Without a will or a plan to counter their desires we will simply acquiesce to them eventually. 

 

[Dark_Grey]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

We really don’t live in an oligarchy.  At times it gets close, but our system worked.  That’s why Hilary isn’t President.  Obama tried to make this an oligarchy but failed.

If this was not an Oligarchy, Marijuana would have been legal 20 years ago. Lobbyists likely wouldn't exist at all. Politicians would be talking about the Opioid, cigarette and alcohol epidemics all in the same breath instead of ignoring them altogether. What we have is a thin membrane of Democracy stretched over a steel frame of Corporate interests. By that I mean, we still have some power in casting votes but the vast majority of decisions in Washington are decided first by Corporate donors and "special interest groups". That defeatist saying "it doesn't matter who gets in to Office, nothing ever changes" exists precisely because of the power of Corporations. I wish this wasn't the case but greedy men have handed power from the people to the Corps. over several generations.

Presidents come and go but Exxon and BP Oil are forever..

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

What we have is a thin membrane of Democracy stretched over a steel frame of Corporate interests.

 

1 minute ago, Dark_Grey said:

Presidents come and go but Exxon and BP Oil are forever..

Wow that is some powerful imagery!  Strong post!! 

[RavenHawk]

37 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes we do and it has little to do with POTUS and everything to do with congress. They have voted the corporate will over the will of the populace for at least 30 years now.

No.  We don’t.  Oligarchy originates from the government.  Now, there are perhaps a few corporations that think they run the country, but they don’t.  And to think they do is a mischaracterization of the situation.  The problem you perceive is not going to be solved by a Marx-Engels like revolution of the peasants rising up against the aristocracy.  We are all in this together.

 

If you haven't watched this any of the 3k other times ive posted it please do. Heres the source material : Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

Yes, I’ve seen it many times.  And I agree with it but it is overlooking something as are you.  It’s not the corrupt politicians or the evil corporations that allow this to happen.  It is the people (the voter and the consumer) that are responsible.  If we were living in an Oligarchy, the people would not have a say.  But we do.  We have all the power.  If we keep voting in the same politicians, we deserve the government we get.  If we buy things that we don’t need, business gets callous of the products and services they offer.  We can vote people out and we can let our money talk.

 

 

You didn't but that is the result of automation. 

Maybe for victims but not for entrepreneurs and innovators.

 

No there is nothing inherently evil about corporations. However their goal is to make the most money for their shareholders,

That’s the whole point of business.  That’s what we all aspire to.  That is not a “however” or “evil”.  That is self-interest.  You try to make that sound bad.  It’s not.

 

that often means by doing things like ensuring small business can not compete with them via legislation among other means. 

That is a problem, although you make it out to be more than it is.  I have no issues with lobbyists influencing politicians.  They have every right to do so.  But I would agree that there needs to be new rules in this area.  There needs to be full disclosure of said gifts.  There needs to be strict regular auditing.  But if the people vote out their representatives regularly, they won’t be so intrenched and lobbyists won’t be so free with their money.  Each lobbyist “event” should be registered and have an opposition advocate assigned to look into what the lobbyists really wants.  Or just set a rule that any desire that is ultimately unfair will not be allowed.  If a business wants to crush their competition, then let them do it themselves.  But that environment can be changed by leadership.  A pro-business President could turn it around.  Look at the damage a President did with the quote "You didn't build that!"

 

Without a will or a plan to counter their desires we will simply acquiesce to them eventually.

That is true but we don’t need a Russian or French Revolution to do it.  There is nothing wrong with them having desires, but if those are detrimental to the people, the people have the power to change it by using their right of being a consumer.

[Aquila King]

4 hours ago, Uncle Sam said:

Ideas that usually sound good have the opposite effect they are intended. What usually sounds good will usually turn out bad, remember that, theory vs. reality is the subject of today's discussion.

That doesn't mean that ideas shouldn't be tested for validity. I may not be able to argue that a universal basic income is realistically feasible, but nor can you argue that it isn't since such a system has never been truly attempted.

[aztek]

another flaw is to think Marx-Engels like revolution of the peasants rising up against the aristocracy. are happening from "below"  because peasants are tired of oppression and have nothing to lose except chains. it's never like that.

every revolution has sponsors and organizers,  Bolshevik revolution in russia of 1917 would not happen if it was not paid by germany, uk and usa.

before that Russian elite tried to overthrow tsar, in 1905 with no foreign support,  and it  failed,  Lenin's older brother was one of the masterminds, he was executed  by tsar.  

the same way Ukrainian revolution aka maidan, was sponsored by usa and eu.  we openly admit pumping 5B into it. no way in hell they would be able to pull it by themselves,  i can somewhat understand putin for taking cremia, he knew it came from the west, 

people almost never rise by themselves, there is always someone rich behind them making it possible. using their hardship to provoke poor, for  benefits of the rich behind the scene.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2018 by aztek

[Aquila King]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’ll be closer to what our Founding Fathers were like.

As a random side note, I honestly do not in the least bit understand the right-wing swooning adoration for the founding fathers as if they're some sort of all-knowing demigods or some shiz.

They were slave owning, sex-crazed, rebels who didn't believe that anyone other than a white male who owned land had the right to vote. Yes, they were undoubtedly revolutionary in their thinking for the time, and should be praised for many things, but they were not without some serious faults.

Fact of the matter is, the founding fathers were wrong about a fair number of things. Constantly saying that this or that is 'what the founding fathers intended' goes nowhere with me. As if the mere fact that they supported something suddenly makes it correct. As if.

[preacherman76]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

As a random side note, I honestly do not in the least bit understand the right-wing swooning adoration for the founding fathers as if they're some sort of all-knowing demigods or some shiz.

They were slave owning, sex-crazed, rebels who didn't believe that anyone other than a white male who owned land had the right to vote. Yes, they were undoubtedly revolutionary in their thinking for the time, and should be praised for many things, but they were not without some serious faults.

Fact of the matter is, the founding fathers were wrong about a fair number of things. Constantly saying that this or that is 'what the founding fathers intended' goes nowhere with me. As if the mere fact that they supported something suddenly makes it correct. As if.

That's because, like every subject, you guys lower the conversation down to the lowest denominator. You cant think past your emotions. You refuse to, or more like, seem incapable of seeing the big picture when it comes to literally anything. To dismiss the amazing government the founders tried to give us because social norms weren't the same as they are today, is a dumbing down of the conversation. Its an appeal to not think, but to feel.

You have distain for the founders because of some moral high ground, but your side often completely overlooks the horrors your ideology has committed in the much more recent past.

Edited April 24, 2018 by preacherman76

[Unusual Tournament]

On 24/04/2018 at 8:03 AM, Farmer77 said:

The things ive read have been more near-future based and the goal is to pay for it with taxation of industries that have moved to robotics or AI rather than human employees. 

That combined with a cut in the DOD budget and tax revenue from legal marijuana and its doable. 

I gotta agree. I spoke with a futurist and he said the exact same thing. Jobs will be part time. You’ll work a couple at a time and in order to create employment robots and tech will be taxed seperate to company tax, much like any other worker but at a higher rate. 

I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the Finland walfare payment.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

As a random side note, I honestly do not in the least bit understand the right-wing swooning adoration for the founding fathers as if they're some sort of all-knowing demigods or some shiz.

That’s why your thinking is flawed.  The Founding Fathers were not flawless (and to think so is childish) but their thinking was pretty much flawless.  That’s why they were considered part of the Age of Enlightenment.  They understood human nature extremely well.  And it was that understanding that they put to use in creating our Founding Documents.  The Founding Fathers were just men born and lived in their times but they had the foresight to take Mankind to the next level above what we call Socialism today.  It was Monarchy back then and has garnered numerous names since.  The Founding Fathers dared to break with the status quo.  There hasn’t been anything like it since.  They gave us an idea that is timeless.

 

They were slave owning, sex-crazed, rebels who didn't believe that anyone other than a white male who owned land had the right to vote. Yes, they were undoubtedly revolutionary in their thinking for the time, and should be praised for many things, but they were not without some serious faults.

What they gave Mankind goes beyond their humanness.  The US Constitution only applies to US citizens.  But they gave Man hope for something better.  They gave an example of the proper relationship between a people and its government and how it should be.  Anything else is counterfeit.

 

Fact of the matter is, the founding fathers were wrong about a fair number of things.

Wrong?  Really?  Well, nothing pertinent anyway.  They couldn’t think of everything and everything they thought of didn’t get written down.

 

Constantly saying that this or that is 'what the founding fathers intended' goes nowhere with me.

That’s because you don’t bother to read their writings and letters.  You don’t know what they are all about.  Or you only think you do.

 

As if the mere fact that they supported something suddenly makes it correct. As if.

What they supported has always been correct.  It was during their watch when it was finally, realized to such measure.  All the points in history that came before were just precursor.  Will there be something better come along?  Almost certainly but it doesn’t exist yet.  Could it still be America?  Yes it could, if we can defeat Socialism.  If not, then the world will have to wait and suffer for a new idea to come along that will build on what has been and will eventually defeat Socialism.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

That's because, like every subject, you guys lower the conversation down to the lowest denominator.

Trump and his supporters have thrown out every kind of lowball petty insult imaginable at their political opponents. The irony here is hilarious.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You cant think past your emotions.

I think what you mean is, I can't think past my compassion. Actually caring about how certain policies affect real people in their daily lives is not me just being 'emotional', it's me being empathetic and compassionate to their situation.

I genuinely do not know how to argue empathy at somebody. I don't want concert goers and school children to be routinely slaughtered in hailstorms of bullets. You don't care. I don't want some kid's first memory to be that of a jackbooted deportation force kicking down their door and ripping their father from them. You don't care. I don't want a mother to bury her child solely because she couldn't swing $600 for a two-pack of epipens. You don't care.

Every day you deflect, but-what-about, twist, bend, contort, and echo whatever vile, clubfooted rationalization that keeps you from having to admit that you're not just complicit in, but in fact actively facilitating this nightmare of a reality so many people are experiencing.

This isn't a matter of a 'different perspective', since your perspective is objectively proven to time and time again facilitate these horrors whereas what I advocate for has been proven to do otherwise. If you disagree with these basic facts, then you're no different then a flat-earther and are simply delusional.

I care about other people, and I care about facts. You do not. It's as simple as that.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You refuse to, or more like, seem incapable of seeing the big picture when it comes to literally anything.

And I'm sure by the words 'big picture' you actually mean 'broad inaccurate stereotype'.

You're right, I refuse to slander ALL Muslims as worthy of being banned, I refuse to see ALL people from 's**thole countries' as unworthy of immigration to the US, and I refuse to see a dumb border wall as solving ALL illegal immigration problems.

I look at each and every person individually, rather than stereotype people by the millions. So yeah, I refuse to see your inaccurate 'big picture'.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

To dismiss the amazing government the founders tried to give us because social norms weren't the same as they are today, is a dumbing down of the conversation.

That's a straw man argument there, I never said that.

What I said, was that the founding fathers were not perfect people, and therefore idolizing them as if they were and harkening back to and quoting them as if their words were gospel is a ridiculous and mute point. My point is that what's right is what's right regardless of whatever the founding fathers intended, so to constantly go back to their words and intentions is often times pointless.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the founding fathers on the overwhelming majority of what they founded this nation on. I'm just saying that the reason I support them is because I agree with them, not because they simply said it and therefore I must somehow agree with them by default.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You have distain for the founders because of some moral high ground, but your side often completely overlooks the horrors your ideology has committed in the much more recent past.

I'm advocating for a social democratic system such as Canada, Sweden, Finland, etc.

Go ahead, name the atrocities of said countries in recent history. I'm dying to know.

[Aquila King]

17 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s why your thinking is flawed.  The Founding Fathers were not flawless (and to think so is childish) but their thinking was pretty much flawless.  That’s why they were considered part of the Age of Enlightenment.  They understood human nature extremely well.  And it was that understanding that they put to use in creating our Founding Documents.  The Founding Fathers were just men born and lived in their times but they had the foresight to take Mankind to the next level above what we call Socialism today.  It was Monarchy back then and has garnered numerous names since.  The Founding Fathers dared to break with the status quo.  There hasn’t been anything like it since.  They gave us an idea that is timeless.

What's childish is to use the Founding Fathers as brownie points by (falsely) attaching your political ideology to them in an pathetic attempt to boost your own position.

22 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

That’s because you don’t bother to read their writings and letters.  You don’t know what they are all about.  Or you only think you do.

I'm curious as to whether you're one of those conservatives who pushes the false narrative that this was founded as a 'Christian Nation' as well.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html

I know quite a bit about the founding fathers actually. It's often times conservatives who seem content to re-write history to their liking.

26 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes it could, if we can defeat Socialism.  If not, then the world will have to wait and suffer for a new idea to come along that will build on what has been and will eventually defeat Socialism.

You still don't have a clue what socialism is, nor do you seem to care. Just label anything you don't like as 'socialist' and then attack the enemy. And then you have the audacity to call me childish. Typical.