All Roads Lead Back to Barack Obama

[Aquila King]

10 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Wasn't Sam Walton great? He started with nothing, asked all his friends in town to invest into an Idea and now those people all have stock and share the wealth. That is the American dream everyone keeps talking about.

This documentary's rather old, but it exposes the Waltons for what they are nonetheless:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf-Sr3SjBzk

Hardly any 'great' dude. No amount of money makes you a good person.

[Michelle]

I already know all about Sam Walton I need to know, thank you. When he became wealthy envious people turned against him. What his descendants have done with it have nothing to do with him.

[RoofGardener]

22 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Do you in the least bit understand what a 'conflict of interest' even is?

Google Definition:

con·flict of in·ter·est

noun

noun: conflict of interest; plural noun: conflicts of interest

1. a situation in which the concerns or aims of two different parties are incompatible.

   "the conflict of interest between elected officials and corporate lobbyists"

   • a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

     "Watson quit his job after questions about a possible conflict of interest"

A conflict of interest doesn't mean that a person absolutely has to be acting in their own best interest, it means that they are in a position of power in which they are highly inclined to do so.

For instance, nepotism doesn't mean that it's impossible for you to objectively treat your children who work under you the exact same way you would other employees. It means that the mere fact that they are your children and they work under you means that they are far more likely to be treated differently then other employees, be it subconsciously or otherwise. That's why nepotism laws exist. They don't exist simply because absolutely everyone who ever employs their family members gives their family members special treatment. They exist because putting someone in that kind of position over a family member makes them much more inclined to give said family member preferential treatment. Therefore nepotism is illegal. THAT is a conflict of interest.

There are numerous Trump businesses and business dealings that exist in foreign governments that under his current position of power makes Trump highly inclined to act in his own best interest. We're talking potentially billions of dollars here that he hopes to gain. You seriously don't think billions of extra dollars is a worthy enough incentive to deem it a conflict of interest?

You're essentially saying that he has many numerous incredibly high incentives in which to personally profit here upwards into the billions, and you're telling me just to trust him with it because he could simply potentially do it?

Again, if that's really the argument you're making, then I don't think you in the least bit understand what a conflict of interest or government corruption even is.

No ! You are moving the goalposts. 

You stated that President  Trump was corrupt. Indeed, you stated that this was a certainty beyond doubt. 

The only sources you have produced merely talk about "mights" and "coulds" and "potentials" and "possibilities". You have offered no proof of corruption, merely hypothesis about the potential for corruption. And now you are trying to suggest that the potential to be corrupt implies that corruption has occurred. Indeed, you stated that to deny this correlation is on a par with Holocaust denial. 

If you do not understand the difference between an event, and the possibility of an event.... or between a theory and a fact, then.. well.. you have a glowing future ahead of you as a left-wing journalist.  

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by RoofGardener

[Aquila King]

9 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

No, it only seems that way if you compare american to an absolutely perfect Utopia that never existed... instead of the Real World

Then I assume Scandinavia is just a figment of my imagination?

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/why-scandinavians-are-happiest-people-in-the-world

Seriously, you people act like there aren't any proven statistics on this s**t. It baffles me.

12 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

He gave it to his family members, I guess they have a good relationship in that family.

So what?

So you're saying it's okay for people born into wealth not to work or contribute to society, all while rebuking those born into poverty for not working and contributing to society.

You're issuing a double-standard. That's what.

13 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Dafuq? Really, Parasite Hilton is your idea of a typicall American?

.... must be some alternate universe thing.

She was an example of a non-working rich person doofus, not the 'typical American'.

My example just wizzed right over your head didn't it?...

14 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

And you wonder why I take you for a Marxist?

I do wonder why, because it's unfounded bulls**t.

You're simply extrapolating out the most possible extreme version of my position as a means of slandering the opposition.

It's like if I were to call you a literal Nazi, just cause you're more conservative than me. You aren't, because I can recognize that your position isn't the most extremist possible version of conservatism, merely because you happen to be more conservative than me.

You're only calling me that so as to slander, and also build a straw man by knocking down Marxism / Communism or whatever as if that's somehow what I support when it isn't. That's not at all the case. If you actually listened to what I told you I support, you would know.

Your arguments are downright childish when you pull this s**t.

19 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

From the kink; "Its is getting harder..." NOT that it was, or is, impossible or a myth or anything else you said.

The link is about upward mobility. I only through that in as icing on the cake. My words however were about the concept of a Meritocracy, which is somewhat related but also different.

A Meritocracy clams that you earn in proportion to the amount of work that you do. Upward mobility is the concept that you can move up the economic ladder to success. Upward mobility can be achieved regardless of whether an economic system is a Meritocracy or not.

I never once stated that Upward mobility was impossible or a myth, I said that the concept of the American Meritocracy is a myth. That's different.

24 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

It comes to the same thing, it always has and it always does and it always will.

As Lenin said; "Socialism is the path to Communism"

And if you had ever said anything at all that contradicted the basic building blocks of Communism, I might be willing to believe you. But if you are lying to yourself, only you can help you with that.

That's just a childish way of saying "you're a Communist whether you believe you are or not."

No I'm not. Try knocking down my actual arguments, instead of building up ones I'm not making in order to tear it down.

You can only tear down Communism, so you're trying to scapegoat it onto my position by asserting that 'socialism leads to communism' when there's absolutely no proof that a Social Democratic system of governance is inherently DESTINED to become Communist. Your assertion is false because there's simply no evidence to back it up.

[Tatetopa]

On 5/24/2018 at 4:38 PM, .ZZ. said:

It's like the US Postal Service.

They know they have a "captive audience" and couldn't care less about waiting in line.

I am going to defend the US Post Office.  I helped pay my way through college working Christmas breaks on graveyard at a package handling depot.  The regulars were hustling all night long.and they did care.   Not every employee is perfect,but these guys were doing their duty.    Part of your line waiting is your fellow citizens asking crazy questions.  Postal service only has a captive audience in no-profitable areas.  With Email, Fax, Fed Ex, and UPS  the items that can get delivered at a profit are done by someone else.  Maybe postal delivery will become a thing of the past.

I grew up and went to college in the 60's.  We were full of distrust for everything governmental.  They get away with some questionable stuff, but a lot of it instigated by the administration.  Remember good old Ollie North and the Iran Contra affair?   Maybe President Trump will stop objecting when he gets control of the reins. An experienced businessman could really use them to torpedo competitors and swing foreign deals don't you think?  

[Aquila King]

21 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

No ! You are moving the goalposts. 

You stated that President  Trump was corrupt. Indeed, you stated that this was a certainty beyond doubt. 

The only sources you have produced merely talk about "mights" and "coulds" and "potentials" and "possibilities". You have offered no proof of corruption, merely hypothesis about the potential for corruption. And now you are trying to suggest that the potential to be corrupt implies that corruption has occurred. 

If you do not understand the difference between an event, and the possibility of an event.... or between a theory and a fact, then.. well.. you have a glowing future ahead of you as a left-wing journalist.  

For god sakes man, I'm telling you that the conflict of interest itself IS a form of corruption.

Trump has every reason why his family members in the white house would have preferential treatment, he has every reason to put his own personal business dealings before the country because he placed his children (who work in the White House under him) in charge of the Trump business, and has every reason for why the many numerous personal business dealings with foreign nations that he could expect to gain an upwards of billions of dollars of personal profit from are all major conflicts of interest. THIS IS CORRUPTION.

 

Furthermore, you're saying: "Well he hasn't acted on any of it!" Well according to Trump himself he's acted on it before: https://theintercept.com/2015/08/07/donald-trump-buy/ 

So as for acting on it now, I'll cite just one example of several from the articles I linked out of many. And yes, this is him ACTING on his corruption.

Quote

About 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

...

To many of the guests at the reception Tuesday, accepting an invitation to tour the $212 million hotel and check out the $20,000-a-night, 6,300-square-foot “town house” suite seemed like a good idea.

...

In interviews with a dozen diplomats, many of whom declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak about anything related to the next U.S. president, some said spending money at Trump’s hotel is an easy, friendly gesture to the new president.

...

But several expressed concern that spending thousands of dollars on a Trump property could look like an attempt to buy access or favors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_term=.ca618d64de12

So let me get this straight...

You're telling me that Trump admits to buying off politicians with huge sums of money for political favors in the past, but then when foreign diplomats come to stay at Trump hotels and pay hundreds of millions of dollars to do so, that that somehow magically isn't going to influence the President's foreign policy decisions?

He admits to using this specific style of corruption in the past to benefit, and yet when the tables are turned he's suddenly someone worthy of trust?

Honestly, if you don't see the blatant corruption here or still think that he hasn't acted on any of it, then you're only seeing what you want to see. It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on here.

You expect him to have an innumerable amount of conflicts of interest, and not to act on it, despite admitting to participating in this exact kind of corruption when he was only a businessman in the first place. You can trust him all you want, but I suppose that's what the fools who signed up for Trump University did too and they got scammed as well.

[RoofGardener]

27 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

For god sakes man, I'm telling you that the conflict of interest itself IS a form of corruption......

Yes, you are. And I noticed that the first time around. But here's the thing:  you are wrong.  

You are re-defining the meaning of the words in order to support your position. A conflict of interest is not synonymous with corruption, nor is it a form of it. Check the dictionary  

(ironically, one of the dictionary meanings of corruption is "... the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.. ", and has synonyms that include falsification and misrepresentation   ) 

You are also making extravagant statements, and presenting them as somehow "verified" or "obvious" facts.

For example: you state that  "foreign diplomats come to stay at Trump hotels and pay hundreds of millions of dollars to do so". Hundreds of millions ? Really ? HUNDREDS of millions of dollars ? From a comparatively small corps of foreign diplomats ? Would you like to re-assess that claim ? 

I'll deal with the rest of your post tomorrow. Sweet dreams  

Edited May 27, 2018 by RoofGardener

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Then I assume Scandinavia is just a figment of my imagination?

 

Since we have already shot down that argument half a dozen times on this board, I will no longer interfere with this Totem.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

So you're saying it's okay for people born into wealth not to work or contribute to society, all while rebuking those born into poverty for not working and contributing to society.

You're issuing a double-standard. That's what.

Nope, not at all.

Should it be illegal for you to inherit what your parents built? As it stands, there is already a 50% Death Tax, how much higher would it have to be?

More to the point;

How big a cut do you and your friends want from the salaries of people who were more successful than you were?

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

She was an example of a non-working rich person doofus, not the 'typical American'.

My example just wizzed right over your head didn't it?...

The rage you are showing here is making me want to quit this, but it also makes me suggest that you take a time out before you issue any more personal insults.

 

So, to your point; should a Paris Hilton not be allowed to live like that ?

What laws would you enact to make it impossible for her to be that way?

How would you enforce them, Comrade? 

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I do wonder why, because it's unfounded bulls**t.

This is why I think that History should be taught in schools, instead of somebody else's interpretation of it.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

You're simply extrapolating out the most possible extreme version of my position as a means of slandering the opposition.

It's like if I were to call you a literal Nazi, just cause you're more conservative than me. You aren't, because I can recognize that your position isn't the most extremist possible version of conservatism, merely because you happen to be more conservative than me.

Well, thanks for that, but you would never make it in the mainstream media these days. That kind of slander is exactly what passes for News.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

You're only calling me that so as to slander, and also build a straw man by knocking down Marxism / Communism or whatever as if that's somehow what I support when it isn't. That's not at all the case. If you actually listened to what I told you I support, you would know.

And what I told you is; show me where the core principles of Marxism and Socialism are different. And that made you very angry, because there isn't any difference.

Collectivism does not work, period. The Pilgrims tried it when they landed on Plymouth Rock in 1621, and half of them were dead within a year.

This ain't Scandinavia. 

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The link is about upward mobility. I only through that in as icing on the cake. My words however were about the concept of a Meritocracy, which is somewhat related but also different.

A Meritocracy clams that you earn in proportion to the amount of work that you do. Upward mobility is the concept that you can move up the economic ladder to success. Upward mobility can be achieved regardless of whether an economic system is a Meritocracy or not.

I never once stated that Upward mobility was impossible or a myth, I said that the concept of the American Meritocracy is a myth. That's different.

No, we started with American Exceptionalism and went down a Rabbit Hole together. My bad, I won't be doing that anymore.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That's just a childish way of saying "you're a Communist whether you believe you are or not."

If you don't believe it but still parrot everything the Communists have said before you, then .... meh, whatever.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

You can only tear down Communism, so you're trying to scapegoat it onto my position by asserting that 'socialism leads to communism' when there's absolutely no proof that a Social Democratic system of governance is inherently DESTINED to become Communist. Your assertion is false because there's simply no evidence to back it up.

We have been through this before. Argentina since the 1920s and Venezuela since 20 years ago are proof, as well as China's new success being preceded by the abandonment of those same economic principles. 

It is as if you are trying to build a house on a foundation that has already seen the collapse of the last 20 houses that were built on that same spot. 

Sam Walton and Parasite Hilton had no effect on my life whatsoever, NONE. I do not envy Rich Kids because I know that if they really do sit around and do nothing that their wealth will vanish within a couple of generations. What I do have a problem with is the idea that altruism can be forced, that humans need to be minded like animals in a Zoo, and the insane idea that Materialism can be cured by a system that is obsessed with the material!

What this world needs is something new, and only young folks like you can give us that.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Since we have already shot down that argument half a dozen times on this board, I will no longer interfere with this Totem.

If by 'shot down' you mean 'blatantly ignored' then I suppose so.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Nope, not at all.

Should it be illegal for you to inherit what your parents built?

I'm not the one arguing that they should work. I'm pointing out a double-standard of yours.

You're the one arguing the case for a Meritocracy, and also arguing that everyone should work and 'contribute' to society. However when it comes to rich billionaires they get a free pass. That's a double standard.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

As it stands, there is already a 50% Death Tax, how much higher would it have to be?

I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, and I honestly don't care to go into all the logistics and numbers with someone who's just gonna poo-poo them no matter what someone says.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

More to the point;

How big a cut do you and your friends want from the salaries of people who were more successful than you were?

Me and my 'friends'? I have no idea what you're talking about there.  As for me personally, I want you to understand something...

I don't support things like universal healthcare, free college, a living wage, etc. just because those things would benefit me. Yes, those policies would undoubtedly benefit me personally. However I can 100% guarantee you that if my personal circumstances were to drastically change while still knowing what I know now, I would still 100% support it. If hypothetically, such policies did not in any way benefit me personally, I would still support it and fight for it with every fiber of my being. Why? Because I understand the desperation millions of other Americans feel who need help in these areas, and who's government is fully capable of helping, yet does nothing. I understand it because I live it every day. So if things were to change and I no longer need such assistance, I would still fight for these same policies because it's what in many cases literally saves lives.

I think that's really the core difference here. You don't understand it because you've never had to personally struggle with these same issues. If some natural disaster (or any other unforeseen circumstance) were to suddenly strike, and cause you to lose everything you've worked hard for, and you no longer had the money necessary to pay the medical bills that would literally save the life of your closest family member, I wonder if you'd still stick to your guns and label yourself 'lazy' and undeserving. I wonder if the person who you hold most dear would be worth losing simply because through whatever outside unforeseen circumstances that befell you, led you to not having enough money to save them.

I encourage you to read these stories and tell me whether or not you think these people's loved ones deserve illness, bankruptcy, and death due to insufficient personal funds. Even if it were true that universal healthcare breeds 'laziness', laziness is hardly an adequate case for a death sentence.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

The rage you are showing here is making me want to quit this, but it also makes me suggest that you take a time out before you issue any more personal insults.

Forgive me for getting legitimately frustrated with people who condescendingly smear me as 'lazy' and base their evaluation of my overall worth on the virtue of personal income.

Your policies are demonstrably destructive, yet you think that advocating for said policies politely and with a grin suddenly condones said policies as legitimate options. Well quite frankly I find nearly everything you claim to support to be a personal insult, and that doesn't even to begin to go into the incredibly insulting words that regularly come out of yours and Trumps mouth.

I'd like to quit this as well. This stuff just frustrates me to the point where I keep feeling like I have to respond rather than just let your all's responses just hang in the air like that. But in the end my responses on bring more responses and the cycle of frustration continues...

I don't know if we'll ever bridge this political divide in the nation at this point... We just keep talking past one another...

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

So, to your point; should a Paris Hilton not be allowed to live like that ?

What laws would you enact to make it impossible for her to be that way?

How would you enforce them, Comrade? 

Again, I'm not arguing that. You're the one arguing that everyone should work hard and contribute to society. Everyone means everyone, yet instead you make an exception for those who inherit large sums of wealth from their parents.

I don't really care about people who inherit large sums of wealth from their parents. To me it's just lucky them. What I do care about however are those who were born into families that don't have any wealth and for whatever reason can't work their way up out of poverty no matter how hard they work and barely squeeze by.

I'm not advocating that everyone should just sit on their ass and not work or 'contribute' to society. I'm just saying that there are a certain number of bare-ass minimum things that can be done that help to provide a social safety net of security and insure that everyone at the bottom posses the equal opportunity to get ahead.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

This is why I think that History should be taught in schools, instead of somebody else's interpretation of it.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Well, thanks for that, but you would never make it in the mainstream media these days. That kind of slander is exactly what passes for News.

For once we both agree.

I would simply add Fox News into that mix and you probably wouldn't, but whatevs.

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

And what I told you is; show me where the core principles of Marxism and Socialism are different.

Marxism is idealism incarnate. Marxism advocates for a classless society without any official system of governance. It seeks to eliminate Capitalism entirely. It philosophically views mankind to be overall inherently kind and good, therefore the selfish and competitive nature of Capitalism in their eyes runs contrary to the human condition. Yes, it views Socialism as a stepping-stone towards their goal, but Socialism is not synonymous with Marxism.

Socialism (namely Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, whichever you prefer) advocates for a dualistic system of Capitalism, along with tax-funded social programs that provide basic necessities like education, healthcare, a living wage as a minimum wage, etc. It is not anti-Capitalism, it is simply pro-social programs that exist alongside Capitalism as a means of providing equal opportunity to all it's citizens. It essentially creates a social safety net at the bottom that ensures that the most impoverished of it's citizens have a means to survive and work their way back up. That's it.

Socialism and Marxism are two totally separate things.

3 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Collectivism does not work, period. The Pilgrims tried it when they landed on Plymouth Rock in 1621, and half of them were dead within a year.

There are numerous reasons why what happened at Plymouth didn't work. Inadequate resources, higher levels of disease, far fewer workers as a result of this, etc. Just because an economy fails, that doesn't mean that the specific economic system itself doesn't work. I understand the logic there, that economic systems that fail shows that the system itself is to blame. But that just isn't always the case.

I could easily point to Zimbabwe as the prime example of a purely Capitalist system, and show how that economy failed. However you wouldn't like that cherry-picked example now, would you? Under your logic here, Capitalism doesn't work cause it failed in Zimbabwe.

Look, economics is a complicated science. That's why we have people who get degrees in the field. A purely Capitalist system can work, just as a Socialist system can, as well as a Communist system and so on. This isn't pass/fail. This is about which system works best for ALL of it's citizens?

3 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

If you don't believe it but still parrot everything the Communists have said before you, then .... meh, whatever.

For frucks sake man, I'M NOT 'LISTENING' TO ANY DAMN COMMUNISTS.

Sheesh. How would you like it if I constantly called you an Anarchist? "You support Capitalism, therefore you're an Anarchist!" See how stupid that sounds?

I would love nothing more than to put this nonsense to bed RIGHT NOW:

Quote

As an ideology, communism is generally regarded as hard-left, making fewer concessions to market capitalism and electoral democracy than do most forms of socialism. As a system of government, communism tends to center on a one-party state that bans most forms of political dissent. These two usages of the term "communism" – one referring to theory, the other to politics as they are practiced – need not overlap: China's ruling Communist Party has an explicitly pro-market capitalist orientation and pays only lip service to the Maoist ideology whose purist adherents (Peru's Shining Path in its heyday, for example) regard Chinese authorities as bourgeois counterrevolutionaries. (See also, Why Populist Leaders Are Great for Stocks.)

Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.

Socialists can be pro- or anti-market. They may consider the ultimate goal to be revolution and the abolition of social classes, or they may seek more pragmatic outcomes: universal healthcare, for example, or a universal pension scheme. Social Security is a socialist policy that has been adopted in the unabashedly capitalist U.S. (as are the eight-hour working day, free public education and arguably universal suffrage). Socialists may run for election, forming coalitions with non-socialist parties, as they do in Europe, or they may govern as authoritarians, as the Chavista regime does in Venezuela.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

I am not a damn Communist. Again, you're just taking the absolute most extreme variant of my position and asserting that that's what I believe. I don't, and I never will. Until you can argue against my actual position instead of straw-manning me to death, there's really no point in me repeating myself on this issue to you any further.

3 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

We have been through this before. Argentina since the 1920s and Venezuela since 20 years ago are proof, as well as China's new success being preceded by the abandonment of those same economic principles.

It is as if you are trying to build a house on a foundation that has already seen the collapse of the last 20 houses that were built on that same spot.

I don't remember whether it was this thread that I debunked this Venezuela claim or some other one recently, but nevertheless here you go: https://extranewsfeed.com/socialism-but-look-at-venezuela-debunking-anti-socialist-propaganda-w-actual-logic-de587c1a299a

As for Argentina, Here: https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/03/07/argentina-the-big-failure/

And as for China, once again, it's Communist. Not Socialist. At the very least not the kind of Socialism I'm arguing for since the term 'Socialism' is a wide-ass spectrum.

Bottom line: Those South American Socialist countries you love to point out as failures are not at all the kind of Socialism I'm advocating for. They are Authoritarian Socialist regimes, to which I do not ascribe to.

4 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Sam Walton and Parasite Hilton had no effect on my life whatsoever, NONE. I do not envy Rich Kids because I know that if they really do sit around and do nothing that their wealth will vanish within a couple of generations. What I do have a problem with is the idea that altruism can be forced, that humans need to be minded like animals in a Zoo, and the insane idea that Materialism can be cured by a system that is obsessed with the material!

Let me break this down one-by-one...

1. Sam Walton DOES have an effect on your life, in that him and his ultra-rich buddies pour millions of dollars into campaign contributions towards Democrat and Republican candidates as a form of legalized bribery. They do this so as to enact policies that screw over the middle and working class and help out the mega rich. On top of that, they fund propaganda networks like Fox News that try and indoctrinate everyday people into believing nonsensical BS like 'trickle down economics' which is just a fancy way of making the rich richer and screwing the poor. So yes, they do hurt affect you quite drastically actually.
2. What I mean by 'rich kids sitting around and doing nothing' is that they essentially hire other people to do most of their work. I don't mean literally nothing at all ever. Sure, they might go through the hiring and firing process here and there, they may check in from time to time on this and that, but the overwhelming majority of the time they are essentially doing nothing. All that I just described could be done in like a day or two every few months or something. So no, they aren't doing absolutely nothing all the time, but the sure as hell aren't 'working' in any sort of traditional sense of the word.
3. Altruism can't and shouldn't be forced, but altruism isn't what I'm discussing here. A government insuring the general welfare and basic necessities of it's citizens is kinda the whole point of having a government in the first place. Providing funding to public schools isn't 'forced altruism', it's insuring that every kid has the equal opportunity as every other. I mean by that logic, the even military is 'forced altruism' because it provides funding towards defending the welfare of our fellow citizens. Police work is 'forced altruism' because it insures the safety and security of our fellow citizens from crime. You're peddling nonsense here, cause no one is arguing that you should be forced to give to the needy. We're simply arguing that our tax dollars go towards funding things that actually benefit our citizens and insure that every American has an equal opportunity.
4. Lastly, no one is arguing that Materialism can be 'cured', cause again, I'm not a Marxist. That's Marxist ideology. I'm a Democratic Socialist. Two completely different things.

4 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

What this world needs is something new, and only young folks like you can give us that.

What we need is something that works, new or old. Although since technically what I'm advocating here is something 'new' to America, I suppose you're right.

[Aquila King]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Yes, you are. And I noticed that the first time around. But here's the thing:  you are wrong.  

You are re-defining the meaning of the words in order to support your position. A conflict of interest is not synonymous with corruption, nor is it a form of it. Check the dictionary  

(ironically, one of the dictionary meanings of corruption is "... the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.. ", and has synonyms that include falsification and misrepresentation   ) 

Any politician (especially the President) or any other person with a position of power, who holds numerous conflicts of interest and yet refuses to step down, is inherently corrupt. Regardless, you're clearly not taking a damn bit of this seriously with all the snarky-ass smiley emojis and blatant disregard for the actual evidence that I've presented.

It's like trying to play chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, the pigeon's just gonna s**t on the board and strut about like he won anyway.

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

You are also making extravagant statements, and presenting them as somehow "verified" or "obvious" facts.

For example: you state that  "foreign diplomats come to stay at Trump hotels and pay hundreds of millions of dollars to do so". Hundreds of millions ? Really ? HUNDREDS of millions of dollars ? From a comparatively small corps of foreign diplomats ? Would you like to re-assess that claim ? 

I'm shocked by that amount as well, but it's apparently the truth. The sources are linked in the article itself. 

Would you like to actually make an argument as to why that figure is wrong as opposed just assert it to be wrong on no basis whatsoever?

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I'll deal with the rest of your post tomorrow. Sweet dreams  

I most likely won't be dealing much further with any of you tomorrow. Hopefully I'll finally drop all this and just let you be wrong.

[Michelle]

You might find it interesting typing in "Obama's conflicts of interest". I'm sure you'd defend them but at least you'd have a better perspective, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

[acidhead]

Universal healthcare, free college, a living wage...

All three proposals attack incentive to compete. Humans compete.  Nobody is equal. We compete for a reason.  To become better as a whole.  This is why the USA stands above... Also why many want to go there.

Those who don't want to compete complain.  

This is the weakness of the argument.  

There can be only one!  One America!!

[AnchorSteam]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I think that's really the core difference here. You don't understand it because you've never had to personally struggle with these same issues. If some natural disaster (or any other unforeseen circumstance) were to suddenly strike, and cause you to lose everything you've worked hard for, and you no longer had the money necessary to pay the medical bills that would literally save the life of your closest family member, I wonder if you'd still stick to your guns and label yourself 'lazy' and undeserving. I wonder if the person who you hold most dear would be worth losing simply because through whatever outside unforeseen circumstances that befell you, led you to not having enough money to save them.

I encourage you to read these stories and tell me whether or not you think these people's loved ones deserve illness, bankruptcy, and death due to insufficient personal funds..

Yeah, this is the part that made me lose interest in 80% of your post.

You don't know squat about me, and this is some seriously condescending garbage. 

Basic fact; people fail, I have done it myself and after a few years, I stopped blaming other people. And without the motivation of failure, a lot of people won't try very hard to avoid it. 

Leaving aside Iraq, I have had my share of hard knocks. My wife died right next to me 2 months after we were married. I have had to deal with addiction after that, nasty Cops, joblessness, and came within days of being Homeless, as well as near-suicidal depression and massive anger-management issues. 

You wouldn't have wanted to come anywhere near me 20 years ago.

And guess what? I got through that, and I did it without becoming reliant on any damned Govt programs, hand-outs or ending up beholden to anyone. There ain't nothing special about me, if I can do it then anyone can.

Nope, not wealthy, not even doing all that well, but good enough and for the first time in my life I am doing something for pay that I enjoy doing. I am also enjoying the incomparable luxuries of having no debt of any kind and being able to live alone, free to do as I please in my own time at my own pace. 

'Nuff said.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I don't really care about people who inherit large sums of wealth from their parents. To me it's just lucky them. What I do care about however are those who were born into families that don't have any wealth and for whatever reason can't work their way up out of poverty no matter how hard they work and barely squeeze by.

Because no system is perfect.

Poverty rates would be dropping much more quickly if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants pouring in, but Big Business wants cheap labor. 

That is the REAL enemy; corruption.

And one other thing; Government Jobs now pay far more than the civilian equivalent. This means that the meanest and greediest people are being drawn to Govt jobs, and explains why 4 of the counties around Washington D.C. are 4 of the 5 richest counties in the USA.

Diverting the wealth of the nation to the Govt for redistribution is fraught with unintended consequences, ain't it?

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Socialism (namely Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, whichever you prefer) advocates for a dualistic system of Capitalism, along with tax-funded social programs that provide basic necessities like education, healthcare, a living wage as a minimum wage, etc. It is not anti-Capitalism, it is simply pro-social programs that exist alongside Capitalism as a means of providing equal opportunity to all it's citizens. It essentially creates a social safety net at the bottom that ensures that the most impoverished of it's citizens have a means to survive and work their way back up. That's it.

Wait a minute.... just hold the phone.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

Honestly, if that's it, what the hell are we arguing about?!?

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

 

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

 A government insuring the general welfare and basic necessities of it's citizens is kinda the whole point of having a government in the first place. Providing funding to public schools isn't 'forced altruism', it's insuring that every kid has the equal opportunity as every other. I mean by that logic, the even military is 'forced altruism' because it provides funding towards defending the welfare of our fellow citizens. Police work is 'forced altruism' because it insures the safety and security of our fellow citizens from crime. You're peddling nonsense here, cause no one is arguing that you should be forced to give to the needy. We're simply arguing that our tax dollars go towards funding things that actually benefit our citizens and insure that every American has an equal opportunity.

 

Equal opportunity is what we have now.  What we do NOT have is a guarantee of equal outcome.... something that is impossible anyway.

Unless everything is going to be made equally crappy.

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

What we need is something that works, new or old.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system of any kind in history.

[acidhead]

35 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Yeah, this is the part that made me lose interest in 80% of your post.

You don't know squat about me, and this is some seriously condescending garbage. 

Basic fact; people fail, I have done it myself and after a few years, I stopped blaming other people. And without the motivation of failure, a lot of people won't try very hard to avoid it. 

Leaving aside Iraq, I have had my share of hard knocks. My wife died right next to me 2 months after we were married. I have had to deal with addiction after that, nasty Cops, joblessness, and came within days of being Homeless, as well as near-suicidal depression and massive anger-management issues. 

You wouldn't have wanted to come anywhere near me 20 years ago.

And guess what? I got through that, and I did it without becoming reliant on any damned Govt programs, hand-outs or ending up beholden to anyone. There ain't nothing special about me, if I can do it then anyone can.

Nope, not wealthy, not even doing all that well, but good enough and for the first time in my life I am doing something for pay that I enjoy doing. I am also enjoying the incomparable luxuries of having no debt of any kind and being able to live alone, free to do as I please in my own time at my own pace. 

'Nuff said.

Because no system is perfect.

Poverty rates would be dropping much more quickly if we didn't have so many illegal immigrants pouring in, but Big Business wants cheap labor. 

That is the REAL enemy; corruption.

And one other thing; Government Jobs now pay far more than the civilian equivalent. This means that the meanest and greediest people are being drawn to Govt jobs, and explains why 4 of the counties around Washington D.C. are 4 of the 5 richest counties in the USA.

Diverting the wealth of the nation to the Govt for redistribution is fraught with unintended consequences, ain't it?

Wait a minute.... just hold the phone.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

Honestly, if that's it, what the hell are we arguing about?!?

Equal opportunity is what we have now.  What we do NOT have is a guarantee of equal outcome.... something that is impossible anyway.

Unless everything is going to be made equally crappy.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system of any kind in history.

God bless you AC.. it's a hard road for all of us.

[RoofGardener]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Any politician (especially the President) or any other person with a position of power, who holds numerous conflicts of interest and yet refuses to step down, is inherently corrupt. Regardless, you're clearly not taking a damn bit of this seriously with all the snarky-ass smiley emojis and blatant disregard for the actual evidence that I've presented.

I have addressed the evidence; it is flawed, as it conflates "potential" with "actual". 

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I'm shocked by that amount as well, but it's apparently the truth. The sources are linked in the article itself. 

Would you like to actually make an argument as to why that figure is wrong as opposed just assert it to be wrong on no basis whatsoever?

It is not the truth, and I'd be glad to "make an argument"

The Sunlight Foundation article that you linked to mentions that in Trumps financial disclosures (presumably for 2017 ? ), the Hotel received $40 million in income. In other google trawls, I found various articles that suggested it had made a profit of around $2 million.Moreover, foreign diplomatic staff represented a miniscule proportion of bookings. Rather than "hundreds of millions", I would suggest a more accurate figure - for the entire Planetary Diplomatic Corps - would be hundreds of thousands, representing perhaps  a few tens of thousands of profit. 

Donald Trump makes almost half a BILLION dollars per year from his operations and investments. Is it likely - considering the intensity of the media spotlight on him - that he would allow his Presidency to be influenced for a few tens of thousands of dollars ? 

Indeed, you could make an argument that the scale of his earnings alone make him the least corruptible US President in US history !

[Aquila King]

36 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Wait a minute.... just hold the phone.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

Honestly, if that's it, what the hell are we arguing about?!?

Since you ignore a good chunk of my post and just rambled on with the same ol' talking points, I don't really feel the need to respond bit by bit, but I will respond to this.

 

Yes, you're exactly correct. That's what we have right now, just to a lesser degree.

• We already have free public schools, I simply want to expand that out to free public college.
• We already have guaranteed healthcare for those 65 or older (Medicare), I want to expand that out to include all people.
• We already have a minimum wage, I simply want to raise it so that those who work full time are able to pay for their bare-basic necessities.

What I'm advocating for is nothing new or radical. I'm simply advocating for expanding upon existing programs that would help the poor and middle class. You want to argue against doing so while calling me a 'Communist' to boot.

As our current system stands, someone who works full time in a minimum wage job is unable to meet their basic needs, much less have enough money to spend on things like school or other things that help them climb the economic ladder. They often times don't have enough money for health insurance, so if they get sick or injured through no fault of their own they can go bankrupt or even die as a result of lack of treatment. Furthermore, those of us millennials (that conservatives just love to s**t all over on) who do happen to go to school and get a decent paying job and health insurance, are often times saddled with outrageously high student loan debt with barely enough money to breath, even after graduating college.

Therefore, given all of the facts I've mentioned above, millions of people can spend their entire lives working their asses off trying to get ahead but never get the chance to through no fault of their own. Someone who is born into a situation that does not have to deal with any of the above growing up, is someone who was born with opportunities that the others who did grow up with these unfortunate circumstances did not. To put it simply: America does not currently insure equal opportunity.

All of the above problems are avoidable, if we simply expand upon our existing programs to assist in this process. None of what I'm advocating for promotes laziness or stifles competitiveness. I mean, I'm not saying that those who work minimum wage jobs should earn enough to live lavishly. I'm talking about enough money for like, a single room apartment in the rough area of town, and enough to pay basic food and utilities. That's basically all I'm asking. In our current system unless you live with some family members for free or something (which not everyone has), you have to work at least two full-time jobs to meet your basic needs. That's insane.

My point is, there's plenty of incentive to move on up, because most people don't want to live in those kinds of conditions. Most people aren't happy with bare necessities, they want more. The competitiveness is already there. Insuring that you don't die when you get sick, or that if you work full time you'll get paid enough to live is not advocating for laziness. If anything it creates an environment where people are freer to pursue the things they love and truly want. It allows them to be able to compete without constantly having to fight to survive. And most importantly, it allows them all the opportunity to fight an uphill battle that actually can be won.

This is my last ditch effort to reach you, even though it will still likely fall on deaf ears. Although if you can at the very least come away from this understanding just a little more where I'm coming from here, I'll consider that a step in the right direction for both of us.

 

P.S. - I'm so sorry to hear what you went through with your wife and all that. I may get rather emotionally charged on such topics (and for good reason) although I will say that I don't ever wish anything like that on anyone. I'm glad you've seemed to have come out of it, and I wish you all the best.

[Aquila King]

34 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed, you could make an argument that the scale of his earnings alone make him the least corruptible US President in US history !

...I feel like I'm on an episode of the Twilight Zone, but the episode never ends...

[DarkHunter]

On 5/26/2018 at 7:46 PM, Aquila King said:

The deal was not based on trust, it was based on verification. As per written in the deal, the IAEA would regularly inspect Iran's nuclear sites, and UN members can request special access whenever they want, and a predetermined co-commissioner from each negotiating state would each have to approve the inspection. Note that the panel was made up of all western nations and Iran. If Iran wanted to stop the IAEA from going in there and inspect them, Iran wasn't gonna be able to stop them.

Secondly, literally all Iran was asking for in the deal was the ability to buy weapons on the international market to fight back against ISIS forces at the time, since ISIS was Sunni and hated Iran who was Shia. If you nix that part of the agreement, then there is no deal to be had since the international community gets everything and Iran gets nothing. That's not a deal. You had to throw them something, and that is a perfectly reasonable bone to throw them considering.

Conservatives want to paint this as 'the US is trying to arm Iran!' when we weren't. It was a historic peace deal that made perfect sense, and it is preposterously stupid to step out of the deal. Especially considering the US pretty much walked away with everything in the deal while Iran had nothing but a few table scraps.

Seriously, I don't see a single problem with it.

Thanks for the info. I'll look into it a little further before making a judgment, but on the face of it I'd have to agree that it's yet another scandal. Sad thing is it doesn't surprise me.

You clearly have little to no understanding of what the actual nuclear deal entailed.

The verification process was a complete and utter joke that gave Iran far too much ability to hide anything.  First off the IAEA only has access to inspect nuclear sites that Iran has declared at any time.  If the IAEA suspects Iran is using an undeclared site then they first have to inform Iran of their concern, then Iran is given the option of either allowing the inspection to take place or to propose alternatives to an inspection that may allieve the concerns of the IAEA.  If Iran and the IAEA can't come to terms that both find acceptable within 14 days then the 8 parties involved in the Iranian nuclear deal (US, UK, Germany, France, China, Russia, Iran, and the EU) have a week to review the evidence that the IAEA has and to vote on what to do next.   It requires 5 votes to force Iran to comply within 3 days so Iran, Russia, and China just got to convince one other member to vote with them to stop the entire process.  To top it off the inspectors that would be used to inspect the undeclared site, assuming it occured, would be selected only from countries that have diplomatic relationships with Iran.  Ultimately Iran has 24 days to hide any deal breaking activity from inspectors selected from countries Iran is on good terms with assuming the process isnt stopped by either France, UK, Germany, or the EU voting with Russia, Iran, and China when each of those 4 have an economic acentive to do so.

Your second point is absolutely wrong and I have no idea where you got, no where in the Iranian nuclear deal is the purchase of weapons mentioned.  Honestly there is so much wrong with your second point it is hard to pick a place to start.  First off Iran buys very few weapon systems from other countries, over the past decade Iran has moved aggressively to domestically produce all of its weapon systems instead of relying on Russia, China, and North Korea and besides from specific systems, like the Russian S-300, Iran produces it's own weapons.  Even then do you honestly believe Russia, China, and North Korea would care about selling weapon systems to Iran if the west didnt want them to.  As for your whole Iran got nothing that simply isnt true as the Iranian nuclear deal lifted the economic sanctions, unfroze between $100 billion and $150 billion in Iranian assets and bank accounts, and allowed Iran to keep its nuclear program that only has limits imposed on it for between 10 to 15 years.  

The deal was terrible, Iran gets to have no limits on how many centrifuges it can use, how much enriched uranium it can stockpile, and being allowed to enrich it over the agreed 3.6% enrichment limit after only 10 to 15 years while getting a massive economic boost while all America got was a promise Iran wont make nuclear weapons for 10 to 15 years.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, acidhead said:

Universal healthcare, free college, a living wage...

All three proposals attack incentive to compete. Humans compete.  Nobody is equal. We compete for a reason.  To become better as a whole.  This is why the USA stands above... Also why many want to go there.

Those who don't want to compete complain.  

This is the weakness of the argument.  

There can be only one!  One America!!

First of all, there's this dude's short, sweet, and simple answer on quora you can check out for the quick response: https://www.quora.com/Socialists-How-would-you-deal-with-the-incentive-problem

 

As for my own response:

Much of the time we don’t compete with other people. Instead, we cooperate with them, working together to achieve our goals. People often take turns to drive on a long car journey, they may combine their efforts to tidy up a garden, may share various household chores, etc. Paid employment too would be impossible without cooperating with our fellow coworkers. Whether in factory, office, shop or call center, most work nowadays is divided up so that any one worker only performs a small part of the whole productive process. This means that working with, not against, others is an essential aspect of work. If you’re snowed under with work, you may well ask another employee to help you out. Outside employment, many people spend time working in trade unions, various associations, choirs, sports clubs, churches, and a myriad of other organisations that work on the basis of voluntary cooperation. In a mining disaster, do rescuers compete to see who can save the most of those trapped? No, they all work together with a single aim, that of saving as many people as possible.

Of course there is such a thing as individualized work, and salespeople who compete to earn the biggest commission for instance. But these still involve cooperation with others, and moreover they are often high pressure jobs, where the worker is constantly urged to work harder and harder. In short, they’re not much fun, most people despise having to deal with these people in these situations due to the fear of getting screwed, and realizing this is a key to realizing what’s wrong with competition.

Now, even supporters of the current system would probably accept that most of the time people work together in producing things. They might even say that this is part of the 'essence' of Capitalism: people voluntarily cooperating or entering into contracts with others (such as contracts to buy their goods or labor). Yet competition (as Capitalists claim), is necessary too in order to boost performance and efficiency and to keep prices down.

Although look at the bad sides of competition: For one thing, it involves workers competing with each other, trying to get a job and therefore deny the same job to someone else, or offering to do the job at a lower wage. Many workers will lose out in the job market, having no job at all or one that in no way matches their abilities or aspirations. Competition in production too, involves not looking at producing the best or safest product. Instead it requires producing what can be sold at a profit, probably tailored to the wallets of the prospective buyers. It also involves looking over one’s shoulder at one’s competitors, to see what they are doing and try to put one over on them. Inevitably much research into improved products is duplicated by national or international rivals. Someone involved in competition can never stay still, never rest on their laurels; they must always be striving to stay in the race just to at the very least keep up with the others, even if what they produce isn't tailored for the best interests of the consumer and is instead made for the best interest of you or the company increasing personal profits off of them.

Capitalism is a philosophy founded on self-centered advancement at any and all costs. It is a system that relies on selfishness often times at the expense of others, not cooperation with others towards a common goal. Any 'cooperation' done under Capitalism is done solely for individual benefit, meaning that if opportunities arise that give the individual a competitive advantage over the group, then that individual is expected to rise over the group in pursuit of their own goal. Even if that person's individual competitive gains harm the group's gains overall. The group only exists so as to assist the individuals that comprise the group to competitively get ahead. No more, no less.

At the end of the day, the primary problem with Capitalism is this: Competition must involve winners and losers.

The competitive nature of Capitalism insures that there will be homelessness, there will be unemployment, and there will be poverty as a guarantee. Cooperation is the exact opposite. Cooperation is done for the benefit of the group, not the individual. So if anyone in the group falls behind, we cooperate together to assist those in the group that need assistance to get ahead. Your own individual benefit is no longer the chief concern. Cooperation is founded on the philosophy of selflessness. Selflessly assisting those within the group who so need it. Placing individual profit on the back-burner for success of the whole. Cooperation is founded on people all pulling in the same direction, rather than multiple individual directions at once.

Why should anyone always have to compete with other people in order to live a decent life? Nobody should be forced to be competitive, rather anyone should be able to produce for human need without fear of being out-competed.

You essentially have two diametrically opposed philosophies: On the one hand you have absolute Marxism which is founded on purely idealistic cooperation with absolutely zero competition, whereas on the other hand you have absolute Libertarianism which is founded on the competitive dog-eat-dog world of personal profit. One believes that mankind is inherently selfish by nature (Capitalism) and should therefore have a system that echoes our selfish competitive nature; whereas the other believes that mankind is inherently generous by nature (Socialism) and should therefore have a system that echoes our selfless cooperative nature. I for one believe in both.

Humans are both incredibly selfish, and also at the same time incredibly selfless. We have the desire to compete and out-win our opponents with the desire to get ahead of everyone else, while at the same time being kind and generous and altruistic enough to understand that we all benefit from cooperating from one another at times. Indeed, our economic and political systems should echo our human nature. And I think our human nature is more than just selfish or selfless. It's a little of both.

Thus I am a Democratic Socialist. I support free-market Capitalism alongside Socialist safety nets that assist those in need of basic necessities. In short: Competition alone doesn't solve everything, and while it is realistic to accept it as a natural part of the human condition, it isn't something we should never really be all that proud of.

Goodnight.

[ellapenella]

18 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Because his handlers told him too. Honestly, Obama was always barely able to speak in full sentences when there wasn't a teleprompter around. If he really was some sort of evil genius mastermind that did all this on his own,, then the world truly is an idiocracy. 

 

Who are you referring to when you say that his handlers told him to? Was he not in agreement with the things he's done to jeopardize America?

ETA

I only agree on the handlers told him to do it in portion. There comes a time when  ideology needs to be understood  which is the real cause behind what motivated and  lead this man and his administration to do the things they've done.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

First of all, there's this dude's short, sweet, and simple answer on quora you can check out for the quick response: https://www.quora.com/Socialists-How-would-you-deal-with-the-incentive-problem

 

As for my own response:

Much of the time we don’t compete with other people. Instead, we cooperate with them, working together to achieve our goals. People often take turns to drive on a long car journey, they may combine their efforts to tidy up a garden, may share various household chores, etc. Paid employment too would be impossible without cooperating with our fellow coworkers. Whether in factory, office, shop or call center, most work nowadays is divided up so that any one worker only performs a small part of the whole productive process. This means that working with, not against, others is an essential aspect of work. If you’re snowed under with work, you may well ask another employee to help you out. Outside employment, many people spend time working in trade unions, various associations, choirs, sports clubs, churches, and a myriad of other organisations that work on the basis of voluntary cooperation. In a mining disaster, do rescuers compete to see who can save the most of those trapped? No, they all work together with a single aim, that of saving as many people as possible.

Of course there is such a thing as individualized work, and salespeople who compete to earn the biggest commission for instance. But these still involve cooperation with others, and moreover they are often high pressure jobs, where the worker is constantly urged to work harder and harder. In short, they’re not much fun, most people despise having to deal with these people in these situations due to the fear of getting screwed, and realizing this is a key to realizing what’s wrong with competition.

Now, even supporters of the current system would probably accept that most of the time people work together in producing things. They might even say that this is part of the 'essence' of Capitalism: people voluntarily cooperating or entering into contracts with others (such as contracts to buy their goods or labor). Yet competition (as Capitalists claim), is necessary too in order to boost performance and efficiency and to keep prices down.

Although look at the bad sides of competition: For one thing, it involves workers competing with each other, trying to get a job and therefore deny the same job to someone else, or offering to do the job at a lower wage. Many workers will lose out in the job market, having no job at all or one that in no way matches their abilities or aspirations. Competition in production too, involves not looking at producing the best or safest product. Instead it requires producing what can be sold at a profit, probably tailored to the wallets of the prospective buyers. It also involves looking over one’s shoulder at one’s competitors, to see what they are doing and try to put one over on them. Inevitably much research into improved products is duplicated by national or international rivals. Someone involved in competition can never stay still, never rest on their laurels; they must always be striving to stay in the race just to at the very least keep up with the others, even if what they produce isn't tailored for the best interests of the consumer and is instead made for the best interest of you or the company increasing personal profits off of them.

Capitalism is a philosophy founded on self-centered advancement at any and all costs. It is a system that relies on selfishness often times at the expense of others, not cooperation with others towards a common goal. Any 'cooperation' done under Capitalism is done solely for individual benefit, meaning that if opportunities arise that give the individual a competitive advantage over the group, then that individual is expected to rise over the group in pursuit of their own goal. Even if that person's individual competitive gains harm the group's gains overall. The group only exists so as to assist the individuals that comprise the group to competitively get ahead. No more, no less.

At the end of the day, the primary problem with Capitalism is this: Competition must involve winners and losers.

The competitive nature of Capitalism insures that there will be homelessness, there will be unemployment, and there will be poverty as a guarantee. Cooperation is the exact opposite. Cooperation is done for the benefit of the group, not the individual. So if anyone in the group falls behind, we cooperate together to assist those in the group that need assistance to get ahead. Your own individual benefit is no longer the chief concern. Cooperation is founded on the philosophy of selflessness. Selflessly assisting those within the group who so need it. Placing individual profit on the back-burner for success of the whole. Cooperation is founded on people all pulling in the same direction, rather than multiple individual directions at once.

Why should anyone always have to compete with other people in order to live a decent life? Nobody should be forced to be competitive, rather anyone should be able to produce for human need without fear of being out-competed.

You essentially have two diametrically opposed philosophies: On the one hand you have absolute Marxism which is founded on purely idealistic cooperation with absolutely zero competition, whereas on the other hand you have absolute Libertarianism which is founded on the competitive dog-eat-dog world of personal profit. One believes that mankind is inherently selfish by nature (Capitalism) and should therefore have a system that echoes our selfish competitive nature; whereas the other believes that mankind is inherently generous by nature (Socialism) and should therefore have a system that echoes our selfless cooperative nature. I for one believe in both.

Humans are both incredibly selfish, and also at the same time incredibly selfless. We have the desire to compete and out-win our opponents with the desire to get ahead of everyone else, while at the same time being kind and generous and altruistic enough to understand that we all benefit from cooperating from one another at times. Indeed, our economic and political systems should echo our human nature. And I think our human nature is more than just selfish or selfless. It's a little of both.

Thus I am a Democratic Socialist. I support free-market Capitalism alongside Socialist safety nets that assist those in need of basic necessities. In short: Competition alone doesn't solve everything, and while it is realistic to accept it as a natural part of the human condition, it isn't something we should never really be all that proud of.

Goodnight.

At what length were the agencies under Obama utilize for their effort in  leveling competition against Donald Trump?  This includes media & media blackouts as well.

[ellapenella]

4 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

You clearly have little to no understanding of what the actual nuclear deal entailed.

The verification process was a complete and utter joke that gave Iran far too much ability to hide anything.  First off the IAEA only has access to inspect nuclear sites that Iran has declared at any time.  If the IAEA suspects Iran is using an undeclared site then they first have to inform Iran of their concern, then Iran is given the option of either allowing the inspection to take place or to propose alternatives to an inspection that may allieve the concerns of the IAEA.  If Iran and the IAEA can't come to terms that both find acceptable within 14 days then the 8 parties involved in the Iranian nuclear deal (US, UK, Germany, France, China, Russia, Iran, and the EU) have a week to review the evidence that the IAEA has and to vote on what to do next.   It requires 5 votes to force Iran to comply within 3 days so Iran, Russia, and China just got to convince one other member to vote with them to stop the entire process.  To top it off the inspectors that would be used to inspect the undeclared site, assuming it occured, would be selected only from countries that have diplomatic relationships with Iran.  Ultimately Iran has 24 days to hide any deal breaking activity from inspectors selected from countries Iran is on good terms with assuming the process isnt stopped by either France, UK, Germany, or the EU voting with Russia, Iran, and China when each of those 4 have an economic acentive to do so.

Your second point is absolutely wrong and I have no idea where you got, no where in the Iranian nuclear deal is the purchase of weapons mentioned.  Honestly there is so much wrong with your second point it is hard to pick a place to start.  First off Iran buys very few weapon systems from other countries, over the past decade Iran has moved aggressively to domestically produce all of its weapon systems instead of relying on Russia, China, and North Korea and besides from specific systems, like the Russian S-300, Iran produces it's own weapons.  Even then do you honestly believe Russia, China, and North Korea would care about selling weapon systems to Iran if the west didnt want them to.  As for your whole Iran got nothing that simply isnt true as the Iranian nuclear deal lifted the economic sanctions, unfroze between $100 billion and $150 billion in Iranian assets and bank accounts, and allowed Iran to keep its nuclear program that only has limits imposed on it for between 10 to 15 years.  

The deal was terrible, Iran gets to have no limits on how many centrifuges it can use, how much enriched uranium it can stockpile, and being allowed to enrich it over the agreed 3.6% enrichment limit after only 10 to 15 years while getting a massive economic boost while all America got was a promise Iran wont make nuclear weapons for 10 to 15 years.

First, when Iran submitted its claim in 1981, the US filed an $817 million counterclaim for Iran’s violations of its obligations under the FMS program. As Rick Richman explained in a 2016 Mosaicarticle, “with both the claim and the counterclaim still pending, it was possible that Iran owed billions of dollars to the U.S., not the reverse.”

Second, a 2000 law signed by President Bill Clinton, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, said that Iran’s FMS account could not be refunded until court judgments held by the U.S. government against Iran for damages from terrorist acts against American citizens were resolved to America’s satisfaction.

American victims of Iranian terrorism had won judgments against the regime in American courts. The problem, as Richman wrote, was collecting. The parent of one young American woman murdered by an Iranian-backed terrorist group during her junior year abroad in Israel discovered the FMS account. The Clinton administration opposed paying out of the FMS account, arguing that the $400 million was U.S., property not Iran’s.

 

Congress and the Clinton administration agreed on legislation directing the U.S. Treasury to pay the American holders of terror judgments against Iran for the amount of their compensatory damages plus 10 percent of their punitive damages, up to the amount in the FMS fund. The law subrogated the United States—meaning that the terror judgments became direct U.S. government claims against Iran to the extent the Treasury had paid them. Finally, the law included a provision to ensure that Iran would ultimately have to bear the cost of those payments: “no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the [FMS] fund until such subrogated claims have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.”

In short, Obama ignored the law. Moreover, in releasing those funds to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, he made American taxpayers cover the damages owed by Iran for its acts of terrorism against American citizens.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/255932/the-obama-administrations-1-7-billion-iranian-deception

[ellapenella]

7 hours ago, acidhead said:

Universal healthcare, free college, a living wage...

All three proposals attack incentive to compete. Humans compete.  Nobody is equal. We compete for a reason.  To become better as a whole.  This is why the USA stands above... Also why many want to go there.

Those who don't want to compete complain.  

This is the weakness of the argument.  

There can be only one!  One America!!

During the Obama administration I applied for a loan that I needed to do something that  I always wanted to do, and was told that at this time they were being selective. I asked what did that mean and was told that only minorities  were the only ones able to receive loans at that time. The money was there but not enough for everyone, so it didn't happen.

ETA

In many ways it didn't feel like one America for all Under Obama. 

ETA again

The reason why was because Obama utilized  all that money to fund his Obama's health care disaster. I don't think he was suppose to use it for that. But he was kind enough to be selective for some maybe even non Americans who knows? 

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Ellapennella

[ellapenella]

President Trump has promised to restore trust and accountability in government. 

[ellapenella]

On 5/27/2018 at 11:57 AM, .ZZ. said:

Oh, Russia, be my dear friend, President Barack Obama once begged, with consequences having at us to this day. But wait, it’s President Donald Trump who’s accused of playing footsie with those guys. Yes, in his campaign praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin, he was starry eyed, but in policies? No, no, 1,000 times no, and policies are what count. That’s where Obama bungled badly.

http://www.vnews.com/Column-Trump-tougher-on-Russia-than-Obama-16051431