Presidential Election

65,885 Views | 1209 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by Tswizsle
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Calls Marxism a "tired and hackneyed" term, the posts this:

Quote:

Such as the pitfalls of capitalism, the cruel nature of for-profit healthcare, the undeniable fact that the working class has been screwed over and left behind in our current capitalistic system.


Sure thing, Karl. Point to the doll where the Bourgouise hurt you.
you can be butthurt about people pointing out the flaws in the current system, I don't care. I find it more annoying how defensive people get with the "how dare you criticize anything" attitude. Again, goes back to nationalism and seeing any criticism as blasphemy.

And in the context of American politics, crying "Marxism!!" every time you hear a criticism, rather than defending the very principle being attacked, is just an appeal to emotion. It doesn't address the issue at all.

you are literally proving every point I've ever made in this thread.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.


No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.


Fact check false. I give a **** that he is living in the White House neighborhood. I'm not the only one.
I hate to be the one to tell you this. But there's a thing called the internet now. You don't have to live next to someone to contact them. Living nearby means nothing. Living far away means nothing. If you're going to make this kind of claim about his influence on Harris, you need to provide actual evidence.
Condescend much? Thx for proving my point. Living within a city block of the White House is not a coincidence. Sorry. Do not pass go. Non-marxists don't just look past that as though it's 'not indicative of a thing.' Your rage to this point betrays your own bias, btw (not that bias is a bad thing, in itself.).

But I'll reframe the question just out of curiosity. As our resident Marxist expert, you tell me, why would a renowned academic Marxist plausibly want to live amid K-street, the US congress, and White House in retirement? Wouldn't that be repulsive to such an individual?

Thank you for your contributions/entertainment on this thread, btw.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Am I? Literally?

When your complaints about "the system" are almost word for word taken from the infamous manifesto you are inviting applicable criticisms. Hth

If I go around telling people they should render to Ceasar what Ceasar's and to turn the other cheek I'm not going to get my panties in a wad if someone calls me a Christian.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes. Your tactic is just tying me to Marx and saying "look at this Marxist with his Marxist ideas! Marxism!!" Just scaremongering tactics.

Yes, pure, untethered capitalism has some pitfalls. No, our current system has not worked out well for millions of people. If you're going to sit there and tell me how Marxist I am for thinking it's wrong for some low wage worker to be sent to financial ruin for having a medical emergency (and he doesn't have health insurance through his employer), I simply do not care. Shaming people is a stupid, ineffective strategy.

You can still say that our system is the best thing there is, but to deny pitfalls is just blind nationalism.

And I contend that everyone in America, including this thread, are okay with some level of socialism (GASP HE SAID IT!). The richest people in the country love socialism for themselves. That is, the government bailing them or their company out during tough times (covid, financial crisis), or old people getting social security, or taxes funding public utilities. I say all of this with caution given that a lot of conservatives now outright oppose the latter two things, in which case they're just flat out wrong.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your ideas are very Marxists, or, at best, Marx adjacent.

Have the courage of your convictions and own it, comrade.

What solutions do you propose so we can put the bourgoiuse in their proper place?
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Although not as socialist as Europe, the U.S. is definitely socialist.
While mobilized for WW2, we were very socialist in the sense that
the economy was "planned".
The Dems always make it their business to outbid the Pubs when
it comes to launching huge government programs, but the Pubs have tried.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's plenty of data to suggest privatizing social security would be beneficial to all parties involved if that is what you are referring to. Unfortunately, it's not a politically expedient policy so most conservatives have abandoned it.

What specifically are your referring to in regards to public utilities?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rongagin71 said:

Although not as socialist as Europe, the U.S. is definitely socialist.
While mobilized for WW2, we were very socialist in the sense that
the economy was "planned".
The Dems always make it their business to outbid the Pubs when
it comes to launching huge government programs, but the Pubs have tried.
How are you defining socialist? Because the workers nor the state owned the means of production. And yes, during the largest war in human history, the government directed what certain businesses produced. They immediately backed off after the war.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nortex97 said:

Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Sapper Redux said:

nortex97 said:

Yes, I am very based against Marxism. You caught me! Congrats. Full disclosure; I've never even read the communist manifesto all the way through. I found it a stupid waste of time very quickly. Marx and Engels were run of the mill racist, sexist academic bigots/snobs of the 19th century, again. Their writings and theories should rightfully be dismissed as the claptrap garbage they have proven to be, in the intervening century plus.

-read the article. "No evidence." If it were fake news, the Harris-Walz campaign would already have a flier out about where he actually lives.

Something is showing, for sure.


No one gives a **** about where he lives. Can you provide any evidence that Harris has significant contact or ties with him? That he's somehow designed or running her economic platform? He's in his mid-80s and hasn't had a relationship with Harris since she was a kid. And yet you keep trying to argue he's some secret mastermind plotting a Marxist revolution under his daughter. It's a pretty stupid conspiracy theory in general, but you have nothing to back it up.


Fact check false. I give a **** that he is living in the White House neighborhood. I'm not the only one.
I hate to be the one to tell you this. But there's a thing called the internet now. You don't have to live next to someone to contact them. Living nearby means nothing. Living far away means nothing. If you're going to make this kind of claim about his influence on Harris, you need to provide actual evidence.
Condescend much? Thx for proving my point. Living within a city block of the White House is not a coincidence. Sorry. Do not pass go. Non-marxists don't just look past that as though it's 'not indicative of a thing.' Your rage to this point betrays your own bias, btw (not that bias is a bad thing, in itself.).

But I'll reframe the question just out of curiosity. As our resident Marxist expert, you tell me, why would a renowned academic Marxist plausibly want to live amid K-street, the US congress, and White House in retirement? Wouldn't that be repulsive to such an individual?

Thank you for your contributions/entertainment on this thread, btw.
So you still haven't produced a single ounce of evidence. Every post of yours is a conjecture born of an assumption. Why would he live near the White House? It's a nice part of DC. If you can afford it, it's lovely around there. What evidence do I have that's why he has an apartment there? The same that you do. And he's not a political communist, so I'm not sure why you think he would hate living in DC. He's done work with the government of Jamaica. Now either provide evidence or admit you have nothing.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good question, how am I defining socialism?
I don't think it is definable except in a very general sense.
As far WW2, one of the things that always interested me was
how the FDR regime handled union strikes.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person's father had influenced them, considering that's the normative operation in most cases.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that what happens most of the time isn't happening in this instance.

Also, when she quickly embraces far left positions like Medicare for All, price controls, and open borders, it's reasonable to conjecture maybe her father has been influential after all.

Of course none of us knows for sure. But your vehement protestations are embarrassing to watch. Have a shred of pride in yourself.
Huh?

Also, if you want to play this game, then by this statement, "It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a person's father had influenced them, considering that's the normative operation in most cases," you're saying we should assume Trump is a racist given what we know about his father and how long Trump worked directly with his father. The burden of proof is on you to prove what happens most of the time isn't happening in this instance.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rongagin71 said:

Good question, how am I defining socialism?
I don't think it is definable except in a very general sense.
As far WW2, one of the things that always interested me was
how the FDR regime handled union strikes.
You're bandying the term around as though it has a firm definition. Is this a matter of "socialism is what feels bad," or is there something more concrete?
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Your ideas are very Marxists, or, at best, Marx adjacent.

Have the courage of your convictions and own it, comrade.

What solutions do you propose so we can put the bourgoiuse in their proper place?
I own it. It doesn't bother me acknowledging that. I think the paranoia about being tied to big scary ideas has really held this country back.

And my ideas really aren't radical. They're pretty run of the mill in a lot of western countries. They were even run of the mill in the USA in the past, but we've moved so far right since Reagan that they seem "radical" today.

I have no issue taxing the hell out of the mega wealthy. For people to act like it's an assault on liberty is ****ing ridiculous. Do people understand marginal tax rates? I really am fine with someone's income over, say, $10 million being taxed at 70% or higher. It's hilarious how people find that idea so offensive. It was the norm in America in the mid 20th century. Some were taxed at 90%.

I'm fine with billionaires not existing at all. They do very little good for the world (billionaire philanthropy is largely a myth), and you don't get to that point without screwing over a lot of people. Yes, I'm including billionaire Democrats. When I hear a billionaire or a mega millionaire say "tax us less, you all will benefit from it" I listen to their words with great suspicion. I find it odd that so many working class people don't.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your lack on intellectual honesty is once again fully on display.

The only one using phrases like "proves they are a (racist/marxist)" is you. Your Trump whataboutism aside, is it reasonable to assume Trump might have been influenced by his father's racism? Sure. Do we have any evidence to suggest it influences the way he governs?

No, we don't. In fact, we have pretty clear evidence of the opposite. He has repeatedly shown pride in the fact black's did quite well under his administration.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I honestly think that's one of your better posts. Not that I agree with much of it, but at least you are clearly discussing your perspective.

Are you familiar with Pareto distributions? Are you aware of the contributions billionaires play to job and wealth creation? Do you think "wealth" should be criminalized once it masses a critical amount?
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

(billionaire philanthropy is largely a myth),


Can you elaborating on this? It certainly exists, and can be measured in the 100s of billions.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Your lack on intellectual honesty is once again fully on display.

The only one using phrases like "proves they are a (racist/marxist)" is you. Your Trump whataboutism aside, is it reasonable to assume Trump might have been influenced by his father's racism? Sure. Do we have any evidence to suggest it influences the way he governs?

No, we don't. In fact, we have pretty clear evidence of the opposite. He has repeatedly shown pride in the fact black's did quite well under his administration.


Oh sure, sure. Clear evidence. Clear. But the point is that you keep trying to damn Harris based on nothing but assumptions with zero evidence, and the exact same rationale can be used to arrive at almost any conclusion you want.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why do you keep saying no evidence? Hervoting record in congress is evidence. Her policy stances are evidence.

Are you just a liar or terrible at processing information?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Her own words, policies, and proximity to her Marxist father provide ample evidence. You may not like it, and categorize it as circumstantial, but it is the sort of things reasonable people draw conclusions on. This isn't a criminal court case, and the standard isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Nor are you the juror who we/I have to convince.

I'd consider you the board Karl Marx apologist, if anything, and am not worried about protestations about her father living a block from the White House being steadily ignored as mere coincidence/insufficient…





Equity in outcomes, price controls, top down zoning controls for housing, open border to eliminate the nation state itself, it's all pretty Marxian. She's literally in favor of destroying cities to take more power, and her opponent has thus labeled her accurately as a Marxist 'just like her father':



747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Her own words, policies, and proximity to her Marxist father provide ample evidence. You may not like it, and categorize it as circumstantial, but it is the sort of things reasonable people draw conclusions on. This isn't a criminal court case, and the standard isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Nor are you the juror who we'll have to convince.

Soooooo... evidence vs. proof.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another indicia of Marxists; antisemitism. Harris' new arab outreach director; "Zionists are controlling America."
Quote:

Abdelall, whom Harris tapped earlier this week to help galvanize Arab voters, made the remarks after a speaker at the event, anti-Israel professor Jamil Fayez, said that "Zionists are destroying America." Responding to his remarks, Abdelall said that while "'destroying' is a harsh word," supporters of the Jewish state do control American politics.
Embrace the joy, and inclusiveness.

Why muslims vote for Democrats:
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Why do you keep saying no evidence? Hervoting record in congress is evidence. Her policy stances are evidence.

Are you just a liar or terrible at processing information?


Evidence that she's secretly funneling Marxism beamed into her head by her absent father?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your media diet is illuminating.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Your media diet is illuminating.
As is your rhetorical sophistication.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sapper Redux said:

Your media diet is illuminating.
Please show us yours.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find it fascinating that libs seem not to realize how biased the media they follow is. Or how left leaning the policies they support are.

I will freely admit the media I follow (which is rare) is right leaning. This thread is a great example of that. It seems only lefties can define what are liberal thoughts and media. Very predictable.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

I find it fascinating that libs seem not to realize how biased the media they follow is. Or how left leaning the policies they support are.

I will freely admit the media I follow (which is rare) is right leaning. This thread is a great example of that. It seems only lefties can define what are liberal thoughts and media. Very predictable.
I'm sorry but who do you think is saying this? Cable news is largely a bunch of garbage. CNN is a joke, MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and Fox is the same for the GOP. While bias has always existed, it's like these networks don't even try to sound objective anymore and I think everyone acknowledges this at this point.

It's not even the bias I have a problem with. Every news program and talk show has a bias and many are marketed as opinion shows. The problem I have with cable news is they are there to push the agenda of the billionaires who fund these media platforms and talking heads on them.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

dermdoc said:

I find it fascinating that libs seem not to realize how biased the media they follow is. Or how left leaning the policies they support are.

I will freely admit the media I follow (which is rare) is right leaning. This thread is a great example of that. It seems only lefties can define what are liberal thoughts and media. Very predictable.
I'm sorry but who do you think is saying this? Cable news is largely a bunch of garbage. CNN is a joke, MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and Fox is the same for the GOP. While bias has always existed, it's like these networks don't even try to sound objective anymore and I think everyone acknowledges this at this point.

It's not even the bias I have a problem with. Every news program and talk show has a bias and many are marketed as opinion shows. The problem I have with cable news is they are there to push the agenda of the billionaires who fund these media platforms and talking heads on them.
Have you read the thread?

And from my reading of your posts (please correct me if I am wrong), your main beef is with income inequality.

The problem is that historically the only way to accomplish that is by government force, which puts all the money and power in an even smaller number of people.

And no opportunity to become wealthy. I also have a real problem with me, or anybody, saying someone has too much money.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Rongagin71
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think it is quite possible to get wealthy in government-controlled economies, but one has to be part of or approved by the controlling party. I prefer free markets, but that has its own problems such as how to keep the process of necessary regulation from turning into over-regulation with the same sort of party approval needed to be a favored industry.
There sure were a lot of Rich Russians showing up after the Soviet collapse.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

barbacoa taco said:

dermdoc said:

I find it fascinating that libs seem not to realize how biased the media they follow is. Or how left leaning the policies they support are.

I will freely admit the media I follow (which is rare) is right leaning. This thread is a great example of that. It seems only lefties can define what are liberal thoughts and media. Very predictable.
I'm sorry but who do you think is saying this? Cable news is largely a bunch of garbage. CNN is a joke, MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and Fox is the same for the GOP. While bias has always existed, it's like these networks don't even try to sound objective anymore and I think everyone acknowledges this at this point.

It's not even the bias I have a problem with. Every news program and talk show has a bias and many are marketed as opinion shows. The problem I have with cable news is they are there to push the agenda of the billionaires who fund these media platforms and talking heads on them.
Have you read the thread?

And from my reading of your posts (please correct me if I am wrong), your main beef is with income inequality.

The problem is that historically the only way to accomplish that is by government force, which puts all the money and power in an even smaller number of people.

And no opportunity to become wealthy. I also have a real problem with me, or anybody, saying someone has too much money.
Not really, we had ways of dealing with this before. We just abandoned them. Marginal tax rates aren't going to lead us to communism.

The model we have now, that you support, is what puts all the money and power in a select group of people. Yeah, I'm sure these people we speak of "worked hard." But I don't want to hear about how they literally made billions through hard work alone. Throw in a little exploitation of workers, exploitation of tax loopholes, hiring of lawyers to do the previous two things, finding creative ways to avoid paying taxes, and of course, a little bit of luck.

And said people have this power and use it to make sure the status quo never changes, and all policy first and foremost benefits the elite, almost always at the expense of the middle and lower class. They aren't interested in helping other people get to their level.

I think people who really think there's no such thing as someone with too much money have their head in the sand. The story of billionaires getting richer isn't inspiring at all. Did you know that the world's richest people (e.g. Musk, Bezos) more than DOUBLED their wealth during Covid? Did the same happen to middle and lower class people? of course not.

Having people with a net worth in the hundreds of billions while millions of others constantly wonder where their next meal will come from isn't a good thing.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Worrying about someone else having too much money to be 'good' for society is fine.

The issue is who is properly positioned to identify this threshold, and remedy it. Historically, the folks who champion 'the poor' or downtrodden, whether Marx, Engels, Castro, Mao, Lenin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, Chavez etc., wind up having a massive underclass put down by a fabulously wealthy ruling class. Should we really trust the party backed by George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Gates to identify the people who are 'too rich?'

IMHO, Elon isn't a threat to anyone due to his wealth. His threat is that he backs free speech. What a terror unto this world.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Socialist International endorses Marxist Harris.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:

dermdoc said:

barbacoa taco said:

dermdoc said:

I find it fascinating that libs seem not to realize how biased the media they follow is. Or how left leaning the policies they support are.

I will freely admit the media I follow (which is rare) is right leaning. This thread is a great example of that. It seems only lefties can define what are liberal thoughts and media. Very predictable.
I'm sorry but who do you think is saying this? Cable news is largely a bunch of garbage. CNN is a joke, MSNBC is a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, and Fox is the same for the GOP. While bias has always existed, it's like these networks don't even try to sound objective anymore and I think everyone acknowledges this at this point.

It's not even the bias I have a problem with. Every news program and talk show has a bias and many are marketed as opinion shows. The problem I have with cable news is they are there to push the agenda of the billionaires who fund these media platforms and talking heads on them.
Have you read the thread?

And from my reading of your posts (please correct me if I am wrong), your main beef is with income inequality.

The problem is that historically the only way to accomplish that is by government force, which puts all the money and power in an even smaller number of people.

And no opportunity to become wealthy. I also have a real problem with me, or anybody, saying someone has too much money.
Not really, we had ways of dealing with this before. We just abandoned them. Marginal tax rates aren't going to lead us to communism.

The model we have now, that you support, is what puts all the money and power in a select group of people. Yeah, I'm sure these people we speak of "worked hard." But I don't want to hear about how they literally made billions through hard work alone. Throw in a little exploitation of workers, exploitation of tax loopholes, hiring of lawyers to do the previous two things, finding creative ways to avoid paying taxes, and of course, a little bit of luck.

And said people have this power and use it to make sure the status quo never changes, and all policy first and foremost benefits the elite, almost always at the expense of the middle and lower class. They aren't interested in helping other people get to their level.

I think people who really think there's no such thing as someone with too much money have their head in the sand. The story of billionaires getting richer isn't inspiring at all. Did you know that the world's richest people (e.g. Musk, Bezos) more than DOUBLED their wealth during Covid? Did the same happen to middle and lower class people? of course not.

Having people with a net worth in the hundreds of billions while millions of others constantly wonder where their next meal will come from isn't a good thing.
So are "tax loopholes" illegal? And how does a higher marginal tax rate help the poor? When the tax rates were higher, were there fewer poor people?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
barbacoa taco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, it's wrong. Call it what it is: wrong. These billionaires hire a team of lawyers to avoid paying taxes which amounts to hundreds of billions in lost revenue, which affects the working class the most, who obviously can't avoid paying taxes like they do.

Income inequality used to be not near as big of a problem. Supply side economics have had a devastating impact on the lower class. Nearly all of the benefits went to those at the top, and of course the bottom 50% got screwed over.

You have an incredibly messed up sense of morality if you think it's perfectly fine for billionaires to avoid paying taxes but think it's evil for taxes to be used to pay for programs that benefit poor people.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.