The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Keef]

I'm literally proposing potential solutions to cronyism. You can't just, boom, one day wake up in a libertarian wonderland. Cronyism is a condition that spirals out of control, and it has to be targeted, such as by preventing the centralization of wealth and, in my opinion, limiting political donations to individuals only. No more committees, no more corporations, because those are controlled by the hyper-wealthy. Requiring donations to come from individuals means that every individual who donates is public record, and it keeps individuals accountable, so the hyper-wealthy cannot hide their direct influence behind the shield of committees or corporations. I'd also argue that a maximum dollar limit should be set for political campaigns, and it should be very low, so campaigns with less funding don't get drowned out by larger campaigns funded by hyper-wealthy people. A lot of other measures could be taken to dissociate business from government, like requiring the forfeiture of all business interests and stock assets, etc. I want a dirty nasty crackdown on business and government intermingling, I want current criminal laws to be enforced, and I want new laws to be enacted to increase the risk of criminality when mixing business and government to the point where running for public office gets more difficult and unappealing the more complex your finances are. We need public office to be a job that nobody really wants to do, because the people who desire to be in a position of power are the same people you shouldn't trust to hold that power.

 

[mustafur]

Requiring donations to come from individuals means that every individual who donates is public record, and it keeps individuals accountable, so the hyper-wealthy cannot hide their direct influence behind the shield of committees or corporations. I'd also argue that a maximum dollar limit should be set for political campaigns, and it should be very low, so campaigns with less funding don't get drowned out by larger campaigns funded by hyper-wealthy people. A lot of other measures could be taken to dissociate business from government, like requiring the forfeiture of all business interests and stock assets, etc. I want a dirty nasty crackdown on business and government intermingling, I want current criminal laws to be enforced, and I want new laws to be enacted to increase the risk of criminality when mixing business and government to the point where running for public office gets more difficult and unappealing the more complex your finances are. We need public office to be a job that nobody really wants to do, because the people who desire to be in a position of power are the same people you shouldn't trust to hold that power.

See, now your making sense.

Politicians have to be held accountable, it's improving now though as with the rise of Youtube more people know about things that just will never be mentioned from the MSM, The Good thing is the donor list from businesses have to be on public record so it's quite easy to see who is bought and who isn't, Be very weary of these Super PACs though.

for Instance, of the Democrats who have confirmed a run at 2020 only Gabbard and Warren(though I have my doubts in the future) have a Clean donor record.

Most problems with the US System starts and ends with the Political finance system.

 

[Exorcet]

If the descendants are responsible for their own actions then why are they also responsible for their ancestors' wealth and its influence? Those descendants did not earn that wealth.

The wealth was passed on to the descendants, it's not the ancestor's anymore. Whether they earned it or not doesn't matter. The influence over government is the problem and is what should be done away with. It's separate from the wealth.

So they can be responsible for their own actions all they want, but their actions of buying government influence are not illegal, so there is no responsibility to be taken. That, and the fact that regardless of law, humanity is not moral in any capacity. Adhering to some logical system of morality is not natural for us, therefore responsibility cannot be expected, and further it can be expected less when responsibility is not enforced.

Basically what I'm saying is people are assholes who can't be trusted to do the right thing, especially when the wrong thing isn't illegal, so your "responsibility" schtick is bollocks.

It still comes back to the issue of buying influence. Why take a roundabout way of curtailing this? Let's say we get rid of inheritance (just for the sake or argument). What happens to those people that acquire wealth themselves? Are they less willing to use it to buy out the government? Will they not seek other form to extend their influence, like through the succession of leadership in their businesses rather than through family lines? Why not just keep money from influencing the government?

As far as morality goes, some people are indeed selfish. We're still social beings though and we do have an innate cooperative tendency overall, though it's probably coded to work better in groups much smaller than nations or even states/cities. That very likely even contributes to the desire to pass down wealth through generations, but again I don't really have a problem with that. If you want to shape society to break away from that and be more altruistic on a wider scale, I don't oppose that either. What I do oppose is forcing people into complying with whatever system is in place, especially if that system favors some people over others. I think we both agree on that latter part.

I'm literally proposing potential solutions to cronyism. You can't just, boom, one day wake up in a libertarian wonderland. Cronyism is a condition that spirals out of control, and it has to be targeted, such as by preventing the centralization of wealth and, in my opinion, limiting political donations to individuals only. No more committees, no more corporations, because those are controlled by the hyper-wealthy. Requiring donations to come from individuals means that every individual who donates is public record, and it keeps individuals accountable, so the hyper-wealthy cannot hide their direct influence behind the shield of committees or corporations. I'd also argue that a maximum dollar limit should be set for political campaigns, and it should be very low, so campaigns with less funding don't get drowned out by larger campaigns funded by hyper-wealthy people. A lot of other measures could be taken to dissociate business from government, like requiring the forfeiture of all business interests and stock assets, etc. I want a dirty nasty crackdown on business and government intermingling, I want current criminal laws to be enforced, and I want new laws to be enacted to increase the risk of criminality when mixing business and government to the point where running for public office gets more difficult and unappealing the more complex your finances are. We need public office to be a job that nobody really wants to do, because the people who desire to be in a position of power are the same people you shouldn't trust to hold that power.

If we're going to focus on ending the practices that are directly corruption, then I agree. I'm not so sure about the last line though. There are some people that want to help. If we make holding office harder, it could make it more difficult for them to get a foothold as well.

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm not against finding ways to boost everyone's wages to close the gap and make buying things easier. But, not at a 70% marginal tax rate against the wealthy or kicking up $15 minimum wages for the poor to afford housing. The wealthy just find ways to pass those hits against them onto the rest of the population.

You're lot against closing the gap, it's just every solution that doesn't mean 'the rich bosses finally like to pay me more' is something you can't agree to as it would redistribute their (allready stolen money).

"The guys on the factory floor are the ones who should be making the money! The owner doesn't do anything."

On this section of you. We don't have a choice. Some people are not able to complete leadership functions. In a economy where the employers don't want to pay a descent wage for those jobs the choice for said person is: die from starvation or work for a wage you do not agree with. This isn't a choice as to survive the person needs to go and work for the wage he deems to little, hence his work is stolen from him by his employer.
I never said they shouldn't make money I do not accept they deserve as much as they earn, somtjing allready pointed out before.
But hey mocking ones views is easier then engaging with it right

If you see things this way, it makes me think you have some arbitrary standard set for what people deserve. Where specifically is money being earned unfairly and what is it that makes the choice to work not a choice?

It's not a choice as the choice is working for less then you deserve or dying of starvation. (Read above)

The arbitrary amount would differ from region to region, but I suggest a minimum wage that makes sure you can provide for yourself and family even if a medical or other unforeseen circumstance arises.
This seems more then fair I give up the majority of my life to make my joss richer he needs to pay me enough.
This is not the case currently and that's where it become unfair.

I find it to be unfair for a secondary reason but I haven't found a way to justify that idea. But it just seems crazy to me to say people can earn millions which they can't ever use all while others die from starvation and other poverty related issues. Again this part I have no idea yet how to justify it that's not based in emotion.

 

[Exorcet]

On this section of you. We don't have a choice. Some people are not able to complete leadership functions. In a economy where the employers don't want to pay a descent wage for those jobs the choice for said person is: die from starvation or work for a wage you do not agree with.

If we want to consider being able to afford modern luxuries as essential needs, then who does have a choice in your mind? I work for a wage I agree with I guess (but I'd argue so does anyone who isn't forced into being at work), but if I stopped working I wouldn't be able to sustain living. Wanting more money doesn't seem like a way to decide whether or not you're being payed enough. You could always use more money.

This isn't a choice as to survive the person needs to go and work for the wage he deems to little, hence his work is stolen from him by his employer.

This would apply to anyone who doesn't have enough money saved to life off of for the rest of their lives though. Just because you're not payed enough to survive indefinitely doesn't mean your money is being stolen.

It's not a choice as the choice is working for less then you deserve or dying of starvation. (Read above)

But you're outlining a choice. Work for someone paying you enough to let you live, or don't. It's not ideal to just barely meet your financial needs and I agree with attempts to help elevate people in that situation, but it's not slavery and does not involve theft.

The arbitrary amount would differ from region to region, but I suggest a minimum wage that makes sure you can provide for yourself and family even if a medical or other unforeseen circumstance arises.
This seems more then fair I give up the majority of my life to make my joss richer he needs to pay me enough.
This is not the case currently and that's where it become unfair.

I just don't see it as your boss's responsibility to make your life content. No one is responsible for anyone else. If it's difficult for a person to meet their financial needs that's a problem. Is the only solution to take a cut of employers' money though?

I find it to be unfair for a secondary reason but I haven't found a way to justify that idea. But it just seems crazy to me to say people can earn millions which they can't ever use all while others die from starvation and other poverty related issues. Again this part I have no idea yet how to justify it that's not based in emotion.

No amount of money that is finite is unspendable. Not only that, but having individuals amassing large sums of money in the range of millions or billions can also lead to that money being focused into specific areas of benefit for all people

https://www.therichest.com/business/economy/the-largest-charitable-donations-in-american-history/

That's not always going to be the case of course, but there's no amount of wealth that you can point at and label excessive.

To get around starting a semantic argument though, I think the heart of the issue here is people think the standard living for many should be better (though it's hard to define an objective standard of need). The go to solution seems to be take more money from those deemed wealthy. Is the distribution of wealth the only problem that you see, or just the main one? Are there other contributing factors?

 

[McLaren]

You're lot against closing the gap, it's just every solution that doesn't mean 'the rich bosses finally like to pay me more' is something you can't agree to as it would redistribute their (allready stolen money).

Bold throws your argument in the trash. Companies "steal" money from us, therefore, we should "steal" it back.

I'll be sure to use this as the backbone of negotiating with my boss on a pay raise since it's money "stolen" from me anyway.

On this section of you. We don't have a choice. Some people are not able to complete leadership functions. In a economy where the employers don't want to pay a descent wage for those jobs the choice for said person is: die from starvation or work for a wage you do not agree with. This isn't a choice as to survive the person needs to go and work for the wage he deems to little, hence his work is stolen from him by his employer.
I never said they shouldn't make money I do not accept they deserve as much as they earn, somtjing allready pointed out before.
But hey mocking ones views is easier then engaging with it right

And this argument falls in the trash bin as well. It assumes every company is the same, no employee is making a living wage and people at minimum wage jobs are dying from starvation.

Mocking this argument is all it deserves because it doesn't want to acknowledge the person's ignorance to understand you can change all this. You can go work somewhere else where the money is fair. You can get an education or trade to do so. You can start your own business. No one forces you to sit in a crappy job.

 

[Northstar]

Some people are not able to complete leadership functions.

So you're saying there is a limited supply of people willing and able to fill leadership roles? Perhaps that supply is lesser than the demand, which is why they can ask for more?

In a economy where the employers don't want to pay a descent wage for those jobs the choice for said person is:

I think it's pretty much a human nature thing to want to pay as little as possible. It's why people go through the effort to clip a coupon for $.05 off a dozen eggs.

hence his work is stolen from him by his employer.

That's why you try scheduling your "movements" to align with your working hours.

It's not a choice as the choice is working for less then you deserve or dying of starvation. (Read above)

Yes, and no. I've had to take minimum wage jobs in the past just to keep me going, but I didn't go into them expecting anything more than a temporary thing. In one case I found something else shortly after and in the second one I got promoted after a month and wound up staying there 7 years. I didn't feel at any time during the periods when I was working for minimum wage that I deserved more money for the work I was doing. Because at the end of the day it doesn't take a genius to put donuts in a box or bring carts in from outside.

This seems more then fair I give up the majority of my life to make my joss richer he needs to pay me enough.

In order for this to work you would have to ignore common things like bonuses, 401K matching and profit sharing (and in the U.S. health insurance).

This is not the case currently and that's where it become unfair.

And it never will be unless you go full on communist.

But it just seems crazy to me to say people can earn millions which they can't ever use all while others die from starvation and other poverty related issues.

The problem with this line of thinking is you eventually have to apply it to everybody that can afford luxury items. Because even the $60 you spend on a new video game could be used to feed a homeless person for a couple days instead.

 

[Mr Tree]

But you're outlining a choice. Work for someone paying you enough to let you live, or don't. It's not ideal to just barely meet your financial needs and I agree with attempts to help elevate people in that situation, but it's not slavery and does not involve theft.

But I don't agree dying is a choice the choice presented is like the choixe to breath off coarse one is allowed not to breath it's just not going to end wel. Acting as if this is a fair choice is dishonnest imo.

To get around starting a semantic argument though, I think the heart of the issue here is people think the standard living for many should be better (though it's hard to define an objective standard of need). The go to solution seems to be take more money from those deemed wealthy. Is the distribution of wealth the only problem that you see, or just the main one? Are there other contributing factors?

The distribution of whealt is my biggest issue and I have to say I'm in a good spot. I live alone and am able to save. I have friends with less capabilities in this jobmarket who are not able to do this and won't be able to do this if they don't find someone to live with.

I tjibk the system is inherrently unstable, unfair, amoral, oppressive and so on but the current biggest issue is the whealt disparity.

Bold throws your argument in the trash. Companies "steal" money from us, therefore, we should "steal" it back.

Steal back? Does a justice system who takes the stolen money from a theif and gives it back to the ones who belobged it to stealing from the theif?

And please stop mocking, either engage in a descent way or ignore me. I can start using charicaratures of your views to and start acting like you are now.

e sure to use this as the backbone of negotiating with my boss on a pay raise since it's money "stolen" from me anyway.

I bet you it's lot going to work. He believes what he does is fair. He also believes in this 'I earned this money' idea. Since when did ammassinf money become the main goal of life? Ask that question, not a single thing is done for progress in a capitalistic society. It's all done to amass more of it. And yes sometimes that includes some progress.

Mocking this argument is all it deserves because it doesn't want to acknowledge the person's ignorance to understand you can change all this. You can go work somewhere else where the money is fair. You can get an education or trade to do so. You can start your own business. No one forces you to sit in a crappy job.

But I don't believe the wages for certain functions are fair. Which means there is no other bossman that offers a fair price.

You think it's fair because you look at the worker/work as a commodity within a market. I want a world where the economy is serving humanity and.not the other way around.

But I'm sure you'll mock that too.

So you're saying there is a limited supply of people willing and able to fill leadership roles? Perhaps that supply is lesser than the demand, which is why they can ask for more?

The problem is not what you describe. The problem lies where the market deems certain jobs to be worth so little it's hard to call the lifes of those workers meaningfull or of high quality.

I think it's pretty much a human nature thing to want to pay as little as possible. It's why people go through the effort to clip a coupon for $.05 off a dozen eggs.

I disagree. I don't, the more people I talk with the more I realise I'm in the minority. But I also think part of this is driven by living in a capitalist society where this is deemed nessecary. Also we grow up in this system and internalise it as if it's a fact, and facts can't be changed. I disagree it's a fact.

Also I have to say I know of one person who did the coupon thing. And to act as if that's greed is ignorant. She was a single mother who didn't eat on certain days to feed her kids and clipped those coupons to SPEND every penny she could. Pennies she didn't even had.

The problem with this line of thinking is you eventually have to apply it to everybody that can afford luxury items. Because even the $60 you spend on a new video game could be used to feed a homeless person for a couple days instead.

I agree, what seems to be the problem?
I also realise there is a lot of money coming before me. I also realise I'll be giving money up before a lot of other people have to too. I really don't see a problem with solidarity.

 

[Northstar]

The problem is not what you describe. The problem lies where the market deems certain jobs to be worth so little it's hard to call the lifes of those workers meaningfull or of high quality.

It's actually exactly as I described. Those jobs that the market deems to be worth little are that way because there is such a large supply of people able to do them that the demand is always met.

I disagree. I don't,

So you've never haggled on something like a car/house or held off on something until it came down on price?

And to act as if that's greed is ignorant.

Where did I say that? I didn't even call clipping coupons greed, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I agree, what seems to be the problem?

You're the one who seems to have an issue with some people putting themselves before others, so you tell me.

 

[Mr Tree]

It's actually exactly as I described. Those jobs that the market deems to be worth little are that way because there is such a large supply of people able to do them that the demand is always met.

It indeed is exactly what you described, caveat being it's the dark side of the coin I pointed out. Something you don't seem to have an issue with. Like I said in my previous post I have an issue that we are ok with people having a lesser quality of life due to their abilities within our economic system. That's not freedom and neither is it choice.

I don't find this ok a worker is not a comodity, a worker is a person ald we should uave more respect for the quality of life of a person then to have it be deceided by his capability to perform leadership functions. That's ignoring the issue that we need more workers then leaders so the system requires people to be on that level.

So you've never haggled on something like a car/house or held off on something until it came down on price?

You're not allowed to sell with loss in Belgium so no I have never payed less then somethings worth. Nor did I ever haggle and.again even if I did I would have never been able to haggle under a fair price. The price of the labour and resources put in.

Where did I say that? I didn't even call clipping coupons greed, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

My bad, you said human nature. But still I disagree th it's human nature to save money. We survived a s a species without money for ages, so it seems hard to be human nature.

You're the one who seems to have an issue with some people putting themselves before others, so you tell me.

You posed me having to give my extra money to people in need of help as a problem. That's why I asked you what seemed to be the problem. If your statement wasn't a problem I wonder what the intention was of the part below:

The problem with this line of thinking is you eventually have to apply it to everybody that can afford luxury items. Because even the $60 you spend on a new video game could be used to feed a homeless person for a couple days instead.

So what was the intention of that?

Also to answer what my issue is with a lack of solidarity in this life. Well the fact that people starve or can't pay life saving medicine and so on while others are.able to amass billions they can't even spend seems a pressing issue to me. But still I don't understand.why you re0ldd that to my statement considering how we got to that point in our conversation.

 

[Exorcet]

But I don't agree dying is a choice the choice presented is like the choixe to breath off coarse one is allowed not to breath it's just not going to end wel. Acting as if this is a fair choice is dishonnest imo.

As I said though, if we look at it this way, everyone is being forced into making an unfair choice to work. People making large salaries need to keep working or they won't be able to maintain their lifestyle.

Strictly speaking it's not a life or death choice anyway. It's a more comfortable life vs less comfortable life choice. The offer of a job is, as you've said, keeping the person working well away from death, so for them it seems to be a benefit.

The distribution of whealt is my biggest issue and I have to say I'm in a good spot. I live alone and am able to save. I have friends with less capabilities in this jobmarket who are not able to do this and won't be able to do this if they don't find someone to live with.

I tjibk the system is inherrently unstable, unfair, amoral, oppressive and so on but the current biggest issue is the whealt disparity.

Alright, fair enough.

You think it's fair because you look at the worker/work as a commodity within a market. I want a world where the economy is serving humanity and.not the other way around.

Just to step in on this, capitalism lets you generate large sums of money yes. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to give that money away to benefit other people, you can. As many do, including the super wealthy.

 

[Dotini]

Kamala Harris, slavemaster.

Ordered to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded prisons, lawyers from then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office made the case that some non-violent offenders needed to stay incarcerated or else the prison system would lose a source of cheap labor.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamal...ied-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor

 

[Mr Tree]

As I said though, if we look at it this way, everyone is being forced into making an unfair choice to work. People making large salaries need to keep working or they won't be able to maintain their lifestyle.

But is it fair to equate the choice between living with a descent quality of life or an exhuberrant lifestyle to the choice between begging on the streets or a somewhat descent standard of living?

This is an honnest question by the way. I'm very much willing to listen to your point of view since you don't call me a commie bastard or just straight out mock my ideas.

Strictly speaking it's not a life or death choice anyway. It's a more comfortable life vs less comfortable life choice. The offer of a job is, as you've said, keeping the person working well away from death, so for them it seems to be a benefit.

I think I see a diffrence between you and me here. I don't want to call staying alive and just that a life worth living. People survived in the stone age. But we've come along way and the successes and progrees mankind made should be 'given' to mankind. We've got more automation, more productive/hour due to that yet still work 8h a day 5days a week and to be honnest for a worse situation then my parents were in. They where buying houses in their early 20s, this is just a dream for many now.

Just to step in on this, capitalism lets you generate large sums of money yes. What you do with it is up to you. If you want to give that money away to benefit other people, you can. As many do, including the super wealthy.

(That's why I said amoral and not immoral.)

The issue being it's volentary and what gets funded is fully at the whims of the donator. Also the super whealty still are super whealty after this. And often the donation is nothing compared percentually towards their owned capital.

 

[Exorcet]

But is it fair to equate the choice between living with a descent quality of life or an exhuberrant lifestyle to the choice between begging on the streets or a somewhat descent standard of living?

In light of the fact that nothing can be guaranteed it's fair. Some people are just unfortunate. I don't want those people to settle for their poor circumstances though. I’m not saying that they should just be left as they are. At the same time, I can't justify forcing someone else to elevate their standard of living. In other words, it's fair, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable or that nothing should be done.

This is an honnest question by the way. I'm very much willing to listen to your point of view since you don't call me a commie bastard or just straight out mock my ideas.

If I'm honest I know that my opinions can be unpopular, but I think my moral basis is sound. What I want is to find a working solution that is agreeable. Dissenting opinions are important, so whether you agree with me or not, I want to hear it.

I think I see a diffrence between you and me here. I don't want to call staying alive and just that a life worth living. People survived in the stone age. But we've come along way and the successes and progrees mankind made should be 'given' to mankind. We've got more automation, more productive/hour due to that yet still work 8h a day 5days a week and to be honnest for a worse situation then my parents were in. They where buying houses in their early 20s, this is just a dream for many now.

I don't think that just staying alive is necessarily worth living. I can certainly imagine lives where I would question if it was worth continuing to live. I think what we actually disagree on is the what is what is morally permissible in helping people living unfulfilling lives. I would say that I share a greater burden to improve people's standard of living than the wealthy solely because I think poverty is a problem. Someone with vast wealth may be able to contribute more toward solving the problem than I can, but I can't justify forcing them into being charitable. It's easy to point to the wealthy minority and single them out as being selfish, but in the end there is no objective line that you can draw to separate having enough money from having too much money. Drawing a subjective line and forcing people to comply with it just makes it more likely to encourage arbitrary and unfair policies (although it's also not guaranteed to happen).


As far as human progress goes, yes we've advanced, but people also demand more (a higher standard of living than in the past). Based on that, I don't think it's surprising that people still spend the majority of their time working. I would also like to see everyone benefit from technological advancements, but again I need to ask who is responsible for elevating people's standard of living? I don't see why someone successful must assist the less fortunate. I strongly encourage it, but forcing it to happen is going too far.


As far as the actual conditions that people face today, I need to look into it more. Going by my own experience, buying a house at 20 isn’t that farfetched and I see a lot of opportunity to move up in society, even if it might take some planning. I only have a limited perspective though.

(That's why I said amoral and not immoral.)


The issue being it's volentary and what gets funded is fully at the whims of the donator. Also the super whealty still are super whealty after this. And often the donation is nothing compared percentually towards their owned capital.

The point I'm getting at more is that you can use the current system to generate the help that people need. It can be argued how effective it is compared to forcing everyone to contribute by law, but some percentage of the population focusing to improve things themselves is possible now and better than doing nothing. One of the issues is getting people to cooperate on a large scale. It’s difficult, but not impossible. The government does this sometimes, but you don’t really have a choice in complying, and what the government does with your forced contributions can be immoral or something you personally disagree with. I’d like to facilitate financial and other assistance with forcing people into it.

 

[Northstar]

Something you don't seem to have an issue with.

Not really. That's not to say I like that it's that way, but I've accepted that some roles will be more desired than others and the salaries of those jobs will reflect that.

Like I said in my previous post I have an issue that we are ok with people having a lesser quality of life due to their abilities within our economic system. That's not freedom and neither is it choice.

So what's your proposal?

I don't find this ok a worker is not a comodity, a worker is a person ald we should uave more respect for the quality of life of a person then to have it be deceided by his capability to perform leadership functions. That's ignoring the issue that we need more workers then leaders so the system requires people to be on that level.

You can make pretty good money and not be in a leadership position. The thing is those roles are not exactly for doing simple things like assembling a Big Mac.

You're not allowed to sell with loss in Belgium so no I have never payed less then somethings worth. Nor did I ever haggle and.again even if I did I would have never been able to haggle under a fair price. The price of the labour and resources put in.

Who said anything about selling at a loss? I have a very hard time believing Belgium doesn't have any haggling or sales.

My bad, you said human nature. But still I disagree th it's human nature to save money. We survived a s a species without money for ages, so it seems hard to be human nature.

True, but even before money bartering was still a common practice.

You posed me having to give my extra money to people in need of help as a problem. That's why I asked you what seemed to be the problem. If your statement wasn't a problem I wonder what the intention was of the part below:

So what was the intention of that?

Also to answer what my issue is with a lack of solidarity in this life. Well the fact that people starve or can't pay life saving medicine and so on while others are.able to amass billions they can't even spend seems a pressing issue to me. But still I don't understand.why you re0ldd that to my statement considering how we got to that point in our conversation.

I keep bringing it up to highlight that it's a slippery slope. Because to a homeless person, you and I are both incredibly rich. So why is your issue only with billionaires instead of anyone with a savings account?

 

[mustafur]

Kamala Harris, slavemaster.

Ordered to reduce the population of California’s overcrowded prisons, lawyers from then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ office made the case that some non-violent offenders needed to stay incarcerated or else the prison system would lose a source of cheap labor.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamal...ied-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor

Private Prisons will love her, Kamala Harris seems like the establishment pick of the race soo far, despite a invisible career compared to other candidates(did anyone even know who she was before this year?) she is getting the most coverage yet she doesn't really look to stand for anything like Hillary so I wonder who is even going to vote for her given she doesn't have the kind of name recognition as Hillary to hide her lack of policy substance.

Bernie needs to back Tulsi rather then run again given they are on a similar platform and they will win the nomination imo, Warren may split that base though but I think alot of past Bernie supporters still won't forgive her for backing Clinton over him in 2016.

These betting odds are hillarious.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Updated the polls today instead of the 15th due to the short month.

 

[TenEightyOne]

View attachment 799462

These betting odds are hillarious.

They're from one company though, it gives a broad (veeery broad) idea of their own thinking versus their own liabilities at the time of publishing. I had a quick look at the three main UK books and, with the exception of Kamala Harris at around 3 to 4 the odds are all over the place. Oprah and Zuckerberg seem to be level pegging on those books too

 

[Mr Tree]

d anything about selling at a loss? I have a very hard time believing Belgium doesn't have any haggling or sales.

Little to no haggling off coarse we have sales, but even during the sales season we're not allowed to sell with a loss. If nothing is soled with loss I payed enough for the product to be made and I didn't steal a part of the product from the worker. So what's wrong about that?

True, but even before money bartering was still a common practice.

Yes off coarse we allways valued our labour. But that doesn't mean stocking up on money is human nature.

eep bringing it up to highlight that it's a slippery slope. Because to a homeless person, you and I are both incredibly rich. So why is your issue only with billionaires instead of anyone with a savings account?

But it's not... have you read my response? I advice you to reread this part of our conversation. You stated they can get my money to. I said that if we implement more strict redistribution systems they're allowed to take my money to. I don't agree this is a slippery slope with negative consequences as it would use my stacked up surplus money for people who need the money. Something that seems very normal to me as a human life is more important then (my or anyone's) money.

So what's your proposal?

In all honesty I'm still looking into other ideas that would solve my issues with a lot of systems but mainly with neoliberal capitalism.

I'm looking into social democracy, democratic socialism, anarcho communism... but haven't made up my mind in all honesty. That doesn't mean I can't have critisism for certain ideas of an existing system. It's smart to know what you disagree with and why to find what you do agree with. Our conversation fits into that process.

 

[Dotini]

In all honesty I'm still looking into other ideas that would solve my issues with a lot of systems but mainly with neoliberal capitalism.

I'm looking into social democracy, democratic socialism, anarcho communism... but haven't made up my mind in all honesty.

As long as you are still actively studying the issue, please don't omit the works of John Zerzan of Eugene, Oregon. I read the first four of his six major works with great concern. Though at length I've stopped worrying about it.

 

[Keef]

I read an article about Kamala harris's antics in California and it immediately changed my mind about her. She loves to find ways to abuse authority and she seems to be one of those "pro-conviction"-type cops. The ones who disregard justice or the system in favor of getting more convictions.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Bernie Sanders officially confirms his intention to run.

 

[Mr Tree]

Bernie Sanders officially confirms his intention to run.

Feel the Bern!!!

I wish Bernie and his supporters the best of luck!

 

[Dennisch]

Ah yes, so that he can betray his supporters once more.

 

[Mr Tree]

Ah yes, so that he can betray his supporters once more.

Am I missing something?

 

[Dennisch]

Am I missing something?

...

In the 2016 elections he was running against Killary, and for the longest of times he couldn't find a positive thing to say about her, right up until it became clear she would be the democratic candidate. At that point he told his supporters to vote for her.

 

[Mr Tree]

...

In the 2016 elections he was running against Killary, and for the longest of times he couldn't find a positive thing to say about her, right up until it became clear she would be the democratic candidate. At that point he told his supporters to vote for her.

What seems to be the betrayal?

Seems logical to me, you run until you lose.
Before losing she was his opponent, after running she was not,...

Like I said I might be missing something but considering that (old) information I don't see the betrayal.


Edit: I'm not a fan of Hillary but calling her Killary is a bit childish and stupid isn't it? Just say she's a fool or whatever issues you have with her.

Edit2 upon further investigation Killary was the referal to Benghazi. Which is a cheap dig and a claim that Hillary was responsible for the death of those soldiers. That's quite the claim tbh, and most defenitly since all the investigations that showed no wrongdoing from her end.

 

[UKMikey]

Meanwhile, in Italy...

 

[Dotini]

What seems to be the betrayal?

Seems logical to me, you run until you lose.
Before losing she was his opponent, after running she was not,...

Like I said I might be missing something but considering that (old) information I don't see the betrayal.


Edit: I'm not a fan of Hillary but calling her Killary is a bit childish and stupid isn't it? Just say she's a fool or whatever issues you have with her.

Edit2 upon further investigation Killary was the referal to Benghazi. Which is a cheap dig and a claim that Hillary was responsible for the death of those soldiers. That's quite the claim tbh, and most defenitly since all the investigations that showed no wrongdoing from her end.

Bernie's betrayal was to his loyal supporters, fervent socialist populists left twisting in the wind, who felt very uncomfortable with Hillary.

At Benghazi, a US Ambassador was slain in a planned attack by Islamic militants. He was engaged in a misbegotten gun running operation from Libya and on through Turkey to Islamic militants. Hillary Clinton, his boss, rightly took responsibility for the "security lapses". Her term as Secretary of State was a disaster. Her hands are unclean.

 

[Dennisch]

Edit: I'm not a fan of Hillary but calling her Killary is a bit childish and stupid isn't it? Just say she's a fool or whatever issues you have with her.

Edit2 upon further investigation Killary was the referal to Benghazi. Which is a cheap dig and a claim that Hillary was responsible for the death of those soldiers. That's quite the claim tbh, and most defenitly since all the investigations that showed no wrongdoing from her end.

We had Killary, Drumpf* and Commie Sanders. They're all just nicknames.


*Trump has many, many more though.