Where is the company that does his ads? You gotta wonder...Only one of the candidates asks people to support the troops by using a picture of Mig-29s, I'm assuming?
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-but-it-uses-a-picture-of-russian-jets-414883
I'm not voting in this year's election
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
America's lousy health care system is a major source of instability, both political and economic, in this country. It's a handicap and obstacle of the same order as the systemic racism that touches off riots every few years, just a bit quieter and less intrusive in the public sphere.
?
In your earlier post you declared unions were a "socialist approach". Now you are identifying non-market allocation with socialism or an "issue" with socialism or some wtf cluelessness - keep that up and the only issue left on the table will be your motives.
Government regulation of an economy, government allocation of whatever you were talking about, etc, has almost nothing to do with socialism. Non-market allocation is not the issue here, even if this thread were somehow deflected into real world economics.
Non-market allocation characterizes many non-socialist systems, including several varieties of capitalism - cartel capitalism, monopoly and monopsony capitalism, mercantile capitalism, and so forth. Meanwhile, many socialist organizations are regular and enthusiastic participants in market allocations of one kind and another - not as many in the US as when the US was younger, but still a few; and more common in other regions. Not merely socialist but flat out communist communities often manufacture or produce for a free market, surviving in America (when they do) despite the hostility of the rightwing authoritarian governments typical in this country (America's governments coddle and subsidize and protect even the most abusive of capitalist corporations).
That's not true. People who get the majority of their income from returns on invested capital are not "workers", for example - the return to labor is not the same as the return to capital.
This is very basic, elementary, economics and politics. If you can't distinguish the return to labor from the return to capital in an industrial economy you are a lost ball.
So?
My problems? At least this time the yahoo didn't spend three pages trying to guess what my problems were.
The only problem I have that this guy knows anything about is the extra typing required to correct the more flagrantly mistaken of their occasional relevant posts. Since Seattle like the rest of the Tribe will never learn to not post when pig-ignorant, that problem has no immediate solution.
Fortunately, they speak with one voice - for an entire political faction of Americans whose influence pervades and degrades all public discussion of political matters in America - so I'm not put out much: as we have seen in this country, that line of bs needs to draw continual overt opposition from anyone who wants to avoid another 1984 or 2004 disaster redux, and this is as convenient an opportunity as any.
Meanwhile: We lefties are long resigned to the politics of a country with an active and increasingly well-rooted fascist movement - it's been forty years or more since an American voter had an excuse for indecision when facing the prospect of a Republican president.
i don't know. why are do you like it?
that you think it is that simple just shows at best you are too ignorant to be a legitimate part of the conversation.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I think you just like to complain.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I said that I agree regarding the health care system and yet you continue to drone on like a broken record.
The form of government can be distinct from the organization of the economy. That's not particularly onpoint in this discussion. Unions that demand a wage outside of market forces is a socialistic concept.
You make too much of that distinction. There is nothing sacred about the "worker". Most people have jobs and are therefore "workers". If they invest at some point they can strictly be investors but most start out "working".
There is no need to place more importance on one than on the other. This is like arguing that a donkey is more important than a machine or any other scheme that is productive.
The boilerplate diatribe that they always end with.
You did not agree.
They don't mix and match at random. You can't have a fascist government and a socialist economy, for example.
No, it isn't.
It's a confused and essentially meaningless concept, starting with you not knowing what a "market" or a "market force" is, and continuing through your ignorance of the meaning of the word "socialism".
Unions demanding wages are normally (in most theoretical circumstances, and definitely in all US historical circumstances) engaged in market negotiation within a capitalist economy - fully aligned with "market forces" in a capitalist economy. American labor unions represent labor, and historically (up until recently, when only a couple of oddball ones remain) they have negotiated with the representatives of capital, which owns the means of production and hires the labor - that's called "capitalism".
The word has a meaning. It applies to some people and not others.
Those who get their income from return to capital are not "workers". Workers get their income from return to labor.
So don't.
There is no such "they" - as you would discover if you tried to identify them.
Because there is no such "they", the word "boilerplate" does not apply - if you had restricted the reference to me, you might have had a shot.
And that post is not a "diatribe", as you would discover if you consulted a good dictionary.
Which illustrates: Although I appreciate the repeated and emphasized flattery implied by your frequent attempts at imitation, aping my form and/or vocabulary will not cover your ass - you have to have some idea of what you are talking about. English does not generate relevant meaning automatically.
Get a good dictionary (you need a "prescriptive" one, such as the American Heritage or Oxford - avoid anything with "Webster" in its name). When you have typed a word of three syllables or more in your post, look it up in the dictionary before posting it. If your usage does not match the definition, use a different word (that's the important step - insisting the word means whatever you want it to doesn't work).
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
How's that new tractor working out?
sorry you dislike dealing with the ramifications of your ideology
Quoted in its entirety:
The interesting question for this thread is whether these guys can be, somehow, manipulated into not voting when ignorant.
They will never learn to not post when ignorant.
The interesting question for this thread is whether these guys can be, somehow, manipulated into not voting when ignorant.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You know how they be.
If there's not a gigantic landslide for one candidate in terms of the electoral vote (with the popular vote probably having to be convincing enough in separation for doubters, too)... Then this year's unbelievably messy balloting process and aftermath is itself guaranteed to be a chaotic nightmare that everyone will be suffering from in terms of waking up day and after day to hysterical news about it, and speculations revolving around how the extended crisis could result in either a Putin-like entrenchment or a revolutionary coup in the streets.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
That's why it is called "unearned income", and curiously is taxed at a lower rate than "earned income".....
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Personally speaking and not aimed at you or anyone (this is just a general observation), I'd like to know what kind of person votes for this kind of agenda:
“It affects elderly people – elderly people with heart problems and other problems,” he said.
“If they have other problems, that’s what it really affects. That’s it. You know, in some states, thousands of people, nobody young (dies). Below the age of 18, like, nobody. They have a strong immune system, who knows. You look – take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”
“If they have other problems, that’s what it really affects. That’s it. You know, in some states, thousands of people, nobody young (dies). Below the age of 18, like, nobody. They have a strong immune system, who knows. You look – take your hat off to the young, because they have a hell of an immune system. But it affects virtually nobody. It’s an amazing thing.”
That was Trump, at his latest rally in Ohio..
Thus far, 200,000 people have died and that death toll will rise.
200,000 people and counting and he says "it affects virtually nobody".. Do the elderly, for example, not count? Do people with underlying conditions not count? Are they nobodies?
At what age do people stop counting in US society? At what point do people become "nobody"?
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of the right wing agenda that is allegedly pro-life.. Apparently that's only to a certain extent when Trump is concerned.. Because the elderly and those with underlying conditions, as one example, are "nobody"..
So I have to ask, what kind of person votes for a President with that kind of agenda? Who votes for a President with an agenda that includes dismissing 200,000 and counting people dying to a virus that was horrifically mishandled by his own administration as something that "affects virtually nobody"?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
They are a burden on the state, and useless to people like Trump.
When they start costing the state money for SS and Medicare. Trump wants that money diverted to building a wall to keep the "animals" out.
Yep, when the number of elders and infirm grow too large, the herd needs culling. That's the new attitude.
We have already heard the suggestion of acquiring a "natural herd immunity". That means allowing the weak and old to be culled from the herd, so that only the strong survive and can keep everything. After all that's what nature does.
Interestingly, elephants and whales do take care of their weak and wounded. But then elephants and whales are "decent people".
Poor and sick people are "just animals", to be locked up in cages or cast out into the wild to die. This mind-set was practiced by the Nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It has become quite apparent that people are not voting for Trump based on anything in his agenda, or anything in his character or leadership ability.
They are voting for Trump for no other reason than sheer bloody-headed 'Never Liberal, no matter what'.
Perty simple really...
Trumps base will remain loyal no mater what he says or does... as long as he remains openly racist.!!!
One has to wonder if it has even occurred to Trump that, were he not afforded the best security and protection money can buy, he, being elderly and morbidly obese, would very likely be one of those "nobodies."
The single biggest factor and root cause all along is white racial bigotry - inherited from slavery and publicly defended for more than two hundred years.
The public defense of voting for a modern Republican presidential candidate hasn't changed in a generation - they are ostensibly voting for Trump for the same reasons they voted for W&Cheney, H&Quayle, McCain&Palin, Reagan&H, and whoever else the corporate media granted the most free air time. Trump is, for example: the family values candidate, the fiscally prudent candidate, the strong military leader candidate, the patriotic candidate, the competent executive candidate, the law and order candidate, the national interest candidate, the personal accountability candidate, the Contract With America candidate, and so forth. Obviously these are all bogus - even the sincere believer had to abandon reference to physical reality in their construction of that world.
Not so with white racial bigotry. That has been a steady reference in physical reality and a major source of reliable support for the Republican candidate - any Republican candidate - since the Dems began squeezing the least sane of the Confederacy's heirs and loyalists out of the Party.
One worry in that is the Confederacy's famous sense of honor, as a society - the romantic noblesse oblige of a bloodline aristocracy's children down on their luck, the romanic pull of the lost cause and the battle against an unstoppable monster. The aristocratic governance involved would be rule by white people, and the honor would be in accepting destruction rather than compromising one's principles.
The Confederate loyalist would sooner see the United States destroyed than accommodate black and brown and red and yellow people in the distribution of political power and legal justice.