Prelude to the Apocalypse

[OdiousTrident]

I am not a conservative in any way.

lol

Mother Jones is your true home. I nailed it.

Any authentic support for the positions I outlined above should alienate anyone who values human rights on any level.

You said you value guaranteed returns on investments over human lives. Human rights, indeed.

lol

Ownership of what you have purchased is a basic right. The idea that the removal of rights is OK if they're voted in democratically should be disturbing to anyone.

Enforced property rights are a basis for a functional economy, not a human right. Furthermore, you conveniently put a cap on how far into history you looked to declare the "rightful owners" of American soil and resources. Your moral argument quickly splinters into an argument on morality itself. It's rubbish.

Also, your convenient broad definition of "authoritarian" action is nothing more than a flimsy cheap device that you employ to criticise any law you personally disagree with. It's (also) rubbish.

I think full coverage of every American citizen can occur without abolishing private insurance. I don't think that reflects on my value for human lives. The arguments against this type of balance rely heavily on conspiracy theories and the belief that private business controls government. In reality 70% of political donations come from unions (as they should). Obviously the private sector has unfair influence and advantage... but this occurs for a variety of reasons and does not constitute control of politicians or government.

If you think private property is more about economies and not the universal human experience I don't know what to say. It's way out of my wheelhouse and I can't comment on whether you are right or wrong. I'm not throwing shade I'm being honest. It's a philosophical question.

Going back in history is sort of a tired argument. Two wrongs (or 20) have never made a right... but I think your question on economic rights vs. human rights is more interesting.

I read one article from Mother Jones about climate change once. I will check them out again and see if you're right.

[ED-057]

I think full coverage of every American citizen can occur without abolishing private insurance.

I don't think anyone was asking for private insurance to be banned??

I don't think that reflects on my value for human lives. The arguments against this type of balance rely heavily on conspiracy theories and the belief that private business controls government.

We already know the government does favors for business. Wars for oil, coups for fruit, corporate espionage by the NSA, corporate welfare, bailouts, etc. There is no question here.

In reality 70% of political donations come from unions (as they should).

I don't believe that for a second.

[EmperorIng]

In terms of sheer number of individual donations, I can probably believe that. In terms of the actual amount of said contributions, I can hazard a guess as to which group has given more raw dollars to the government.

[BryanM]

The contribution cap makes it look more equal, but of course it's completely disingenuous to hold that up in a vacuum. Campaign contributions are hardly the sole bucket - there's PACs, think tanks, propaganda outlets (also referred to as "the media"), and direct individual cash payments such as $400,000 for a 30 minute "speech". ($400k is a sum of money a doctor would need a year or two of actual useful labor to make.)

Over $400 million has been donated to the Bloomberg campaign and gone into bribing politicians into endorsing him this year alone, and will probably surpass far over $1 billion by the time he's trying to spoil the election in favor of Trump come November. All from a single donor. Which is still less than a year's worth of his income.

The Sanders campaign has taken in $107 million from more than one donor. The Trump campaign has $232 million, also from more than one donor. (And of course Trump would be bankrupt if he tried to fund himself as Bloomberg is - he's a petite "billionaire" like Ellen Degeneres. The 100 million's are the first significant digit of his funds. There's literally less than 25 people on the planet who can do what Mike is doing, for a grand total of < 0.0000000332% of all human beings.)

[Specineff]

Meanwhile, Trump further drains the swamp by pardoning Blagojevich and Bernie Kerik.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/politics ... index.html

Make America Great Again, one crooked politician at a time! (Whataboutism coming in 3... 2... 1... )

[quash]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... es-decide/

It looks like one of the CIAs more enthusiastic interns let the cap a bit loose this morning.

[BryanM]

Chomsky's dedication to lesser evilism has began to enter cartoon levels of parody. He seriously basically thinks voting for George W. Bush (D) over Donald Trump (R) or Donald Trump (D) over Michael Bloomberg (R) makes sense.

[EmperorIng]

Gotta hand it to Bloomberg, I'm not kinky enough to pay someone to physically or sexually dominate me, let alone allow a group of elder statesmen to do so in public on a stage viewed by a hundred million Americans. Half a billion dollars... That is some serious dedication to his humiliation fetish. How do you make Biden sound slick and savvy in this day and age? Incredible.

[Mischief Maker]

FUUUUUUCK! I had a prior engagement tonight and had to miss it, now everyone's calling it the best debate of the primary.

[BryanM]

The highlight reel of everyone taking turns will be quite the knee slapper. Even the bit of lyin' Liz telling it like it is was absolutely scorching.

Remember when I chipped a buck in to get Gravel into one of these things? And the fuckers excluded him from polls and kept him off the stage? But changed the rules for this shithead to attend?

smh

Half a billion dollars... That is some serious dedication to his humiliation fetish.

Even a fraction of Bernie's billionaire wealth tax would cost him so much more, so he'll be willing to pitch in over $2 billion running ads portraying himself as the biggest theory-readin' communist on the planet to spoil this election if he can't stop him by July.

[quash]

https://twitter.com/WeWuzBoomers/status ... 10124?s=19

In case you were wondering who is thinking of voting for Bloomberg, it's the type of person who draws something like this.

[BryanM]

I don't think they're completely out of touch to be honest - on some conscious level I'm sure they're aware a Gun and Soda grabbin' Republican on the Dem line is a guaranteed ticket to continued Republican hegemony.

[quash]

For all the jokes about certain people here being perpetually stuck in 2004, hearing anyone say that the US has a "Republican hegemony" really drives home the fact that some people are still running Windows XP in their brains.

Foreign policy is largely bipartisan, it's just that Republican presidents have been designated war starters because it was easier to sell to their base. These days, however, it seems like the mask is entirely off on that one and a lot of Democrats are openly on board with it too, as long as it's against the right people.

Basically, if we have a Republican hegemony in the US, it's because everyone is a liberal. You at least seem to recognize that last part as true.

[BryanM]

Domestic policy is bipartisan as well.

It's a dictatorship of capital. The R-types are the preferred vassals through which to enact big change, the D's to smother any actual opposition that may arise from the peasantry.

The media isn't used to highlight the things on which they agree on. Which has brought us to a world where bickering over whether the president likes his steaks well done or medium rare is somehow magically relevant, as they agree on everything else.

[quash]

I think you could just as easily make an argument for the roles being reversed with regards to which party placates their base in the face of political defeat. Almost as if that's the point or something.

BTW, I remember saying years ago that the left/DNC was on a far more volatile course than the right. Not to say I told you so, but who's betting on the Democratic party ceasing to exist by the end of the decade?

[BryanM]

The party will continue to exist as long as television is still relevant. Which it still will be in 10 - if Sanders is the nominee he'll win overwhelmingly in the under 50 demographic even moreso than Clinton did, but the fear mongering on the olds of the passing of their age might be enough to hold back the shift away from capital's uncontested and complete rule for another while. Those people get fuckin' hysterical when you suggest maybe the country has done bad things in the past and maybe we could start doing fewer of them in the future. (And if Biden or Bloomberg is the nominee, they'll just go "oopsie daisy who could have predicted this slaughter?!" as the jobbers take another L and collect their paychecks from the private sector.)

As it exists now though, a front for frauding plutocrats to co-opt the left, probably not. The machine behind Clinton purged the party of new dealers, new dealers can purge them right back with a sitting president.

A new party doesn't solve the same intrinsic problems that exist with the democrats and republicans, the new party would have the same issues. Just because something is born with beautiful ideals doesn't mean a hierarchy doesn't soon come after to cleave interests in 'twain. Much more than just a few "leftist" parties and unions were bought out and co-opted. It's moving the deck chairs on the titanic - as I've said before, the core issue is always who holds power.
____

I hear the media's beginning to break today. Openly crying on television, creating these elaborate no-hoper scenarios of Bernie losing to Trump, and that that'll somehow give a corporate critter a shot in 2024.

Feels good.

[Queen Charlene]

I hear the media's beginning to break today. Openly crying on television, creating these elaborate no-hoper scenarios of Bernie losing to Trump, and that that'll somehow give a corporate critter a shot in 2024.

Feels good.

oh man, that was music to my ears.

[Lord British]

I was on the road for work a few days ago and somehow this idea for a political version of King Of Fighters got in my head.

I had some good ideas but forgot half of them, so help me fill in the blanks with your ideas:

- The working title is "King Of Liars 2020" unless I find a better one
- The game will be tedious and monotonous serving only the purpose to be funny
- Only Democratic candidates will be selectable with Trump being on the right hand side making this a one player game
- All Democratic players will have basic punch and kick attacks, but they will take off very little damage. Each will have their own special moves.
- Trump will be taller than all opponents. He will not have any basic punch or kick attacks, only special moves and tweeting. When tweeting Trump slowly refills his life meter and you will see his tweets.
- Mostly all of Trump's special moves will be summoning his various supporters:

Mitch McConnell will appear as a common combo-breaker move riding a red elephant and saying "Senate Majority", also in captions

If Trump is defeated in a match, the caption "You Win!!" will appear in large letters. Trump will throw a fit yelling "Unfair! Witchunt!" and Bill Barr appears shaking his head and waving his index finger then the "You Win" letters change to "You Lose"

After each match, Hannity will appear to say "Perfect" no matter what Trump's life bar reads.

Other Trump moves will be throwing "Hamberders" and defending missile attacks with steel slats half his size.



DEMS

- Bernie's missile attacks are "couch pennies" and will have a "Feel The Bern" attack similar to Dhalsim's Yoga Flame

- Pelosi will have a sarcastic clap taunt and have a move named "Rip It Up"

- Biden's missile attack will be throwing the board game "Malarky" at Trump

- Adam Schiff will throw subpoenas as his missile attack, but most will be blocked by Trump's McConnell summon

- Bloomberg will have a "Stop And Frisk" move

- Jeff Van Drew can be selected as one of your three fighters for the match, but when it is his turn he will immediately run towards and past Trump, leaving you down a player

There will no time limit per match except for "Days Til Election"

That's all I can remember for now. Any other ideas? Also someone please make this game. Quick!

[Mischief Maker]

- Bernie's missile attacks are "couch pennies" and will have a "Feel The Bern" attack similar to Dhalsim's Yoga Flame

No, Bernie's missile attack is a cloud of snake, rat, and corncob emojis, and when they connect an image pops up of Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd crying and hugging each other while saying, "This is worse than Nazi Germany!"

[quash]

If Bernie leaves the 2A alone, which he may be forced to by circumstance, maybe he wouldn't be a bad single term president.

[Mischief Maker]

If Bernie leaves the 2A alone, which he may be forced to by circumstance, maybe he wouldn't be a bad single term president.

We'll take that vote.

Welcome to the Bernie Bros!

[OdiousTrident]

The contribution cap makes it look more equal, but of course it's completely disingenuous to hold that up in a vacuum. Campaign contributions are hardly the sole bucket - there's PACs, think tanks, propaganda outlets (also referred to as "the media"), and direct individual cash payments such as $400,000 for a 30 minute "speech". ($400k is a sum of money a doctor would need a year or two of actual useful labor to make.)

Over $400 million has been donated to the Bloomberg campaign and gone into bribing politicians into endorsing him this year alone, and will probably surpass far over $1 billion by the time he's trying to spoil the election in favor of Trump come November. All from a single donor. Which is still less than a year's worth of his income.

The Sanders campaign has taken in $107 million from more than one donor. The Trump campaign has $232 million, also from more than one donor. (And of course Trump would be bankrupt if he tried to fund himself as Bloomberg is - he's a petite "billionaire" like Ellen Degeneres. The 100 million's are the first significant digit of his funds. There's literally less than 25 people on the planet who can do what Mike is doing, for a grand total of < 0.0000000332% of all human beings.)

I had to look up the source. 7 out of the top 10 contributors between 2002 and 2014 were unions. By "top" they mean the organizations that contributed the most money. I still do suspect that many corporate interests have been able to hide behind these types of simple studies. That being said it does ask us to reconsider some of the narrative.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL

[orange808]

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/
No unions on that list.

----------

Also, the neoliberal forgot to mention how the data (total donations from the top 100) is distributed. Let's talk about that.

If you look at the entire top 100, the average decrease from one donor to the next one on the list is a few million dollars.

So, the business organizations drown the union money out, because there are substantially more business donors than unions--and the donations from all the top 100 are large amounts.

He's intentionally spreading talking points. It's cherry picked.

Dude should really pack up and go somewhere else--where there are fewer people with STEM degrees.

[ED-057]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?cycle=ALL

1) Tom Steyer
2) Sheldon Adelson
3) Bloomberg
4) Adelson again
5) AFSCME
6) a hedge fund
7) SEIU
George Soros
9) a media company
10) big oil

[BulletMagnet]

7 out of the top 10 contributors between 2002 and 2014 were unions.

If my memory is correct, I happened upon a set of statistics just the other day which, among other things, stated that 1) In the 2016 election cycle corporations outspent unions 16 to 1, and 2) The last time unions managed to match corporate political spending was 1978.

Even if you don't want to take any particular data point as gospel, just based on everything we know about the general direction unions and big business have taken over the past few decades, which "narrative" seems more likely to be sweeping something inconvenient under the rug?

[BryanM]

It's really grotesque on the local level. You see setups where the republican on the ballot has ~$400,000 in their warchest, and the democrat has around $40. And the Dem is almost always some ghoul that doesn't even knock on doors or anything. (The people in my district's primary in 2018 were godawful.)

Bloomberg could have patronized 1,000 districts on what he's about to spend on ads calling Bernie a gun lovin' Putin puppet who's 100% the same as Trump.

the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"

[quash]

7 out of the top 10 contributors between 2002 and 2014 were unions.

If my memory is correct, I happened upon a set of statistics just the other day which, among other things, stated that 1) In the 2016 election cycle corporations outspent unions 16 to 1, and 2) The last time unions managed to match corporate political spending was 1978.

Even if you don't want to take any particular data point as gospel, just based on everything we know about the general direction unions and big business have taken over the past few decades, which "narrative" seems more likely to be sweeping something inconvenient under the rug?

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cand ... =N00000019

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cand ... =N00023864

I don't know, you tell me.

[OdiousTrident]

https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/
No unions on that list.

----------

Also, the neoliberal forgot to mention how the data (total donations from the top 100) is distributed. Let's talk about that.

If you look at the entire top 100, the average decrease from one donor to the next one on the list is a few million dollars.

So, the business organizations drown the union money out, because there are substantially more business donors than unions--and the donations from all the top 100 are large amounts.

He's intentionally spreading talking points. It's cherry picked.

Dude should really pack up and go somewhere else--where there are fewer people with STEM degrees.

You have to look for years 2002 - 2014. All I am saying is that the narrative of corporate control of politicians is way too simple an analysis. It just takes a quick look under the hood to see that this is the case. Obviously we have to reduce the influence but overstating it actually hurts your cause by making you look less objective.

[orange808]

Stop quoting me, neoliberal.

https://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Ameri ... 0674659988

[OdiousTrident]

Stop quoting me, neoliberal.

https://www.amazon.com/Corruption-Ameri ... 0674659988

I am not sure what a neoliberal is but I do support some of the existing party structure... certainly not all of it. I don't see our longstanding political problems as binary conflict and I think that type of simple view is actually the reason we have not progressed as quickly as some European countries. Binary thinking results in feedback cycles that perpetuate the same old status quo by making both sides look stupid and stopping the dialogue short.

A good example is ad hominem attacks on anyone who doesn't share an exact opinion. Eventually both sides just accuse the other of being biased without going into the finer details of the issue.

One good place to start digging is the following study starting at page 14 along with Table 1 on page 48. I don't agree with many of the statements in this study but it is good food for thought.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9409.pdf