Prelude to the Apocalypse

[BryanM]

Thank god this distraction is almost over and we can go back to talking about riding donkeys and drinking well water.

The whole "they can be defeated" thing is an exercise in tautology - no cheat code president will be allowed to accelerate the process. By the time they don't have the power to stop it, it's because the party has already been taken over by human beings. (And of course they're not omnipotent - the continued existence of Cuba is testament to that every single day.)

As you can see alleged massive Jewish person hater Corbyn has been ground below the dirt by an organization dependent on the Tory government for funding for decades. Not a lot of interest over there in uncovering any racial or religious abuse of Muslims by anyone with some actual power, for some reason.

[orange808]

The press is full of shit. It's hilarious to hear them blabber on about free markets. The free market puts the value of information at zero, so what's free market about telling me to "allow ads" on your little bullshit website? I'm not doing that. It's worth zero on the free market. Try something different.

"Support journalism" is code for "make sure we don't flatten the world". It's also a code for "only we can decide what the truth is, so please fund our agenda." There are no impartial parties. It's all bullshit.

Always picking and choosing who deserves to suffer and who does not. Always picking and choosing who deserves to be murdered and who does not.

Yes. I am ready to get on with it. Everyone is full of shit.

[ED-057]

Greenwald resigns from The Intercept and launches an interplanetary truth-bomb on the fakenews MSM.

[orange808]

The fact that everyone censors and lies alone doesn't create a legitimate argument to vote for any candidate. Got any concrete reasons why I would support the right?

[Mischief Maker]

To trigger the libs?

[GaijinPunch]

To trigger the libs?

I know people that vote only for this reason.
One particularly has a daughter who will be of physical child bearing years soon. Anyone that supports the christian Taliban we have in the supreme court deserves multiple unwanted pregnancies.

[BulletMagnet]

Got any concrete reasons why I would support the right?

Because you endorse blatant, open-faced voter suppression?

And before you retreat back to your default everything is equally awful in all respects all the time and it's my job to let everyone know what idiots they all are for not agreeing mode, yes, both sides have subverted the will of voters over the years in various ways. But if you seriously want to argue that there exists any remotely legitimate comparison to what the modern GOP and its allies - not to mention, to all appearances, its entire electorate - are currently both executing and endorsing in lock step, sorry, you're just plain out of your goddamn mind. Feel free to cite those busloads of illegals and planes full of thugs if you want to give me a good laugh to start my weekend. Or, even better, just throw every last ounce of self-awareness out the window altogether and whine "Voting? Voting doesn't work!" and then proceed to chide me on how I'm playing right into their hands.

Unless, that is, you concur that the "wrong" people indeed shouldn't be allowed to vote, which is another, even thornier issue altogether.

[BryanM]

BulletMagnet, how do I vote against Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Comcast, resource colonialism, Rupert Murdoch, austerity etc. They seem to be the only thing on the ballot post-primary.

....Or are you saying voting for La Riva or Howie would matter lol?

[Mischief Maker]

BulletMagnet, how do I vote against Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, Comcast, resource colonialism, Rupert Murdoch, austerity etc. They seem to be the only thing on the ballot post-primary.

You vote to make Katie Porter's, AOC's, Ilhan Omar's and the rest of the growing squad's political party the majority in congress, and also give them a party-member as president. And if you're in NY, you vote Biden on the WFP party line.

Instead of based videogame steams, I would rather they pass some based legislation.

But wait, Howie Hawkins is actively trying to tear down the greatest political success stories American socialists have had in years, while he himself has never won a single election in his life and couldn't scrape together the hundred or so volunteers he'd need to get on the ballot in all 50 states? Now that's what I call a recipe for concrete American socialism, I'm switching my vote to Howie! Remember, the Supreme Court can't flush your vote if you voluntarily flushed it on your own!

Or maybe he's trying to replicate the Trump strategy of being an old man who acts like a snotty child, "Wah! Everybody likes AOC more than me, but I was into the GND BEFORE it was cool!"

[BulletMagnet]

[BryanM]

BulletMagnet.jpg

So you're saying I should vote for Trump? I disagree. Just because he's not nearly as strongly backed by my enemies doesn't make him a comrade.

Howie Hawkins is actively trying to tear down the greatest political success stories American socialists have had in years

Yes it's easy to be pure and free when you're not under the foot of literal vampires or at the risk of winning an election accidentally. No need to play party politics and just mumble "hey we're seriously fucked if we don't start doing something about this ten years ago..." I wasn't joking when I said we were going to do the thing to the sky like in the matrix movies, it's very feasible. Nothing is a joke in this post parody reality.

Anyway, I still feel really sad whenever I see that "we'll push X left" cope. I know bargaining down to the mere aesthetic of something helps keep the despair away, and it makes the liberals like you (because they know you're harmless, and can be ignored.), but there's going too far. Here on the internet we don't have to pretend and can be honest:

"Dear X. Please do/do not do Y. I know stabbing your employers in the back will result in dire consequences for you, your friends, and family. All of the hundreds of people you know and rely on you will have to get real jobs and some of them might even have to live like a poor person (gasp!) but do it anyway because I'm so swell and great. Signed, me."

Basic human empathy would make it obvious to infer that Biden and Harris wouldn't want their grand children to have vastly lowered social status. What kind of monster would do that to their kids and grandkids?

[orange808]

Basic human empathy would make it obvious to infer that Biden and Harris wouldn't want their grand children to have vastly lowered social status. What kind of monster would do that to their kids and grandkids?

I don't have that kind of empathy. If they don't make it big, that's okay. I don't think they deserve a great life because of mommy or daddy. On the other hand, I think they deserve to be healthy and have a good life. Nepotism is bullshit.

Everyone should be fed. On the other hand, sprinkles really are for winners.

I actually believe in real true honest meritocracy with a safety net. I'm no socialist. That doesn't mean tax free, monopolies enforced by law, open borders, and free labor. It means, pay your share based on how much you truly receive from society, encourage competition, and address market failure in labor with collective bargaining.

[Sengoku Strider]

BulletMagnet.jpg

So you're saying I should vote for Trump? I disagree. Just because he's not nearly as strongly backed by my enemies doesn't make him a comrade.

Howie Hawkins is actively trying to tear down the greatest political success stories American socialists have had in years

Yes it's easy to be pure and free when you're not under the foot of literal vampires or at the risk of winning an election accidentally. No need to play party politics and just mumble "hey we're seriously fucked if we don't start doing something about this ten years ago..." I wasn't joking when I said we were going to do the thing to the sky like in the matrix movies, it's very feasible. Nothing is a joke in this post parody reality.

Anyway, I still feel really sad whenever I see that "we'll push X left" cope. I know bargaining down to the mere aesthetic of something helps keep the despair away, and it makes the liberals like you (because they know you're harmless, and can be ignored.), but there's going too far. Here on the internet we don't have to pretend and can be honest:

"Dear X. Please do/do not do Y. I know stabbing your employers in the back will result in dire consequences for you, your friends, and family. All of the hundreds of people you know and rely on you will have to get real jobs and some of them might even have to live like a poor person (gasp!) but do it anyway because I'm so swell and great. Signed, me."

Basic human empathy would make it obvious to infer that Biden and Harris wouldn't want their grand children to have vastly lowered social status. What kind of monster would do that to their kids and grandkids?

The planet's about to start melting. That 1/3rd of US households in the lower class is becoming 2/5ths, while the 1% of the 1% ascend to demigod status. Robots, drones and AI are replacing thousands of jobs as we speak, at a pace which is about to radically accelerate thanks to machine learning. Megacorporate transnationalism has allowed them to evade any and all meaningful taxation, making them friends of election campaigns but enemies of functional government. And a generation entering their 30s and 40s throughout the next decade have grown up with no living memory of the Cold War in a world with no employment or residential certainty, massive wage disparity, two crushing recessions and endless empty promises that commodifying themselves as personal brands would allow them to rise above the mousetrap and macht frei.

In short, there's already a whole lot of people who see the puppet strings and the game being played, and that cohort is only going to grow. At a minimum, UBI will be a necessity to avoid widespread civil turmoil sooner than later. Governments will also finally be forced to confront the fact that capitalism can only end with their co-option (already done) and - thanks to tax avoidance and inability to locally legislate transnationals - irrelevance. Corporate militaries which can outpace national armies are an inevitability.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that anti-trust law is cute, but doesn't work if the other countries aren't playing fair and doing the same thing. If splitting up a megacorp means a major Chinese competitor instantly gains a de facto advantage in economies of scale, then said megacorp suddenly becomes a strategic resource in economic warfare. Breaking up Amazon would essentially let Ali Baba have a clear run at dominating global retail markets, and all the sweet, sweet information gathering and capacity for subtle social influence that goes along with it. Sooner or later free market governments will have to decide who controls monopolies/duopolies to avoid being outflanked by more centralized economies or having to cede excess influence to said corporate bodies. For all that one can say about business and politics being in bed together, nobody gets into national level politics to have less power.

Yeah, this worm is doing a 180.

[orange808]

Well, get ready! Crazy little thing called tariffs. Ali Baba exists because of protective practices by the Chinese government--combined with the size of their market. The EU and the US can respond in kind.

Free markets are bullshit. It's whatever we want it to be.

That's the playbook. Of course, that means fewer cheap toys for the professional class and less free labor for the supermanagers. The "everybody wins" mantra isn't true.

If you're telling me I can't break up Amazon "because China", my response is to lock China out. You say "that won't work". Well, that's demonstrably bullshit because China has been doing exactly that (with foreign competition)--and it works great.

Deregulation and less red tape doesn't build magical Ayn Rand super trains. It doesn't spread the wealth, either. It doesn't save the poor starving children. And, you can stick the lame concern trolling for "lazy" domestic workers up your asses.

This is unassailable truth. Do not reply with "think tank" mass media bullshit.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/trade-nafta-paradox

Yep. Productivity soared and wages in Mexico WENT DOWN! No shit. No spin. That happened. Any centrist that argues is a liar. The facts are absolute. What you see is natural market failure in labor. Labor markets don't function with perfect information and labor is insufficiently "flexible". The "invisible hand" will not function the way you were told--and the people pulling the strings know that (they always knew). You've been had.

And then, to put a cherry on top, you complain about the immigration issues and instability south of the border after you drove wages down, while your own domestic companies (and customers) reaped the benefits.

And, everyone is shouting "Oh, the poor children!" every step of the way.

[BryanM]

Well yeah, star trek communism is obviously the ideal. Massive barriers still exist - my favorite to think about being the "whose values?" question when it comes to the problem of value alignment. Considering the quality Google has brought us with their internet browser and phone OS, the things they'd do with AGI would be the things of nightmares.

[Mischief Maker]

Looks like Trump left a crowd of his most rabid supporters stranded in the cold AGAIN.

Times like this make me think of Bill Hicks.

[FinalBaton]

was perusing Youchube and saw that a Trump rally was livestreaming. decided to take a peak

man, american politics is such a big show. look at him in front of the copter LMAO. And the crowd cheering (and booing when he mentions the democrats). That was one HELL of a rasslin' promo the president just cut. The public circus is a lot more subdued up here in our semi-social democracy (I say semi because despite some safety nets, we're only halfway at best where the scandinavian countries are).

I see he's playing the ''unfit to govern/weak cuck'' thing again. ''Sleepy Joe'' this and that. Well if it worked once...

The shot showing a crowd didn't actually reveal a sea of people, so hard to say what the crowd was like.

He's got such a clear and consistent message(that seems to really speak to the middle america type folks, among others), wheter you like what he's saying or not

No way he's not winning this. Biden looks disorganized in comparison
He even has the ''ILL open up your locked down state!'' card in addition this time.
And are POCs really adverse to him? he seems to have a decent portion of POCs on his side actually.

[chempop]

And are POCs really adverse to him? he seems to have a decent portion of POCs on his side actually.

Some people hate their own kind or can be bought. The guy perpetuates hate crimes and empowers white supremacists if you've not been paying attention.

[Mischief Maker]

Daniel Ellsberg gives the argument that I wish Noam Chomsky had given to Brianna and Virgil:

‘Tis the season for some progressives to argue that the best way to build a progressive political movement in America is to stick it to the centrist Democrats–who have rejected progressive nominees and platforms–by voting for a third party, even in swing states.

[...]

As die-hard progressives, we strongly disagree. Few beliefs among progressives have been so thoroughly tested in empirical reality over the last twenty years–and few have been so thoroughly discredited–than the idea that running third party candidates in swing states during close elections is a good way to build a progressive voting bloc.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/we-nee ... e-for-him/

[BareKnuckleRoo]

There's this weird, almost mythical belief that building a third party voting power, however small, will convince the nearest respective party of the two in power to listen to them. Really though, all it does is piss off their would-be supporters for acting as a spoiler candidate, and delight their enemies due to how the election system is easily broken and wins can be won by having your enemies infighting with similar spoiler candidates. The only real ways of getting your views solidified into law is to either become part of one of the two major parties and push for change from within, or to push for election reform so that a competent election system is used instead, one which doesn't artificially result in massive 2 party dominance due to its inherent flaws.

[BryanM]

For all the bitching over Ralph Nader, you never hear anyone complain about Ross Perot getting Clinton elected. Or the libertarian candidate "spoiling" the election despite getting a hundred times more votes than whatever the Green goober of the year is.

Punching left is the only socially allowed position that people never get tired of. It's hilarious the guy talking about manufacturing consent grants his consent constantly and unconditionally. What a sad pointless farce.

man, american politics is such a big show.

Yeah, it's just wrestling. So far we haven't had the gimmick where the heel feeds the face's dog to him in tacos, and then challenges him to a match for the rest of the remains in a bag suspended on a pole in the arena. One of these days...

It's still going to be pretty close again, there's no guarantee either way. Just from people getting tired of Trump, and the lack of Steve Bannon working on consistent messaging. (It's all over the place this year.) If you didn't see it, Trump's TV ads at the end of 2016 portrayed him as a racist Bernie Sanders essentially.

.... the funniest outcome for tomorrow would be if the democrats won Texas, but still lost the election. Something roughly like this. It's not completely 100% impossible *shrug*

[orange808]

The only real ways of getting your views solidified into law is to either become part of one of the two major parties and push for change from within, or to push for election reform so that a competent election system is used instead, one which doesn't artificially result in massive 2 party dominance due to its inherent flaws.

Why not add Jedi knights to your plan? I mean, fiction needs a hook. What you're suggesting can't be done. Sanders had the nomination. The press and party ignored every one of their standards and practices to push him out.

The real path is a trojan horse. You need to get people into office that will turn on the Democratic Party after getting elected--and go "too far" left after privately
claiming they would not. Roosevelt pulled a similar bait and switch on quite a few poor (actually very rich) saps. If they see you coming, you won't get in.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

you never hear anyone complain about Ross Perot getting Clinton elected.

Data actually suggests this is a myth; Perot drew a roughly even number of votes away from both Bush and Clinton, and Clinton had enough support in the 1992 election that Ross Perot wasn't actually a spoiler candidate. Clinton would've won without Perot's presence according to the data.

[BryanM]

See what I mean? An answer is desired, an argument is made in its favor. We can not possibly know for sure what impact he had on the race - you would have to run the entire race again without him in it. You'd need a time machine or a perfect world simulator to do that. (For what it's worth, I believe "blaming" Perot would be bullshit, too. It's supposed to be an election. Rs and Ds shouldn't have the sole divine right of kings. And I don't believe it likely that he changed the outcome, only flipped a few states. That isn't the point.)

My point is it's scapegoating, making someone else take the blame because the king is never to blame for his failures. The reason punching left is so encouraged is because they don't want those people engaged in politics whatsoever.

[Mischief Maker]

[Sengoku Strider]

Well, get ready! Crazy little thing called tariffs. Ali Baba exists because of protective practices by the Chinese government--combined with the size of their market. The EU and the US can respond in kind.

Free markets are bullshit. It's whatever we want it to be.

That's the playbook. Of course, that means fewer cheap toys for the professional class and less free labor for the supermanagers. The "everybody wins" mantra isn't true.

If you're telling me I can't break up Amazon "because China", my response is to lock China out. You say "that won't work". Well, that's demonstrably bullshit because China has been doing exactly that (with foreign competition)--and it works great.

1. China is a centrally planned kleptocracy with a separate internal currency which they control entirely. To make that work in Western countries - especially the US - would first either necessitate a massive Overton shift, or outright revolution.

2. Trouble with tariffs is that, when dealing with a superpower that has you by the balls over rare earth metals, pharmaceutical production, electronics parts manufacturing and debt, you're ultimately just fucking yourself over. You're making those things more expensive for your country, while everyone else gets to keep buying at lower costs. It's one of the many reasons economists overwhelmingly want Trump gone.

3. And of course, protectionism + breaking up monopolies/duopolies/quintopolies - if they, as defacto plutocrats would even let you - still doesn't solve the issue of purchasing power. Huge entities can place orders at such a scale that they can negotiate the lowest prices. Breaking them up undermines that. So now your companies are paying more for commodities and the vast swath of Chinese manufactured parts and products, while also having less leverage in obtaining them. This is why at a certain point free market governments can't afford to do it.

Deregulation and less red tape doesn't build magical Ayn Rand super trains. It doesn't spread the wealth, either. It doesn't save the poor starving children. And, you can stick the lame concern trolling for "lazy" domestic workers up your asses.

This is unassailable truth. Do not reply with "think tank" mass media bullshit.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/trade-nafta-paradox

Yep. Productivity soared and wages in Mexico WENT DOWN! No shit. No spin. That happened. Any centrist that argues is a liar. The facts are absolute. What you see is natural market failure in labor. Labor markets don't function with perfect information and labor is insufficiently "flexible". The "invisible hand" will not function the way you were told--and the people pulling the strings know that (they always knew). You've been had.

And then, to put a cherry on top, you complain about the immigration issues and instability south of the border after you drove wages down, while your own domestic companies (and customers) reaped the benefits.

And, everyone is shouting "Oh, the poor children!" every step of the way.

I'm not clear who this part is directed at.

[orange808]

you never hear anyone complain about Ross Perot getting Clinton elected.

Data actually suggests this is a myth; Perot drew a roughly even number of votes away from both Bush and Clinton, and Clinton had enough support in the 1992 election that Ross Perot wasn't actually a spoiler candidate. Clinton would've won without Perot's presence according to the data.

Interesting. That sounds like data on Sanders. Not that you would consider anything inconvenient. After all, "bipartisanship" for centrists always involves a deal with the supermanager right (not the plebs).

Was Perot right or wrong about the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement? I already posted the data. There's only one possible true answer. Can you say it?

[orange808]

Deregulation and less red tape doesn't build magical Ayn Rand super trains. It doesn't spread the wealth, either. It doesn't save the poor starving children. And, you can stick the lame concern trolling for "lazy" domestic workers up your asses.

This is unassailable truth. Do not reply with "think tank" mass media bullshit.
https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/trade-nafta-paradox

Yep. Productivity soared and wages in Mexico WENT DOWN! No shit. No spin. That happened. Any centrist that argues is a liar. The facts are absolute. What you see is natural market failure in labor. Labor markets don't function with perfect information and labor is insufficiently "flexible". The "invisible hand" will not function the way you were told--and the people pulling the strings know that (they always knew). You've been had.

And then, to put a cherry on top, you complain about the immigration issues and instability south of the border after you drove wages down, while your own domestic companies (and customers) reaped the benefits.

And, everyone is shouting "Oh, the poor children!" every step of the way.

I'm not clear who this part is directed at.

Does it matter who it's directed at?

It's directed at everyone. You're not clear on the difference between true and false? It was a bipartisan deal, but deeply unpopular with real voters.

Trying to spin away from inconvenient truths by asking who I'm talking to?

Nah. I won't bite. Truth is truth.

[orange808]

1. China is a centrally planned kleptocracy with a separate internal currency which they control entirely. To make that work in Western countries - especially the US - would first either necessitate a massive Overton shift, or outright revolution.

1. Open with a big scare! "Kleptocracy!" It's evil! It's evil! They're evil! Anything I say after this is secondary, because: EVIL! lmao

Nice try.

You follow it up with a another scare tactic. A "right shift". lmao No proof. By the way, Keynes didn't believe in free global markets. Is he "right wing"? lmao

So SCARY! EVIL! RIGHT WING! BOOGITY BOO! lmao

2. Trouble with tariffs is that, when dealing with a superpower that has you by the balls over rare earth metals, pharmaceutical production, electronics parts manufacturing and debt, you're ultimately just fucking yourself over. You're making those things more expensive for your country, while everyone else gets to keep buying at lower costs. It's one of the many reasons economists overwhelmingly want Trump gone.

2. Scare them with the wrath of the Emperor's curse!

It's a codependent relationship. That's why China couldn't punish Trump. Lord knows they tried. All they could do was complain. They can't afford to have the US economy shut down. The global depression would sink them. And, their authoritarian government would struggle under the weight of prolonged downturn.

You're playing scare games again. China can't put the genie back in the bottle. They need the US and EU to function properly. One collapse will fold everyone. None of that prevents each zone from shutting other zones out of certain sectors of the economy.

3. And of course, protectionism + breaking up monopolies/duopolies/quintopolies - if they, as defacto plutocrats would even let you - still doesn't solve the issue of purchasing power. Huge entities can place orders at such a scale that they can negotiate the lowest prices. Breaking them up undermines that. So now your companies are paying more for commodities and the vast swath of Chinese manufactured parts and products, while also having less leverage in obtaining them. This is why at a certain point free market governments can't afford to do it.

3. Scare them with prices! We must have monopolies, because China! !!

What are you going on about?

If every firm in my economic zone pays more, competition is maintained. Their economies of scale previously hurt competition and innovation, anyhow.

Tariffs offset foreign synergies by definition. I don't have to break up foregn firms, I can tax them. They can't use that in my zone, because I forbid it.

So, yes, prices may go up to offset additional costs, but competition increases--and tariffs prevent foreign firms from underselling domestic enterprise.

Basically, you responded with a series of nonsense scare attacks.

You're right about plutocrats, though. Because, restructuring the economy locally gives me direct control and that allows me to redistribute income throughout the economy. They lose: big time.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

That sounds like data on Sanders.

Uh... Sanders was not running for the presidency in 1992.

The word "Sanders" appears twice on that page at the very bottom in what is essentially a small footnote section linking to a separate page examining the 2016 election. I can safely assume you have not clicked on the link or read it.

Not that you would consider anything inconvenient. After all, "bipartisanship" for centrists always involves a deal with the supermanager right (not the plebs).

???

I'm not sure why you're assuming I'm a centrist (incorrectly, I might add), or what this has to do with the 1992 presidential election. Your triple posting instead of using the edit button has me equally confused.