Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by kaz, May 23, 2019.
So even though you think it is theft, you are good to go on stealing that money....
really, did she get indicted? Were federal agencies used to spy on the Trump campaign?
Yes they were and as such is an endorsement
I did not say that I would join you and those of you ilk who for some sick reason think it is ok to steal from others. I did however, pontificate as to what I would do with the pittance should I want to lower myself to human debris level.
No, it doesn’t. Any more than, say, the defense budget requires “new contributors” to pay for expenditures.
Whether “it has been spent” or not, social security and FICA taxes considered together have made trillions for the government over the years, but you are scaremongering about how decades from now there might be an annual deficit in the billions.
You're the pretender here. You are pretending this is just about "participation" when the fact that you are aligned with all of the America hating, open border loving, free stuff radical leftists on this issue tells us all we need to know about what this is, well about.
I'd like to minimize the effort to normalize illegal immigration. I'd like to minimize the rush to even bigger levels of wealth redistribution. I'd like to minimize the big government authoritarianism that a popularly elected President will only put on steroids.
I read an interesting piece by the inestimable Hunter S. Thompson, that I had long ago forgotten, about the futility of the election process that favors the two parties and forces us to vote for the lessor of two evils.
That’s the real issue this time,” he said. “Beating Nixon. It’s hard to even guess how much damage those bastards will do if they get in for another four years.”
The argument was familiar, I had even made it myself, here and there, but I was beginning to sense something very depressing about it. How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame, but “regrettably necessary” holding actions? And how many more of these stinking double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
Now with another one of these big bogus showdowns looming down on us, I can already pick up the stench of another bummer. I understand, along with a lot of other people, that the big thing this year is Beating Nixon. But that was also the big thing, as I recall, twelve years ago in 1960 – and as far as I can tell, we’ve gone from bad to worse to rotten since then, and the outlook is for more of the same.
—Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72
As usual with his stuff it struck a cord and seemed instantly profound. I suddenly found myself leaning toward the popular vote argument. Then it dawned on me - that was then, this is now. The people who he tends to agree with (I know because it includes me) still only number about 20 million (if that), while the left wing communists have tripled in number and the war mongering greed heads on the right have doubled. People like HST (and me) aren't winning the demographic (or ideological) war here (and never were). Of course he was correct about the righteousness of the libertarians. Of course he was 100% correct about the uncompromising corruption of the two party system. But unfortunately, giving veto power to one of them (especially the left) is actually worse than his dystopian depiction of the status quo.
When was the last time a President discouraged his VP from seeking the nomination?
I'm not aware of that ever happening..How 'bout you?
You call this:
"Pulling ahead?" The US has outperformed Europe for decades (thanks to their even more socialist systems - that you guys want us to emulate!!!), so "outperforming" Europe is no big deal. Recovering (fully) would be...
Yes, because no amount of wealth redistribution is "too much," am I right?
You mean the decade we refer to as the "Great Depression?" LOL!
I got as far as "the fact that you are aligned with all of the America hating, open border loving, free stuff radical leftists on this issue tells us all we need to know about what this is, well about."
When you start your rant with bullshit...it is going to be downhill from there.
Once again you show that you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Constant, much less accelerating, growth is not an option under capitalism, now, is it? I mean, at some point growth under capitalism leads to the sort of “crisis of abundance” that hit the world in 2007.
That was my point. You said that a repeat of the policies the U.S. government adopted in the decade prior to the Great Depression would have brought a decade of prosperity in its wake, ignoring history’s verdict on those policies.
My goal is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Wealth redistribution would be excessive (or deficient, as the case may be) if it interfered with achieving this goal.
Where are AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and all of their Marxist supporters on this issue?
So it was a "crisis of abundance" that caused us to remain below trend and not Obama's "you didn't build that" anti-capitalist agenda? Was the Great Depression also caused by a "crisis of abundance" or are you just pulling self serving shit out of your ass, throwing it against the wall and suggesting that it (obviously) supports your Marxist agenda?
You mean as written by the Marxist academic "historians?" That was my point - "history's verdict" on economic policies' effects are propagandized.
Yes we know exactly what you goal is. You have stated it repeatedly - "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
Separate names with a comma.