******Official politics thread ******

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So it looks like Trump is going to try to work with Democrats on Tax reform:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...mocrats-236725

Keep in mind he obviously spoke a lot about tax reform since the dawn of his political persona. He probably cares a hell of a more about that than healthcare.



Turns out not even Trump and Ryan together can move the "just say no" caucus.

LMAO @ just say no caucus

My zega Trump will move the house to sack Ryan if necessary. It's ultimately his fault and his job to mobilize the votes and alter the bill

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hypernationalistic libertarians

That's an oxymoron.

I have trouble calling Tea Partiers nationalist if they are literally there for the sole purpose of destroying the federal government and providing kickbacks to corporations and people like the Koch brothers. I have trouble calling someone a patriot if they shut down the government and caused degradation of our credit rating, making it more expensive for the country to borrow money, sabotaging all of society for the sake of their narrow agenda. Creationists, climate science deniers, I could go on.

It does bring me pleasure though being reminded that the Republican majority isn't actually a majority because the party is so shattered and obstructive they can't even govern.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LMAO @ just say no caucus

My zega Trump will move the house to sack Ryan if necessary. It's ultimately his fault and his job to mobilize the votes and alter the bill

Boner couldn't do it and he was the fucking Lizard King. Don't see how you think that little twinky cuck Ryan could get it done.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's an oxymoron.

I have trouble calling Tea Partiers nationalist if they are literally there for the sole purpose of destroying the federal government and providing kickbacks to corporations and people like the Koch brothers. I have trouble calling someone a patriot if they shut down the government and caused degradation of our credit rating, making it more expensive for the country to borrow money, sabotaging all of society for the sake of their narrow agenda. Creationists, climate science deniers, I could go on.

It does bring me pleasure though being reminded that the Republican majority isn't actually a majority because the party is so shattered and obstructive they can't even govern.

It's along the lines of the ultimate romantic act being killing the thing you love, but such folks stuck in that Platonic loop don't get out of it. President Trump's gonna have his hands full. Should be entertaining.

[maskedmelon]

sorry I take so long to respond to this ^^ I been so super busy lately >.<

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't see charity as a subsidy of failure because there are so many damaging things about poverty that contribute to making it heritable, infectious, and persistent.

it is important to understand that the reason you do not see charity as a subsidy of failure is because you believe:

1. poverty is the source of the negative conditions associated with it
2. charity effectively remedies poverty, the source of negative conditions associated with poverty.

If you do not believe either of those things, your position does not make sense. i contend that poverty is not the source, which you seem to agree with at least in part below.

This is established sociological fact.

the idea that poverty is damaging, hereditable and infectious is, yes.

Also, basic income is not charity, it is for everyone, and I view it as a dividend for your part ownership of this nation's wealth as an American citizen.

that's fine. not really sure what I think about that view other than it is still free money that more effectively subsidizes the lifestyles of the least successful individuals than any other group. I think on it some more. at the moment though I can say that eliminating birth right citizenship as you suggested makes it more sensible. There are all sorts of things we can do to make it more sensible though.

I disagree with the notion that money is the end-all be-all driver of self improvement, which is closely related. However, there is a lot more to it than that, culture is a big part of it, racism, etc, and it's the main reason why you can't just hand people money to get them out of poverty.

But something like basic income goes a long way toward not only fixing the problem, but also saving the rest of society from some of the damage and blight of poverty.

Either I fundamentally misunderstand the nature of basic income, which is entirely possible ^^;, or you are expressing cognitive dissonance. how is basic income not giving people money?

I know for a fact I would be in a terrible position if it weren't for my upbringing, and the high expectations of my parents. I'm not an ambitious person. How successful somebody is is a combination of their inherent personal strength and upbringing.

i agree with this. i am wildly unambitious too ^^ how large a component of upbringing would you say wealth is? I mean out of all the things parents give you, how important is money. you make a very god analogy below about life as a marathon and money as a head start. I believe discipline, knowledge, goal setting and reason are infinitely more important than money. it is after all why trump and bush are passed up by buffet and jobs.

Think of life like a marathon footrace. Everyone starts at different spots according to the opportunities given to them. Some people run really fast and some people run really slow. Some people are born a mile from the finish line (Donald Trump, George Bush) and still get passed by people born near the starting line (Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett), because they are just so fucking fast. Given that I will never be as successful as my parents, I literally walked backwards, but I'm still further than hundreds of millions of people will ever get in their lifetime by virtue of inheritance alone.

I'll give you the example I gave in the other thread you never responded to:



I especially like the military example. The military pulls a LOT of people out of poverty, including my dad and my cousin.

My siblings are all fuckups except for my sisters, but being a woman is easy.

im sorry I didn't respond to that originally. I'm not sure why I didn't ^^ probably was thinking about it. The military really is a fantastic example of how to best extricate people from poverty though. It does exactly what I argue needs to be done. it is a very poor substantiation of the efficacy of basic income though because it is radically different and here's why I say that: those who join the military become property of the government and are retrained as if children to be functional citizens. It teaches people discipline and goal setting and respect and work ethic among other things. people don't walk out of the military and succeed because they've been given free room and board and schooling in exchange for promising to kill people. It's the lifestyle changes that the military compels, which allow people to succeed by effectively utilizing the other resources available to them there and beyond.

your comment on the rest of your siblings (similar to my own, though my parents are nowhere near wealthy despite having risen from significantly humbler beginnings). It speaks to the problem though and and that is, even if you are able to lift a man from poverty, train him to overcome his deficiencies, he still carries them and will generally be unable to effectively issue the necessary training to his children to overcome the innate deficiencies most of us face. Certainly his strengthened financial position will afford more opportunities for positive change, but the change is still left to chance. That is what I dislike about it. you are investing resources in conditions which may improve, but will certainly proliferate. it is a gamble and I see it as an unwise investment. I do not believe there are sufficient resources to elevate the billions who exist impoverished and the billions more who will spring from their loins.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's an oxymoron.

it is

climate science deniers...

how is climate science denial not nationalistic? I mean it is pursuing energy policy that does not hamstring the competitive ability of your nation, while foreign nations eituer hamstring themselves, or are more likely to suffer the consequences of your actions. don't forget that even the church of climate science acknowledges that while the world is warming, the United States is cooling and even within the US, those likely to suffer the most are those who would be displaced by automation anyway. Clinging to fossil fuels and denying climate science is simply exercising our competitive advantage at the expense of foreign entities. sounds pretty nationalistic to me.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

darwinian evolution doesn't apply to human society melon

smoke and ponder

not sure what you trying to say here, Pokes ^^;. I didn't say it does and wasn't drawing any parallels either. J has the right of it though in that the idea that "conditions favored within a system will proliferate" is a fundamental truth of nature applicable to every system. Whether you want to call that darwisnim or game theory or common sense is up to you. the truth though is that nature does not favor excellence. it favors 'good enough' and modern society has significantly reduced that standard. I foresee humanity presently evolving toward something like ants ^^

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

https://archive.org/stream/Industria...festo_djvu.txt

Alarm clocks don't work, but condition.

that a really long article. he make a super good point under "Leftism, 13." where he indicates that leftists consider many groups inferior. that is true. One must fundamentally believe a group inferior at least in some regard to feel that he, the individual, is capable of helping them, the group, or to even believe that they, the group, are in need of help. leftism is a pandering to ego alongside placation of conscience. interstiny, those are defining characteristics of christianity too, which is funny when you consider that while christian philosophy is largely leftist, most christians in the US lean right simply out of adherence to tradition and the inability to reconcile uncomfortable truths with their own beliefs.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

not sure what you trying to say here, Pokes ^^;. I didn't say it does and wasn't drawing any parallels either. J has the right of it though in that the idea that "conditions favored within a system will proliferate" is a fundamental truth of nature applicable to every system. Whether you want to call that darwisnim or game theory or common sense is up to you. the truth though is that nature does not favor excellence. it favors 'good enough' and modern society has significantly reduced that standard. I foresee humanity presently evolving toward something like ants ^^

if we're gonna we brutal about it, code propagation is the only naked virtue.

that's what survival is. you've often argued to restrict reproduction based on fiat pixel accumulation. how do you justify denying destiny to yourself and others based on hebrew economics?

but i don't think you're dishonest, just misguided.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

if we're gonna we brutal about it, code propagation is the only naked virtue.

the guiding principal is minimizing suffering through actualization of mankind. a sentient manager is necessary to establishing universal order and as the most enlightened species on this wet rock, that thankless task falls to man.

that's what survival is.

not all of us should survive, or even exist. if we are to maximize utility, some of us must relinquish our own.

you've often argued to restrict reproduction based on fiat pixel accumulation. how do you justify denying destiny to yourself and others based on hebrew economics?

no, I've argued for material restrictions on the upper end, because it will not hinder genuinely superior conditions, while demoting inferior ones. restricting reproduction to average or superior conditions elevates the mean. qualifying reproduction does not necessitate it be based solely on material assets. to the contrary, there are a great many considerations that ought be included in condoning reproduction.

i don't like problems and do not wish to be he source thereof, most especially unto those I care about. that is the reason i will not seek to replicate myself. I am flawed and I am ok with that, but there are good things in me and if i am able to spread those that they might endure to benefit humanity, then i will. i'll not propagate my own deficiencies though out of hope that my strengths may survive, or the more common need for care and companionship in age.

but i don't think you're dishonest, just misguided.

im neither. my guiding principals are doubt and compassion subservient to the impartial command of reason. if anything i am lost ^^

but that is why i ask ^^