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

[Patriam1066]

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

Keep using those third world shitholes to justify America's violent shootings, real winning argument 😅😅😅

I would end violence, diabetes, and freedom. Would you like to know more?

[mickmoranis]

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

Mick u catch that Tucker tonight?

He went dunkey kong on gun control

naw I want to tho lol

also for the other posts mass murders are about the same in a lot of other white countries that people like to compare america to so for all those folks saying this is the only nation that this happens, that's only partly true.

[Lulz~Sect]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ahldagor]

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

our stats are actually worse than a lot of the west, really on anything crime in general

it's a two fold problem:
america has a higher population of blacks than any of these areas, and they're committing a disproportionate amount of shooting crimes in general. while it should be obvious to anything that there's a difference between a driveby in chicago that hits a couple pedestrians and a school shooting, they both'll get counted in either of the two press-studies being done on mass shootings (the government doesn't track them) because the definitions being used are basically just 3+ killed or 4+ killed.

like it's not the same thing but any time 3 or 4 people get hit its going to count in one or both of the stats being reported/circulated about mass shootings.

and the whole thing tucker was talking about where 1/4 the population and coincidentally every mass shooter ever is on psych meds

Anti-psychotics make you psychotic, but only if you're not psychotic. Questioning stats is different than a psychological medication tangent tho'. Oh me oh my I ain't ever seen an elephant fly.

[Lulz~Sect]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JurisDictum]

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

one of those stupid ideas was capitalism



what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...zones_of_China

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-c...talist-2015-10
https://content.time.com/time/world/...043235,00.html
etc literally no one considers china economically communist anymore



as i said the communist party is in power much like the queen of england rules over england. and they're moving away from it right now.



how does this not look like capitalism to you? have you ever even been to china?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MDO9ZWKj1c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWeFyZPbcno



i think you legit might have downs

I don't know what about linking western ideas by westerns who believed western propaganda somehow proves china is not communist anymore. The link to the times piece includes a quote that says:

Beijing is also doing a far more effective job than Washington of tooling its economy to meet future challenges — at least according to historian Francis Fukuyama, erstwhile neoconservative intellectual heavyweight. "President Hu Jintao's rare state visit to Washington this week comes at a time when many Chinese see their weathering of the financial crisis as a vindication of their own system, and the beginning of an era in which U.S.-style liberal ideas will no longer be dominant," wrote Fukuyama in Monday's Financial Times under a headline stating that the U.S. had little to teach China. "State-owned enterprises are back in vogue, and were the chosen mechanism through which Beijing administered its massive stimulus."

These are startling observations from a writer who, 19 years ago, famously proclaimed that the collapse of the Soviet Union heralded "the end of history as such ... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

(See TIME's video "An Eye on China, Old and New.")
Fukuyama has had the good grace and intellectual honesty to admit he was wrong. And he's no apologist for Chinese authoritarianism, calling out its abuses and corruption, and making clear that he believes the absence of democracy will eventually hobble China's progress. Still, as he noted in the Financial Times, while they don't hold elections, China's communist leaders are nonetheless responsive to public opinion. (Of course they are! A party brought to power by a peasant rebellion knows full well the destructive potential of the rage of working people.) But the regime claims solid support from the Chinese middle class, and hedges against social explosion by directing resources and investment to more marginal parts of the country.

China's leaders, of course, never subscribed to Fukuyama's "end of history" maxim; the Marxism on which they were reared would have taught them that there is no contingent relationship between capitalism and democracy, and they only had to look at neighbors such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore to see economic success stories under authoritarian rule — although the prosperity thus achieved played a major role in transforming Taiwan and South Korea into the noisy democracies they are today. Nor were Beijing's leaders under any illusions that the free market could take care of such basic needs as education, health care and infrastructure necessary to keep the system as a whole growing.

But Fukuyama also made a point about the comparative inability of the U.S. system to respond decisively to a long-term crisis. "China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively," Fukuyama wrote. "Americans pride themselves on constitutional checks and balances, based on a political culture that distrusts centralised government. This system has ensured individual liberty and a vibrant private sector, but it has now become polarised and ideologically rigid. At present it shows little appetite for dealing with the long-term fiscal challenges the U.S. faces. Democracy in America may have an inherent legitimacy that the Chinese system lacks, but it will not be much of a model to anyone if the government is divided against itself and cannot govern."

So Fukuyama was dead wrong -- non-free market forces are absolutely necessary for meeting the challenges of modern society -- hence America's decline and China's rise...

and im supposed to go away and admit I'm wrong and join the pack of nodding geese that agrees that China is capitalist now because they have "free trade zones" where they make Nike shoes....

Maybe your wrong -- just like fukayami and the actual majority of US idiots in college that believed him about the end of history -- and bulk of communism as it existed (a 1- party state that does not yield to private interests) Hasn't changed as much as the guy that got it all wrong 20 years ago thinks today...

He's waiting for china to collapse and become a democracy -- thats what that idiot is waiting for. Are you waiting with him? Or do you acknowledge that our liberitarian free-market ideals are horseshit and being surpassed by an authoritarian government?

It's very simple. Either there is a place for state-owned enterprises and made up currency -- or capitalism is the best system.

I understand if you want to use some strawman system to represent communism that never existed -- a communist country with zero market forces and is 100% command economy....they discovered early on that it is way to early for that....its too complicated to do everything market forces accomplish in the early 1900s...it still is.

that will change though.

Edit: I love how they pick two countries that were never really communist: South Korea and Taiwan -- as examples of democracy created out of communist societies...North Korea unfortunately is communist...but there is a lot else going on there...there is some cultural baggage about buddhist kings and a bunch of realist dynamics that keep that horrible system afloat. I don't think anyone cares enough about North Korea to try to change it to be honest.

There's a lot of strawman communist counties out there... they are communist in name but the only reason they are called communists is because the soviets planted their flag there at some point. Colonized communism should only be compared to colonial "democracy" -- not the host countries.

[JurisDictum]

Mao's picture still hangs on Tiananmen Square....If you want to stop gulping up pro free-market propaganda, stop looking at business magazines printed by Americans...

Articles actually written by Chinese people are pretty clear:

But the Party runs what could be termed a “neocommand economy.”

[Ahldagor]

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

its a common link shared by almost every mass shooter in the past several decades. do you think 1/4 the US population is psychotic or do you think these meds may be overprescribed?

Psychotic meds have a strict guideline due to their effects, so I'm not persuaded they're over prescribed like adhd meds are (holy shit those are over prescribed). Thcker's also gotta steer a show, entertain, so it could be just for that (main stream media needs advertisers afterall). Did Tucker distinguish the difference between psychotic and psychiatric? If he didn't then it's filler bullshit for a show and if he did then he's trying to engage in rhetoric and what he does with that will tell you if he's serious or trying to run a show. What station is he with now?

[Lulz~Sect]

the mentally ill tranny knows best guise

[JurisDictum]

So according to Xankaa -- there basically never was any such thing as communism and every country is capitalist. The term "communism" is entirely theoretical and has never existed in the world.

Capitalism is so watered-down as to mean essentially nothing. A country that exchanges goods? Capitalist. What if they are entirely controlled by their government and there are virtually no property rights? Capitalist.

What if the entire country is ran by a political party that demands ideological testing on Marxist principals -- totally capitalist.

Rich Chinese people are buying property for 2 reasons:

1) it's smart for long term investiment...unless your the gambling type and think you can make better returns faster -- hard to beat real estate

2) Their fucking smart (you have to be to succeed in the Chinese economy) and realize its in their personal interest to get out of the communist controlled China and into a capitalist cuck country that my grandchildren can lord over like they own the place.

Edit: Free trade zones are arranged by the central government...its essentially using low quality labor force to maximum use for the good of the central ruling population. But it is all bureaucratic and controlled by the government...they let the private interest run their own compaines now...thats the big difference from now and early 1900s...