2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread

Flin Flon said:
We organize our economy firstly around people, and people want things and activities that are made possible by capitalism.

The coal industry is prominent example of an industry which is definitely not people-centric and should have been phased out long ago. It uses lobbies and astroturfing to keep itself alive, uses misinformation to make sure at least some people think it should still exist, and strategically manipulates other industries so that none of them can replace it. Most people who aren't Facebook boomers think coal is terrible, but with the way American politics just serves businesses, that is next to impossible.

The assumption that capitalism just produces what people already want ignores all those (rather large and influential) industries whose whole schtick is to manufacture need regardless of its impact on people. Fancy a cigarette lootbox?
 
Just because there are no system that has the protection of the environment as its main goal, it doesn't mean that capitalism is the least harmful of it all. For example, the shortage economy of the commie times produced significantly less waste. While I know that a lack of products is not considered the best way to solve the world's problems, people were satisfied with much less than they are now because they were more aware of what they actually needed. In the consumer centric society what people want and what people need are far away from each other.
 
@Bromden, I understand, but the competition for the best system is not ''least harmful to the environment''. It's ''most pleasure to most people''. The environment ties into that, but isn't the priority. You can argue that that's your priority in your economic system and you can extend that argument to that people should prioritize the environment in their system, but it gets you into a weird moral conundrum and now you're wood elves.

Plus waste is still waste, right? Harm is still done. People would still be incentivized to produce more waste under socialism if they could. If technology is found that can increase production by tenfold at the increased detriment of the environment, it'll be used. If there is any threshold, it'll be reached, whatever the system (I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything).

@Jacob, predatory, psychological manipulation, fabrication of needs and the cultivation of this weird toxic culture (lack of better terms, I have to read Hegel on capitalism) are why I hold that leftist moral philosophy is really strong. The application or execution of the philosophy in how we organize society just doesn't get you far when you account for that resources are scarce. They need to be utilized to their fullest so everyone can have a piece of the pie. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't address anything that's wrong with capitalism. We should obviously, try to mitigate any sort of harm to our best ability.

The best way to allocate scarce resources in a society is by measuring who needs those resources the most. The only real way you can measure that is by making individual people vote with their financial capital (gained either by labour or redistribution) how much they need that particular good. This eliminates overproduction (wasting scarce resources) and signals to producers how much they need to produce to not cause shortages. Private owners (incentivised by profit) respond as fast as they can (saving time and resources) to any new demand in the market because there is a vacuum there and they'll produce that good as cheaply (because resources cost money, thus not wasting resources and minimizing the price (especially when there's competition for the vacuum)) as they can. This is not as efficiently possible under any other system I know of.

Competitive market economies are supposed to address inefficient and bad corporate practices by virtue of better companies entering the market, which is why you need to regulate and enforce anti-trust laws. Manipulation and corruption are not less prominent in more centralized economies. If anything, manipulation is easier because the only people you have to bribe are the few people regulating the market, as opposed to a competitive market where people vote with their money which companies will thrive.

Corporatism, lobbying, predatory practices, inequality are all symptoms of capitalism, but not ones you can't address through effective policies. Don't get me wrong, I would personally drop capitalism for a better system that maximizes happiness tomorrow. It just doesn't exist yet as far as I know and understand (fingers crossed for replicators).
 
Trump Pays $2 Million to 8 Charities for Misuse of Foundation
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump, who at first dismissed the suit as a political attack, made 19 detailed admissions, acknowledging, for example, that the foundation had purchased the $10,000 portrait of himself that was ultimately displayed at one of his Florida hotels.

He admitted to using the foundation’s money to settle obligations of some of his for-profit companies, including a golf club in Westchester County, N.Y., and Mar-a-Lago, his private club in Florida which he frequently visits.

And he admitted that the foundation had given his presidential campaign control over about $2.8 million that the foundation had raised at a veterans fund-raiser in Iowa in January 2016. Mr. Trump acknowledged the fund-raiser was in fact a campaign event.
(In my country a prime minister would not have survived such a scandal ...)
As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump’s three children who were officers of the foundation — Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump — were ordered to undergo mandatory training to ensure they do not engage in similar misconduct in the future.

On Tuesday, the attorney general’s office confirmed the children had undergone the training.
Training in not being corrupt  :lol:


 
Adorno said:
As part of the settlement, Mr. Trump’s three children who were officers of the foundation — Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump — were ordered to undergo mandatory training to ensure they do not engage in similar misconduct in the future.

On Tuesday, the attorney general’s office confirmed the children had undergone the training.
:facepalm:

I don't really have the words...
 
Let's help Arvenski figure out what to do!

Give me a "V!" That's like Victory!
Give me an "I!" That's like there is no room for the "I" in the coming world!
Give me an "O!" That's like wondering if Taylor Swift is ovulating right now.



the rest was going to be "violent revolution" but I can't be ****ed.
 
Watly said:
Democrats really seem to want another four years of Trump. :lol:

Why does everyone seem to think that? The impeachment of Bill Clinton was more unpopular than the current impeachment of Trump, yet Republicans did fairly well in the 2000 election (they won the presidency, and only faced minor losses in the House and Senate). I see very little evidence to assume this will impact the election one way or another - it likely drives enthusiasm among partisan voters on both side.
 
Calradianın Bilgesi said:
Is this related to populism?

Considering that's the underlying force behind the ethnonationalist bull**** that the Turkish government seems to spew, I would think so.

Moose! said:
Watly said:
Democrats really seem to want another four years of Trump. :lol:

Why does everyone seem to think that? The impeachment of Bill Clinton was more unpopular than the current impeachment of Trump, yet Republicans did fairly well in the 2000 election (they won the presidency, and only faced minor losses in the House and Senate). I see very little evidence to assume this will impact the election one way or another - it likely drives enthusiasm among partisan voters on both side.

Because the impeachment won't actually do anything to erode Trump's support base, and it won't do anything to convince voters on the fence why the Democrats are worth supporting. The Democrats have been essentially contesting the election since he won it without having any solid campaign or plan beyond "we're not Trump", which works for large portions of the population, but most likely not enough. The DNC is insanely corrupt, and due to the way the political system works their best candidate wouldn't have even been considered as a contender (Ocasio-Cortez), and their second-best candidate just had to drop out because she couldn't grease the wheels enough. The Democrats are going to put a jar of mayonnaise (Joe Biden) up against Trump and Trump will win a second time.
 
This impeachment is probably the best way to make the public aware of Trumps misdeeds. The challenge in opposing Trump is cutting through all of the misinformation and getting the truth of his corruption through to the general public. Polls showing increasing support for impeachment and removal suggest that the plan might be working. Remember that public and congressional support for Nixon lasted up until the court ruling that released the tapes he kept hidden, and his impeachment was less popular to that point that this one has been. Many cases are working through the courts now, and with the potential delay in a senate trial, lots can still happen.
 
I think what might stop that from being very significant is the same thing that makes fake news so easy to spread and hard to combat; we are living in the internet age. A lot of people are influenced by various internet sources outside of the mainstream media (virtually anyone who strays onto the internet can't help but absorb some of the propaganda anyway, as news sites report much of it, so it's not even just those who seek dodgy sources of info who are influenced), such as catchy posts on Twitter- like the one the president himself posted- an image that would be ridiculous in any other decade before this one-  of himself in a darkened room with a caption along the lines of "It's not me they're after, it's you!". His supporters have long been immune to the flaws of their man, and I don't think they are going to start paying attention to evidence which might make it clear how improperly he has behaved- many don't care what he has done 'wrong' because to them such transgressions don't matter, and the rest will refuse to believe it. We need to find the internet box, take it to the White House and nuke both at the same time, it's the only sane solution.
 
Back
Top Bottom