Nice to see Trump ousted out. I hope that the narrative that attaches some moral virtue to the winning and flaw to the losing will evaporate now. Was a bit tired to see people denying the agency of Trump and Trump supporters almost completely, linking everything to the democratic establishment in some way. Trump was a bad politician and mismanaged coronavirus, but people got so risk-averse after 2016 that it has become quite difficult to point out any mistake of Trump that would make him lose.
"When it comes to Trump it's all different, you think what Trump just said will harm him because you have a liberal bias and out of touch with people, but actually he's doing what he does deliberately" takes got quite tired. So it's nice to see Republicans lose Arizona. Ridiculing Mccain and saying ". “He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured." doesn't get well received after all.
Yes, obviously you couldn't operate an advanced economy on some sort of barter system. But the problem remains that power will accumulate and eventually there will need to be a reckoning with that. Your problem is that you have no conception of power, it's just good/smart policy and bad/dumb policy which is an understandable side effect of having lawyer/economist-brain.
I do philosophy first and I use studies to corroborate my beliefs in order to be able to put a value on policies. I only study law and eco so I can put my beliefs to practice.
You're right, I don't obsess over power because I don't think power is necessarily bad. I just try to look at what's harmful or beneficial. It's shallow to limit yourself to thinking in power dynamics.
If I ask you 'why is undesirable power bad?', you'll reply because it's harmful.
Wrt technocracy: You need to test your theories by doing thought experiments or doing something empirical. If you don't, you may end up being well-read, but completely divorced from the world. You open your mouth and half of the people in the room go ??? because the things you're saying are half-truths, unsubstantiated shizzle, and things we can conclusively claim.
Remember doing algebra in high school? It's a bit like that. If you're explained algebra in theory, you may understand it, but if you're given a problem question your brain shuts down. Understanding algebra is practing it so you can encounter problems at the micro level, like understanding how to expand brackets or how to move values in order to paint a hollistic picture and solve the problem question (I am not saying problems = math).
This is super unattractive to say, but the only reason I'm confident to the degree of maybe arrogance is because I think my positions through theoretically, ethically and practically and most people don't.
I personallly have nothing inherently against Marxism, socialism or even libertarianism and all the ideologies that are not fash-like as long as people are simply honest about their beliefs and the data. It's fine to be a Marxists, but just be honest about that it has very fundamental problems that have to be solved first before it can become a viable ideology. Encourage the people that do research on worker-coops, on the psychology behind predation, that do political philosophy on "should we inherently care about upscaling human organization". Or put your beliefs into practice and specialise in a field to help formalise Marxist thought in a scientific manner. Marxists don't have a scientific community anymore because everything is so outdated and abandoned. You know how cool that would be if you could reinvigorate it? Just brain storming.
Personally, and this is just me thinking (has no value), I think Jacob has the most sophisticated anti-capitalistic idea because he bites the bullet and argues against human organization. If he bites the other bullet and concedes that it would mean that, while doctors would probably(?) still exist, (medical) specialists would disappear (because there is not enough surplus to permit people to specialise in a field). It checks out, but um, I dunno how you can ethically argue against medical specialists. Which is why I think you need to drop the socialism business and go capitalist -> Marxism. Let the record show we're just doing philosophy.
I do philosophy first and I use studies to corroborate my beliefs in order to be able to put a value on policies. I only study law and eco so I can put my beliefs to practice.
You're right, I don't obsess over power because I don't think power is necessarily bad. I just try to look at what's harmful or beneficial. It's shallow to limit yourself to thinking in power dynamics.
If I ask you 'why is undesirable power bad?', you'll reply because it's harmful.
Wrt technocracy: You need to test your theories by doing thought experiments or doing something empirical. If you don't, you may end up being well-read, but completely divorced from the world. You open your mouth and half of the people in the room go ??? because the things you're saying are half-truths, unsubstantiated shizzle, and things we can conclusively claim.
Remember doing algebra in high school? It's a bit like that. If you're explained algebra in theory, you may understand it, but if you're given a problem question your brain shuts down. Understanding algebra is practing it so you can encounter problems at the micro level, like understanding how to expand brackets or how to move values in order to paint a hollistic picture and solve the problem question (I am not saying problems = math).
This is super unattractive to say, but the only reason I'm confident to the degree of maybe arrogance is because I think my positions through theoretically, ethically and practically and most people don't.
I personallly have nothing inherently against Marxism, socialism or even libertarianism and all the ideologies that are not fash-like as long as people are simply honest about their beliefs and the data. It's fine to be a Marxists, but just be honest about that it has very fundamental problems that have to be solved first before it can become a viable ideology. Encourage the people that do research on worker-coops, on the psychology behind predation, that do political philosophy on "should we inherently care about upscaling human organization". Or put your beliefs into practice and specialise in a field to help formalise Marxist thought in a scientific manner. Marxists don't have a scientific community anymore because everything is so outdated and abandoned. You know how cool that would be if you could reinvigorate it? Just brain storming.
Personally, and this is just me thinking (has no value), I think Jacob has the most sophisticated anti-capitalistic idea because he bites the bullet and argues against human organization. If he bites the other bullet and concedes that it would mean that, while doctors would probably(?) still exist, (medical) specialists would dissappear (because there is not enough surplus to permit people to specialise in a field). It checks out, but um, I dunno how you can ethically argue against medical specialists. Let the record show we're just doing philosophy.
I don't think power is inherently bad either and I don't obsess over it, except when it's treated as if it doesn't exist or is held equally by every adult in a liberal democracy because of their vote. You don't have to be a marxist to believe elites. The concept of regularory capture is very mainstream, discussed among others bya fake nobel prize winner if I'm not mistaken. There's Pareto. And today power is often disguised as expertise or as benevolence.
I agree with you on principle about the need to test your theories and that you can be well-read but clueless. You can also be extremely intelligent and still be extremely wrong, as we have countless examples of from history.
By technocracy what I mean is the belief that there are only technical and administrative solutions to technical and administrative problems, ideologies only distracting from these, and the solutions being beyond most people's ability to comprehend. Important decisions are taken as far away from democratic oversight as possible, now decided by independent central banks, supranational organizations, and international treaties. Voters are dumb brutes who must be goaded into supporting the enlightened elites and not the unenlightened ones.There is no such thing as social class, people gain their positions largely by merit. In that case, why even have a democracy? Why not have enlightened despotism, if the same policies really benefit everyone and most of them not being able to understand what's best for them?
That rejecting technocracy means you should let any schmo be in charge of a nuclear plant or operating table is a pretty facile dismissal imo, I've heard that before.
Even now, Trump supporters, about 150 of them, all armed, are in the parking lot outside the building where votes are being counted in Maricopa County, Arizona chanting "Stop the count." Just a sample of the kind of intimidation Trump encourages. None of them are Mexican. All are white racists. I refuse to put blame for this on Democrats since Democrats favor the kind of legislation that would benefit these people if they could get the racism out of their heads. I live in NC. I've met these people first hand and there are a lot of them.
And Kurczak mentioned Zapata county in Texas voting for Trump. I can guarantee there was some armed intimidation of voters going on there.
I am not saying that many of Trump's supporter are not racist bigots, I know that they are there. I live in Texas, I met many of them as well trust me. I am saying that they can't explain by themselves why Trump keeps getting so many votes. And sure, Democrats favor the kind of legislation that would benefit those people, on paper. In reality, they are so far disconnected from these people that they pass things that make no sense and distance their voters.
Practical example: the individual mandate. It makes sense and it helped reduce the price for insurances. But they forgot an important detail: many of the people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they can't afford to pay for it, even if the Democrats think they can. So if you fine them for not having it, well you can be assured that they sure as hell won't vote for you next election.
By technocracy what I mean is the belief that there are only technical and administrative solutions to technical and administrative problems, ideologies only distracting from these, and the solutions being beyond most people's ability to comprehend. Important decisions are taken as far away from democratic oversight as possible, now decided by independent central banks, supranational organizations, and international treaties.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. You know who explored this topic and why we know about it in the first place? Because thank you political scientists, that's why.
Voters are dumb brutes who must be goaded into supporting the enlightened elites and not the unenlightened ones. There is no such thing as social class, people gain their positions largely by merit. In that case, why even have a democracy? Why not have enlightened despotism, if the same policies really benefit everyone and most of them not being able to understand what's best for them?
Holy **** I just realized that Marxism is literally just a doomer ideology. You guys are consistently the most ****ing depressing, nihilistic, problem-obsessed bunch ever (I think it's in part because you're too empathic and you feel harms too much, or you're just depressed, Idk).
You're way too narrative-driven. No one thinks voters are dumb brutes. We just recognize that some people are privileged enough to get a formal education and some are not. Some choose not educate themselves. We can encourage them still to our best ability, yet still they can refuse, at which point you can't ****ing force them.
Democracy because technocrats and people in power are still people that make mistakes. I am big, big, big into behavioural science where instead of assuming that everyone is rational, you account for that some people act irrationally by virtue of our biases, and you model your policies according to predictable irrationalities. But when the EPA started to put the theory into practice they hilariously forgot to account for their own biases. There's some sort of relationship or balance that you need to find. The solution isn't always more, more and more government. Or less, less, less, obviously. People at the micro-level will be able to recognize problems people at the macro won't (this corroborates my algebra example).
Personally, I'm just waiting until they roll out our benevolent AI dictator daddy that will be able to account for everything perfectly and we can stop having this stupid conversation. My head hurts.
How did you come up with those numbers, genius?
I was really rooting for Trump this time because I wanted Biden and his sleezy son to finally answer for continuously raping my country. You can overthrow a corrupt dictator in your own country, but what can you do against the US President? This sucks, he and his clan are untoucable now.
Following a well-funded campaign, California voters approved Proposition 22—allowing gig economy companies to keep treating workers as independent contractors.
www.wired.com
The campaign, the most expensive in California history, flooded airwaves with ads and mailboxes with pro-22 mailers.
Supporters texted voters with frequency and vim. The companies filled their own apps with campaign-related messaging, prompting ...
How did you come up with those numbers, genius?
I was really rooting for Trump this time because I wanted Biden and his sleezy son to finally answer for continuously raping my country. You can overthrow a corrupt dictator in your own country, but what can you do against the US President? This sucks, he and his clan are untoucable now.
Because everything out of Trump's mouth is a lie, 100% and it was he and his lapdog, Giuliani who made up the stories and e-mails about Biden and his son's involvement in Ukraine.
Do you really think I know what Biden Jr has been doing here for years under his dad's umbrella from some emails? Do you think my reality is shaped by Giuliani?
Didn't read the emails, but the state-level corruption schemes Bidens proteceted and profited from in Ukraine are not a lie. We know what they did.
You can keep your head safely planted in your rear for you obviously don't give two ****s about corrupt democrats destroying third world countries as long as they promise you free healthcare in the US.
Do you really think I know what Biden Jr has been doing here for years under his dad's umbrella from some emails? Do you think my reality is shaped by Giuliani?
Didn't read the emails, but the state-level corruption schemes Bidens proteceted and profited from in Ukraine are not a lie. We know what they did.
You can keep your head safely planted in your rear for you obviously don't give two ****s about corrupt democrats destroying third world countries as long as they promise you free healthcare in the US.
I can't find any sources on the Ukraine/Biden scandal except a wiki article on how it's classified as a conspiracy.
Even Fox News decided not to use it (anymore) because they can't verify it.
"Investigations by the press, during impeachment, and even by two Republican-led Senate committees whose work was decried as 'not legitimate' and political by a GOP colleague, have all reached the same conclusion: that Joe Biden carried out official US policy toward Ukraine and engaged in no wrongdoing," said Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Mr Biden.''
"What is true is that Tony Bobulinski admitted on the record to Breitbart that he is angry that he was *not* able to go into business with Hunter and James Biden [Joe Biden's brother]."
I think you all know the Burisma story at least. Don't tell me Biden Jr didn't understand the level of corruption there, given Burisma's owner being also the Minister of Natural Resources at the time. He knew he was paid stupid money not because he was a maven in the natural gas industry, but because he was an asset due to his connections. When **** hit the fan in my country, Joe Biden personally visited Kiev to blackmail our president into firing the prosecutor who went against Burisma (which he later bragged about in public). Why was the Burisma case never reopened by other prosecutors, given they have consistently gone after many other corrupt politicians from Yanukovich's regime? Do you believe Joe had no idea what his son was up to in Ukraine at the time? We've had plenty of pretty conclusive investigations on this issue in the local press. This ws never about Trump. It's a personal thing between Ukraine and Bidens. But now no one gives a **** because some court or comission or whatever in the US made a clearly political decision to let it slide because Truuump. It's actually insulting.
It's not because of Trump. The GOP (Trump's party) and the press (who investigates independently from any courts or committees) can't find anything. The US has some of the most aggressive legislation wrt corruption abroad (believe it or not (purely out of self-interest because corruption is a cost)), for the record.
It's possible that corruption happens, but there's no evidence as far as this specific claim goes.
Donald Trump said Ukraine’s former chief prosecutor was an honest, wronged man, fired after Joe Biden tried to shut down an investigation into his son’s gas company. In Kiev, Oliver Carroll speaks to people who know Viktor Shokin, and finds a different story
Well look at you guys believing Trump is 100% corrupt while Biden is definitely not, in both cases without definitive evidence or court ruling. I don't care about your elitist biases. I've been on the ground while this was unfolding. I know there will be no justice for us because the stakes in the US are too high. But don't gaslight me. Hope they choke on our money.
I think you all know the Burisma story at least. Don't tell me Biden Jr didn't understand the level of corruption there, given Burisma's owner being also the Minister of Natural Resources at the time. He knew he was paid stupid money not because he was a maven in the natural gas industry, but because he was an asset due to his connections. When **** hit the fan in my country, Joe Biden personally visited Kiev to blackmail our president into firing the prosecutor who went against Burisma (which he later bragged about in public). Why was the Burisma case never reopened by other prosecutors, given they have consistently gone after many other corrupt politicians from Yanukovich's regime? Do you believe Joe had no idea what his son was up to in Ukraine at the time? We've had plenty of pretty conclusive investigations on this issue in the local press. This ws never about Trump. It's a personal thing between Ukraine and Bidens. But now no one gives a **** because some court or comission or whatever in the US made a clearly political decision to let it slide because Truuump. It's actually insulting.
I understand you're upset but don't put something Trump did and then lied about on Biden and his son. US Attorney General Barr, also a Trump lapdog, couldn't find any evidence of Biden doing anything in the Ukraine. Lack of evidence of guilt is evidence of innocence for Biden. Unless your head is too far up your ass to see it.
Well look at you guys believing Trump is 100% corrupt while Biden is definitely not, in both cases without definitive evidence or court ruling. I don't care about your elitist biases. I've been on the ground while this was unfolding. I know there will be no justice for us because the stakes in the US are too high. But don't gaslight me. Hope they choke on our money.
I am not Brutus or Eddie, maybe don't assume that we're an amorphous blob trying to humiliate Ukraine. You weren't anywhere near the alleged scandal, stop ****ing lying.
they literally said biden is also corrupt, just less so than trump. which is not particularly controversial, since even assuming literally every biden conspiracy is true, it still shakes out to less than trump, since he's, yaknow, trump
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
