President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
If Xs do not get due process, then government can simply call you X and do what they want.
This principle does not change with the severity of X.
Of course, this is easy to portray as sympathy with murderers. It is not. It is an established safeguard to make it difficult for government to be tyrannical.
this is insane, he's not a us citizen, he was here illegally, he murders someone, his own country won't take him back
where we send this person is irrelevant - he's a scumbag and shouldn't have even been here in the first place
and yes, every illegal immigrant who commits crimes and goes to jail should just be dumped on whomever
you seriously want to reward that behavior - if you come here illegally, you face the consequences of being deported to wherever we decided to send you - especially if you commit murder while you are here
A stunningly brilliant soul read from the guy who knows nothing about Communism yet regards himself as an expert on it because his mother expelled him from her womb somewhere within the geographical area of the USSRIt's not like I've made similar statements to the one in question twenty billion times on this forum...I assume this is some kinda gotcha for some dumb reason or ano
The poors have access to more stuff than kings did centuries ago, entirely qnd exclusively thanks to capitalism and it's corollary, yet you uniquely think of ways to reduce/destroy the only reason we all live far better than before.
So no you are not interested in improving the material conditions of anyone, at all.
this is insane, he's not a us citizen, he was here illegally, he murders someone, his own country won't take him backwhere we send this person is irrelevant - he's a scumbag and shouldn't have even been here in the first placeand yes, every illegal immigrant who commits crimes and goes to jail should just be dumped on whomeveryou seriously want to reward that behavior - if you
Or the death penalty for any violent crime if you are an immigrant (sentencing immigrants far more harshly than citizens should be obvious, they are guests who should behave in stellar ways and always be thankful of the opportunity given to them by the hosting country).
If Xs do not get due process, then government can simply call you X and do what they want.This principle does not change with the severity of X.Of course, this is easy to portray as sympathy with murderers. It is not. It is an established safeguard to make it difficult for government to be tyrannical.
this is insane, he's not a us citizen, he was here illegally, he murders someo
Wait, you mean if you commit murder you should get deported?
You're a capitalist shill for the elite who are supported by the establishment and you support private individuals profiting from price gouging of essential facilities such as housing rentals, and taking the fruits of public investment such as transport and energy and water utilities and making huge profits from them while providing a costlier and much worse service to the publ
There are a whole host of economic and social reforms that I would support. I don’t feel like listing them here because I don’t feel a need to show my leftist bona fides to you. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else on this forum.
If you think there is something specific I have said about economics and social policy that you want to debate, go ahead, but it sounds like you just want to virtue signal and make up policies that I support. You said I support trickle down economic, which I don’t. You’re now saying I support privatization of utilities (?) which I don’t.
Yes I support building more housing to make things more affordable. Why is that bad exactly? Do you like more expensive housing? I have railed against nimby homeowners and have a generally negative view on the corruption of local government with land owners trying to make profit off of renters.
thisThere's zero chance checkraisdraw would crush all privatization, as any legit left-winger would if they had the opportunity. There's a less than zero chance he would get on board my idea to imprison every billionaire in the country until they have given up 90% of their wealth (although at that point the Revolutionary Committee may decide to give them to the guillotines, an
I think that me saying I’m a social democrat/social liberal just entails that I wouldn’t support your crazy socialist policies that jal denied were the real socialist solutions. I appreciate the honesty of this post though, in contrast with jal who wants to be mask on.
A wealth tax is the expropriation of a slice of all the means of production, every year.
It's definitionally a socialist policy, if enacted it moves a locality more toward actual socialism (especially if you can pay in kind for illiquid property, like the state slowly increasing it's ownership of your business or real estate)
In your definition, you could say that for any taxes .
So I don’t see whats the big problem compare to any other taxes besides it aims at a particular group of people that wouldn’t see a difference at all in their living standard shrug.
Not only their living standard but generations of living standard following them .
What in your warped model of the world would make you think that raising hourly wages will make people work more hours in total?
There are thousands upon thousands of able-bodied people in the US that work ZERO hours in a way that is captured by employment statistics. Many of them used to work, some of those on multiple jobs at a time. Most of the people in question belong to an economic class which hasn't seen its wages raised proportionately in any meaningful way (after accounting for inflation). So, they opt to drop out, hustle, and scrounge by. They'll say stuff like, "at least now I don't have to get yelled at by my ******* boss". Many of these "opt outs" fall into committing the common social ills associated with poverty, such as petty crime, scams, etc. I've met multiple people JUST LIKE THIS. Put them in the 50s, 80s, 90s, they have a job. A GOOD job, most likely.
Huh, it's almost like poverty breeds social ills and the misery that comes along with it.
According to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), the participation rate for men in their prime working years (ages of 25 to 54) has fallen from 98% in September 1954 to 89% in January 2024.
Put simply, jobs in America today are shittier than the jobs of the recent past.
"Just raise wages" is the proper answer when some sector business owners complain they can't find specific workers (usually for massacrating jobs like in kitchens and so on).
Sure, and that represents a large percentage of the people I'm talking about.
But in aggregate in the economy? If people can achieve their desired consumption goals with less effort, in the vast majority of cases they will work less in total.
It seems to me that those with the means to easily meet their desired consumption goals are the same people that will work a psychotic number of hours and miserly save and hoard their wealth. Like, for instance, that boring banality of evil dork Warren Buffett. If true, you're wrong as a matter of fact.
More fundamentally, we need to stop viewing a job as an inherently good thing in the first place, but most posters here are not ready for that conversation.
In your definition, you could say that for any taxes .
So I don’t see whats the big problem compare to any other taxes besides it aims at a particular group of people that wouldn’t see a difference at all in their living standard shrug.
Not only their living standard but generations of living standard following them .
no i couldn't say that for any taxes. Income is something different than wealth, and consumption in particular is even more different.
A wealth tax is the expropriation of a slice of all the means of production, every year.
It's definitionally a socialist policy, if enacted it moves a locality more toward actual socialism (especially if you can pay in kind for illiquid property, like the state slowly increasing it's ownership of your business or real estate)
No because they don’t take the value of the slice of the means of production when they tax you, whatever that stock is it would stay in the market, just be sold off to someone else.
It’s not an expropriation even if I grant you some vague sense of that term where you can have partial expropriations.
And you can have carve-outs like only taxing certain types of wealth and assets if you don’t want to discourage investment.
The poors have access to more stuff than kings did centuries ago, entirely qnd exclusively thanks to capitalism and it's corollary.
WHOA!! That's a heck of a claim!
I wonder if medical science, technology, The Enlightenment, The Industrial Revolution, or any of that could possibly have played a role in the development of all of human civilization, but I guess you just file all that away under CAPITALISM. The original actor. That's why Al-Khwarizmi invented/developed algebra around 820 AD, he wanted to appease his stockholders and bring them profits in the next quarter.
Put simply, jobs in America today are shittier than the jobs of the recent past.
.
Ehm at the same time, labor force participation of women increased much much more than 9% over that period of time, so if you want to use the participation in the labor force of prime age adults (25-54) as a gauge of the "shittiness" of job offerings, things have never been as good as today (and pretty stable from the 90s).
More fundamentally, we need to stop viewing a job as an inherently good thing in the first place, but most posters here are not ready for that conversation.
Yeah, you guys need to work on your messaging with that one.
During the height of CHAZ, it was hilarious to read all the posts from people who said they would contribute to the collective by working as the village librarian, or to watch over the children. But only during certain hours of the day, presumably.
Because, you know, someone else is going to volunteer to do the actual work required for society to exist.
Which is not to say that babysitting isn't work, but the way it sounded, utopian socialist society was going to be 99% babysitters, 1% librarians, and 0% everything else.
WHOA!! That's a heck of a claim!I wonder if medical science, technology, The Enlightenment, The Industrial Revolution, or any of that could possibly have played a role in the development of all of human civilization, but I guess you just file all that away under CAPITALISM. The original actor. That's why Al-Khwarizmi invented/developed algebra around 820 AD, he wanted to app
yes! all things that are corollaries of capitalism in their current modern form, and in general of free markets, property rights and so on.
Even writing was invented to keep track of stocks of goods, geometry to divide land among owners and so on. Astronomy was developed to send boats to colonize/trade.
It all stems from "greed", which capitalism in it's essence directs to make our species prosper.
I mean lol Aristotele tells us that Thalete basically cornered the oil mills one season because he predicted a bigger production than usual and made a fortune on that.
The will to make a profit, when let free to pursue it's interest, is what moved us toward actual factual knowledge accumulation that is (i agree with that) the basis of increased prosperity. The final check to measure if something work after all is the market. And war of course, that's also a very real check on who has the better knowledge of reality.
Ehm at the same time, labor force participation of women increased much much more than 9% over that period of time, so if you want to use the participation in the labor force of prime age adults (25-54) as a gauge of the "shittiness" of job offerings, things have never been as good as today (and pretty stable from the 90s).
You're missing the context that women were practically FORCED to enter the workforce, because a one-job household became no longer sufficient to maintain the conditions families were used to. The increase of women (or men, for that matter) in the workforce isn't inherently a good thing, because, among other reasons, jobs today suck and don't pay enough.
I should also mention that the families without the means to hire childcare and the like suddenly became completely ****ed. That inevitably led to issues among these families and the resultant stress, less time for the children, divorce, and other things we'd like to avoid. Somehow, we're back to POVERTY BREEDS MISERY, huh.
Why are they sending anyone to South Sudan that isn’t South Sudanese? It’s obviously meant to be some disgraceful insult to the South Sudanese. “Haha you can’t do crap because you’re South Sudan”. Is this how we want the world to operate now?
idk about the merits of sending to south sudan, but the fact remains his own country refused to take him so he had to be sent somewhere
he also had served his sentence, we weren't emptying the prisons at all as you accuse us of doing
so what, he should just remain in prisons for the rest of his life? we should turn one of the florida keys into a place to for the stateless criminals to live out the rest of their lives?
You're missing the context that women were practically FORCED to enter the workforce, because a one-job household became no longer sufficient to maintain the conditions families were used to. The increase of women (or men, for that matter) in the workforce isn't inherently a good thing, because, among other reasons, jobs today suck and don't pay enough. I should also mention
so you use men being able to survive even if they don't work as proof conditions are terrible, but women working more than before as proof that.. conditions are terrible.
Nice circular unassailable logic there. The literal same state means opposite things for you just for you to be able to claim whatever it is you want to claim.
Thiel on why people with shitty college degrees that insist on living in the most expensive areas of one of the richest countries on earth as if it was a human right to be able to do so, become socialists
You need to make their lives as horrible as legally possible so fewer people try to live as illegals in the USA.
you need to understand that many of the people you are talking to are likely against prison sentences for citizens
it is a very common belief in the united states that prison should not be intended as a punishment but rather as a means to help these people
idk about the merits of sending to south sudan, but the fact remains his own country refused to take him so he had to be sent somewherehe also had served his sentence, we weren't emptying the prisons at all as you accuse us of doingso what, he should just remain in prisons for the rest of his life? we should turn one of the florida keys into a place to for the stateless crimin
I don’t accept the dichotomy between just leaving them here and just dropping them off in a random country for the purposes of punishment.
you need to understand that many of the people you are talking to are likely against prison sentences for citizens
it is a very common belief in the united states that prison should not be intended as a punishment but rather as a means to help these people
I don’t think prison abolitionism is very popular, unless you mean something else
you need to understand that many of the people you are talking to are likely against prison sentences for citizens
it is a very common belief in the united states that prison should not be intended as a punishment but rather as a means to help these people
Yes and they use to name Beccaria when they say that, which they think was the first person to explain why the death penalty is bad. (dei Delitti e delle Pene).
Except he was in favor of the death penalty for rioters.
I don’t accept the dichotomy between just leaving them here and just dropping them off in a random country for the purposes of punishment.
So i ask again: how do you guarantee their sorry asses are kicked out of the country, if the country of origin refuses them (or stripped them of citizenship as 57 pointed out happened with the vietnamite guy)?
The main purpose is not having them around anymore. The additional purpose is reducing the future number of those people being in your country to begin with. It's not about "punishment" per se, it's about not having those people around your citizens, and preventing them from happening in the future as much as possible.
So i ask again: how do you guarantee their sorry asses are kicked out of the country, if the country of origin refuses them (or stripped them of citizenship as 57 pointed out happened with the vietnamite guy)?The main purpose is not having them around anymore. The additional purpose is reducing the future number of those people being in your country to begin with. It's not abou
So you think that if we can’t arrange a deportation back to country of origin it somehow becomes South Sudan or Libya’s problem?
I mean there’s no set of premises that I could imagine that would lead to that conclusion.
I don’t have to have a good answer to what we should do in order to eliminate that as a possibility. That’s just not the way the world can or should operate.
no i couldn't say that for any taxes. Income is something different than wealth, and consumption in particular is even more different.
ok ill bite .
explain to me .
any taxes , like in your interpretation-> wealth= means of production, is getting some portion of value (income, money, w.e u mean) from someone that could use that money (lost through taxation) to increase production.
so i see no difference at all shrug.
Thiel on why people with shitty college degrees that insist on living in the most expensive areas of one of the richest countries on earth as if it was a human right to be able to do so, become socialists
its easy to explain...
its called wealth inequality on why people becomes more socialist .
and that is due because the capitalism of today is only profitable to a low % of people.
