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
i mean, the main thing that i think about a lot is lbj, a man who was president not too recently, rose to prominence in rural texas by campaigning to get electricity to that area
his main slogan was "you won't have the hunched back of your mother" - alluding to the fact that most women of the area had hunched backs from a lifetime of operating their wells manually as they didn't have electricity to pump the water in through pipes
so there was a time that is in living history when not having running water or electricity was so common that fixing that is a political slogan
that we once had a general population so self sufficient that they'd operate their own wells manually in order to have water and did without electricity
and now, our government is not only giving out food stamps to 1 out of every 8 americans, but is too terrified of saying disallowing people from using them at high markup convenience stores because that means a few people will need to walk a mile to the grocery store instead of 2 blocks to the 7-11
now it is a good thing that lbj brought electricity to rural texas, i'm not advocating against government aid - but it should be in that form - bring electricity to rural areas not "here's some 7-11 coupons"
Not that such a thing actually exists*, but yes, of course. What happens in a meritocratic society to those lacking "merit"? Under a capitalist framework, they become not much more than indentured servants. Sounds bad, but it's lowkey a conservative dream; they want a perpetual underclass to act humbly and efficiently as their GrubHub drivers and lawn maintenance workers.
*except in the case of President Donald Trump, he is President because he is the person most filled with merit in the United States
Then it's a good thing there aren't any executives and shareholders around who would care about that!
now it is a good thing that lbj brought electricity to rural texas, i'm not advocating against government aid - but it should be in that form - bring electricity to rural areas not "here's some 7-11 coupons"
"things are better on average now for everybody compared to in the past, including for poor people, therefore we should not expend significant money and time in an effort to improve conditions for the poor and instead wait for improving technology to continue carrying us along"
This is a famous argument from Harvard and MIT professor/Epstein Island vacationer Steven Pinker. Pretty asinine, right? Oh wait, it's what 75% of you believe.
Not that such a thing actually exists*, but yes, of course. What happens in a meritocratic society to those lacking "merit"? Under a capitalist framework, they become not much more than indentured servants.
What, you think everyone is equal in all respects or something? Some people are smarter, some can run faster, some can shoot better pool, some can act or sing or dance better, and some are better at building businesses. The world would be a very boring place if everyone were the same at everything. If you're good at something, and society places a value on that thing, you should be able to profit from it. I don't even understand your argument to be honest, since what I just wrote seems so self evident to me that I don't think even a hardened Marxist can in good faith deny it.
I've seen you boasting about beating fairly decent stakes before. So what is poker if not a meritocracy? What happens to the people who are bad at poker, do they not get to eat or do they need to go find some other way of making money? Or is it one rule for me and another rule for thee?
To be frank, some of your schtick sounds so out there I sometimes think you're trolling. I expect it from Victor because, let's face it, he's not one of the ones who is smarter, but I don't think you're actually stupid enough to believe half the **** you post here.
What the **** is wrong with you?
SECOND SENTENCE:
What happens in a meritocratic society to those lacking "merit"?
I ask what happens to those lacking "merit" as you define it (intelligence/education, work ethic, stuff valuable to employers), and you go WHAT, YOU THINK EVERYONE IS EQUAL?!?! Oh ****, I forgot, it's Opposite Day. You are very, very good at understand things that you read!
I don't even understand your argument to be honest, since what I just wrote seems so self evident to me that I don't think even a hardened Marxist can in good faith deny it.
It's extraordinarily goddamn simple:
1. Under a meritocracy, most of the dumb/disabled/lazy/addicted would live in poverty
2. Poverty is bad. It's good to reduce the number of people living in poverty.
I've played and beat numerous high-to-nosebleed games in my life. Won a few million, once had a ~115k stack in a live game, played with MONTEL WILLIAMS. Yeah, THAT Montel. Stay mad and confused at all of this merit smacking you in the face
So what is poker if not a meritocracy? What happens to the people who are bad at poker, do they not get to eat or do they need to go find some other way of making money? Or is it one rule for me and another rule for thee?
No, they utilize any number of the robust social programs on hand created specifically to improve their situation in life, which is trivially paid for by tacking a few additional percentage points of tax on inheritance, (inter)nationalizing the mining and distribution of stupid-ass Bitcoin, and any number of other things that don't affect 98% of people in any way. OH WAIT, I live in the US during the late-stage American Empire, so instead, they're all homeless, separated from their families and addicted to fent. I have no way of changing that, so to cope, I send 80% of my yearly winnings to Hamas.
To be frank, some of your schtick sounds so out there I sometimes think you're trolling. I expect it from Victor because, let's face it, he's not one of the ones who is smarter, but I don't think you're actually stupid enough to believe half the **** you post here.
I'm so much better at arguing than you that you are literally unable to comprehend it.
Also. **** you.
OK bro, so Bezos/Musk are to the business world what you are to the poker world. What's your issue? That they don't get taxed enough? Fine, I could get behind taxing them more to create your social programs (and taxing you more on all your millions too). But that's all a far cry from Marxism.
OK, so then, you're satisfied, right? You think Marxism is bad, and I provided you with a non-Marxist solution. Great, we've settled it; I'm right and you're wrong. We got here very quickly from:
To be frank, some of your schtick sounds so out there I sometimes think you're trolling. I expect it from Victor because, let's face it, he's not one of the ones who is smarter, but I don't think you're actually stupid enough to believe half the **** you post here.
OK, so then, you're satisfied, right? You think Marxism is bad, and I provided you with a non-Marxist solution. Great, we've settled it; I'm right and you're wrong. We got here very quickly from:
Well yeah, you're vacillating between "let's tax the rich a bit more" and "let's go full ******, I mean, socialist". So I stand by my assertion that you sometimes say some pretty dumb ****.
Well yeah, you're vacillating between "let's tax the rich a bit more" and "let's go full ******, I mean, socialist". So I stand by the fact that you sometimes say some pretty dumb ****.
While I'm sorry for being flexible and willing to compromise, the one thing I HAVE stayed consistent on is that reducing poverty should be one of the main goals of society, and an excellent way to do that is to take it from the very wealthy and give it to those in poverty. As you admit, in your own post.
I'm going to bed. While I do so, stand by the fact of my ****ing nuts.
d2,this is hard to follow only seeing one side of the responses, but am i correct that this is this some sort of elaborate ploy to get poker reparations from karl?
It's extraordinarily goddamn simple:
1. Under a meritocracy, most of the dumb/disabled/lazy/addicted would live in poverty
2. Poverty is bad. It's good to reduce the number of people living in poverty.
Marxists believe in meritocracy too I thought. Don’t they criticize capitalists for being parasites and lumpenproles for being lazy/dumb/evil/drug addicts/vagrants/etc?
d2,this is hard to follow only seeing one side of the responses, but am i correct that this is this some sort of elaborate ploy to get poker reparations from karl?
We gotta flip that fat cat upside down and shake him until all that Montel poker money rains right out of his pockets.
Karl will never admit that the people pissing in bottles or shitting on lawns are just the people who weren't worth keeping around.
Having a job doesn't mean you're going to be good at it. If you can't hack it, next man up.
You are incredibly bad at your job of providing housing at affordable rents. You are not worth keeping around. Off with your head. Next man up.
Marxists believe in meritocracy too I thought. Don’t they criticize capitalists for being parasites and lumpenproles for being lazy/dumb/evil/drug addicts/vagrants/etc?
In the theoretical basic marxist framework you could have wages in the millions per year and wages in the 10s of thousands. But these days marxists all deny that, or simply don't answer when you tell them that.
Btw there is NO redistribution to able bodied people under basic marxism other than sharing the profits of the co-op they work for.
Basically just as an example, you could have a purely marxist society with employees at apple all being millionaires, and the people cleaning their offices being employees of a cleaning co-op making 2k per month.
And even within apple you could have someone making 50m/year and others making 500k/year. What would change is that no rich person, or foreign person, or retired person, could own stocks in Apple.
And ofc the people making 50M or 3M or whatever per year wouldn't have avenues to invest that.
But there is no inherent pro-equality mechanism in basic marxism. They need to advocate for stuff that has nothing to do with the labor theory of value and add it to marxism.
[...]
1. Under a meritocracy, most of the dumb/disabled/lazy/addicted would live in poverty
2. Poverty is bad. It's good to reduce the number of people living in poverty.[...]
I don't think meritocracies necessarily treat their poor worse than many other systems of government. However, meritocracies tend to become less about merit as time passes on.
Contemporary case study is rare. There is pretty much only Singapore to look at. While certainly an orderly country with some impressive and shiny numbers to go with its choice of government, I would say it suffers from exactly the kind of problems that has plagued meritocratic approaches in the past: The group which holds the power to decide merit favors their own.
In the past I have called this corruption, but that is a bad term as it does not really follow the patterns of what we typically call corruption. It is more about self-perpetuating political dynasty.
You are incredibly bad at your job of providing housing at affordable rents. You are not worth keeping around. Off with your head. Next man up.
If you were the one paying his salary, you could do exactly this. See how that works?
This trade deal with China is just beyond stupid. What the hell did we get other than a vague agreement to deliver rare earths, which we already had and China just didn't honor?
The dual use case to case approval process is still in place and China will still restrict those exports because they want to keep the rare earths to develop their own semiconductor manufacturing.
Again, Trump continues his "art of the deal" where he gets empty promises and proudly wave them as victories.
Quite frankly, anyone with half a functioning brain will see what happened as proof that this is all about playing along with Trump's kabuki theatre.
In the theoretical basic marxist framework you could have wages in the millions per year and wages in the 10s of thousands. But these days marxists all deny that, or simply don't answer when you tell them that.Btw there is NO redistribution to able bodied people under basic marxism other than sharing the profits of the co-op they work for.Basically just as an example, you could
I don't think that is the way Marx viewed wages. In fact, in a communist society, wages would be abolished, and rewards would be distributed based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Not making a judgment on how good or terrible this is, but it would be nice if from now on you start bringing only accurate info. Otherwise it will be difficult to take you serious when you say something that's actually correct and important.
There has been so much more center/center-left vs. leftist debate on here the past few days and it is so much more interesting to read than people humoring Luciom.
I've played and beat numerous high-to-nosebleed games in my life. Won a few million, once had a ~115k stack in a live game, played with MONTEL WILLIAMS. Yeah, THAT Montel.
I'm sure that a bunch of people here have played poker with Montel Williams-level celebrities. I certainly have. It isn't that unusual, and it doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether someone is good at poker.
I don't think that is the way Marx viewed wages. In fact, in a communist society, wages would be abolished, and rewards would be distributed based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".Not making a judgment on how good or terrible this is, but it would be nice if from now on you start bringing only accurate info. Otherwise it will be difficult
Marx wrote that 27 years after he wrote the communist manifesto in "Critique of the Gotha Programme". The manifesto had no redistribution in mind among workers (other than the profits of the entities they worked for ofc).
He wrote the "to each according to his needs" as the endgame goal achievable because according to him communism would have massively increased production.
He literally wrote that first stage communism needed to reward people proportionally to contribution
(from wiki)
It is notable also for elucidating the principles of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communist society.
For a long while socialism was basically a critique of capitalism in terms of a critique of rents. They simply hated the idea of rich people living without needing to work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_ac...
Marx goes "further" and envisions a possible world with SO MUCH production (if everyone works happily for the common good and so on) that all material needs can be (and should be according to him) satisfied.
But there is no redistribution among workers envisioned until total production reaches those utopian amounts. Not for Marx at least.
People literally invented huge portions of "marxism" (both detractors and proponents), warping the initial message A LOT. Same as people (both detractors and proponents) invented huge portions of "keynesianism". Detractors claim keynes is about infinite public expenditure. Proponents claim that you can spend infinite amounts and it all works out anyway. Both are wrong ofc.
Now with marxism a lot of people think heavy redistribution among workers is marxist. It isn't. It can exist in addition to actual marxism, but it can also exist completly detached from marxism.
You are incredibly bad at your job of providing housing at affordable rents. You are not worth keeping around. Off with your head. Next man up.
We're affordable enough to still have a bunch of sub-600 credit score applicants come through.
The rental division also loses money literally every single year, so I'm not sure how much cheaper you want me to make them.
I've been actively pushing to explore the building of lower-end starter homes to fill an obvious gap in the market, but I've also run the numbers and if we do it without any subsidy, each one is going to be $400k+ at our cost. Unsurprisingly, none of the local development agencies are particularly keen on helping to bring in more young families to balloon their public services expenses.
I had dinner with a guy the other week and his firm put up three "affordable" small towers on the north side of Milwaukee. About 200ish units in total. They've gone through 3 different onsite managers in the last year, 25% of the units are currently occupied by people who have simply stopped paying rent, and one of the three towers is actively used as headquarters for some local criminal gang who are terrorizing residents. They're trying to sell them off.
Affordable housing in the sense that you're thinking of is a terrible, terrible business model. The people who need "affordable housing" are simply not worth the trouble.
This reads like an excerpt of Gomorra (a book about the Camorra in Naples)
I'm sure that a bunch of people here have played poker with Montel Williams-level celebrities. I certainly have. It isn't that unusual, and it doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether someone is good at poker.
lol d2's montel reference makes a lot more sense now 😀
i thought it was some cryptic allusion to kamala 😀
We're affordable enough to still have a bunch of sub-600 credit score applicants come through.The rental division also loses money literally every single year, so I'm not sure how much cheaper you want me to make them.I've been actively pushing to explore the building of lower-end starter homes to fill an obvious gap in the market, but I've also run the numbers and if we do it
i think you'd enjoy this channel
Just blatant bigotry and hatred from Tommy Tuberville, along with a creepy dose of authoritarianism. I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.
Tuberville appeared on The Benny Show with Benny Johnson on Wednesday, commenting on several issues, including his upcoming run for the Alabama’s governor’s seat.
Tuberville was asked if President Donald Trump should cut off funding to large “sanctuary” cities that attract immigrants.
“You can stop the federal funding,” Tuberville said. “President Trump can do anything he wants when it comes to the federal. Again, these inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt.
“And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers, that are working very hard every week to pay taxes.”
Tuberville drew fire for some comments about whether people from urban areas should come to Alabama.
“Well, don’t be expecting a free lunch, I promise you,” he said. “Bring your lunch with you because you’re not going to be welcomed if you’re going to bring that Communist, Islamic atmosphere with you. We’re not going to deal with it. I’m telling you right now...
“They are going to try and overwhelm us....We have got to fight back.”
Johnson called Mamdani a “communist,” and said Democrats are encouraging illegal immigration to expand the party’s voting bloc. Tuberville said large cities, like New York and Los Angeles, are havens for undocumented immigrants.
“That’s the easiest place to do it, Benny, in these big cities with all these government handouts, where they can hang out on the street, steal whatever they want to steal,” Tuberville said.
“Chicago, Detroit, they’re all next. It’ll happen in the big cities, it’ll sweep across the country, and then they’ll try to start going into the medium-sized cities. But we can’t wait ‘til that point.”
Tuberville compared New York and Los Angeles to cities in Europe that he said are “gone.”
“Mass migration, overrun by Muslims, and giving leadership to the mayors of all these European cities, you know, it’s coming from the Muslim faith. And you know, again, there’s a lot of good Muslims, but not this radical Islamic terrorism plot that they’re pushing toward globalism and the United States of America. I mean, it’s coming, we all know it, and we’d better stop it.”
Truly despicable.
