Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly the Democratic Party politicians and leadership are imploding and they must rectify their mistakes, poor strategy, lack of foresight/danger, etc by taking swift and dramatic action to reassure the voters of their capability to lead the country.
 
Chou Toshio said:
Certainly the Democratic Party politicians and leadership are imploding and they must rectify their mistakes, poor strategy, lack of foresight/danger, etc by taking swift and dramatic action to reassure the voters of their capability to lead the country.
Click to expand...

There is no magical candidate or change that can be made at this stage of the game. Remind voters how disastrous the Trump presidency was, and how bad Project 2025 in a second term will be.
 
Chou Toshio said:
Like I said— all there is to do is to see if the Democratic Party leaders got the sauce to win or not. We’ll see.

History will be the judge.
Click to expand...

Democrats, progressives, liberals, etc. seem to be doomer by nature. The same evidence of the anti-Trump coalition existed in 2020 yet most thought he would win anyway.

One thing I admire about Republicans is how confident they are in a guy that has never even gotten 47% of the vote. Even today, they are “certain” the twice impeached, 34X convicted felon that was booted out of the office will win. Democrats, progressives, liberals- can we get some of that confidence?
 
Pinecoishot said:
so, the same people who call trump a fascist and an authoritarian, are shocked and now saying it's a false flag when someone actually tries to stop fascism. It is not a fucking false flag, stop resorting to Alex jones level of idiocy and maybe accept Trump is someone who people would rightly assume to be enough of a threat to assassinate. I used to laugh at the idea of blue Maga, but it's unfortunate to see them even be treated seriously with stupid Alex Jones level conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
Yeah really. It’s crazy how much liberals are exactly recreating the behaviors they detested in blue MAGA. A lot’s on the line but let’s not be naive.

I’ll just say that Death Note would have been a way better, morally complex, and interesting story if Light had not been a small-minded, uninformed, uneducated, reactionary hog’s fascist son… and instead been a leftist.
(With the historical, economic, political and philosophical knowledge entailed in being a leftist)

It would have been playing for a whole different set of criminals.

Actually they probably couldn’t write a Death Note 2 like that, it would probably be impossible to publish.
 
Last edited:
Dude's name and info has been released. Thomas Matthew Crooks.

From NBC news:

"Pennsylvania voter records listed a Thomas Matthew Crooks with the same address and birth date as a registered Republican."

From AP news:

"Records show Crooks was registered as a Republican voter in Pennsylvania, but federal campaign finance reports also show he gave $15 to a progressive political action committee on Jan. 20, 2021, the day President Joe Biden was sworn in to office."

1720977893974.png


Still obviously too early to come to conclusions but this guy probably being a Republican is kind of funny.
 
trump.jpeg

i know this is a meme and it looks like a shitpost but this is one of those memes that weirdly captures human nature. To BP's point this is how politics kind of works in a presidential system. You may not like it, nor the outcome, however.

left-hand side: "i dont care about due process. trump is epic lol, he's bulletproof besides biden huffs andrenochrome"
middle: "nooo you can't vote trump because he's a convicted felon! This matters in civilized society!"
right-hand side: "trump being a convicted felon matters to you if it matters. The value we place on due process and electing only those who uphold the values and ideals of this country is ultimately subjective. Collective subjective beliefs are real and have tangible effects, but they are still mutable."
 
Last edited:
MrHands said:
Dude's name and info has been released. Thomas Matthew Crooks.

From NBC news:

"Pennsylvania voter records listed a Thomas Matthew Crooks with the same address and birth date as a registered Republican."

From AP news:

"Records show Crooks was registered as a Republican voter in Pennsylvania, but federal campaign finance reports also show he gave $15 to a progressive political action committee on Jan. 20, 2021, the day President Joe Biden was sworn in to office."

View attachment 647946

Still obviously too early to come to conclusions but this guy probably being a Republican is kind of funny.
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding appallingly craven, we're very fortunate that this dude wasn't a minority.
 
MrHands said:
Dude's name and info has been released. Thomas Matthew Crooks.

From NBC news:

"Pennsylvania voter records listed a Thomas Matthew Crooks with the same address and birth date as a registered Republican."

From AP news:

"Records show Crooks was registered as a Republican voter in Pennsylvania, but federal campaign finance reports also show he gave $15 to a progressive political action committee on Jan. 20, 2021, the day President Joe Biden was sworn in to office."

View attachment 647946

Still obviously too early to come to conclusions but this guy probably being a Republican is kind of funny.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by too early to come to conclusions. They found explosives in his vehicle. Seems evident this wasn't politically motivated and that he was taking a playbook from school shooters, only in his case he went for a much bigger target.

Not to mention you will not always find a definitive motive. We still don't have one for the LV shooter.
 
MrHands said:
Dude's name and info has been released. Thomas Matthew Crooks.

From NBC news:

"Pennsylvania voter records listed a Thomas Matthew Crooks with the same address and birth date as a registered Republican."

From AP news:

"Records show Crooks was registered as a Republican voter in Pennsylvania, but federal campaign finance reports also show he gave $15 to a progressive political action committee on Jan. 20, 2021, the day President Joe Biden was sworn in to office."

View attachment 647946

Still obviously too early to come to conclusions but this guy probably being a Republican is kind of funny.
Click to expand...

According to some of his former classmates he was heavily bullied. Think he's just a mass shooter that wanted to cause as much chaos as possible on the way out, no real political motivations behind this.
 
RaikouLover Divine Retribution

I would say less funding for the FDA is definitely good. The FDA isn’t technically bad, but it’s basically a bunch of unelected officials dictating even the smallest details of our lives. Their responsibilities should be going to Congress, which have been elected by the people. Yes, I know Congress made the FDA, but they have barely even attempted to maintain any control over it and instead have allowed it to grow way larger than it needs to be. Regulations should be minimal and directly by Congress only.

To Divine Retribution, yes, companies will always seek profit out first. Nobody is in the business of losing money. But if that company makes its products worse or skyrockets its prices, then the door is opened for competition to come with better products at lower prices. Since nobody is in the business of losing money, the original company is forced to either make its products better or lower its prices. Less regulation means it’s easier for competition to rise up. This results in cheaper prices and better products, which is good for consumers.

About American debt, I don’t see how being in debt can possibly be good for America. China can just stop selling. It’s not like they have a shortage of buyers. What is America supposed to do then? Declare war? This is why America needs to be self-sufficient, which Trump tried to do in questionable ways.

The government isn’t there to provide for our financial needs. If so, why don’t they build everyone houses and hand out cars? The government is there to protect citizens, from internal threats and threats outside.

Not gonna comment on the once about social issues since that’s just there to trigger me.

Yes, I am under 18. I thought I made that abundantly clear when I said I was approaching the voting age and wanted to learn more about what I was going to be voting on. Sorry that what I say is **** to you. Just trying to learn and share. To be fair, every group filled with people with similar views will be an echo chamber, whether it’s Fox or NBC. About both sides not being equally valid, that depends on your point of view. If you’re a Democrat, the Democratic side will seem superior. If you’re a Republican, the Republican side will seem superior. Whoever can see past political bias may find the truth. I also don’t think it’s very nice to say everything my family and friends have ever said is ****.

Well, hope I helped answer your questions! Feel free to disagree as long as you’re polite about it.
 
cookie said:
View attachment 647947
i know this is a meme and it looks like a shitpost but this is one of those memes that weirdly captures human nature. To BP's point this is how politics kind of works in a presidential system. You may not like it, nor the outcome, however.

left-hand side: "i dont care about due process. trump is epic lol, he's bulletproof besides biden huffs andrenochrome"
middle: "nooo you can't vote trump because he's a convicted felon! This matters in civilized society!"
right-hand side: "trump being a convicted felon matters to you if it matters. The value we place on due process and electing only those who uphold the values and ideals of this country is ultimately subjective. Collective subjective beliefs are real and have tangible effects, but they are still mutable."
Click to expand...

It’s a cool meme tbh. I have seen some weird Trump fanboying amongst some self-proclaimed liberals. Quite passionately too.

Btw, what happened to Cenk from TYT? Dude is all but openly campaigning for Trump these days.


Anchor9 said:
RaikouLover Divine Retribution

I would say less funding for the FDA is definitely good. The FDA isn’t technically bad, but it’s basically a bunch of unelected officials dictating even the smallest details of our lives. Their responsibilities should be going to Congress, which have been elected by the people. Yes, I know Congress made the FDA, but they have barely even attempted to maintain any control over it and instead have allowed it to grow way larger than it needs to be. Regulations should be minimal and directly by Congress only.
Click to expand...

Anchor9 why do you think FDA is better off in the hands of Congress? The point behind these agencies being independent, non-partisan civil service is so that experts with professional background are making informed decisions instead of political decisions. I don’t think it is prudent for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Jasmine Crockett to be dictating Food and Drug regulations. They don’t have a fucking clue about the science, testing, and procedures that go into the drug development or food processing. These kind of regulations are to ensure safety standards for consumers and the general public. I disagree strongly that corporations and bought politicians should preside over these agencies. And if Trump gets elected, Project 2025 suggests that he will fire those civil service professionals and replace them with people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who know nothing about said agency and could give two shits if poisonous food, drugs, or water get approved for sale to the public.
 
Last edited:
Anchor9 said:
But if that company makes its products worse or skyrockets its prices, then the door is opened for competition to come with better products at lower prices. Since nobody is in the business of losing money, the original company is forced to either make its products better or lower its prices. Less regulation means it’s easier for competition to rise up. This results in cheaper prices and better products, which is good for consumers.
Click to expand...
If I ran a company, let's say for some food product, and my goal was to make profit, one thing I would do is add extremely addictive substances to the food. I would mostly ignore how healthy the food is for people. My theory is that this would help me make a big profit. Can you come up with a strategy for an improved product, which avoids using unhealthy addictive substances, that would defeat my strategy?
 
lilyhollow said:
If I ran a company, let's say for some food product, and my goal was to make profit, one thing I would do is add extremely addictive substances to the food. I would mostly ignore how healthy the food is for people. My theory is that this would help me make a big profit. Can you come up with a strategy for an improved product, which avoids using unhealthy addictive substances, that would defeat my strategy?
Click to expand...

I would give you billions in subsidies to make a healthier product and ask you nicely not to spend it on stock buybacks.
 
Anchor9 said:
The government isn’t there to provide for our financial needs. If so, why don’t they build everyone houses and hand out cars?
Click to expand...

They can/could/should— no reason why not. They have made houses, and while not cars, public transport and infrastructure for moving people and things is a cornerstone of the economy— an economy that exists at the beheadst of the government.

If it creates more productivity in the economy (as housed, educated, safer workers tend to produce more), then it means more treasure (taxes) for the government, which absolutely has a stake in enabling.

Infrastructure to move people and things. Productive workers to produce. Police and Military to secure the treasure. Currency that creates economic efficiency, but is only accepted easily because everyone uses it to pay taxes to its guarantor.

A government needs to make treasure to survive, and is a part of every bit of the economy it uses to collect it.
 
Last edited:
Anchor9 said:
About American debt, I don’t see how being in debt can possibly be good for America. China can just stop selling. It’s not like they have a shortage of buyers. What is America supposed to do then? Declare war? This is why America needs to be self-sufficient, which Trump tried to do in questionable ways.
Click to expand...
We are China's number one buyer and it isn't even particularly close. They also import a vast amount directly from the U.S. which nobody seems to talk about. They have an enormous mutual dependence on us. They can't just "stop selling" without torching their own economy as well. Like I said, economic mutually assured destruction. Both countries are trying to break out of this grapple, neither is particularly close.

Anchor9 said:
The government isn’t there to provide for our financial needs. If so, why don’t they build everyone houses and hand out cars? The government is there to protect citizens, from internal threats and threats outside.
Click to expand...

Do starvation and disease count as threats? They have throughout history so it's interesting that in the richest, most developed country in the world we can't seem to figure that one out. But hey, let's spend a few hundred billion making some more smart bombs and bailing out Elon Musk's latest failed project while people freeze in the street, very solid economic plan.
Anchor9 said:
Not gonna comment on the once about social issues since that’s just there to trigger me.
Click to expand...

Again, you shouldn't have even brought it up if you aren't prepared to actually defend those beliefs or even state them. All you've basically said is "I might agree with some really xenophobic or queerphobic shit but I'm going to leave enough plausible deniability that nobody can actually call me out on it". If you actually believe those things, you should be prepared to defend them, and if you aren't, you need to examine why you believe those things.
 
RaikouLover
A fair point, but there has to be a better way to control the growth the FDA, since Congress has pretty much said, “do what you deem necessary.” Voters don’t have much control over the FDA, although if they did I guess it would become politically charged. The FDA needs more accountability with its spending though. I’m not an expert so I don’t really know the best solution.

lilyhollow

There are products / companies that exist due to the fact they’re a healthy alternative to whatever is the big company like Hello Fresh and Whole Foods. They’re often more expensive and not everyone will buy it, but these companies definitely carve enough of a niche to be serious competitors to bigger but unhealthier food companies. For a funny example, Hershey and Mr. Beast bars.

Bakugames

Not everyone is willing to sell their company, and even if you manage to buy all the companies, young entrepreneurs wanting to make money will always show up and will eventually force prices back down. If you buy companies out using strategies such as lowering your prices far enough to cripple smaller competition, then buy them out of bankruptcy, I’m pretty sure that would fall into trying to create a Monopoly and cause some legal issues with Anti-Trust laws.
 
Divine Retribution said:
We are China's number one buyer and it isn't even particularly close. They also import a vast amount directly from the U.S. which nobody seems to talk about. They have an enormous mutual dependence on us. They can't just "stop selling" without torching their own economy as well. Like I said, economic mutually assured destruction. Both countries are trying to break out of this grapple, neither is particularly close.
Click to expand...
Adding onto this point: The national debt isn't like loan-sharking. Nobody's going to come threatening to break our national kneecaps if we don't pay back all of our trillions of dollars in debt at once. American debt is seen as an extremely secure and stable investment because we always pay back the principal, and we've never missed a payment. Our creditors are more than happy to collect our minimum interest payments forever because it's basically the closest thing in the world to guaranteed money. The downside is that we're in deep shit if we ever miss a payment and shake confidence in the stability of our debt, which is why you should look at any federal politician who tries to hold our debt payments hostage to advance their agenda with even deeper scorn than you already are.
 
Regulation needs to be balanced.
On one hand you can have endless bureaucracy that leave you with no industry left to regulate.
Look at the technology sector in the EU for example. Their largest technology companies pale in comparison to what the US and China have.
There is plenty of wealth in the EU to be invested into innovation so over regulation/taxation must be one of if not the biggest reason for EU completely missing the technology boom.
People like Elizabeth Warren would like to see the US be more like EU in this regard.

On the other hand the US has been the leader in technology innovation. Breaking up tech companies and over regulating like the left wants to see would be a disaster. US and China's success in technology has created millions of high paying jobs, economic growth and built tremendous wealth. Voting for the far left is a sure way to kill our momentum and competitive advantage in technology and many other sectors we lead the world in (finance, media, industrials, etc.)
 
^ both major US parties antagonize china, and are potentially trying to push for all-out war. completely antithetical to the notion of human progress because one of their goals is to stifle or destroy china's technological innovation. it is basically only the far left which does not want to do this, btw.
 
Anchor9 said:
RaikouLover
A fair point, but there has to be a better way to control the growth the FDA, since Congress has pretty much said, “do what you deem necessary.” Voters don’t have much control over the FDA, although if they did I guess it would become politically charged. The FDA needs more accountability with its spending though. I’m not an expert so I don’t really know the best solution.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the sensible policy-based discourse! It is much appreciated.

It sounds like your issue is less with the concept of agencies, but better accountability for expenditures? If so, that is a traditional conservative concept that is unfortunately not represented by the Republican Party anymore. MAGA Republicans outlined in Project 2025 that they plan to gut these agencies altogether. Have you read Project 2025? If not, I encourage you to read it. Feel free to let us know your thoughts.

Full Text - Project 2025
Wikipedia Summary
 
Anchor9 said:
RaikouLover
A fair point, but there has to be a better way to control the growth the FDA, since Congress has pretty much said, “do what you deem necessary.” Voters don’t have much control over the FDA, although if they did I guess it would become politically charged. The FDA needs more accountability with its spending though. I’m not an expert so I don’t really know the best solution.

lilyhollow

There are products / companies that exist due to the fact they’re a healthy alternative to whatever is the big company like Hello Fresh and Whole Foods. They’re often more expensive and not everyone will buy it, but these companies definitely carve enough of a niche to be serious competitors to bigger but unhealthier food companies. For a funny example, Hershey and Mr. Beast bars.

Bakugames

Not everyone is willing to sell their company, and even if you manage to buy all the companies, young entrepreneurs wanting to make money will always show up and will eventually force prices back down. If you buy companies out using strategies such as lowering your prices far enough to cripple smaller competition, then buy them out of bankruptcy, I’m pretty sure that would fall into trying to create a Monopoly and cause some legal issues with Anti-Trust laws.
Click to expand...

your premise here is that any competitor can j start a business and sell a better product. the problem with this argument is that in the "monopoly stage of capitalism", also known as imperialism and occasionally other terms like cartel-capitalism, Capital in any sector of the market is so heavily concentrated among a couple of multinational mega corporations, and no small producer can hope to compete with them because they do not have either the technological investment ("means of production") or the economies of scale necessary to reduce the costs of production. to give a simplistic example, someone who sews clothing by hand requires the same amount of labor-hours to produce a single shirt, that a factory uses to produce thousands of shirts.
a business essentially needs to be able to match whatever the existing industry rate of production per labor-hour is to be able to compete in the market. maybe a better product can make up for a small gap in production per labor-hour; but if the labor-production costs are 100x greater you do not have a chance to compete no matter how good your product is. [could get into further details about this how wages are kept at a level where ppl can afford necessities but not much more than that and so it is literally impossible for the vast majority of consumers to pay 100x more for a better product even if we rly wanted to.]

in the case of agriculture tho i am not the most knowledgeable but i do know that the entirety of the agricultural production market in the US is controlled by five multinational corporations. ADM Bunge Cargill COFCO and ABCCD (i didnt know the names by heart its easy to find in a quick online search). yes further down at the level of the grocery store there are smaller stores that are able to survive (there is still somewhat of a monopolistic tendency but less so since its distribution not production), but this doesnt rly change much as far as products available to consumers since the 'supply chain' is still entirely controlled by the five agriculture multinationals.

the result is that in the monopoly stage, the market is not primarily driven by competitive innovation, but the suppression of innovation in order for the monopolies/cartels to preserve their controlling position. not 100% because they still compete to some extent with each other, but the primary incentive is to ensure that no new technology can arise which would risk undermining their monopoly-capital advantage (within the existing technologies, no new 'entrepreneur' stands a chance to compete, but a new tech potentially could make their existing technologies obsolete which would reduce that advantage). and they certainly do not need to prioritize the quality of product, because the consumer has no alternatives to turn to outside of the controlling monopolies.

regardless of various attempts at anti-trust laws, monopolization continues and dominates p much every significant economic sector in the world today, and it is an inherent part of capitalism as a 'mode of production'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top