US Politics Mega-thread - Page 101

On April 11 2018 10:05 KwarK wrote:

That's not how it works. The left doesn't have moral high ground over the right because they're leftists. Rather, they're leftists because they have morals.

You've got your cause and effect backwards.

On April 11 2018 12:53 Plansix wrote:
It appears Nunes has gone from removing himself from the investigation to pushing to remove the head of the FBI.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/983904259392589824

The head of the FBI, a guy who wouldn't have been able to stop this raid even if he wanted to. I expect we will see more of this in the coming days while the leadership of the House and Senate hold a tight grip on what bills can be brought to the floor. Senators are trying to bring bills to the floor to protect the special counsel, but the House and Senate leaders not interested those bills with votes from Democrats. Especially the House.

On April 11 2018 13:57 Doodsmack wrote:


Wow what a clown. Could he be any more in the tank for Trump?

As for liberals: Well, guys, check your privilege. Try to really imagine what it might be like to have a conservative identity when cultural products almost all skew liberal. That is, to be one of the few acceptable villains for all the movies and jokes and television shows. To see your viewpoint systematically excluded and slighted. To have your daily life, your beliefs, routinely handled with ignorance and insensitivity.

On April 11 2018 14:20 Wulfey_LA wrote:


He is only in the tank because the left VICITMIZED him. Ingraham would know, that Hoggs bully victimized her with her advertisers (you might even say he cuckolded her). I don't know if you have heard, but being a Conservative these days is like being a Jew in Germany in 1939.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bias-against-conservatives-works-like-any-other-prejudice/2018/04/10/17fa1838-3c40-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7553c61a1641

On April 11 2018 15:08 Tachion wrote:

That's actually a pretty good article. Not at getting its point across, but it demonstrates how conservatives develop the mindset that they are unfairly targets of persecution despite their immense power and influence.

On April 11 2018 10:05 KwarK wrote:
That's not how it works. The left doesn't have moral high ground over the right because they're leftists. Rather, they're leftists because they have morals.

You've got your cause and effect backwards.

On April 11 2018 17:24 Kickboxer wrote:


Unfortunately, a lot of the time these morals express themselves in the real world as
a) having a bunch of grandiose ideas everyone else needs to pay for (not very fair, let's be honest)
b) telling everyone else what to do

On April 11 2018 10:05 KwarK wrote:

That's not how it works. The left doesn't have moral high ground over the right because they're leftists. Rather, they're leftists because they have morals.

You've got your cause and effect backwards.

On April 11 2018 17:53 Jockmcplop wrote:


Well I can't work out whether you are just baiting or whether you actually believe this.
You never came across as someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about before so I'm going to go with baiting.

On April 11 2018 12:53 Plansix wrote:
It appears Nunes has gone from removing himself from the investigation to pushing to remove the head of the FBI.

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/983904259392589824

The head of the FBI, a guy who wouldn't have been able to stop this raid even if he wanted to. I expect we will see more of this in the coming days while the leadership of the House and Senate hold a tight grip on what bills can be brought to the floor. Senators are trying to bring bills to the floor to protect the special counsel, but the House and Senate leaders not interested those bills with votes from Democrats. Especially the House.

On April 11 2018 19:04 A3th3r wrote:
I guess I'd say who cares either way what happens to that Trump staffer who may or may not get fired. Here's something that's really important: What country can pick up the slack if there is less trade going on between the US & China? India is slightly less developed than China but does have a lot of cheap labor & raw materials. Same goes for Indonesia. Japan is a "highly developed" country & sells mostly laptops, cell phones, & consumer electronics. They are not the place to go for manufacturing needs. Europe is too expensive in terms of labor costs. Mexico is right next door and already has a few US factories.

I think that the US should develop more business connections with Mexico & exploit the cheap labor & natural resources that are there to stimulate the economy & pick up the slack if there is going to be less trade going on with China than before. In my opinion, Trump is bluffing with these tariffs & is trying to get a better deal with China. That is a reasonable thing to do in the business world but worries people when it is done in the world of politics.

On April 11 2018 17:53 Jockmcplop wrote:


Well I can't work out whether you are just baiting or whether you actually believe this.
You never came across as someone who doesn't understand what they are talking about before so I'm going to go with baiting.

On April 11 2018 18:39 Kickboxer wrote:
Everyone, I have an interesting question. It touches upon what I see as the greatest flaw of Marx, namely not understanding the role played by the capitalist in the labor-capital symbiosis (having since evidently turned out that a planned economy is theoretically impossible, while in capitalism, the products don't simply "sell themselves" nor does the company magically run itself. In addition, many people lack the social and organizational skills to independently operate on the market - or just aren't smart enough, which results in the apparent need for intermediaries and eventually cancer formations like Uber where people bring all the capital to the table but still end up being exploited).

Let's say, today and now, we have two companies. One has 140 workers, the other has 100 workers and 2 "capitalists", meaning theoretically managers, strategists, networkers (lobbyists), people who can move public attention and product.

Which company does better on your average dynamic market across time? If you've identified the second as vastly more efficient, why should a manager not be paid 20 times as much salary as a worker; even if the capital theoretically belonged to everyone? Who is actually creating the added value, and in what ratio?

To me the concept of added value is central to any pragmatic moral discussion. If we want to live well, we require value all around us (this keeps on increasing as our standard goes up), and someone has to be creating it so we can keep consuming. Nothing just happens because hippies and flowers. Here's where Ayn Rand, who I see as one of the most toxic intellectuals of our time, was actually spot on. The capitalist's utility in generating real wealth seems to be completely overlooked by many socio-political pundits.