|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump had no idea that the Ukrainian was going to donate to his charity. It was all arranged by someone else, without trumps knowledge.
Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context.
There actually is different context, if you cared to look for it.
Hint: Who solicited the donation, when, and what happened in the last couple of days to him?
|
On April 11 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +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. Gee if only Trump had been trying to cultivate positive relations with Mexico to make this swing in industry happen instead of repeatedly antagonizing them. I would also guess a lot of companies would rather wait it out until the next election and get the tarrifs undone then set up new infrastructure that will take just as long but cost more money.
I swear this is true although there is no way of verifying this, but I thought that Trump was making a thing out of the whole wall thing because in China there is the Great Wall of China. So the US needed to get a wall, too. I really thought that's what that was all about. That said, it is probably impractical in practice and even if there are a lot of Mexicans that sneak into America it's probably not such an issue, in my opinion. There are vast swaths of the northern US that are un-settled and un-populated so they could fill in some of that land area with people & that would be no problem. Realistically, I'd like to see more people allowed to come legally. That is a policy change that is sorely needed in this country.
|
On April 12 2018 05:53 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote:
oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments.
So.. Like Microsoft, then?
I'm not gonna act like i entirely understand the debate, but i feel like there's something a bit too oversimplified here, or at least too "absolute" as statement.
|
On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do?
I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals.
Of course you don't need a footer, but if Clinton (the candidate you/they wanted) did the same thing x100 it's going to make you look a little foolish neglecting to mention it or getting upset at it's inclusion to the discourse.
On April 12 2018 06:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. There actually is different context, if you cared to look for it. Hint: Who solicited the donation, when, and what happened in the last couple of days to him?
They should include that in their post if that's the argument they are making.
You mean the guy who's office was raided looking for evidence related to an access hollywood tape?
|
On April 12 2018 06:03 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:53 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote:
oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments. So.. Like Microsoft, then? I'm not gonna act like i entirely understand the debate, but i feel like there's something a bit too oversimplified here, or at least too "absolute" as statement.
so yeah, like microsoft, the most successful artificially constructed and legally protected rent-seeking monopoly in history
what is too oversimplified here? im not, to my knowledge, simplifying anything. im complicating the picture
|
On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. There actually is different context, if you cared to look for it. Hint: Who solicited the donation, when, and what happened in the last couple of days to him? They should include that in their post if that's the argument they are making. You mean the guy who's office was raided looking for evidence related to an access hollywood tape?
And undeclared campaign contributions used for hush money.
|
On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals. Of course you don't need a footer, but if Clinton (the candidate you/they wanted) did the same thing x100 it's going to make you look a little foolish neglecting to mention it or getting upset at it's inclusion to the discourse.
Because the 150K was not declared and Trump claims to not know about it. The Clinton foundation, with all of its flaws, kept its records public during the time when Clinton was SOS and after. It is bad for different reasons, which is why it sparked investigations.
So Clinton foundation bad and should not exist when someone is running for office.
150K off the books money to Cohen from Ukraine for a 20 minute video thing with Trump that Trump claims to not know about, worse because we didn't know. There could be a lot more that we don't know about.
|
On April 12 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote: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. Gee if only Trump had been trying to cultivate positive relations with Mexico to make this swing in industry happen instead of repeatedly antagonizing them. I would also guess a lot of companies would rather wait it out until the next election and get the tarrifs undone then set up new infrastructure that will take just as long but cost more money. I swear this is true although there is no way of verifying this, but I thought that Trump was making a thing out of the whole wall thing because in China there is the Great Wall of China. So the US needed to get a wall, too. I really thought that's what that was all about. That said, it is probably impractical in practice and even if there are a lot of Mexicans that sneak into America it's probably not such an issue, in my opinion. There are vast swaths of the northern US that are un-settled and un-populated so they could fill in some of that land area with people & that would be no problem. Realistically, I'd like to see more people allowed to come legally. That is a policy change that is sorely needed in this country. That is basically the Democrats standpoint. Open ways for welcome people to immigrate legally and then sharpen control for the unwanted ones here illegally.
The Republicans want to do it the other way around. Kick out everyone and then maybe work on ways for the ones we actually did want to be allowed back in.
Maybe, possible, probably not.
|
On April 12 2018 06:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:03 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:53 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote:
oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments. So.. Like Microsoft, then? I'm not gonna act like i entirely understand the debate, but i feel like there's something a bit too oversimplified here, or at least too "absolute" as statement. so yeah, like microsoft, the most successful artificially constructed and legally protected rent-seeking monopoly in history
It wasn't in the beginning though, was it? I actually am not entirely fluent as to how he did it, except possibly stealing from other programmers iirc, but it didn't just pop into existence as a software giant ready to rip everything apart that opposes (but i stand corrected if i'm wrong, entirely possible).
I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more.
Or, that the price of that person is lower. Pay bear grills to drink piss, he'll do it for a tenner - i will be considerably more expensive. I know, hillary literally hitler and stuff, but it's not even remotely as clear cut as you try to suggest. Also, in case one hasn't noticed, only one of the two people in question is a president.
|
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory?
On April 12 2018 06:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:07 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 06:03 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:53 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote:
oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments. So.. Like Microsoft, then? I'm not gonna act like i entirely understand the debate, but i feel like there's something a bit too oversimplified here, or at least too "absolute" as statement. so yeah, like microsoft, the most successful artificially constructed and legally protected rent-seeking monopoly in history It wasn't in the beginning though, was it? I actually am not entirely fluent as to how he did it, except possibly stealing from other programmers iirc, but it didn't just pop into existence as a software giant ready to rip everything apart that opposes (but i stand corrected if i'm wrong, entirely possible). Show nested quote +I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. I know, hillary literally hitler and stuff
You think this is helpful in any way?
On April 12 2018 06:15 m4ini wrote:
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is?
Good for you? Some ambiguous post with a tweet about a ukranian donating $150k (which is jack shit) was bad framing, that's not on me.
|
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is?
|
On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory?
Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents?
|
On April 12 2018 06:03 A3th3r wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote: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. Gee if only Trump had been trying to cultivate positive relations with Mexico to make this swing in industry happen instead of repeatedly antagonizing them. I would also guess a lot of companies would rather wait it out until the next election and get the tarrifs undone then set up new infrastructure that will take just as long but cost more money. I swear this is true although there is no way of verifying this, but I thought that Trump was making a thing out of the whole wall thing because in China there is the Great Wall of China. So the US needed to get a wall, too. I really thought that's what that was all about. That said, it is probably impractical in practice and even if there are a lot of Mexicans that sneak into America it's probably not such an issue, in my opinion. There are vast swaths of the northern US that are un-settled and un-populated so they could fill in some of that land area with people & that would be no problem. Realistically, I'd like to see more people allowed to come legally. That is a policy change that is sorely needed in this country.
it's definitely impractical, and there's piles of proof/documents/evidence/practical results that establish that.
note that the majority of people in the country illegally got that way by coming in legally and overstaying their visas; obviously a wall wouldn't do anything vs that.
also there's already things like cross-border tunnels and such used for drug smuggling that show up periodically.
|
On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents?
Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation.
I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes.
|
On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes.
I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with?
|
On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't even really understand. Do you two think this is some terrible thing or would you agree this is a convoluted way to try to pin anything they can on Trump without any real sincere concern (at least by the parties in control) for the underlying problems.
That's to say, do you two sincerely think this is about campaign law violation because the people really care about ~$150k in questionable/illegal donations, or because they are trying to stick whatever they can to him and this is limping into pathetically transparent territory? Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with?
What did I say last time?
|
On April 12 2018 06:15 m4ini wrote:
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is?
As soon as "But Hilary" it uttered, it is hard to get anywhere. I am having a hard time justifying any "but Hilary" conversation. It just doesn't mean anything at this point. We could also discuss John Edwards or Romney.
|
On April 12 2018 06:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:15 m4ini wrote:
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is? As soon as "But Hilary" it uttered, it is hard to get anywhere. I am having a hard time justifying any "but Hilary" conversation. It just doesn't mean anything at this point. We could also discuss John Edwards or Romney.
We will re-litigate every previous election until FDR. And then we might discuss Cohen getting that weird 150K and not know how many more 150Ks exists out there.
|
On April 12 2018 06:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:07 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 06:03 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:53 IgnE wrote:On April 12 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:On April 12 2018 05:41 IgnE wrote:
oh right we've moved into the randian world where capital isnt necessary to run a business. people have zero capital investment with massive profit returns all over the place. thats how facebook happened after all, the zuck just did it all w zero dollars until he started rolling in so much cash he decided to reinvest some of it to make a nice campus, outfitted with its own police force and everything Well that's kinda the story of Mojang/Minecraft, isn't it? At least to me it sounds like it, might be wrong. Although if i'm correct, i'd call that one of the very few exceptions nowadays. imagine if minecraft could only be reproduced and distributed through a physical cd-rom. just because information goods and services have nearly zero marginal reproduction cost these days that doesnt mean either 1) that such an information economy exists independently of other forms of production (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.) or that 2) minecraft is even a traditional capitalist good which operates under "normal" capitalist market logic as analyzed by marx. think about it. why should anyone even pay for minecraft if its essentially free to reproduce? what is the minecraft economy built around? something like a mix of voluntary payments, payment for services like ease of distribution, webhosting, organizational labor, and payment enforced by an intellectual property regime which extracts rent payments. So.. Like Microsoft, then? I'm not gonna act like i entirely understand the debate, but i feel like there's something a bit too oversimplified here, or at least too "absolute" as statement. so yeah, like microsoft, the most successful artificially constructed and legally protected rent-seeking monopoly in history It wasn't in the beginning though, was it? I actually am not entirely fluent as to how he did it, except possibly stealing from other programmers iirc, but it didn't just pop into existence as a software giant ready to rip everything apart that opposes (but i stand corrected if i'm wrong, entirely possible).
no it wasn't, but so what? it was a fairly conventional computer company in the beginning, winning contracts and selling actual physical things. the intellectual property didn't become the core part of the business until after the company had been around a few years and it became clear that the operating systems, bolstered by intellectual property barriers, were where the real money was
|
On April 12 2018 06:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:15 m4ini wrote:
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is? As soon as "But Hilary" it uttered, it is hard to get anywhere. I am having a hard time justifying any "but Hilary" conversation. It just doesn't mean anything at this point. We could also discuss John Edwards or Romney.
Just to be clear, this really isn't about Hillary, if it wasn't her it'd be someone else in her stead. I've long made clear my position that Trump is being more brash and flat out stupid and exposing an ongoing scheme that is just usually performed with more finesse.
Trump is basically like watching a terrible street magician fail their way through an act, and people pining for the days of Chris Angel because at least he could really make things disappear.
On April 12 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:43 Mohdoo wrote:On April 12 2018 06:15 m4ini wrote:
I don't care either way, i just react allergic to whataboutism. You purposely destroyed any debate that could've been had in the first place, so why exactly are you asking for it now?
edit: you think your whataboutism is? As soon as "But Hilary" it uttered, it is hard to get anywhere. I am having a hard time justifying any "but Hilary" conversation. It just doesn't mean anything at this point. We could also discuss John Edwards or Romney. We will re-litigate every previous election until FDR. And then we might discuss Cohen getting that weird 150K and not know how many more 150Ks exists out there.
This Is just garbage.
No one was even discussing it. Literally the only post besides mine was one calling mine out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
