|
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 29 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it. Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics. You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does. Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to.
But that's the rub of your argument. He could try. He opens free clinics in poverty India. You'll cry why not Africa. He opens free clinics in Africa, You shout why not America. There's no good he can do, where someone like you wouldn't find an issue with it. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Also, do you know how he spends his days with his money? I don't and I won't presume to know. Frankly, it's none of my business. So much holier than thou speeches in here. What Ren suggested is the best way to fight the accumulation of obscene wealth. Otherwise, you're an old man screaming at clouds.
|
On April 29 2020 11:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:On April 29 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:
Is Amazon the enemy? In what way? If so, doesn't it also represent an advance in the appropriation of "man's inorganic body" consonant with the writings of early Marx? In a way, isn't your ethical judgment of Bezos and Gates at odds with a Marxist history that saw bourgeois capitalism as a necessary stage that must be traversed before socialism? This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change. The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it. Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics. You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does. Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to. But that's the rub of your argument. He could try. He opens free clinics in poverty India. You'll cry why not Africa. He opens free clinics in Africa, You shout why not America. There's no good he can do, where someone like you wouldn't find an issue with it. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Also, do you know how he spends his days with his money? I don't and I won't presume to know. Frankly, it's none of my business. So much holier than thou speeches in here. What Ren suggested is the best way to fight the accumulation of obscene wealth. Otherwise, you're an old man screaming at clouds.
How people react doesn't change the argument. The ethics don't change based on if people are satisfied or not. If someone says "why not America", it doesn't change the fact that his hospital would have still saved thousands of lives. People not being satisfied doesn't change anything. He would have still done the right thing and people's reactions wouldn't change that.
I'm not trying to be his PR department. I am describing why modern existence of billionaires, as shown by Bezoz, should be argued as "exteme moral depraved indifference" and that they should be jailed. I then described my ethical argument why I think that. How people react isn't the issue here. Are you saying how people react changes the ethics?
|
On April 29 2020 12:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 11:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 08:34 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
This is a kind of funny thing with the left-wing critiques nowadays of growth and ceilings on billionaires and whatnot. Where is the good old "all that is solid melts into air"? It used to be that Marxists actually welcomed economic growth because it's nothing else but carrying the logic of capitalism forward and they at least recognised the positive potential of disruption and technological change.
The Economist had a funny piece about Marx and how the British royalty sort of turning into American celebrities is just finally the logic of the market even tearing the British monarchy down, so what's it with this weird moralizing on the left about whether Bezos is a good guy or a bad guy For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it. Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics. You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does. Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to. But that's the rub of your argument. He could try. He opens free clinics in poverty India. You'll cry why not Africa. He opens free clinics in Africa, You shout why not America. There's no good he can do, where someone like you wouldn't find an issue with it. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Also, do you know how he spends his days with his money? I don't and I won't presume to know. Frankly, it's none of my business. So much holier than thou speeches in here. What Ren suggested is the best way to fight the accumulation of obscene wealth. Otherwise, you're an old man screaming at clouds. How people react doesn't change the argument. The ethics don't change based on if people are satisfied or not. If someone says "why not America", it doesn't change the fact that his hospital would have still saved thousands of lives. People not being satisfied doesn't change anything. He would have still done the right thing and people's reactions wouldn't change that. I'm not trying to be his PR department. I am describing why modern existence of billionaires, as shown by Bezoz, should be argued as "exteme moral depraved indifference" and that they should be jailed. I then described my ethical argument why I think that. How people react isn't the issue here. Are you saying how people react changes the ethics?
How people react and why people react are different. I understand how your reaction is causing this conversation. I don't understand the why you feel that way. I get how you could be angered by the wealth a few people in the world has and the seeming no good they are doing with it because it isn't in the news. But that doesn't explain to me why you're reacting with such hatred.
|
On April 29 2020 12:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 12:18 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 08:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
For the record I agree with Neb on the "good guy, bad guy" stuff being unclear as to it's value. I also think the lionizing of billionaires makes people look silly. I don't think that an addict that does horrible things for a fix is "evil". But addicts do horrific things to get their fix and that includes people like Bezos. He just operates on a relatively unparalleled scale. Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it. Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics. You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does. Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to. But that's the rub of your argument. He could try. He opens free clinics in poverty India. You'll cry why not Africa. He opens free clinics in Africa, You shout why not America. There's no good he can do, where someone like you wouldn't find an issue with it. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Also, do you know how he spends his days with his money? I don't and I won't presume to know. Frankly, it's none of my business. So much holier than thou speeches in here. What Ren suggested is the best way to fight the accumulation of obscene wealth. Otherwise, you're an old man screaming at clouds. How people react doesn't change the argument. The ethics don't change based on if people are satisfied or not. If someone says "why not America", it doesn't change the fact that his hospital would have still saved thousands of lives. People not being satisfied doesn't change anything. He would have still done the right thing and people's reactions wouldn't change that. I'm not trying to be his PR department. I am describing why modern existence of billionaires, as shown by Bezoz, should be argued as "exteme moral depraved indifference" and that they should be jailed. I then described my ethical argument why I think that. How people react isn't the issue here. Are you saying how people react changes the ethics? How people react and why people react are different. I understand how your reaction is causing this conversation. I don't understand the why you feel that way. I get how you could be angered by the wealth a few people in the world has and the seeming no good they are doing with it because it isn't in the news. But that doesn't explain to me why you're reacting with such hatred.
A lot of people could be alive if certain people decided to donate an incredible amount of money. If those people saved an incredible amount of lives, they could still be left with 500 million dollars each. But they haven't done that yet. People will continue to die who could have otherwise not died.
If I were to donate my entire salary, live in a box and eat rice and beans every day, i could make 0.0000000001% the difference these guys could. They would have less power, but they could still be freakishly wealthy by holding onto a small % of their wealth, say 500m each. They choose not to do that.
I think that choice is so far beyond insanely unethical that it should qualify as criminal.
Edit: and with regards to hatred, I think anyone who chooses not to save thousands of lives is deserving of hatred. It is a rare time when hatred is appropriate.
|
On April 29 2020 13:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 12:35 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 12:18 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 11:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:47 Mohdoo wrote:On April 29 2020 10:22 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 29 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2020 09:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
Citation needed. For his relatively unparalleled personal wealth? Forbes? He's obscenely rich. What horrible things has he done with that obscene wealth? If just having money is bad, then I don't wanna be right (when I get there). All billionaires should be charged with exteme depraved indifference. As an example, look at Bloomberg spending hundreds of millions on a campaign. He chose not to save thousands of lives (build medical centers, free healthcare, tons of ways to directly, knowingly save lives in his position) and instead spent it on a campaign. That is EXTREME depraved indifference. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murderI am saying bezoz should be charged because he could save thousands of lives by giving up 0.1% of his wealth but chooses not to. It's an entirely different realm from the edge lords saying "if you don't donate your paycheck to Africa, aren't you selfish?" It's not that he could do something, help someone, but suffer. He could save thousands of lives, not suffer from it, but doesn't. He should be charged and imprisoned. There's no social contract that forces him to do so. And there's nothing that stops you from doing so as well. I'm not trying to defend him, but when you say he's one of the worst humans on the face of the earth because he has more wealth than half the world combined, it doesn't sway me. List what he has done, with his own money, that makes him a horrible person, besides not giving it to you. I'm just reading people online mad at rich people because they didn't use their incredible money for the projects/causes they hold dear. Bezos could build a major hospital in every city on the US. Then he has to pay every single employee (if there are enough to fill them) a living wage. Then he has to answer for any mistakes made because it's his hospital. But then, you'd be screaming that he's cornering the healthcare market with his hospitals or putting universities or whatever out of business. It's a no win situation for people in his position. He could give you the cure for cancer and you'd scream that he didn't do it soon enough or that he charged too much for it. Or that working conditions on developing/distributing said cure are terrible. For every good that he could do, people would find 100 ways he was wrong in doing it. So why the fixation? I don't get it. Contracts aren't needed for ethics. Ethics does not rely on law, though law ought to obey ethics. You are presupposing requirements for ethical arguments that don't exist. From an ethical perspective, bezoz choosing not to save lives is absolutely grotesque. It takes a truly horrible person to live the life he does. Why are you talking about weird hypotheticals? What we know is that we generally consider hospitals a good thing and bezoz could build very many. You can think of a bad outcome for any scenario, but the ethical thing to do is to try. In the world we live in, a bunch of free clinics would save an incredible amount of lives. He chooses not to. But that's the rub of your argument. He could try. He opens free clinics in poverty India. You'll cry why not Africa. He opens free clinics in Africa, You shout why not America. There's no good he can do, where someone like you wouldn't find an issue with it. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Also, do you know how he spends his days with his money? I don't and I won't presume to know. Frankly, it's none of my business. So much holier than thou speeches in here. What Ren suggested is the best way to fight the accumulation of obscene wealth. Otherwise, you're an old man screaming at clouds. How people react doesn't change the argument. The ethics don't change based on if people are satisfied or not. If someone says "why not America", it doesn't change the fact that his hospital would have still saved thousands of lives. People not being satisfied doesn't change anything. He would have still done the right thing and people's reactions wouldn't change that. I'm not trying to be his PR department. I am describing why modern existence of billionaires, as shown by Bezoz, should be argued as "exteme moral depraved indifference" and that they should be jailed. I then described my ethical argument why I think that. How people react isn't the issue here. Are you saying how people react changes the ethics? How people react and why people react are different. I understand how your reaction is causing this conversation. I don't understand the why you feel that way. I get how you could be angered by the wealth a few people in the world has and the seeming no good they are doing with it because it isn't in the news. But that doesn't explain to me why you're reacting with such hatred. A lot of people could be alive if certain people decided to donate an incredible amount of money. If those people saved an incredible amount of lives, they could still be left with 500 million dollars each. But they haven't done that yet. People will continue to die who could have otherwise not died. If I were to donate my entire salary, live in a box and eat rice and beans every day, i could make 0.0000000001% the difference these guys could. They would have less power, but they could still be freakishly wealthy by holding onto a small % of their wealth, say 500m each. They choose not to do that. I think that choice is so far beyond insanely unethical that it should qualify as criminal. Edit: and with regards to hatred, I think anyone who chooses not to save thousands of lives is deserving of hatred. It is a rare time when hatred is appropriate.
I agree. 101%. Can you tell me how that money would be distributed to those in need? Who is overseeing this? I could see the UN being a force for it, if given the right protection and equipment. Maybe the Peace Corps would also help. How do we insulate those organizations from corruption/influence?
To tie this back into US politics; What we are talking about could be compared to the PPP. You have the government giving out a ton of money to businesses to help keep them afloat, but there are some undeserving entities getting the money instead. Some are more altruistic and gave it back. A lot are keeping it. It isn't working as intended and there are a lot of small businesses hurting pretty badly without it.
|
On April 29 2020 11:20 RenSC2 wrote:
The GH thing is just him spouting off about how the accumulation of wealth is an addiction. Like he almost doesn't understand how wealth generates wealth and you pretty much don't have to do anything to continue to generate wealth at a certain point. Generating wealth is the path of least resistance when you're that rich or found a company that ends up being wildly successful.
Given that Microsoft's biggest success is not product quality but aggressively monopolizing their position and making life impossible for every competitor, I would not categorize Gates financial rise as 'doing almost nothing'. His company actively worked to make sure they could force every person on earth to pay 100$ for every computer the last 30 years because there was no other option.
|
On April 29 2020 08:30 JimmiC wrote:
Or people are waiting on the evidence to see if in fact he did it. Well it is certainly possible he did, it is also possible he didn't. If you read the CNN article it points out that it was not corroborated by anyone else. When you consider Biden's age at the time it seems unlikely that he would do something this aggressive and only once in his life, generally by that age you are fairly fully formed and if you get away with it, like he did if the story is true, then it would be likely that there would be others who would come forward. So far none, but some times it takes time.
Now unlike a zealot like yourself who decides on whats true and false based on whether it fits your narrative or not most reasonable people are waiting to see what happens. Is there more evidence? How does the democratic party react if there is or is not. Are there going to be more accusations?
Ehh.... compare Reade to the Christine Ford (Kavanaugh accuser case).
Ford didn't have any witnesses that could remember hearing her say anything about it at the time, unlike Reade who has neighbours who corroborate her story.Ford didn't file a police report at the time, unlike Reade.Ford couldn't even remember the time, date or place.Then consider the 1993 Larry King call-in who talked about sexual assault allegations regarding a prominent US senator.Reade claims this is her mother.
Of course the case deserves to be looked at in detail, seems like there is far more evidence here than the Kavanaugh case.Where's the #MeToo movement on this one? They backing up Reade or have they gone quiet? Quick dig shows Rose McGowan backing her up at least.
|
|
|
I find it extra interesting how all the people who hate the Dem's are now interested in this, it would be sure nice if were interested for say Roy Moore, Trump or Kavanaugh. And with Kavanaugh his behavior during the hearing should have removed him from consideration
Most people who are jumping on this were there for Trump, Roy Moore, and Kavanaugh. We also want a candidate who doesn't have a relation to sexual assaults so we can actually focus on that aspect of Trump during the Campaign.
One of the worst parts of nomming Hillary is the way she defended her husband which made it hard to really hammer Trump on his sexual conduct.
Biden is in an even worse position here.
"Believe all women" is about taking their claim, believing it, and investigating it further. Basically the whole slogan is about taking the accusations seriously when they are made, not discarding them quickly and moving on. No one was doing that, all the Biden supports and establishment just called it bunk from the start and the people who are supposed to believe women were not. The only reason these further corroborating pieces of evidence are emerging is because of the "anti dem trolls" who have pushed the story along.
Heck remember that time the NYT found corroborating evidence that Reade was removed from her intern supervision abruptly and instead of framing it like that they buried it in a story that claimed Biden had no other history of misconduct (except for all the inappropriate touching)?
|
|
|
On April 30 2020 00:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2020 00:23 Logo wrote:I find it extra interesting how all the people who hate the Dem's are now interested in this, it would be sure nice if were interested for say Roy Moore, Trump or Kavanaugh. And with Kavanaugh his behavior during the hearing should have removed him from consideration Most people who are jumping on this were there for Trump, Roy Moore, and Kavanaugh. We also want a candidate who doesn't have a relation to sexual assaults so we can actually focus on that aspect of Trump during the Campaign. One of the worst parts of nomming Hillary is the way she defended her husband which made it hard to really hammer Trump on his sexual conduct. Biden is in an even worse position here. "Believe all women" is about taking their claim, believing it, and investigating it further. Basically the whole slogan is about taking the accusations seriously when they are made, not discarding them quickly and moving on. No one was doing that, all the Biden supports and establishment just called it bunk from the start and the people who are supposed to believe women were not. The only reason these further corroborating pieces of evidence are emerging is because of the "anti dem trolls" who have pushed the story along. Heck remember that time the NYT found corroborating evidence that Reade was removed from her intern supervision abruptly and instead of framing it like that they buried it in a story that claimed Biden had no other history of misconduct (except for all the inappropriate touching)? You are seeing what you want to because of your feelings about Biden, traditional media, and the Dems in general. They are investigating, they are reporting on it. With kavanuagh there was time pressure that there just is not here, it makes sense to do what they are doing, which is investigating, not crucifying instantaneously which some here seem to want. The strange, or not so strange is the rep supporters and progressives feel the same way. And it is a moving target, when it was first made the theme was how the dems cnn and so on were hiding it so clearly it must be true and he has been convicted on this thread repeatedly. Now that it is shown that all the people here who said, they are probably researching and investigating it, now that it is shown that they are, he is still being convicted. Not because of evidence but because you and others have already decided he is guilty. Slow your roll let the investigation happen and then see how the dems and voters react. It feels at this point that if she recants and said she made it up the next posts will be about how "they" got to her and blah blah. I have yet to see someone here state that if ita likely biden did it they would still want him to be the person. I have seen people answer the hypothetical that if he still is amd the evidence as it is they would still vote biden over Trump, but that is a hypothetical and it is way to early to get to that point. No way either progressive or reps are going to stop digging up dirt, if he is the rapist that he is already convicted by some here Im sure a lot more will come out. I also find it telling how when we were much further down the path with actual testimony and so on in Kavanughs case, GH was still referring to him by name and showed none of the anger and vitriol he is now. It shows that while he is desperately trying to make people feel inconsistent and there by, who knows. It is him who is actually inconsistent and in fact has since down played Kavanugh to try to make Biden look worse. It is very clear with him in particular this is not some issue he is passionate about, it is just his latest tool to attack the dems. Not saying this of you as I dont recall your take on the Kavanaugh issue but it is very premature to be referring to Biden as a rapist and even more so to accuse people here of supporting a rapist. It is not a remotely good faith argument and should not be treated as such. It is a zealous partisan argument that depending on how the actual investigation and actions of the people involved turn out could end up looking extremely foolish.
How is there not a time pressure when we're half a year from possibly having him run the country for 4 years?
|
|
|
On April 30 2020 02:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2020 01:50 Gahlo wrote:On April 30 2020 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On April 30 2020 00:23 Logo wrote:I find it extra interesting how all the people who hate the Dem's are now interested in this, it would be sure nice if were interested for say Roy Moore, Trump or Kavanaugh. And with Kavanaugh his behavior during the hearing should have removed him from consideration Most people who are jumping on this were there for Trump, Roy Moore, and Kavanaugh. We also want a candidate who doesn't have a relation to sexual assaults so we can actually focus on that aspect of Trump during the Campaign. One of the worst parts of nomming Hillary is the way she defended her husband which made it hard to really hammer Trump on his sexual conduct. Biden is in an even worse position here. "Believe all women" is about taking their claim, believing it, and investigating it further. Basically the whole slogan is about taking the accusations seriously when they are made, not discarding them quickly and moving on. No one was doing that, all the Biden supports and establishment just called it bunk from the start and the people who are supposed to believe women were not. The only reason these further corroborating pieces of evidence are emerging is because of the "anti dem trolls" who have pushed the story along. Heck remember that time the NYT found corroborating evidence that Reade was removed from her intern supervision abruptly and instead of framing it like that they buried it in a story that claimed Biden had no other history of misconduct (except for all the inappropriate touching)? You are seeing what you want to because of your feelings about Biden, traditional media, and the Dems in general. They are investigating, they are reporting on it. With kavanuagh there was time pressure that there just is not here, it makes sense to do what they are doing, which is investigating, not crucifying instantaneously which some here seem to want. The strange, or not so strange is the rep supporters and progressives feel the same way. And it is a moving target, when it was first made the theme was how the dems cnn and so on were hiding it so clearly it must be true and he has been convicted on this thread repeatedly. Now that it is shown that all the people here who said, they are probably researching and investigating it, now that it is shown that they are, he is still being convicted. Not because of evidence but because you and others have already decided he is guilty. Slow your roll let the investigation happen and then see how the dems and voters react. It feels at this point that if she recants and said she made it up the next posts will be about how "they" got to her and blah blah. I have yet to see someone here state that if ita likely biden did it they would still want him to be the person. I have seen people answer the hypothetical that if he still is amd the evidence as it is they would still vote biden over Trump, but that is a hypothetical and it is way to early to get to that point. No way either progressive or reps are going to stop digging up dirt, if he is the rapist that he is already convicted by some here Im sure a lot more will come out. I also find it telling how when we were much further down the path with actual testimony and so on in Kavanughs case, GH was still referring to him by name and showed none of the anger and vitriol he is now. It shows that while he is desperately trying to make people feel inconsistent and there by, who knows. It is him who is actually inconsistent and in fact has since down played Kavanugh to try to make Biden look worse. It is very clear with him in particular this is not some issue he is passionate about, it is just his latest tool to attack the dems. Not saying this of you as I dont recall your take on the Kavanaugh issue but it is very premature to be referring to Biden as a rapist and even more so to accuse people here of supporting a rapist. It is not a remotely good faith argument and should not be treated as such. It is a zealous partisan argument that depending on how the actual investigation and actions of the people involved turn out could end up looking extremely foolish. How is there not a time pressure when we're half a year from possibly having him run the country for 4 years? So the time pressure is half a year, or sooner so they can get all behind the same guy. Kavanaugh was getting confirmed, for life, right away. It is different. If the election was next week it would be the same. If you have more time, and that more time will allow you to make a better decision because you will have more information you should take it.
Much sooner because you need to have an actual campaign rallying around the guy. The convention is in mid August, so that's 3.5 months to admit it's worth looking into, having a proper investigation, go over what was found, and possibly make a candidate change.
We saw what happened with Duffman when things get rushed.
|
|
|
On April 30 2020 02:29 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2020 01:50 Gahlo wrote:On April 30 2020 00:52 JimmiC wrote:On April 30 2020 00:23 Logo wrote:I find it extra interesting how all the people who hate the Dem's are now interested in this, it would be sure nice if were interested for say Roy Moore, Trump or Kavanaugh. And with Kavanaugh his behavior during the hearing should have removed him from consideration Most people who are jumping on this were there for Trump, Roy Moore, and Kavanaugh. We also want a candidate who doesn't have a relation to sexual assaults so we can actually focus on that aspect of Trump during the Campaign. One of the worst parts of nomming Hillary is the way she defended her husband which made it hard to really hammer Trump on his sexual conduct. Biden is in an even worse position here. "Believe all women" is about taking their claim, believing it, and investigating it further. Basically the whole slogan is about taking the accusations seriously when they are made, not discarding them quickly and moving on. No one was doing that, all the Biden supports and establishment just called it bunk from the start and the people who are supposed to believe women were not. The only reason these further corroborating pieces of evidence are emerging is because of the "anti dem trolls" who have pushed the story along. Heck remember that time the NYT found corroborating evidence that Reade was removed from her intern supervision abruptly and instead of framing it like that they buried it in a story that claimed Biden had no other history of misconduct (except for all the inappropriate touching)? You are seeing what you want to because of your feelings about Biden, traditional media, and the Dems in general. They are investigating, they are reporting on it. With kavanuagh there was time pressure that there just is not here, it makes sense to do what they are doing, which is investigating, not crucifying instantaneously which some here seem to want. The strange, or not so strange is the rep supporters and progressives feel the same way. And it is a moving target, when it was first made the theme was how the dems cnn and so on were hiding it so clearly it must be true and he has been convicted on this thread repeatedly. Now that it is shown that all the people here who said, they are probably researching and investigating it, now that it is shown that they are, he is still being convicted. Not because of evidence but because you and others have already decided he is guilty. Slow your roll let the investigation happen and then see how the dems and voters react. It feels at this point that if she recants and said she made it up the next posts will be about how "they" got to her and blah blah. I have yet to see someone here state that if ita likely biden did it they would still want him to be the person. I have seen people answer the hypothetical that if he still is amd the evidence as it is they would still vote biden over Trump, but that is a hypothetical and it is way to early to get to that point. No way either progressive or reps are going to stop digging up dirt, if he is the rapist that he is already convicted by some here Im sure a lot more will come out. I also find it telling how when we were much further down the path with actual testimony and so on in Kavanughs case, GH was still referring to him by name and showed none of the anger and vitriol he is now. It shows that while he is desperately trying to make people feel inconsistent and there by, who knows. It is him who is actually inconsistent and in fact has since down played Kavanugh to try to make Biden look worse. It is very clear with him in particular this is not some issue he is passionate about, it is just his latest tool to attack the dems. Not saying this of you as I dont recall your take on the Kavanaugh issue but it is very premature to be referring to Biden as a rapist and even more so to accuse people here of supporting a rapist. It is not a remotely good faith argument and should not be treated as such. It is a zealous partisan argument that depending on how the actual investigation and actions of the people involved turn out could end up looking extremely foolish. How is there not a time pressure when we're half a year from possibly having him run the country for 4 years? So the time pressure is half a year, or sooner so they can get all behind the same guy. Kavanaugh was getting confirmed, for life, right away. It is different. If the election was next week it would be the same. If you have more time, and that more time will allow you to make a better decision because you will have more information you should take it.
If Biden is to be booted and replaced as a candidate, it is better to be as soon as possible than in 4 months or just before the election, which is completely impossible.
|
|
|
So the economy has shrunk 4.8%. We're now in a recession and it will only get worse. It's looking like a lot of the jobs that were closed due to the pandemic won't be coming back any time soon. I have no idea on what this new economy will look like, but bars/restaurants won't be packed for a long time. The dole is about to get really long.
The coronavirus pandemic is likely to trigger the sharpest recession in the United States since the Great Depression. An early signal of that came Wednesday, when the Commerce Department said the economy shrank at a 4.8% annual rate in the first three months of the year — the first quarterly contraction since 2014 and the largest since the Great Recession.
For the first 2 1/2 of those months, the economy was chugging along at a steady, if not spectacular pace. But the plug was suddenly pulled in mid-March — when bars, restaurants and retail shops were abruptly closed and tens of millions of Americans were ordered to stay home in an effort to slow the spread of the deadly disease.
Source
|
On April 30 2020 00:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2020 00:23 Logo wrote:I find it extra interesting how all the people who hate the Dem's are now interested in this, it would be sure nice if were interested for say Roy Moore, Trump or Kavanaugh. And with Kavanaugh his behavior during the hearing should have removed him from consideration Most people who are jumping on this were there for Trump, Roy Moore, and Kavanaugh. We also want a candidate who doesn't have a relation to sexual assaults so we can actually focus on that aspect of Trump during the Campaign. One of the worst parts of nomming Hillary is the way she defended her husband which made it hard to really hammer Trump on his sexual conduct. Biden is in an even worse position here. "Believe all women" is about taking their claim, believing it, and investigating it further. Basically the whole slogan is about taking the accusations seriously when they are made, not discarding them quickly and moving on. No one was doing that, all the Biden supports and establishment just called it bunk from the start and the people who are supposed to believe women were not. The only reason these further corroborating pieces of evidence are emerging is because of the "anti dem trolls" who have pushed the story along. Heck remember that time the NYT found corroborating evidence that Reade was removed from her intern supervision abruptly and instead of framing it like that they buried it in a story that claimed Biden had no other history of misconduct (except for all the inappropriate touching)? You are seeing what you want to because of your feelings about Biden, traditional media, and the Dems in general. They are investigating, they are reporting on it. With kavanuagh there was time pressure that there just is not here, it makes sense to do what they are doing, which is investigating, not crucifying instantaneously which some here seem to want.
If they are investigating it so hard why are all the strong corroborations being found by the smaller/more independent organizations like The Intercept?
Surely the NYT, CNN, and WaPo has more capacity for investigation and better connections than The Intercept?
Nevermind this was basically sitting in plain sight since well before Biden was the presumptive nominee.
It's also a big false narrative here. Yeah some people say he's already guilty, but likewise a lot of people are saying he's innocent (or even worse, he's guilty but it doesn't matter). Most of the pushback you see about how this is being handled are by people who are frustrated with those that are claiming innocence already.
|
On April 29 2020 20:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2020 11:20 RenSC2 wrote:
The GH thing is just him spouting off about how the accumulation of wealth is an addiction. Like he almost doesn't understand how wealth generates wealth and you pretty much don't have to do anything to continue to generate wealth at a certain point. Generating wealth is the path of least resistance when you're that rich or found a company that ends up being wildly successful. Given that Microsoft's biggest success is not product quality but aggressively monopolizing their position and making life impossible for every competitor, I would not categorize Gates financial rise as 'doing almost nothing'. His company actively worked to make sure they could force every person on earth to pay 100$ for every computer the last 30 years because there was no other option.
There are two competing views of what constitutes good or fair economic activity. There's the extremely bazaar-like version where countless of small competitors fight for scraps of market share and then innovate because they're forced to relentlessly compete. I think Schumpeter was quite right when he pointed out that this isn't really the right equilibrium. It's more accurate to describe dynamic economies as successions of monopolistic competitors with temporary monopolies seizing a large share of a market and then reinvesting surplus profit back into long term growth.
That's because relentless competition erodes profits and you end up with something like the restaurant industry. Generating large consumer surplus but without much accumulation capital to plan long term. So rather than viewing the size of a company like Amazon or Microsoft as just negative, their size is actually what makes long term advances possible.
This is also another thing where the left seems to have lost their tradition in their fear of 'bigness' because this tendency towards conglomeration used to be viewed quite positively, as it was seen as a step towards replacing the 'chaos of the market', with some degree of rational planning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
