Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 432: OK, Loomer

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d29f9ef7.jpg
Just spotted this on Youtube

Is that the retired agent who declared it was a direct result of people comparing Trump to Hitler?

No clue. I just chuckled at the typo in the thumbnail

https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/1835762462211100904

He's going to win like 75% of the vote there.

I dont know what CultureFest is but it sounds cool.

*Arthurs clenched fist*

theyll pay for this

More like this, please!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/scotus-john-roberts-image-fail-phony-false.html

The two of us bear some blame for the construction of the chief justices false image as a moderate. We have long said that Roberts had a keen eye for the public mood, a sense of the fragility of the courts legitimacy, and a profound belief that his obligation to history would be to steer a course away from everything Trumpism represents, including vigilante violence and contempt for the rule of law. We saw these traits in some of Roberts earlier compromise rulings, like his opinion to save Obamacare when it was at its greatest peril and his decision to bar the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the census that could have devastated blue-state representation. Given this history, we thought he would guide the court to a place where the conservative legal movement prevailed but its lunatic fringe was defeated. We were wrong. The Timespiece doesnt ask or answer the question of where that John Robertsthe one who recently voted against the big swing in Dobbs, upheld what remains of the Voting Rights Act, binned the very notion of the independent state legislature doctrine, and chastised his colleagues for political unseemlinesshas disappeared to. Whether he was faking it then or is faking it now is almost irrelevant anyhow. The fact laid bare by the reporting is that John Roberts is on Trumps side now, and willing to have the republic bear the consequences.

I haven't followed Roberts' history so I don't know the details, but my immediate impression is that ethics have demonstrably gone out the window. He is more able and willing to be paid off today than before, because he saw how Thomas and others were treated. Regardless of his true beliefs, it would be a waste not to capitalize on his position.

lol

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1835856295259181087?t=Za6ag8pYcwmmMvE09XQQjQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/poo_crave/status/1835880024185929950?s=42

elder abuse

Vance about to have a rally in the back of a semi.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/b/b4f71904.jpg

Looks like there's maybe 150 people there

Dancedreamer posted...

Looks like there's maybe 150 people there

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/034708f0.jpg

I am slightly worried about the VP depate, because although he's WHOLLY unlikeable, Vance is a professional gaslighter, and I don't know how well Walz will push pack. Probably the only moment this cycle where I would have preferred Shapiro.

Maybe I'll be surprised, though! I was certainly surprised by Walz's first VP speech.

I think Walz is going to wipe the floor with Vance. That clip of him saying conservatives like to talk about small government, but they want to be in your bedroom, in your doctors office etc. totally solidified my confidence.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1836040380640325904

Thiel not gonna be happy about this.

He's excellent at the solo stuff, but we have very little if any real experience with him in an actual back and forth.

Also every interview where JD attempts to gaslight he always looks like a buffoon.

Maybe I'm wrong! I would love to be, and to be fair I'm not doom and glooming. Vance also has to deal with an actively ongoing clusterfuck of Springfield, while Walz is basically cruising right now on local level meet and greets in swing states (operation let them talk continues to be going swimmingly).

Everything around Walz in general, as far as expectations prior to events, has been the thing I have been most consistently wrong about in predictions this cycle, and I couldn't be happier about that.

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1836063573556052405

OK nevermind maybe Walz has this.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1836098953390989762?t=5IEHXXZ1a0_4DM8SoA3AuQ&s=19

I thought slavery was what JD Vance wanted to come back??

Oh they are reaaaaaaaally overestimating how much the assassin rhetoric is going to play for them lol.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1836100143084425614?t=MDpBG2mEbYfsIMQK0UbSTA&s=19

Remember that Trump got hit during a political rally on video in one of the most shocking national news stores in years which resulted in multiple deaths....and it had absolutely zero impact on his polling whatsoever.

The straight to video sequel is always way less interesting, it's been 2 days and the average person doesn't even care anymore.

it's just a fact of life

Wonder what he actually wanted to say here.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1836104721754698061?t=Tw-kDYOqRe4mVct3pv5_gA&s=19

https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1835788796773986651

Trump: Democrats said please dont call immigrants animals. I said, no, theyre not humans, theyre animals.

the party really is just going full nazi these days

IfGodCouldDie posted...

(I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone that actually believes that someone deserves to be allowed to profit off the things others need to live and instead just accept that it is currently a fact of life)

You're using 2 very loaded terms here that need definition: deserve & profit. I would actually agree with the phrase "people deserve to profit off things that other need to live".

That's because to me, "deserve" doesn't really have a clear meaning. It's important, but soft and based on feeling. It's not something you can design a society around in real life, because no 2 people can agree on what "deserve" means. The best system we have for it after like 10000 years is still jury-based judgments.

Next, profit under a communist labor theory of value is defined as exploitation, a form of violence. You're essentially using profit as a synonym for violence here, and yes no one will reasonably support use of violence. But profit can very validly be defined as added value from mutually beneficial trade, and that is how it is defined in 99% of usages. It's easy to support that. Of course, this requires rejecting the labor theory in favor of the subjective theory of value. Modern communists like to conflate the subjective theory of value with free markets in general, capitalism, and even keynesianism, even though those came way later. (I do obviously support free markets, and most of capitalism, but absolutely none of keynesianism.)

So, capitalism is a giant machine that ruthlessly pursues profit. If you are able to define profit as something crucial to life, like reducing CO2 production or saving water, then sure all those who profit in that goal deserve rewards for it. It's the reward for achieving society's wishes. The role of government here is clear, since through taxes and incentives, you can control what direction the weapon of capitalism points. This is an enormous responsibility, and of course it comes with enormous abuse. It's so, so far from perfect, but we do see how profit-motivated capitalism achieves these societal improvements, far more often than any communism. Contemporary and historical fact is clear - if you need to make a radical change in society, without mass cooperation and centralized coordination, and without causing genocide or revolution, capitalism is the weapon to do it.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Wonder what he actually wanted to say here.

I'd like a B, an N and a G.

Republicans: "Harris is a flip flopper!"

Trump: https://twitter.com/franklinisbored/status/1836109363909415357?t=pyu4jpmOsumA4je4iN-NoQ&s=19

He's saying this before his rally in a D+30 county in New York tomorrow where he's using a 15k seat venue.

I am very interested to see just how those numbers shake out lol.

Grimlyn posted...

https://twitter.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1835788796773986651

Trump: Democrats said please dont call immigrants animals. I said, no, theyre not humans, theyre animals.

the party really is just going full nazi these days

Dont call us Nazis tho they say.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1836114183965823345?t=AhShDgGMb0NBNZd3MjUgIw&s=19

Certainly a much better answer than "You ain't black!".

No offense, Joe.

Whoops!

https://www.propublica.org/article/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-travel-disclosures

foolm0r0n posted...

You're using 2 very loaded terms here

I mean if you're just going to argue semantics about what I've posted when the intention of what I am saying should be pretty clear it becomes obvious you're not having this discussion in good faith. So I'll restate what I said very specifically and I will only do this once because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not going to go through the entirety of what I posted and rewrite it but I will address the the two point things you are being semantic about.

Deserve - I believe that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that agrees 1 single person or small group of people should have the power to withhold the necessities of life and society based on the sole premise that they claim ownership of them. In so that if they decided to stop providing them humanity would die out or society as we know it would crumble and fall to apocalyptic levels.

If you do agree that a single person or small group of people should have the power to control human/societal necessities based solely on their claim of ownership I would like you to explain why and explain how it benefits society and humanity on a fundamental level.

Profit - The fruit of the labour. I would imagine this is pretty simple to understand, maybe the fact that I didn't specify I'm not imagining this a cashless/money-less society threw you for a loop, but anything that requires you to enlist the help of another to provide your service or product to everyone that needs or wants it should result in them getting a fair share of whatever it is that is exchange for the labour they put in to help you provide that.
foolm0r0n posted...

You're essentially using profit as a synonym for violence here

No I am not and there is absolutely no fucking way you can be serious in even claiming to think that.
foolm0r0n posted...

If you are able to define profit as something crucial to life, like reducing CO2 production or saving water

Is there a common conception that profit is defined as reducing CO2 or saving water I am unaware of? Like you seem to be under the assumption that the vast majority of people that invent products, devise new ideas or work to better humanity do it solely for capitalist gain when that is rarely if ever the actual case. It is capitalists that typically get their hands on these kinds of things and attempt to profiteer off of it, in an attempt to gain power, influence and wealth.

I do not disagree that if a person discovers some way to advance humanity or society they deserve some kind of compensation. The problem I have is that when a capitalist gets their hands on it they hold that advancement behind a fucking paywall.

Tester is running the greatest campaign of all time.

https://twitter.com/jontester/status/1836119085278433488?t=ezDJh7K4WhHTPh5KOlDUNA&s=19

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Tester is running the greatest campaign of all time.

https://twitter.com/jontester/status/1836119085278433488?t=ezDJh7K4WhHTPh5KOlDUNA&s=19

I don't know what to make of this

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Wonder what he actually wanted to say here.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1836104721754698061?t=Tw-kDYOqRe4mVct3pv5_gA&s=19

Personally I would guess he was thinking something sexist rather than racist.

Republicans blocked the IVF bill. Shocker!

paperwarior posted...

I don't know what to make of this

Revenge. Little did we know this was Tester all along.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0b51b768.jpg

John Kennedy should go to hell

https://twitter.com/WUTangKids/status/1836103280750903703?t=ROX13Fnvi9O7suvTeO-wQA&s=19

https://twitter.com/OrangePaulp/status/1836046907820396913

Honestly? Nationalise it. Without compensation.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1836114183965823345?t=AhShDgGMb0NBNZd3MjUgIw&s=19

Certainly a much better answer than "You ain't black!".

No offense, Joe.

Definitely an answer with better optics, but it still feels like she's glossing over the actual problem here, which is that men are getting more conservative and women are getting more liberal. How she can appeal better to men (of any race) (and without moving rightward) is a tough question to answer though.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Deserve - I believe that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that agrees 1 single person or small group of people should have the power to withhold the necessities of life and society based on the sole premise that they claim ownership of them. In so that if they decided to stop providing them humanity would die out or society as we know it would crumble and fall to apocalyptic levels.

If you do agree that a single person or small group of people should have the power to control human/societal necessities based solely on their claim of ownership I would like you to explain why and explain how it benefits society and humanity on a fundamental level.

Profit - The fruit of the labour. I would imagine this is pretty simple to understand, maybe the fact that I didn't specify I'm not imagining this a cashless/money-less society threw you for a loop, but anything that requires you to enlist the help of another to provide your service or product to everyone that needs or wants it should result in them getting a fair share of whatever it is that is exchange for the labour they put in to help you provide that.

This is totally confusing. I don't think you're defining "deserve" at all here, but I do see the monopolistic hoarding problem you're describing. If that hoarding is what you mean by profit, then yeah I don't agree with it, and it's obviously a violent act. But when defining profit here, you say it's just the fruits of labor? In that case, of course I do think people deserve profit, and it's similar to my definition which involves mutual benefit. I don't get which you mean here.

Communists do usually refer to profit as the portion of the fruits of labor that is stolen by a capitalist from a laborer. e.g. If I pay you $10 to make a shirt that I sell for $15, I make $5 profit, which means I have stolen $5 of your labor. This is an exploitation of the laborer, equivalent to stealing, and underpinned by violence (i.e. if the laborer tries to get their $5 back, the capitalist fundamentally must use violence to stop it). That's the definition that communists use to say profit is immoral.

So yeah if being confused makes me bad faith then fine, no skin off my back.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Is there a common conception that profit is defined as reducing CO2 or saving water I am unaware of? Like you seem to be under the assumption that the vast majority of people that invent products, devise new ideas or work to better humanity do it solely for capitalist gain when that is rarely if ever the actual case.

In the aggregate, it is actually the case. When a society establishes a profit incentive for an action, people tend to do that action, and vice-versa for a tax. Individuals rarely claim to be following those taxes and incentives, but you still see the clear pattern when you zoom out. Humans are funny that way.

Also, the tiny minority of capitalists do actually admit to following these incentives though. They shamelessly do whatever will make them more money/power, regardless of the source or the end goal. So the fact that government can control the capitalists so completely through such simple tools is a huge advantage to capitalist societies.

Kenri posted...

Definitely an answer with better optics, but it still feels like she's glossing over the actual problem here, which is that men are getting more conservative and women are getting more liberal. How she can appeal better to men (of any race) (and without moving rightward) is a tough question to answer though.

Her answer was perfect. Those young men fall into alt-right media through the entrepreneur / self-determination / alpha grindset pipeline. We all know a few of them. The small business deduction is exactly what they want, and it can legit help them. She's giving a positive alternative to their core motivation, so they don't need the alt-right anymore. And it's a market-based tax-lowering solution no less.

WOW he's SOOOOO bad at this.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1836167081395655065?t=ko7bh3kVTSt_645QfokzXw&s=19

foolm0r0n posted...

The small business deduction is exactly what they want, and it can legit help them. She's giving a positive alternative to their core motivation, so they don't need the alt-right anymore. And it's a market-based tax-lowering solution no less.

None of this targets what 95% of the young MAGA inductees care about. An 18-year old isn't going to actually care about business deductions. They just want to feel like they aren't being left behind by society. It's a nebulous feeling with many different factors feeding into it.

I don't see that being properly addressed by the left anytime soon, frankly. The right will pretend to though, which is why the polarization will only worsen. South Korea's gender division is probably our future.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

WOW he's SOOOOO bad at this.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1836167081395655065?t=ko7bh3kVTSt_645QfokzXw&s=19

"Shouldn't you not lie?" "The media shouldn't lie."

I want someone to spell it out for him like for a child. "JD, as a public figure whose words are trusted by many across the country, do you, like the media, have a certain responsibility to tell the truth to the public?"

They've already spelled it out for him about a half down times over the last week, he just doesn't care.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1836168523795640590?t=Qv4Fu8MRPtgFtvzLtgeusg&s=19

Probably not a good idea to use the "settled law" argument after Roe got overturned.