Democrats 2020

[angelo]

This is social engineering at it's worst. And it only emanates from one side of politics. No names need be mentioned!

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...alling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/

 

[angelo]

What's the old saying about smoke and fire?

https://nypost.com/2019/12/23/hunte...cc=evening_update&mpweb=755-8482483-720425075

 

[Politesse]

This is social engineering at it's worst. And it only emanates from one side of politics. No names need be mentioned!

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...alling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/

Social engineering at its worst? What about the creation of the fucking suburbs in the first place? That's not how cities naturally form.

 

[angelo]

This is social engineering at it's worst. And it only emanates from one side of politics. No names need be mentioned!

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...alling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/

Social engineering at its worst? What about the creation of the fucking suburbs in the first place? That's not how cities naturally form.

I understand that under socialism there's no classes, all should be equally poor. But that's not how capitalism works. Most of the Western World has a capitalist system of government I'm afraid. If you love socialism so much, you'll have to move to Cuba or Venezuela or perhaps one of the dozens of shitholes scattered around the globe.

 

[Patooka]

This is social engineering at it's worst. And it only emanates from one side of politics. No names need be mentioned!

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...alling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/

Social engineering at its worst? What about the creation of the fucking suburbs in the first place? That's not how cities naturally form.

I understand that under socialism there's no classes, all should be equally poor. But that's not how capitalism works. Most of the Western World has a capitalist system of government I'm afraid. If you love socialism so much, you'll have to move to Cuba or Venezuela or perhaps one of the dozens of shitholes scattered around the globe.

Sure. The second you move to Somalia or Albania or some other capitalist shithole where small governments exist. If you hate socialism so much, I hope you are consistent in you beliefs and are also against police, fire brigades, public hospitals and public education, to name a few things. All socialist institutions.

 

[Politesse]

This is social engineering at it's worst. And it only emanates from one side of politics. No names need be mentioned!

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...alling-it-racist-and-bad-for-the-environment/

Social engineering at its worst? What about the creation of the fucking suburbs in the first place? That's not how cities naturally form.

I understand that under socialism there's no classes, all should be equally poor. But that's not how capitalism works. Most of the Western World has a capitalist system of government I'm afraid. If you love socialism so much, you'll have to move to Cuba or Venezuela or perhaps one of the dozens of shitholes scattered around the globe.

Did you reply to the wrong post by accident? I didn't say anything about socialism.

And Venezuela has swanky suburbs, too. It's bad urban planning, but it's popular bad urban planning.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Somalia, always Somalia. An example, but not in the way intended.

Somalia used to have a government. People don't like to remember that. It was a communist government, and a particularly corrupt one at that. They looted everything that could be looted, broke everything that couldn't be looted, and then high-tailed it out of there once the government collapsed. Then a member of that government ran for US congress.

They were brought that low by government.

After the government collapsed, something interesting happened. Things started to get better now that their government was out of the way and no longer messing everything up. By many standards, things have improved in Somalia since the government collapsed. Not improved up to first world standards, but better than they were wen the collapse happened.

Recovery was slowed by all the "help" they received. The clans became a way of mediating disputes, but then the US government promised many billions of US taxpayer dollars to whichever one could become a new government. The clan leaders became warlords. The country, instead of having one brutal government, had many competing brutal government. Under the warlords, Somalia was an example of anarchism in the same way that Chernobyl is an example of clean energy. Also, every now and again, some government would send troops in on a "peacekeeping" mission to break that which had been rebuilt.

So Somalia is an example, but not the example you want.

 

[bilby]

Somalia, always Somalia. An example, but not in the way intended.

Somalia used to have a government. People don't like to remember that. It was a communist government, and a particularly corrupt one at that. They looted everything that could be looted, broke everything that couldn't be looted, and then high-tailed it out of there once the government collapsed. Then a member of that government ran for US congress.

They were brought that low by government.

After the government collapsed, something interesting happened. Things started to get better now that their government was out of the way and no longer messing everything up. By many standards, things have improved in Somalia since the government collapsed. Not improved up to first world standards, but better than they were wen the collapse happened.

Recovery was slowed by all the "help" they received. The clans became a way of mediating disputes, but then the US government promised many billions of US taxpayer dollars to whichever one could become a new government. The clan leaders became warlords. The country, instead of having one brutal government, had many competing brutal government. Under the warlords, Somalia was an example of anarchism in the same way that Chernobyl is an example of clean energy. Also, every now and again, some government would send troops in on a "peacekeeping" mission to break that which had been rebuilt.

So Somalia is an example, but not the example you want.

"My political utopia would be fantastic, but it's never been allowed to succeed" used to be the catch cry of the communists; It's amusing to see the libertarians taking it up to excuse the observable fact that their system doesn't work either.

A political structure (or its absence) that cannot or does not defend itself effectively from outside interference isn't one that can be said to work.

Too little government is just as toxic as too much.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Somalia, always Somalia. An example, but not in the way intended.

Somalia used to have a government. People don't like to remember that. It was a communist government, and a particularly corrupt one at that. They looted everything that could be looted, broke everything that couldn't be looted, and then high-tailed it out of there once the government collapsed. Then a member of that government ran for US congress.

They were brought that low by government.

After the government collapsed, something interesting happened. Things started to get better now that their government was out of the way and no longer messing everything up. By many standards, things have improved in Somalia since the government collapsed. Not improved up to first world standards, but better than they were wen the collapse happened.

Recovery was slowed by all the "help" they received. The clans became a way of mediating disputes, but then the US government promised many billions of US taxpayer dollars to whichever one could become a new government. The clan leaders became warlords. The country, instead of having one brutal government, had many competing brutal government. Under the warlords, Somalia was an example of anarchism in the same way that Chernobyl is an example of clean energy. Also, every now and again, some government would send troops in on a "peacekeeping" mission to break that which had been rebuilt.

So Somalia is an example, but not the example you want.

"My political utopia would be fantastic, but it's never been allowed to succeed" used to be the catch cry of the communists; It's amusing to see the libertarians taking it up to excuse the observable fact that their system doesn't work either.

A political structure (or its absence) that cannot or does not defend itself effectively from outside interference isn't one that can be said to work.

Too little government is just as toxic as too much.

I didn't make that claim. I did say "the closer we've gotten to my ideal the better things have gotten", and backed it up with evidence. I'm pointing out why idiots who claim Somalia is in my camp are completely and utterly wrong, both knowingly and unknowingly at the same time.

 

[fromderinside]

Somalia never had a coherent internally consistent government. It was set of tribes and then it was a Soviet client. There needs to be a general buy in by population for there to be coherent order in a state. None was ever established in Somalia. So any posturing using Somalia as you did is at best a red herring.

 

[Patooka]

Somalia, always Somalia. An example, but not in the way intended.

Somalia used to have a government. People don't like to remember that. It was a communist government, and a particularly corrupt one at that. They looted everything that could be looted, broke everything that couldn't be looted, and then high-tailed it out of there once the government collapsed. Then a member of that government ran for US congress.

They were brought that low by government.

After the government collapsed, something interesting happened. Things started to get better now that their government was out of the way and no longer messing everything up. By many standards, things have improved in Somalia since the government collapsed. Not improved up to first world standards, but better than they were wen the collapse happened.

Recovery was slowed by all the "help" they received. The clans became a way of mediating disputes, but then the US government promised many billions of US taxpayer dollars to whichever one could become a new government. The clan leaders became warlords. The country, instead of having one brutal government, had many competing brutal government. Under the warlords, Somalia was an example of anarchism in the same way that Chernobyl is an example of clean energy. Also, every now and again, some government would send troops in on a "peacekeeping" mission to break that which had been rebuilt.

So Somalia is an example, but not the example you want.

One could say exactly the same about Venezuela, but that doesn't stop libertarians as using it as the go to example for all the evils of socialism. Every. Fucking. Time.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The difference is: Before Venezuela collapsed, socialists outside Venezuela were praising it as an example of socialism. After it collapsed, socialists said it isn't real socialism. Every time socialists praise some country as practicing real socialism, they turn around a few years later and say it was never an example of socialism. Unless they are falsely accusing Scandinavian countries of being socialist.

Somalia, before it collapsed, had a kleptocratic communist government, and not even the dimmest idiot in the world would claim it an example of libertarianism. After it collapsed, that same idiot said it was real libertarianism. Thinking people don't understand why they make that claim. Other thinking people realize it is a baseless smear by ignorant idiots.

This line of argument is the "no true libertarian" fallacy. Take X, an anti-libertarian position, say "libertarians believe X", hold up someone who does believe X as an example of libertarianism, and when libertarians say "no it isn't", accuse them of engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Might as well say Obama's advocacy of UHC (before he watered it down into the current Obamacare) is an example of libertarianism, and his watering it down is an example of how libertarianism doesn't work.

 

[angelo]

I understand that under socialism there's no classes, all should be equally poor. But that's not how capitalism works. Most of the Western World has a capitalist system of government I'm afraid. If you love socialism so much, you'll have to move to Cuba or Venezuela or perhaps one of the dozens of shitholes scattered around the globe.

Sure. The second you move to Somalia or Albania or some other capitalist shithole where small governments exist. If you hate socialism so much, I hope you are consistent in you beliefs and are also against police, fire brigades, public hospitals and public education, to name a few things. All socialist institutions.

That's why in a capitalist system there exist taxes and government charges. They're in place to pay for all these essential services provided by government such as police, fire brigades, hospitals, public education etc, etc! Many of these services also compliment private services also paid for by the public in one way or another. Big differences in socialism and capitalism being: the latter encourages enterprise and reward for effort. It's not perfect, but far, far better than the alternative.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Elizabeth Warren's Donations Drop 30 Percent.

Stacey Abrams and Ivanka Trump Enter the Race.

You heard it here first.

 

[Derec]

Elizabeth Warren's Donations Drop 30 Percent.

Mayor Pete could hook her up with a wine cave where she could raise some dough.

Stacey Abrams and Ivanka Trump Enter the Race.

You heard it here first.

Actual title is "Veteran political observer picks Buttigieg to win it all next year" and it's an article about some tongue-in-cheek predictions.

A veteran Washington observer has looked into his crystal ball and seen that Pete Buttigieg winning the presidential election in November, alongside his running mate, Stacey Abrams of Georgia.

The prediction comes from Carl Leubsdorf, a columnist with the Dallas Morning News, who served as that paper’s Washington bureau chief for 27 years. His column, published Wednesday, mirrors the semi-serious year-end predictions made famous by the late William Safire of the New York Times

While Mayor Pete winning the nomination is not the likeliest scenario, I would put him in number 2 or 3 in power rankings right now.
But what is completely unrealistic is the idea that he would pick Stacey Abrams. Pete's chief drawback is relative youth and inexperience. Why would be then pick somebody not that much older and even more inexperienced as he is? Naw, he would do like Obama and pick somebody experienced as a contrast.

Even more silly is the idea that Ivanka might replace Pence as Veep.

 

[Trausti]

 

[angelo]

Elizabeth Warren's Donations Drop 30 Percent.

Stacey Abrams and Ivanka Trump Enter the Race.

You heard it here first.

What a load of hogwash! A psychic once swore black and blue that I would win lotto in the coming year. [1998] I'm still as broke as Iv'e always been!

 

[TV and credit cards]

Elizabeth Warren's Donations Drop 30 Percent.

Stacey Abrams and Ivanka Trump Enter the Race.

You heard it here first.

What a load of hogwash! A psychic once swore black and blue that I would win lotto in the coming year. [1998] I'm still as broke as Iv'e always been!

I did not intend for anyone to have a high degree of confidence in the opinion expressed in that second link. My comment after was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

And I do hope you found a more reliable psychic.

 

[Elixir]

A psychic once swore black and blue that I would win lotto in the coming year. [1998] I'm still as broke as Iv'e always been!

Stop believing in psychics and do a better job of sucking up to the billionaire class.

 

[angelo]

Speaking of the billionaire class............................De Vito should lead by example and distribute all his wealth to the needy, just like a good little socialist should and set an example before supporting loonies such as Sanders!

Another Hollywood has-been goes low. This endorsement should not come as a surprise to anyone. Danny DeVito had previously endorsed Jeremy Corbyn in Britain in 2017. As such, it is only natural that DeVito would endorse another bigoted socialist in the United States. DeVito will surely not be the last person in Hollywood to endorse the dreadful Bernie Sanders. This endorsement is just the latest example of how stupid the people in the entertainment industry really are.

[ source https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...on-2017-labour-grime4corbyn-940-a7744116.html ]