Misterio

bubbatheclown wrote

This thing is like 90% driven by spite rather than practicality. Not that it wouldn't hurt us on some level too but this is a classic case of shooting yourself in the foot to give someone else a migraine from the sound of the gunshot. Or, if Mark Carney has a lick of sense about him, it'll be a largely ceremonial "decoupling" from the Trump-era US that has little practical effect.

So you think Canadians are willing to starve before caving in and accepting Trump's terms?

Considering the level of wokeness in Canada, that's a possibility. Woke people are idiots by nature.

It's cool but you can't neglect the functionalities. So far I'm not able to copy/paste simple text on new posts.

What's the matter with that?

I just want to know if you are on the same page.

Trump doesn't want to make any deal with Canada, he simply wants Canada to fail because of the obscene level of wokeness they have reached.

To me, Canada has much more to lose in this dispute because the US is the best trade partner they could ask for and Trump is playing with it. Even the proposal to incorporate Canada into the European Union as an associate member won't be of any use.

So, Trump believes he can pressure Canadians into removing the current woke government and replacing it with a non-woke administration to get trade back to normal. I'm not an economic expert but if Canada doesn't accept Trump's terms, they are fked.

Am I wrong?

Double_R wrote:

You argued that I'm a socialist in part because I believe in progressive taxation system.

No. I argued that progressive taxation (actually all kind of taxation) is a tool for the left to destroy a nation because they can have the perfect excuse to transition to socialism. I can give you several examples of nations that raised their taxes in order to put actual socialist policies in their economy.

But it's not the taxation that made me think that you're a socialist. It's the fucking typical lefty speech you used to convince us that taxation is not a socialist policy. Taxation per se has no ideology, I admit it and that's ok but the danger of taxation is that it can be used for the left to move a whole country to the murky waters of socilalism. There resides the danger of taxation.

I might think that you're just a poor imbecile who believes in the "good intentions" of the left but your speech sounds very lefty. So, you know what you're talking about. Things like "narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor" or "the rich pay less taxes than the poor" belongs only and exclusively to the left because what characterizes the left is the envy they feel toward the wealthy people. Lefties can't tolerate that a few people can have more money than the rest because that opposes their ideology of obssesive equality.

There is a plethora of reasons to explain per technological advancements over other countries, you have done nothing to show how this one factor is decisive.

The US is number one in technological advancements, no country can compare with that level of progress. Increasing taxes to the big companies can slow or even stop this progress because, as I said, those companies will have less available money to reinvest on new technological projects.

But don't worry, there is a hypothesis that you may find very exciting as the socialist that you are, it can change everything we know. I heard that it is possible that with the super AI people will not need to work anymore. You know, socialists don't like to work, that's why they look for this stupid equality. The AI and the robots can change the whole economy as they will be totally independent and will provide with everything people need. There will not be rich and poor because the AI will give everything we need. That's the wet dream of socialists. Lol.

Debby wrote:

Americans pay lower taxes than Canada. That is why they don’t have universal healthcare.

Noooooo shit!!

You've just discovered the powder, dear AI. Lol.

Double_R wrote:

After starting a whole thread on the dangers socialism, you have yet to engage in a single substantive discussion about it, and after I point out the *fact* that every developed nation on earth has some form of progressive taxation you tell me that’s all you wanted to read. Exactly, that’s all you wanted. You didn’t want information, you didn’t want to understand an alternative viewpoint, you certainly didn’t want your world view challenged, you just wanted that little snippet that you could use to keep throwing around a label that you’ve been brainwashed to believe is bad with no apparent understanding of why.

Bullshit. You're putting all the developed countries in the same bag when this is not true. Taxation is very different in the US and Europe. Europe can fuck you up with high taxes while in the US you pay much less which allows you to accumulate more capital for your business. That explains why there are more technological development in the US than in Europe.

But, hey, if you say you're not socialist, then you aren't. But there is some truth in all of this, you're the useful idiot of the left.

Double_R wrote:

Yeah, that’s how every society under progressive taxation works. If that’s socialism, then every developed nation on earth is a socialist country.

Well, that's all what I wanted to read. I have no more questions for you. It's pretty much clear to me that deep down you're a confused socialist who doesn't know where he stands.

Do you know who thought the same way? Yes, Marx and Engels. For them, progressive taxation was a double edged sword because on one hand high taxation can provide society with a fair welfare, but on the other hand it was a weapon to erode capitalism and transition to a socialist state. And it's true, progressive taxation can make a country reach a point in which capitalism is unsustainable and the economy wobbles because of the capital flight. No entrepreneur wants to stay in a place where the government clean them out with high taxes. Just see how people in California are fleeing to other states because an imbecilic lefty thought that progressive taxation was a good idea.

Don't bother answering me, I see the picture clearer.

Double_R wrote:

I am for Obamacare in that it is better than the alternative we had in place at the time.

I would prefer a single payer system, but never really looked that deeply into it to say if it’s the best alternative.

Let me get that straight. Are you for the current Obamacare or the program Obama proposed initially?

Because Obama proposed more taxes for the Obamacare. That proposal was refused but the current program operates in a similar way which is to force people to subsidize the medical insurance of the rest.

I'm catching a whiff of socialism in your argument, to be honest. It's also possible that as the Democrat militant that you are, you don't want to make Obama look bad.

Double_R wrote:

Let’s start with social security and Medicare. Do you approve of these programs?

These programs have existed throughout the entire 20th century. There is no reason to think that they are socialist programs.

I think you're confusing socialism with social assistance. I said it in my past comments but it seems you don't pay attention. There are critical aspects of a country that a government shouldn't neglect and one of them is the health of the vulnerable citizens. Some people might argue that this can distort the health market but I don't see how it could because these programs are usually focused on the vulnerable people. People that can pay for their health insurance shouldn't have benefit of those programs, otherwise we would be talking about a universal health coverage and that is fucking socialist. When you expand the government social assistance you spend more money and that results in a raise of taxes in order to cover the budget of the tremendous social spending. That chain reaction is what usually happens in a socialist government which eventually ends in the destruction of the economy.

With that being said, I suppose you're against the Obamacare as the non-socialist that you are. Right?

Double_R wrote:

Since you would later in the same post refer to an alternative as “soft socialism” it’s clear that you understand that there are very different degrees of “socialism” and insist on painting me with the most extreme brush you’ve got despite me being absolutely clear that it doesn’t describe my views.

To me a socialist and a woke (soft socialist) are the same shit because all of them long for communism. Always. Any woke will tell you that Cuba is (or was) an example of a society, specially those son of bitches that are in the international organisms like the UN, the WHO, the OAS, and the like.

This is what happens when you have no arguments. When you do not understand what you are actually talking about beyond the labels you were taught to throw around. You haven’t contributed a single meaningful thought throughout our conversation. Let me know when you have an actual idea to break down instead of a derogatory epithet.

I've just argued with general information about it. I mentioned Europe as a devastated example of how to spoil a succesful culture with a bit of "social justice". If you want to dismiss all what I said, that's your problem, not mine.

Anyway, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're a bleeding-heart liberal, a white man that feels guilty for the injustices of the world.

So, you were telling that you want a bit of socialism, right? Tell us, what kind of socialism you want for the US?

Double_R wrote:

Do you even know what I’m for? Have you bothered to ask me a single question to better understand what I’m telling you? Or are you right now just arguing with “the left”? Cause if that’s the case I’ll just leave the two of you alone.

I don't know what you're for but I certainly know what you're against. You said you are against the concentration of wealth and the gap between the poor and the rich. I mean, is there something more socialist than this? To me it's very clear, you're a socialist who doesn't have the balls to come out of the closet.

Sooner or later you will realize that you're a lefty because lefties don't seek justice, they seek obedience. For capitalism to work people need freedom and unfortunately socialism doesn't provide that to people. Capitalism and socialism are like oil and water so I don't know how you think to reconcile those ideologies.

Maybe you're thinking about a soft socialism like the social democracy practiced in Europe which is what Americans would call "wokism". If you keep up with the news, you'll know that this is not sustainable. Look at France and Britain, these countries are destroyed thanks to the "soft socialism" you want to pursue. Europe has almost zero technological development due to this soft socialism that limits the investment with high taxes. Europe is getting invaded by the goat fuckers from the Middle East who are raping their women and living at the expense of European taxes. Europe is going to go bankruptcy because of this soft socialism and the US with the Democrat party was trying to follow along.

Double_R wrote:

Nothing to do with capitalism? That literally *is* capitalism. What are you talking about?

No, capitalism is not about doing anything you want with your money. Capitalism is basically free market and private property rights.

You might be thinking, as the socialist that you are, that bribing people is part of capitalism. No, it's not. As many posters already said, inmorality is not inherent to capitalism but to human nature.

I really don’t think you have any idea what this conversion is actually about. Despite my clarifications earlier that socialism (as you are defining it) and capitalism are not separate things. Socialism exists within capitalism, the only question we have yet to settle on is how much socialism we want. You have yet to present a single argument to answer that question or even demonstrate that you are grasping the concept.

If you refer to the economy system, then the answer is no, we don't need a single shred of socialism because socialism is doom.

Socialim is diametrally opposed to capitalism because it seeks a utopian equality by means of coercion. Human beings are different from one another, meaning that there will always be someone more capable than you when it comes to productivity and wealth creation. That's a fact and we don't have to feel sorry about that. The problem occurs when certain people show up to try to convince us that this is bad, that these people are greedy and only are making people poorer. This is BULLSHIT. Firstable, the natural condition of human beings is poverty, and thanks to these people called greedy by socialists is that most part of the humanity went out of poverty. So, it's a fallacy to say that capitalism creates poverty. It's all the opposite, capitalism let people get out of poverty.

I can argue that capitalism creates inequality but this is not something bad per se. Inequality is also a natural condition of humanity and we can't do anything about that. Unfortunately, socialists like you think in their twisted mind that they can play "god" in order to revert this natural condition. So, they propose stupid policies that limit capitalism to make wealth which eventually reduces its capacity to reduce poverty. Just look at what the socialist Mamdani is doing to New York, he's freezed the rent of certain apartments and now all the prices are skyrocketing. He promised to reduce housing rent but he's doing the exact opposite. This is the problem of socialists, they don't understand shit about economy, that's why they end up destroying it.

Maybe you are thinking that social assistance is part of socialism. I don't think so. To my knowledge, the US always had social assistance and it was never considered a socialist policy. Socialism looks basically for the change of the economic rules in order to limit the freedom of people to create wealth because socialists think stupidly that people are going to be better off with less inequality, which is a fallacy in all sense. People usually vote for socialists because they think that it's morally correct to limit people's wealth but the truth is that this is inmoral because it only demostrates the envy of socialists. Socialists don't give a fk about poor people, they only care about people not getting too wealthy, like an envious person that don't like to see you thriving.

Reading your comments and Double_R's makes me want to blast my own balls off.

Dude, presidents come and go, I don't know why you get so worked up. Chill out!!

Just make sure to vote for Marco Rubio next elections. He has better manners so I think you will like him.

Double_R wrote:

The problem with capitalism is something inherent within it. In a capitalistic society, money = power, and basic human nature will always default to using that power to attain even more power. To put it more simply, wealth begets wealth.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion but I think you're confusing economy with politics. I can agree that politics have the power to control the economy, that's why many entrepreneurs lobby the government or the Congress for taking some advantage of the system, but they can't do anything by themselves, they need the politics. Maybe you're refering to what entrepreneurs can do with their money which has nothing to do with capitalism.

If you refer to entrepreneurs taking advantage of legal voids for making more money, that has nothing to do with capitalism either. Capitalism is not a moral system but an economic one. If a man kills another man with a kitchen knife, you can't blame that knife for the assassination. People need to understand that capitalism is a tool for progress, not for achieving social justice. The trap of socialists like you is that they convince people to believe that capitalism is the source of corruption, deceive and inequality when it's just a fkn mechanism for achieving wealth. Capitalism is amoral, so all depends on how people use it. Going back to the example of the stabber, it is as if socialists wanted to ban the use of kitchen knives only because people die stabbed. Ridiculous!!

So, capitalism is a tool, and as any tool that the man invents, we need a set of rules that prevents abuse from the people, because human beings are very corruptible. That's why China has progressed so much, because they understood that capitalism was just a tool so they kept communism in a political level.

As to the American economy, as I said, all the financial crisis had their origin in the stock market. So, the problem is the financial industry and the speculation. If the US fix it with new draconian rules like Singapore does, Americans will not starve any longer.

Sidewalker wrote:

You need to stay up to date, your handlers say replace the Socialism smear with a Communism smear, it's much scarier.

House GOP memo shows ‘socialist’ scare tactics aren’t working

You can't be an effective minion if you don't follow orders.

Pay attention.

Yes, that's the same shit some lefties used to argue when Hugo Chavez was running for office.

Ah, well, at last you're taking off the mask.

You should have said from the get-go that you are one of these Democrats who identifies as socialist so that I don't waste my time trying to figure out why you and Sidewalker (who strangely think exactly the same way as you) hate Trump so much.

Double_R wrote:

why don’t you tell us what you would do. How would you fix the economic conditions facing ordinary Americans today?

The user @linate, who has a socialist heart as you, opened several threads trying to convince us that there is nothing wrong about deploying socialism in the US. I mean, I don't deny there is an economic problem in the US because I heard a slice of pizza costs 6 bucks and that many Americans need two jobs to make ends meet. That's terrible and I feel sorry for that, but as I responded in those threads, the problem is not the capitalism but the system that is built over it, specifically the one created by the financial industry.

I don't want to expand on it because I don't have time but if you search it as "financialization of America" you'll find that the financial industry is distorting the market with pure speculation. So, I wouldn't say capitalism is the problem because this system is the most natural for human beings. In contrast, socialism is the worst system for us because it basically digs into our pockets to maintain a stupid idealization of equality.

Double_R wrote:

The difference between the left and right when it comes to Trump is that the left judges Trump by the same standards as we judge any president. The right has invented a totally different standard. Every insane thing he does is just Trump being Trump, which they say like it excuses the problem when it in fact is the problem.

Well, this comment of yours is very telling. You're practically admitting the Democrat party is a left-wing party.

Are you really conscious of what it's going on in the American politics? This is not a joke, dude. You should be worried about what the Democrat party is turning into. Socialism is not something you can play with, it's a dangerous choice.

Maybe the ignorance of Americans about the destructiveness of socialism is clouding their mind. Socialism can sound good at the beginning because it promises lot of things for the people, which can be partially true, but when you least expect it, you are fucked.

Double_R wrote:

Overwhelmingly, most people do not even know what socialism is. This has been especially perpetuated by the political right that has spent years attacking every policy they don’t like as socialism.

Well, I guess to you Mandamni is not socialist, he's just a Democrat who is bringing new political ideas. Lol.

Cut the shit out, man. Americans perfectly know what socialism is. There is no room for misinterpretations.

Besides, what I stated is not my opinion, it's a fact. Check out the news, the reality tells us that Americans are looking favorably on socialism (courtesy of Democrats). That's worrisome.

Public ownership of the means of production is the *literal* definition of socialism.

The US government owns what they need to own. To my knowledge, Trump didn't expropiate anything.

What I meant to say is that politicians usually exagerate in their promises. It's a presidential campaign, they have to sound self-assured, this is very common. Or do you think the last presidents did all what they promised in campaign? Obviously not.

I'm not sure why you dislike Trump so much. I guess because you're an old Democrat trying to defend your position or because you dislike his manners. Whatever it is, there is something true about all this, Trump is just the result of what the Democrats were doing to the US lately.

I opened a thread about how the Democrat party has been turning into the socialist nest that it is now. Since Obama admininstration, the US was shifting towards a dangerous path of wokism and socialism that was getting established in Biden administration. So, while the Democrats like you were looking at one another without doing shit about it, Trump decided to leave his confortable position to get into a battle against this ideological trend that has been polluting even the universities and schools.

I think Trump is the man the world needed to fight against the wokism, but he is also a bit arrogant and egocentric which are the flaws that lead him to the war with Iran. Maybe you don't like his personality but this is all what we have. Maybe Marco Rubio can be the man who finish the job. Whatever it is, you have to be in our side for the sake of the Democrat Party.

Are you Asian by any chance? Or you're just an AI created by an Asian?

fauxlaw wrote:

Unless it's changed since I spent time in Singapore in the 80s and 90s for weeks at a time in a dozen or more trips there, they didn't...

Yes, Singapore has the government humans deserve.

fauxlaw wrote:

Yes, I understand what you mean, but that concluding "book" of the Bible was unknown to John to be the concluding "book" of any collection of writings of the Gospels, etc, that was not assembled to be any collection in his time. That assembly was effected by the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE at the behest of Constantine, who wanted peace and order in his Empire and figured a unified religion would help accomplish that. It was the Council who decided John's Ἀποκάλυψις should conclude the assembled books. Any discussion by John that none of it should have any word added or removed spoke to his Ἀποκάλυψις and to no other book. Certainly not an assembly he did not envision. So John may have been referring to the end of his own age with the fall of the Roman Empire, thought by many, no doubt, to endure as long into the future as any man had reason to assume it endured from the past. Nope.

I'm not interested in hearing religous bullshit, so please just speak plain English.

I agree, when Jesus returns, there will, indeed, be a massive restructuring of governments of the Earth to pass on in favor of the government he, Jesus Christ, will establish, worldwide. That will, no doubt, cause many who will lose their power and prestige to gnash their teeth, at the very least. Not that it will do them any good; Christ will prevail, and those who believe on him and act by his Word.

If Jesus returns, he will be nailed to a cross again.

I'm not willing to defend Trump but I think he screwed up in the moment he decided to attack Iran.

As of his promises, that's the least of it. Nobody cares about what he said in campaign. In campaign politicians say only what people want to hear.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Don't surprise if Americans end up electing their own version of Fidel Castro. Sanders can be that person, or even worse.

Bernie Sanders?! Stop 🤣

Well, it's the first socialist that popped up.

SkepticalOne wrote:

Being nickel'd and dimed to death under out of control capitalism is empowering American socialism.

I agree.

Sidewalker wrote:

Trump has used regulatory interventions to take US Government ownership stakes in 30 corporations so far, is that what you mean by "nationalization of private companies"?

Are you saying Trump is a socialist?

Trump just did what many governments in the world usually do, which is buy a bit of participation in a private company.

It's not a big deal, Trump is not expropiating anything.

What I can criticize about Trump, though, is the terrible economic management he's carrying out. I heard that a slice of pizza costs 6 bucks in New York. That's crazy shit, man. With 6 bucks I can have a big piece of beef with a lot of sauce in the city where I live.

fauxlaw wrote:

According to the prophecies, [your #32]

What prophecies? When? By whom?

linate wrote:

What prophecies are you referring?

All the ancient prophecies of Apocalypse, including the biblical one which nobody fully understands because people think it's the end of the times when in reality is the end of an age.

I said it many times in DART, all the system we live in will collpase: politics, economy, religion, education, all of them will be replaced by a new system that our extraterrestrial friends will help build. Human conciousness will expand with new knowledge, technology and revelations.

Shoresy wrote:

After the violent dismantling of the US government, the new constitution will look more like Singapore's, where it's not easy at all to run up national debt. And hopefully, way stronger private property rights.

I pay to see that before I die.

Singapore is in another level and I don't think Americans are ready for that amount of discipline

Shoresy wrote:

Trump is but one branch of a massive weedbed of government. Violence is the only solution for reform at this point.

According to the prophecies, this financial crisis that is coming will trigger a worldwide revolution.

I wonder what system this revolution will bring. I don't think socialism is the system people want because the problem of liberal economy is just the corruption and the speculation. Socialism, on the other hand, sucks everywhere with or without corruption.

Shoresy wrote:

Are you really surprised that the party that prioritizes illegal invaders over American Citizens promotes a political ideology that mirrors every American rival?

No, I'm not surprised but there are a lot of users in this forum who think Democrat party is far from being lefty.

What a pity. There was a time when people couldn't tell the difference between Democrats and Republican, but look at it today. Fucking fuck.

Don't surprise if Americans end up electing their own version of Fidel Castro. Sanders can be that person, or even worse.