/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

i mean yall can argue and throw shit at literal buzzwords.

you really think that in the future anyone is going to call themselves democrats or socialist or liberals or whatever? we can't imagine a world without democracy but i can assure you that a 12th century peasant or noble or monarch could not imagine a world without feudalism.

ive stopped associating myself with set and rigid systems of ideology, the only ideology i subscribe to is humanism, if you care about the continued improvement of the human race i suggest you start reading about what humanism is.

and before someone calls me a dickless contrarian its not that i dont subscribe to the political system, i believe that in the current state of affairs democracy is a good thing, but there is some people who can't imagine having the same quality of life living under a different system of government and to that i would like to point to Singapore as a model that will more than likely become more and more popular.


Democracy will fail us purely through the fact that the voterbase is an uneducated mob of constant knee jerk in and out voting and reactionary politics, couple that with the rise of identity politics (to which i don't blame minorities for, purely from an empathetic standpoint, when the majority constantly pushes a us vs them rhetoric it is only logical that minorities will cement that as an integral part of their political thoughts).

You elect a leader that promises you that building upside down houses is the future and then the next decade you get convinced that regular houses are okay and so you go one step forward and two steps back.

ShadowDimentio wrote:
>As soon as Trump mentioned it

They should have pursued citizenship the moment they found out they weren't citizens.

>Actually going through on promises

See that's where another issue begins. Even if a commie got elected to president, and even if they were hell bent on bringing about the glorious communist utopia to the US, it would be an AGONIZINGLY slow process (assuming it ever went through) because the political machine would do everything it possibly could to stop it. Admit it or not, communism is VERY unpopular with a LOT of people, rich and poor. It would take ages for whatever movements they wanted to come into practice, during which time the rich will have been long gone.

The rich should have started giving to the poor instead of hoarding their loot before socialists started talking about wealth redistribution. It cuts both ways, you see.
Also everything doesn't revolve around the US. Socialism will never happen in the US, you have an unwavering 2-party system, you were brainwashed for 50 years into hating anything remotely socialist and your democrats are economically on the centre-right part of the spectrum compared to european moderate leftist parties.

ShadowDimentio wrote:
Because we're talking about communism. Grazyn flat out said "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"

I specified that society has to met strict requisites before true and complete wealth redistribution becomes feasible. That's what Marx said. In the meantime, taxing the rich is the next best thing.

>They should have just given us their stuff before we got jealous of them

Of course, of course.

>The US hates socialism

Good. Better dead than red.

>>lets completely disregard theories created by some of the worlds best economists because it has a semi relationship to an enemy we defeated a few decades ago.


its like being afraid of a spider you stepped on 20 fucking years ago.

ShadowDimentio wrote:>They should have just given us their stuff before we got jealous of them

Of course, of course.

>The US hates socialism

Good. Better dead than red.

I don't think you understand the meaning of need in that sentence

Also, Marx (actually other socialists) expands on that:
"things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work."
Keyword: pleasures. But no, tap water and bowl of rice, that's true communism amirite

Oh I understand it. I also understand that wealth under communism is required to be spread equally, so the only way anyone is allowed to have something is if EVERYONE has it.

ShadowDimentio wrote:Oh I understand it. I also understand that wealth under communism is required to be spread equally, so the only way anyone is allowed to have something is if EVERYONE has it.

A socialist utopia wouldn't even have money. If the workers have the power, people would use labour vouchers to acquire goods. But it is just that, utopia. We should strive for it, but there are easier steps to make that can bring about social equality in some ways.

>Labor vouchers

That's literally all modern money is though.

Why don't we just call it tax
Not 'redistribution', just a tax on any wealthy organisation that wants to do business within the borders of whatever country is doing it

And if they don't pay the tax, they don't get to do business.
Wow, I just solved the problem of rich people leaving when taxes go up, they can't leave because the source of their wealth is in that country and if they refuse to pay the tax it will just go to someone else who does pay

ShadowDimentio wrote:>Labor vouchers

That's literally all modern money is though.

Labour vouchers are quite different as in they're personal and non-transferable, they cannot circulate and so on. You only use them to "buy" stuff, then they are destroyed. The workers' state owns all the means of production anyway

Grazyn wrote:A socialist utopia wouldn't even have money. If the workers have the power, people would use labour vouchers to acquire goods. But it is just that, utopia. We should strive for it, but there are easier steps to make that can bring about social equality in some ways.

How many times are people going to fall for the abolishment of currency meme.

Gimme latinum

ohnopigeons wrote:

Grazyn wrote:A socialist utopia wouldn't even have money. If the workers have the power, people would use labour vouchers to acquire goods. But it is just that, utopia. We should strive for it, but there are easier steps to make that can bring about social equality in some ways.

How many times are people going to fall for the abolishment of currency meme.

I dunno, people are stupid enough to believe communism is a viable system of governance and that Marx wasn't an imbecile who was wrong about nearly everything.

ShadowDimentio wrote:
I dunno, people are stupid enough to believe communism is a viable system of governance and that Marx wasn't an imbecile who was wrong about nearly everything.

I don't know whether to laugh or be sad that some people are just this ignorant and stupid.

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Gimme latinum

For real though, the Ferengi got a bum rap and were the buttmonkies of literally everyone for no good reason. Especially when they're actually right about a lot of things.

leibniz wrote:1. Postcounts have no use to you
2. Your posts only have value because us, the visitors, read them
3. If 90% of your count was taken and distributed evenly you'd still be in the top
4. High postcounts are unfair to new users, it is hard to tell right away if someone is mentally unsound when they havent made lots of post like our veterans

whitelist nukeops team lead

>Advocating robbing the rich
>Shadow getting mad about stuff
>Star Trek

Neat, I missed a bit

What do you think is a fair tax rate for the rich? It certainly isn't the high numbers y'all seem to want, that's the kind of shit that made US corporations start kicking manufacturing jobs elsewhere, or owning a broom closet in a tax haven country and enjoying THOSE tax rates instead

Takeguru wrote:owning a broom closet in a tax haven country and enjoying THOSE tax rates instead

any rates higher than those of these very tax havens will make them do that anyway

ShadowDimentio wrote:

ohnopigeons wrote:

Grazyn wrote:A socialist utopia wouldn't even have money. If the workers have the power, people would use labour vouchers to acquire goods. But it is just that, utopia. We should strive for it, but there are easier steps to make that can bring about social equality in some ways.

How many times are people going to fall for the abolishment of currency meme.

I dunno, people are stupid enough to believe communism is a viable system of governance and that Marx wasn't an imbecile who was wrong about nearly everything.

Marx suggested giving every worker a gun and gun rights so they could defend themselves from capitalists and crooked politicians, and a whole lot of other very positive and reasonable things
Jokes on him though, he just got remembered for 'Lets just take the rich's stuff'

As for the tax rate on the rich- It's high only because they bullshit the taxes already. There's so many completely legal loopholes for both rich persons and for organizations that raising the taxes on them won't help pay for anything. Instead of 'Tax the rich more', the idea should be to simplify the system and eliminate all the bullshit that lets them avoid paying to begin with.
And then not all taxes are equal, a tax on dividends, stocks, rent income, management bonuses, and so on can be reasonably high. Taxes on profits, products, and basic operational needs should be kept low.

That's as far as I can be arsed to write, I'm not running for office or some shit so I'm not going to look into it further

CosmicScientist wrote:I thought Marx got remembered for his manifesto being what redditors read on iPads whilst drinking cappuccinos? As-in a slightly better fate than the anarchist's cookbook
.

Ah yes the age-old "how dare you criticize society while living in it"

Also LOL at cappuccino being a symbol of capitalism, I forgot people in socialist countries drink toilet water inside their mud huts

Takeguru wrote:What do you think is a fair tax rate for the rich? It certainly isn't the high numbers y'all seem to want, that's the kind of shit that made US corporations start kicking manufacturing jobs elsewhere, or owning a broom closet in a tax haven country and enjoying THOSE tax rates instead

Taxing the rich isn't what made them move manufacturing elsewhere. The rich is irrelevant in the day to day margins of corporate operations. If you're going to blame it on a tax there's a case to be made for the (formerly) high corporate tax rate. But that's not the main reason.

CosmicScientist wrote:

Grazyn wrote:

CosmicScientist wrote:I thought Marx got remembered for his manifesto being what redditors read on iPads whilst drinking cappuccinos? As-in a slightly better fate than the anarchist's cookbook
.

Ah yes the age-old "how dare you criticize society while living in it"

Also LOL at cappuccino being a symbol of capitalism, I forgot people in socialist countries drink toilet water inside their mud huts

Normie journalists took avocado on toast from me and I don't read the right newspapers to know the right opinion. Some might say I'm left out!

Becoming age old response: Venezuelans don't drink toilet water in mud huts?!

But more srsly, it was the age old imagine someone identifying with something to grab attention whilst outwardly being the opposite of who would be advantaged by said identity to make the identity sound ironically outdated. Because I was hoping someone else heard that joke and then we could talk about how those same redditors probably want digg to update to the new and improved mobile user interface that is horrible and wastes screen retail of anything wider than it is tall.

Venezuela was corrupted by the black water of capitalism: oil. It poisons the mind, body and environment. I look forward to the day we as a species will break free from the shackles of oil but I know it won't happen in my lifetime.

Also I get your joke but I know there are people who believe that unironically. Why shouldn't I enjoy the few good things that society offers just to gain some sort of moral high ground that would be ultimately useless anyway? Even if I embraced a poor hermit lifestyle (which I'm not even advocating) it wouldn't magically make you agree with me or make my arguments stronger. This is proved by the fact that people who actually do that are seen as weirdos or fade into anonymity, with some achieving mild international coverage like former president of Uruguay Pepe Mujica, before inevitably fading away. So, who cares?

dont sell yourself short there buddy.

people seem to think that the death of oil will be when we run out but that's not entirely the case, the death of oil will come when we can find a more economically viable option that isn't bottlenecked by middle eastern countries that are usually anti=western.

you think the massive push towards renewable is entirely due to a altruistic desire to save the planet? hell no, it's funded by western governments so they become less dependent on OPEC and Russia for oil and natural gas.

It's not just Western countries. China, the worst polluter in the world, is rapidly embracing renewable energy and green technologies. Out of necessity.
Saudi Arabia isn't anti-western. Western countries are pro-Saudi.

Also what's with the demonization of oil, I get the environmental issues but where are all these moral concerns coming from? It's an extractive resource, much like iron ore for steel or rare earths for your electronics and renewable energy.

This thread is boring now

CosmicScientist wrote:I thought Marx got remembered for his manifesto being what redditors read on iPads whilst drinking cappuccinos? As-in a slightly better fate than the anarchist's cookbook.

ColonicAcid wrote:citizenship is the biggest restraining social construct of the 21st century

quote me on this

Damn it, this wasn't a problem back in the empire days!

Takeguru wrote:... that's the kind of shit that made US corporations start kicking manufacturing jobs elsewhere...

I thought the standard excuse for that was worker pay? Not income tax or organisation/corporate(?) tax? Mainly since I thought to get around the latter it was a matter of where your HQ was located, oh Bermuuuda~, Ireland~, tiny nations~ and then income tax was fiddling the numbers otherwise.

Ireland is not a tax haven, it's just made itself extremely attractive to business because it has a relatively stable economy and a low CBI tax rate.

https://www.rt.com/news/426827-north-ko ... lks-trump/

North Korea has canceled a summit with South Korea and has threatened to call off a summit between US President Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un over American military drills with South Korea, according to South Korean media reports.

Is anyone surprised?

Makes you wonder why China hasn't just cut NK loose considering all they do is make trouble for them

Anonmare wrote:Makes you wonder why China hasn't just cut NK loose considering all they do is make trouble for them

Because having an ally to the USA right on their border is something they cannot really accept. They already have Taiwan right on their doorstep, North Korea is essentially a buffer state for them.

Trump needs the win or at least the appearance of a win and thus nk has him by the balls.

Hes gotta do what they say and when they say it or else this entire deal comes crashing down and trump will have succesfully achieved zilch since hes been elected.

Watch this space.

He has achieved a whole lot of deportations and human trafficking has dropped to the lowest since 1900-something

Kind of was his platform

He's done or is working on everything he promised. He doesn't "need" the win at all.

Oh yes. Staying out of Syria sure seems to be going great. Those bombs dont count, right?

I suppose less bombs than Obama, but still

It's pretty easy to have less bombed civilians than Barack "Won a Nobel Prize for ????" Obama

Takeguru wrote:It's pretty easy to have less bombed civilians than Barack "Won a Nobel Prize for ????" Obama

Least ones that A. get the job done, B. Doesn't infringe massively on the public in order to build up a confident intelligence network to use drones for assassinations in effect that actually don't stop the stem of the problem as much as cut the heads off the hydra to suppress it. MOAB's are earth shatteringly effective at making entire ISIS camps and the tunnels just collapse and vanish for the price of one, rather than over-feed drones to do the dirty work on wet-work intelligence collecting.

North Korea has cancelled the recent talks because of the combined SK and US military exercises that are happening as standard, Kim's afraid as fuck of a invasion but lets hope Trump that use that to his advantage to reassure and pull him into a better deal now he's started pulling apart his nuclear weapon testing facilities and has less capacity to act on his threats. Though backing him into a corner entirely would be a bad thing, we don't want him to flip sides and take up better relations with China, Russia or anybody else.

did you not read where i said trump has very little leverage to do anything to north korea???

hes not going to invade them, he's not going to be able to topple the government and he's as charismatic as an aspergers quadriplegic.

i guess people just assumed that trump was going to roll up to NK and say "get rid of those nukes" give a thumbs up and Kim would be like "wow you make a compelling case i agree entirely let me just remove all these nukes."

hell no, there's going to be concessions that have to be made, whether that's trade agreements, non-aggression pacts, bridge building or investing opportunities, and in return then Kim will get rid of the nukes.

As I said, watch this space.

ColonicAcid wrote:he's as charismatic as an aspergers quadriplegic

Literally what do you know about charisma?

Ive always been a good public speaker so a bit i guess?


Fuck u trynna say what the fuck do u know about me you mook

I don't know how someone can say that Trump isn't charismatic unless they have no experience of social interaction whatsoever.

Compare Trump's mannerism and body language to this guy and tell me again that Trump isn't charismatic

[youtube]DdCYMvaUcrA[/youtube]

Grazyn wrote:I don't know how someone can say that Trump isn't charismatic unless they have no experience of social interaction whatsoever.

Compare Trump's mannerism and body language to this guy and tell me again that Trump isn't charismatic

[youtube]DdCYMvaUcrA[/youtube]

I mean, I'd just point to the crowds he pulls on the regular as evidence enough. Setting the bar down at Yeb! levels is pretty ground floor.

look at when trump tried to hold his wifes hand in public and got rejected.

look at his ridiculous attempts to assert dominance by doing the stupid handshake where he pulls someone towards him.

look at his tweets that scream insecurity.

look at throughout his history as a business man the attempts to sway public opinion thru use of alter egos whilst he doesn't even attempt to change the way he writes (Which is the exact same way he speaks, a whole lot of superlatives "trump has the most calls from any woman, the best woman" etc etc)

trump fills theaters of people because of his message of anti-establishment, not because he's oozing with charisma. In fact, you pretty much proved my point by posting a video of jeb who has even less charisma than trump and he still manages to fill out theaters.

CosmicScientist wrote:Different strokes for different folks. Though we all have to admit he doesn't have endless charisma, after all, despite holding hands with Theresa and Macron, he'll have a challenge of managing it with Lizzie, especially if he doesn't get a state visit.

Given what the top politicians here manage, at least the ones that are in high positions with a lorra media coverage, I'd hate to find out if the charismatic dregs start above or below the knees on the political ladder.

Why would he care about a monarch with little to no power and even less to live? I mean, even Berlusconi didn't care when he shouted Mr. Obama! in front of the queen and she got upset

[youtube]Ryw6kAfzESo[/youtube]

she should just accept that her subjects already don't care about her and foreigners definitely don't and shouldn't give a shit about what she thinks

Come on now, posting Jeb is just a low bar

Even my brother is more charismatic and he argues pure fallacy just to piss people off

XSI wrote:Come on now, posting Jeb is just a low bar

Even my brother is more charismatic and he argues pure fallacy just to piss people off

Sounds like a fun guy.

>Trump, a lifetime celebrity and TV actor now turned politician has no charisma
>Because he's had some awkward moments

Hot take my dude

>WWE hall of famer
>isn't charismatic

I despise Trump and everything he stands for but I have no problem saying that he has charisma. Also if you say he isn't charismatic then you have to admit that he won thanks to his political ideas and not because of his magnetic personality and media manipulation

trump winning is a multitude of factors and the planets aligning just correctly.

there is no one reason that you can point to as to why he won. i mean you can try but the world is a pretty complex system and nothing is ever so simple as X happened because Y.


Now if you truly think that being a celebrity charisma is the same as having a politicians charisma i want to have whatever the fuck you're smoking because whilst yes, trump may have been a media icon before hand everything that he's shown in the political stage shows him as a bumbling retard who can barely form coherent sentences. It doesn't help that he also airs his dirty laundry on twitter any chance he gets.

You're all mistaking confidence for charisma lol.

Trump mainly won thanks to 2 things. The first one is called Bernie Sanders. The second is the media who wanted a horse race to raise ratings because a predictable landslide victory doesn't bring in viewers so they propped him up as a credible threat to hillary and it all went downhill from there

My untrained political eyes saw the following happen in the 2016 US elections:

Bernie got fucked over by a reverse Spoiler Effect, where the Democrats were so worried about a Spoiler Effect happening with him and Clinton that they didn't let him run and put a less popular candidate in the running. Democrats might have won if they went for Bernie who was more popular compared to Hillary.

Political apathy also contributed to poor voter turnout because, in a lot of people's words, they were voting between two people who they didn't really like.

Third party spoiler effects also stole voters away, and to be perfectly frank - a non-democrat/non-republican candidate has zero chance of winning in the US due to it being a FPTP system and Game Theroy tells us that Nash Equilibrium will always prevent a third party from winning outside of exceptional circumstances.

The Mainstream Media are also to blame for poor voter turnout, having grossly misrepresented facts in an attempt to dissuade republican voters and having it backfire in the form of democrat voters believing they wouldn't have to vote because the media said there was no way they could lose.


Pretty much self-fulfilling prophecies all around