Who should be the next president?

[ER]

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money."

--Margaret Thatcher.

Someone explain to me, please, the morality of taking away the product of an industrious person, and giving it to someone else who did not work for it, because that is what socialism is. I fully get human greed, and know there is a sense of entitlement running rampant in American society, I just don't grasp how under the naked ruthlessness of the philosophy, it can also be justified as in any way fair. Why penalize hard work and success, and consequently reward indolence? Because that is exactly what Sanders' platform would achieve.

Can anyone cite one, just one, time in all of human history when socialism outperformed capitalism? Or even distributism? Or for that matter Communism, which had the advantage of being able to terrorize a little productivity out of those enslaved under it?

I think in pre-industrial times a socialist model would have been even less tolerated than today, since in a population of hunter-gatherers or agricultural laborers, a lazy person would have stood out as even more apparent. Why would someone go track a deer all day and give most of it to someone who did not go track and kill and haul in a deer? Or to someone who did not till a field and harvest it?

So why should it be any fairer when someone works for a living and in effect presents a portion of those hours of labor to someone who did not work? Can you imagine--just imagine---you make something with your own hands, a birdhouse, a knit sweater, a painting, and then some people who were standing around while you made this came over and said, "Part of what you just created belongs to me." Would that sit well with you? Probably not. Yet invisibly (or sometimes not so invisibly) that is what socialism  puts into effect.

I've said it before but I think Billy Corgan hit the nail on the head: "I wrote these songs. Why should someone who didn't write them make money off them?"

To take that back a degree, I work, so why should I work part of the time to make up for someone who isn't working? Where is the motivation to innovate, to labor, to be exceptional, when that is penalized, or when being lazy allows you to take another person's work and profit from it?

Socialism is not fair and it has failed so often it astonishes me that it still has any appeal, but then again the lazy and greedy and impressionable will always be among us. There will always be a new crop of young out to shock their elders and do it better than they did. There will always be have-nots envious of those who have more. There will perpetually exist groups who resent and criticize and seek to punish and to climb ahead on someone else's efforts. The cool thing is, though, while the lazy have the numbers, the rest of us tend to be better educated, personally stronger...and better armed. :-)

Want a more prosperous life? Work harder! Stop blaming other people. Stop wanting what you haven't earned. People get what they deserve more often than they like to think in this life, and more often than not we lie down in the bed we made for ourselves.

Socialism destroys what it touches. Why it will not roll over and die I have no idea.

My kid got me up two hours early today, so I'm feeling more annoyed with the stupidity and laziness of the ever-yapping world than usual. Therefore this place inherits my rant.

[Skull]

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money."

--Margaret Thatcher.

Someone explain to me, please, the morality of taking away the product of an industrious person, and giving it to someone else who did not work for it, because that is what socialism is. I fully get human greed, and know there is a sense of entitlement running rampant in American society, I just don't grasp how under the naked ruthlessness of the philosophy, it can also be justified as in any way fair. Why penalize hard work and success, and consequently reward indolence? Because that is exactly what Sanders' platform would achieve.

The problem is that most people don't understand that sloths are taking away money from hard working people. They view the system as what I have and what I can live by vs what somebody else has and why don't they settle for less?



Sanders platform was intended to make Hillary Conservative lite. The only problem was that too many democrats want 'Santa Claus 2' therefore she had to bend towards Sanders. Sanders was never intended to be nominated on the democrat side because there seemed to be a deal made in 2008 that Hillary would run for the democrats in 2016. This is why there was no other 'good' democrats running for president. And I also believe this agreement went to the rhino side because Jeb Bush would never had a chance to win (especially because the American people were brainwashed into believing that his brother killed the economy).

 

My kid got me up two hours early today, so I'm feeling more annoyed with the stupidity and laziness of the ever-yapping world than usual. Therefore this place inherits my rant.

Political rants are always welcomed :)

Skull, I get the fact that you like Trump.  I DON'T.

I understand that you don't like Trump. I've always understand it. But I don't understand your reason. Sorry but it don't make sense since you seemed to like the republicans from the start. Sure Trump is no Conservative, but neither was McCain or Romney. And Trump is nothing like Hillary.

I've never liked Obama, this goes way-way back in 2006 or 7 when he voted for a law that allowed doctors to kill surviving aborted babies. I hated Hillary when the first words came out of her mouth was "You didn't just vote for Bill but you also have me as President." (I was like who the f**k voted for a first lady for president!) I also know she was calling the shots while Bill was getting his BJ.

And so far I had not saw a democrat policy that did any help; besides keeping voters slaved to vote for the machine. I'm from Chicago and all I see is corrupt democrats.

I know the reasons why I hate Obama and Hillary and why I like Trump... Sorry but I still don't know why you hate Trump (it seemed to me that you are buying into the media anti-Trump propaganda but you seemed to be smarter then this... Heck, you said it yourself that you don't like Glenn Beck.)


Sorry but that's why I keep hounding you on this :)

[lester1/2jr]

India - Libya is a total disaster. if that's your template for our "place in the world" it's a better argument against empire than I could ever make.

[indianasmith]

We toppled a strong man and then pretty much did nothing once he was gone - and chaos took over.
It should have been handled much better.
I have pretty much come to the conclusion that it takes a thug to rule barbarians; we just need to make sure it's the right kind of thug.
Otherwise, we get more Libyas.

[ulthar]

Another terror attack in France last week...no word on US MSM as of yet.

[ulthar]

Do you think Breitbart is different from other media for some reason?  You've linked them a few times now.

I specifically picked Breitbart articles hoping you would asking this exact stupid question.

Are the facts reported in the articles linked true or not?  If the MSM were reporting facts, I'd link to them as well, but they are not.

They're blatantly biased in favor of Trump and alt right stuff.

So, a Tu quoque fallacy, then?

The alt-right 'media' are the only ones reporting on this stuff.  The MSM is ignoring some BIG stories, such as the degree of protests (by leftists) at the Democrat Convention.  And, it was shown LIVE on periscope and other live streams as it was happening, not just reported by Breitbart the next day.

  I guess they don't even attempt to be impartial, so that's different?  I wouldn't normally say anything, but you're repeatedly denouncing media coverage, so it's hard not to comment on it.

What are you commenting on, specifically?  Are the facts in the story or not?  Facts are not up for "argument" and nor are facts "impartial."  A story happened or it didn't.  A tweet was made or it wasn't.  Again, the MSM has the opportunity to report on what is happening/has happened, but they refuse to do so.

I linked above to a long article where "the media" turns introspective, and there was a lot of good stuff there.  I'm guessing you did not read it given you mistakenly think I'm pandering to my own 'selection bias' by linking to Breitbart a couple of times (and to be sure, Breitbart is not the only source I've referenced).

Unsurprising. I also notice people who were crowing over polls showing Trump in the lead post RNC now imply the new ones are rigged or selective in some way. 

And, who are those people exactly?  Nearly everyone I've been reading and/or talking to predicted an HRC bounce after the convention as always happens.  I did see one person predict, during the Convention, that Clinton would get a 'negative bounce,' but that was just one.  And, I don't know if anyone took that prediction seriously.

Do you have links showing people saying these specific polls are rigged against Trump?  I kinda doubt it but would love to see 'em if they exist.  I just did a quick online search and saw no result quoting anyone saying these polls are rigged.

The big stories on the 'rigged elections' commentary have been regarding the INTERNAL rigging inside the DNC favoring Hillary over Sanders.  THAT's what everyone has been talking about in keeping "rigged elections" in the news: that Clinton stole the nomination from Sanders.

[Jim H]

I didn't comment on the actual Breitbart story as my intention wasn't to criticize the story itself. I was honestly curious on your POV after hearing your previous negative comments on the media in general and wantrd to hear your thoughts on Breitbart - it wasn't intended as a loaded question.  Your attitude, insults, and now admitted baiting makes it obvious you're an unpleasant person to talk to about this stuff, so I won't any longer.

[Skull]

I have pretty much come to the conclusion that it takes a thug to rule barbarians; we just need to make sure it's the right kind of thug.

There is an issue with Islam Religion and it's called Sharia Law...

[ulthar]

I didn't comment on the actual Breitbart story as my intention wasn't to criticize the story itself. I was honestly curious on your POV after hearing your previous negative comments on the media in general and wantrd to hear your thoughts on Breitbart - it wasn't intended as a loaded question.  Your attitude, insults, and now admitted baiting makes it obvious you're an unpleasant person to talk to about this stuff, so I won't any longer.

So, predictably, nothing but ad hominem and no substantive response to my questions. 

Specifically: If Breitbart is a news source reporting on the story, and their story contains irrefutable facts, why NOT link to them as a reference to the story?

Saying "I don't like what you are saying" is not a logical argument.

To again answer your question, as I have stated numerous times now, my reason for linking to stories is to relate facts. 

Breitbart is reporting those facts; the MSM is not. 

That's my POV.  I'll link to news source publishing articles relevant to the discussion of the campaign for US President.  As I pointed out above, I HAVE linked to other news sources, some of which (in ad hominem fashion) could be criticized as being "left leaning."

Facts are facts, but for some reason (which I actually DO understand), they are anathema in contemporary American discourse on serious topics.

So, this whole "Why is Breitbart ok by CNN is not?" bit is nothing but deflection.  It is the content of the Breitbart article that we SHOULD be discussing.

So, in regard to the last article I posted:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

Is it true or is it not that the MSM failed to properly vet their story on a figure the Clinton campaign pushed upon the public?

Is it true or is it not true that the when called on this amateurish attempt at vetting their story, the MSM response appeared coordinated and nothing but deflection?

There are other facts reported in that story, and they merit discussion...or, at least knowing about.  The story is interesting, and weaves a CONTINUING tapestry of corruption in the Clinton campaign and the MSM's failure to do their job as "The Fourth Estate" in reporting THAT story.

In short: the reason I linked to Breitbart for this story was that was where the facts of story were reported.

[ulthar]

Some interesting names on this list, and interesting comments they made back in 2015.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/trump_s_first_believers_from_joe_scarborough_to_a_masculinity_expert.html

[Skull]

Some interesting names on this list, and interesting comments they made back in 2015.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/15/trump_s_first_believers_from_joe_scarborough_to_a_masculinity_expert.html

LOL I thought this post was meant for this tread :)

[ulthar]

LOL I thought this post was meant for this tread :)

{Yep.  Not once but twice.  Call me a "Can't Read a Thread Title Goober" now!}

Control the Narrative, control the culture.  As culture goes, so goes politics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/03/wearing-dont-tread-on-me-insignia-could-be-punishable-racial-harassment/

This is what the NeverTrump crowd has not accepted.  Trump has broken this kind of stranglehold on the public discourse.

Consider the new Hate Speech laws in Britain and how similar laws are being applied in Germany as foreshadowing for what is down the path we in the US are on.  People are being jailed for asking questions about Merkel's immigration strategy.

"Hate speech" as a crime, as it's defined in European jurisdictions, is up to the listener.  There is no uniform way to apply such a law.  It rests SOLELY on someone claiming a given word or phrase was offensive TO THEM.  This seems to be part of the argument Volokh is making; there is no specific harassment outlined in the suit's public record.  The entire suit is based on one person's interpretation of what the hat MIGHT have meant and only to ONE individual.

This has serious repercussions in the legal system. No other crime is based on a subjective, after-the-fact opinion of victimhood.  Theft, rape, robbery, murder...these things are based on objective fact.  "Someone said something I did not like" is not, cannot be, a crime in any rational justice system at least pretending to be fair to all citizens.

But further, it's the uneven application of this "Hate Speech" ideology that is problematic.  Twitter's recent flap with banning conservatives for less than they let those inciting violence is an example, as is Facebook's selectively filtering posts, deleting links (to "Conservative" sources, like, um, wikileaks - hardly traditionally conservative) and banning/blocking users is another.

There are several major, fundamental issues being fought over in this election.  If we can rise above the day-to-day and step outside the personalities of the two major candidates (one of which will be the next POTUS), we can distill the election to a small number of core Constitutional principles.

For example, do we believe in "Freedom of Speech" or not?  I'm not talking about the specifics of "Congress Shall Pass No Law..." but rather the spirit with which that amendment was written.  If the wikileaks scandal has not focused attention on what this ultimately means, I don't know what will.

The degree to which the MSM fell all over itself trying to discredit the leaks without addressing the content AT ALL should be very telling.  One side in this election has no philosophical commitment to Freedom of Speech. 

[ulthar]

A handy quote from Libertarian commentator Stefan Molyneux:

"Political correctness is an attack on any knowledge that would serve to curb state power."

That sums up the lion's share of MSM's complicity in pushing "The Narrative" and playing Alinsky's tactics; they are in the bag for "the State."  Further, it explains the ire against Trump - from both the left and right Statist establishments.

This one's worth repeating, since Molyneux's quote gives it some present day context:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

--Joseph Goebbels

{my emphasis added}

In a nutshell, this is why alt-right news sources are able to crack the narrative: the narrative is a BIG FAT LIE.  Propaganda always reveals itself eventually.

[LilCerberus]

I'm every bit as sick of that ad as Trump is! I can't believe the press is now trying to pretend it hasn't been playing all day, every day for month's on end!

Ludicrous!

[Allhallowsday]

Apostrophe "s" is the possessive case.  Just add an "s" to pluralize in most cases.    

A handy quote from Libertarian commentator Stefan Molyneux:

"Political correctness is an attack on any knowledge that would serve to curb state power."

That sums up the lion's share of MSM's complicity in pushing "The Narrative" and playing Alinsky's tactics; they are in the bag for "the State."  Further, it explains the ire against Trump - from both the left and right Statist establishments.
This one's worth repeating, since Molyneux's quote gives it some present day context:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
--Joseph Goebbels

{my emphasis added}
In a nutshell, this is why alt-right news sources are able to crack the narrative: the narrative is a BIG FAT LIE.  Propaganda always reveals itself eventually.