USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

«‹›217 »

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

# ? Aug 28, 2018 05:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:33

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

Those who oppose Medicare for all must be destroyed.

# ? Aug 28, 2018 06:56

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Nonsense posted:

Those who oppose Medicare for all must be destroyed.

Do whatever you like, their atoms will still exist :smugbert:

# ? Aug 28, 2018 07:46

Grognan: Jan 23, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Nonsense posted:

Those who oppose Medicare for all must be destroyed.

but will it solve x?

# ? Aug 28, 2018 08:57

Party Plane Jones: Jul 1, 2007; by Reene; Fun Shoe

Nonsense posted:

Those who oppose Medicare for all must be destroyed.

through death panels?

# ? Aug 28, 2018 12:15

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Death panel is just a euphemism for guillotines

# ? Aug 28, 2018 12:22

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

theCalamity posted:

Death panel is just a euphemism for guillotines

I always thought it was the wall of pictures of people that got guillotined, like those walls at restaurants covered in pictures of people that ate their novelty dish.

# ? Aug 28, 2018 16:59

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Do whatever you like, their atoms will still exist

Cremate them, capture the output gas, encapsulate it and their ashes in zircaloy, and feed it through a research reactor enough times that you can be reasonably sure that >99.999% of their atoms have been transmuted into different elements and are thus new atoms. :science:

# ? Aug 28, 2018 21:27

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Magres posted:

Cremate them, capture the output gas, encapsulate it and their ashes in zircaloy, and feed it through a research reactor enough times that you can be reasonably sure that >99.999% of their atoms have been transmuted into different elements and are thus new atoms.

What about the Quarks?

# ? Aug 28, 2018 22:27

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

MSDOS Kapital said atoms, not subatomic particles :colbert:

# ? Aug 28, 2018 23:07

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

dont u fuckin scope creep on me

# ? Aug 28, 2018 23:10

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Yeah I thought about saying "baryons" but figured it wouldn't scan well :shrug:

# ? Aug 29, 2018 01:38

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

We could do subatomics they're just annoying and afaik you need a particle accelerator to generate the antiparticles you'd need to annihilate the baryons for proper disposal.

Research reactors are easy peasy just slap a name on a grant proposal that's like "investigating a new method of destructive neutronic interrogation of organic matter for detection of transuranic elements" and you're good.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 02:11

Terror Sweat: Mar 15, 2009

drilldo squirt posted:

But then who will donate billions to democrats?

Lmao Dems are waaaaaaay cheaper than that

# ? Aug 29, 2018 03:39

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Single Payer Medicare for all should really be the centrist compromise starting from a position of a single provider system like the NHS which is really the best option.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 15:15

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

I think I may have realized one of the fundamental differences between Sanders and Warren: Warren focuses more on the banks and any policies or regulations affecting them can take a while for the results to filter down to the regular population. Sanders, OTOH, attacks corporations on the behalf of workers, especially those who are exploited heavily.

I could be wrong though.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 19:05

The Little Kielbasa: Mar 29, 2001; and another thing: im not mad. please dont put in the newspaper that i got mad.

Warren and Sanders both present themselves mostly as neo New Dealers. I think that's what Warren is, and what Sanders thinks he can get away with.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 19:13

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

theCalamity posted:

I think I may have realized one of the fundamental differences between Sanders and Warren: Warren focuses more on the banks and any policies or regulations affecting them can take a while for the results to filter down to the regular population. Sanders, OTOH, attacks corporations on the behalf of workers, especially those who are exploited heavily.

I could be wrong though.

Warren is fundamentally still a capitalist. She sees reform of the free market as a possible and valid goal, and her policies thus focus on policing and monitoring abuses of market systems. Sanders, on the other hand, is focused on building non-market-based solutions (Medicare for All, etc.)

Of the two Sanders is more directly engaged with actual problems individual people are dealing with. Warren's proposals are not bad in and of themselves, and if you're ranking members of the Democratic party she's about as far towards the good side as anyone you'll find, but most of her proposals stop short of what's necessary.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 19:15

theCalamity: Oct 23, 2010; Cry Havoc and let slip the Hogs of War

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Warren is fundamentally still a capitalist. She sees reform of the free market as a possible and valid goal, and her policies thus focus on policing and monitoring abuses of market systems. Sanders, on the other hand, is focused on building non-market-based solutions (Medicare for All, etc.)

Of the two Sanders is more directly engaged with actual problems individual people are dealing with. Warren's proposals are not bad in and of themselves, and if you're ranking members of the Democratic party she's about as far towards the good side as anyone you'll find, but most of her proposals stop short of what's necessary.

Thanks. You said it a lot better than I did

# ? Aug 29, 2018 19:19

selec: Sep 6, 2003

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Warren is fundamentally still a capitalist. She sees reform of the free market as a possible and valid goal, and her policies thus focus on policing and monitoring abuses of market systems. Sanders, on the other hand, is focused on building non-market-based solutions (Medicare for All, etc.)

Of the two Sanders is more directly engaged with actual problems individual people are dealing with. Warren's proposals are not bad in and of themselves, and if you're ranking members of the Democratic party she's about as far towards the good side as anyone you'll find, but most of her proposals stop short of what's necessary.

CAR METAPHOR: Warren thinks we need to tinker with the way the car works a little, and doesn't see the need to make major changes to the design or who we pick as a driver. Sanders has ambitions that could either end up with an incredible public transportation system, or Homer's Car, but he definitely is not ok with either the current design or the choice in drivers.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 20:15

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

selec posted:

CAR METAPHOR: Warren thinks we need to tinker with the way the car works a little, and doesn't see the need to make major changes to the design or who we pick as a driver. Sanders has ambitions that could either end up with an incredible public transportation system, or a tesla model 3, but he definitely is not ok with either the current design or the choice in drivers.

fixed this to be more up to date

# ? Aug 29, 2018 20:17

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Warren is fundamentally still a capitalist. She sees reform of the free market as a possible and valid goal, and her policies thus focus on policing and monitoring abuses of market systems. Sanders, on the other hand, is focused on building non-market-based solutions (Medicare for All, etc.)

Of the two Sanders is more directly engaged with actual problems individual people are dealing with. Warren's proposals are not bad in and of themselves, and if you're ranking members of the Democratic party she's about as far towards the good side as anyone you'll find, but most of her proposals stop short of what's necessary.

Capitalism and markets aren't quite the same, and her proposal to force worker representation on boards at public corporations is not capitalist.

It's not enough (only being 40%), and she's doing it at a time when there's no possibility of the bill passing much less overriding a veto - so there is plenty of room for cynicism. Still, an ardent capitalist wouldn't consider such a proposal.

She's about as liberal as you can get without completely sucking rear end, but she's the second-best Senator and would make a good President, relatively speaking.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 20:33

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Capitalism and markets aren't quite the same, and her proposal to force worker representation on boards at public corporations is not capitalist.

It's not enough (only being 40%), and she's doing it at a time when there's no possibility of the bill passing much less overriding a veto - so there is plenty of room for cynicism. Still, an ardent capitalist wouldn't consider such a proposal.

She's about as liberal as you can get without completely sucking rear end, but she's the second-best Senator and would make a good President, relatively speaking.

She's a capitalist. She herself says she is "capitalist to the bone." That's a direct quote, no need to quibble. This is exactly a policy a capitalist trying to save capitalism would propose. She's trying to make corporations "good" rather than make them irrelevant.

Here's more of her own words making her ardent support for capitalism clear: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/elizabeth-warrens-theory-of-capitalism/568573/

quote:

Franklin Foer: All the investment bankers who have voodoo dolls of you might be a bit surprised that you recently described yourself as �capitalist to the bone.� What did you mean?

Elizabeth Warren: I believe in markets and the benefits they can produce when they work. Markets with rules can produce enormous value. So much of the work I have done�the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, my hearing-aid bill�are about making markets work for people, not making markets work for a handful of companies that scrape all the value off to themselves. I believe in competition.
...
Foer: I�ve heard your latest proposals described as an attempt to save capitalism, which implies that it�s in pretty dire straits. How dire do you think the state of American capitalism is?

Warren: I worry both for capitalism and for democracy. People across this country once believed that folks who work hard and play by the rules have a chance to be able to build real security and that their kids will do better than they did. Today, that dream runs into a very hard reality that this is now a world that works better and better for a smaller and smaller number of people. That's a problem for capitalism and for democracy at the same time.

Foer: There�s so much talk right now on the left about socialism, which seems somewhat misguided given everything you say capitalism has to recommend itself.

Warren: I love the competition that comes with a market that has decent rules. I love the structure that encourages anyone with a good idea to try their hand in business.

Foer: When Franklin Roosevelt talked about the crisis in capitalism, he looked and he saw the left and alternatives to capitalism emerging, and that was one of the things that he was able to argue to the country�to say, �Look, we need these reforms in order to save this system, in order to prevent something dangerous from happening in another direction.�

Warren: Okay. You�re taking it to a hundred thousand feet, which is great, but my argument is far more personal. We need to make capitalism work for your family and we need to make democracy work for your family ... It�s not that you�re wrong, I�m just saying this is where I land it, right with how families experience this economy. A rising stock market is not helpful to the half of all America who own not one single share of stock. Rising productivity that doesn�t translate into rising wages for the people who actually do the work is not building a better future for them. Costs that are skyrocketing for education and health care and housing put a squeeze on families that are struggling with flat wages, so every one of those is about the lived experience, and that�s what colors our view of both capitalism and democracy in 2018.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 20:50

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Trabisnikof posted:

She's a capitalist. She herself says she is "capitalist to the bone." That's a direct quote, no need to quibble. This is exactly a policy a capitalist trying to save capitalism would propose. She's trying to make corporations "good" rather than make them irrelevant.

It's also a policy that partially implements democratic socialism, especially if you raise the numbers as bit. You can't say that forcing every corporation to be basically a workers' co-op is still capitalist.

While I don't disagree that she's a "capitalist" (in the sense that she believes markets are efficacious in certain contexts, at least, which passes for capitalism usually), nor that she's coming at this from the perspective of "saving capitalism", the actual policy she's pushing here is something I would enthusiastically support. Parts of it, anyway.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 21:31

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

It's also a policy that partially implements democratic socialism, especially if you raise the numbers as bit. You can't say that forcing every corporation to be basically a workers' co-op is still capitalist.

While I don't disagree that she's a "capitalist" (in the sense that she believes markets are efficacious in certain contexts, at least, which passes for capitalism usually), nor that she's coming at this from the perspective of "saving capitalism", the actual policy she's pushing here is something I would enthusiastically support. Parts of it, anyway.

I think there is a huge overlap in the venn diagram of Capitalism and Democratic socialism that people don't understand. You say the word socialism and all of a sudden people think markets would no longer exist. I don't know how Capitalism became "The only economic system that allows for markets" in the public consciousness, but man is it annoying.

Warren is indeed a capitalist, but not in the sense that we have grown used to the term. People seem to forget that it's much more about who profits from those markets and not about the markets themselves. Warren just wants to put the focus back on that aspect, and not argue pointlessly over whether socialism or democratic socialism is a better term for her end goals.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 21:38

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

Capitalism and markets aren't quite the same, and her proposal to force worker representation on boards at public corporations is not capitalist.

It's not enough (only being 40%), and she's doing it at a time when there's no possibility of the bill passing much less overriding a veto - so there is plenty of room for cynicism. Still, an ardent capitalist wouldn't consider such a proposal.

She's about as liberal as you can get without completely sucking rear end, but she's the second-best Senator and would make a good President, relatively speaking.

That's a fair point, especially about the proposal to force worker representation on corporate boards. Still, I think rhetoric also matters -- it indicates a candidate's range of acceptable options -- and her general policy framework revolves around reforming and restructuring market systems, not (for example) nationalizing the health care industry as a whole.

But yeah if my choices are Warren and any almost anyone else, short of Bernie or AOC, I'll happily pull the lever for Warren.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 21:40

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I don't know how Capitalism became "The only economic system that allows for markets" in the public consciousness, but man is it annoying.

People conflate socialism with communism and the absence of private property at all, is my read of it.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:17

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

People conflate socialism with communism and the absence of private property at all, is my read of it.

I think you are correct, but it's not even true with full communism (unless i'm terribly mistaken). You still have markets and personal property...

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:22

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

People conflate socialism with communism and the absence of private property at all, is my read of it.

It's conditioning; every time I try to talk about market socialism around here the discussion gets derailed infinitely into various digressions about which kinds of socialism are real socialism and which aren't

this is also why I call myself a Georgist

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:22

Magres: Jul 14, 2011

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

People conflate socialism with communism and the absence of private property at all, is my read of it.

people also incessantly conflate personal and private property and it's infuriating

"LOL COMMIES CANT OWN THEIR OWN HOUSE"

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:41

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Cuomo Received $25,000 From Weinstein Lawyer�s Firm as He Suspended Probe

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo halted an investigation into the Manhattan DA�s handling of the Harvey Weinstein case just as the law firm representing the Hollywood producer gave Cuomo�s campaign $25,000.

Last year, a political firestorm erupted when journalists revealed that Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein�s lawyer David Boies gave $10,000 to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in the months after Vance declined to prosecute the movie producer on sexual assault charges. Now, less than a year later, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has halted an investigation into the handling of the Weinstein case just as Boies� law firm gave Cuomo�s campaign $25,000, according to state records reviewed by Capital & Main and Sludge.

https://capitalandmain.com/cuomo-received-25000-dollars-from-weinstein-lawyers-firm-as-he-suspended-probe-0829

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:44

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

I think you are correct, but it's not even true with full communism (unless i'm terribly mistaken). You still have markets and personal property...

I'm not sure what markets are going to look like if private property is abolished. Can you elaborate?

# ? Aug 29, 2018 22:58

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm not sure what markets are going to look like if private property is abolished. Can you elaborate?

It sounds like you are/may be confusing personal and private property, as mentioned above.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:21

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Ytlaya posted:

It sounds like you are/may be confusing personal and private property, as mentioned above.

I'm not.

Without private property (collectively-owned, or otherwise), what would a market even look like? There's nothing to trade.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:36

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm not.

Without private property (collectively-owned, or otherwise), what would a market even look like? There's nothing to trade.

Ytlaya posted:

It sounds like you are/may be confusing personal and private property, as mentioned above.

yes yes you are. private property is not personal property.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:39

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I'm not.

Without private property (collectively-owned, or otherwise), what would a market even look like? There's nothing to trade.

you can own things in a communist system dude. It's not actually like those forward emails where it's 'well son if capitalism is bad maybe everyone in the neighborhood should be allowed to play your nintendo whenever they want'. Private property is like 'you can't rope off a hunk of land and say 'this is mine now, if anyone comes in here I get to fuckin shoot them'. You can have possessions. You can have, like, a TV and it's your TV and you need to go get a TV to watch football on and that's where interacting with a market would be even if private property is abolished.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:47

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

sexpig by night posted:

you can own things in a communist system dude. It's not actually like those forward emails where it's 'well son if capitalism is bad maybe everyone in the neighborhood should be allowed to play your nintendo whenever they want'. Private property is like 'you can't rope off a hunk of land and say 'this is mine now, if anyone comes in here I get to fuckin shoot them'. You can have possessions. You can have, like, a TV and it's your TV and you need to go get a TV to watch football on and that's where interacting with a market would be even if private property is abolished.

Trabisnikof posted:

yes yes you are. private property is not personal property.

No, I'm not. I know the difference between owning a toothbrush and owning a mill.

I'm beginning to suspect y'all think I'm talking about the grocery store when I say "markets" though. (edit: sexpig by night, at least, appears to think I'm talking about the loving grocery store)

Tell me what purpose markets serve in the absence of private property. Alternately, if you're going to continue to insist I don't know the difference between private and personal property, tell me the difference.

MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Aug 29, 2018

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:48

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

I gather, just like the distinction between private and personal property, there needs to be a distinction between "markets" in the sense of buying, selling, and trading personal property, and in the sense of buying, selling, and trading privately-owned capital. My original point to HY!L is that there is no room in communism for the latter.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:56

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I gather, just like the distinction between private and personal property, there needs to be a distinction between "markets" in the sense of buying, selling, and trading personal property, and in the sense of buying, selling, and trading privately-owned capital. My original point to HY!L is that there is no room in communism for the latter.

Yes there is a big distinction between "markets" and "capital markets," most people don't assume you only mean "capital markets" when you say "markets."

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:33

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:

I gather, just like the distinction between private and personal property, there needs to be a distinction between "markets" in the sense of buying, selling, and trading personal property, and in the sense of buying, selling, and trading privately-owned capital. My original point to HY!L is that there is no room in communism for the latter.

This is exactly the disconnect. I think we agree.

# ? Aug 29, 2018 23:58

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

«‹›217 »