AutistoMephisto @ AutistoMephisto @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

374

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your point? The USA became the model for the western world in many respects after WW2, I would not be surprised if French billionaires make their money the same way American billionaires do.

People who make money by investing. In the USA, the top 1% earn their income through investments, usually the purchase and sale of stocks. These are not taxed the same as regular income because they made the argument that you can't really tax unrealized gains on investments that are sold, and it takes a while for the gains to actually materialize. Also, they tend to store their money, their liquid assets, in countries with looser tax laws, called tax havens. Much of their net worths are tied up in investments. Businesses, homes, art, classic vehicles, precious metals futures, oil futures, boats, etc.

Assessing the value of all of that is a chore, and they also pay lobbyists to keep the IRS defanged so that they don't have the resources needed to go after the 1%. And don't get me started on how much more speculative the stock market has become. Investors buy stocks, not on the expected dividends they'll receive as a share of the profits of the business, but on their ability to flip the stock and sell it at a higher price to another investor, who is only buying because they anticipate flipping the stock. It's like if a whole neighborhood of single family homes gets bought up buy a few house flippers, who make renovations, then put the houses up for sale, and sell to new flippers, who are only buying so they can make further renovations, increasing the value of the property again to sell to yet another flipper, ad nauseam.

You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35

Yep. Gotta figure someone who's 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn't seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I'm sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.

That is true, I hadn't considered that. Project 2025 does indeed call for curtailing the sovereignty of the individual States. Perhaps not explicitly, but they will leverage the Supremacy Clause as well as the Commerce Clause to usurp the powers of States they don't like.

Which wouldn't be very "muh states rights" of them, but they don't care.

But how does Federalism line up with fascism? What the other user is talking about in the original setup where if you don't like the State you live in being stuck in the 1800's, you can leave if you want, the Federal Government guarantees your safe passage to a State living in modern times.

Ur ur ur ur ur

MUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDAMUDA

You're not wrong. The main issue is that the Democratic Party is more like 15-16 different smaller parties in a big trenchcoat. Some are in there by choice, others had to get in because they weren't strong enough to stand on their own, and didn't want to have their ideas not be heard by somebody.

So you've got all these different groups beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting, and you are a Democratic Party candidate for the House. Now, to win you need votes and funding. There's a lot of things that you know your base cares passionately about that you know they have no hope of ever getting from Republicans, but unfortunately they are also things the big ticket donors despise. So, this begins the delicate dance of appealing to all the different groups AND to wealthy donors. Faced with that challenge, what should you do? Well, in practice what happens is your average Democrat tends to pivot away from policy and focus more on process. Y'know, uncontroversial things like bipartisanship, decorum, compromise. And while the lack of these things in DC is something everyone left of center is sick of, they're not things Democrats can make happen all by themselves, and, moreover, none of them are results. They are means by which results are achieved. "A willingness to compromise" is not a position.

But see, most Democrats see that the fragile coalition that makes up the DNC rests upon their backs. Should the coalition survive, or should we let it die?

Personally, I think we should do away with it. Yes, we are the "Big Tent Party", willing to welcome all who do not identify as "conservatives", give them a home and a place for their ideas to grow and be heard. Once upon a time, I think the coalition served a genuine purpose. But now, we are a rudderless ship, at the mercy of the storm. One day, someone will take command and right the vessel. On that day, some of the crew may disagree with the captain, and either mutiny or jump ship, and that's on them if they do.

Well, if you want the history of the Heritage Foundation, look back to the 70's. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell penned a memo to the US Chamber of Commerce titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System" in 1970, and in this memo, he detailed his concern that America's best and brightest students were becoming anti-business because of our involvement in Vietnam. Powell’s agenda included getting wealthy conservatives to set up professorships, setting up institutes on and off campus where intellectuals would write books from a conservative business perspective, and setting up think tanks. Three years later, the Heritage Foundation was founded.

Why do that when they can just declare us all in violation of some obscure law and make prisoners of us all? The 13th Amendment has a loophole that allows slavery as a punishment for a crime.

And once we're dry, they'll find someone else to fleece. Most likely when we ourselves can't afford the stuff they're forcing us to make. At that point the US will fully shift to an export economy based on slave labor that ships goods and products to nations with growing middle classes that can afford them, like China.

They're using the same language as rapists, thieves, murderers, and cops.

If I hurt or kill you because you chose not to comply, its your fault, not mine. You forced my hand. You could have just let me have my way, but no, you had to resist.

Honestly. It would be nice if a former fascist government sent troops to liberate us. Germany, want to return the favor we did you back in the 1940s? We need the help, and maybe you can prevent a new Holocaust. Now, I'll grant that it will be tougher, as we are a nuclear power and nuclear powers can pretty much do what they want on the world stage. You guys didn't have those when we came along and cleared out your fascists. Don't worry, though. If you do send a force to liberate us, I'll comply with all their orders and give them whatever assistance they need.

Look at his words a little deeper, and you'll pick up the thinly veiled message. He's not saying anything that a rapist has not said to a victim before, during, and after the act. What he said was "as bloodless as the left will allow".Said another way, "Don't resist our brazen coup attempt and you will not be harmed. Everything is going to be okay. Don't resist, don't struggle, don't fight. Just let it happen. You want this, I can tell."

Yes, beset by a mountain of conflicting interests and decades of infighting and ideological purity testing. Most Democrats are terrified of taking stances on wedge issues because any stance they take could break up a coalition that has all the durability of a Faberge egg. Republicans either don't have this problem, or they don't have it as bad. Despite having as many if not more factions than the Left, they all value loyalty and in-group cohesion, which allows them to come together every 4 years to form a unified voting bloc.

Funny that they considered a game where you kill fascists as "fascist propaganda". Like, without the propaganda, how do you know they're fascists?

You're not wrong, but the mics being turned off worked against Biden. Because his mic was cut off during the debate, Trump had free reign to spew falsehoods like a damn fire hose, and Biden had no time to even go, "Will you shut up, man?"

It is illegal, you're right, but they want to destroy the legal definitions of many things so that they can write new ones. So suddenly, teaching kids about how their bodies work becomes "grooming". Being anything other than a straight white Christian male makes you a "sex offender". Reading anything other than the Bible to kids is "indoctrination", and so on.

They've spent many years and billions of dollars studying the power of language and ideas. They have framing the issues from their perspective down to an art form. If you control what words mean, you control debate and democracy.

This sarcasm doesn't help. But to answer your obviously facetious question, no, I can't fix everything. But what I can do, is consider that perhaps pursuing justice rather than manners might actually be "going high". And if Republicans are going to break rules, I'm certainly within my rights to bend them. We can all agree that "The ends justify the means" is a shitty moral philosophy, but you liberals tend to overcorrect to the point where thinking about the ends at all is -in some vaguely reflexive kinda way- innately immoral.

And I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but even I know there is a moral imperative to disobey the rules when following will not lead to justice.

I can also call a fascist, a fascist. Instead of simply requesting that the rules be followed, and trusting that fascist ideas will be voted against, we should do to fascists, everything that they would do and have already done to us.