American Politics

[Chris P]

(...kkkk!) The truth! Yeah Right!

Are you denying that there are 23 schools in Baltimore city without a single student who is at age-level proficiency in math? Or that the spending per public school student in Baltimore is the third highest in the entire country?

That is the truth. Strangely, leftists have been unable to suggest any reasons for this state of affairs. Perhaps you'd like to give it a try?

[Chris P]

Tooms' posts are so Dems good, Republicans bad, no one needs to read what he says. Every post is the same. He is like Bagdad Bob in the Iraq war.

I have this image of Tooms setting up a soapbox on a street in democrat San Francisco in democrat California to livestream one of his rants about how great the democrats are, and in the background a bunch of homeless junkies are lying strung out on the sidewalk. One of them wakes up, stumbles over and relieves himself on Tooms's shoes, but Tooms doesn't notice because the stink of human excrement is already so strong everywhere in the city.

Then as he continues with his Bagdad Bob speech ("the republicans are committing suicide in their tanks! When a bunch of thugs raid the Apple store behind him, and make off with tens of thousands of dollars of gear. There are a group of police outside but they do nothing, partly because the democrat mayor has ordered them not to risk criminals' wellbeing by chasing them, and partly because they don't want to be stabbed, shot, or George Floyded while defending themselves.

Instead the cops approach Tooms and arrest him for making a speech on public property without a permit. Tooms protests that it is his First Amendment right, but they don't seem to know what the First Amendment is. As they handcuff him, Tooms slips on a patch of human shit and lands facefirst in the yellow river streaming down the street from the junkie who earlier pissed on his shoes.

As the cops pick him up and push him into the squad car, his last action is to scream "Long Live the Democrat Party!

[EihTooms]

So, Elvis puts me on ignore, then he broadcasts to everyone that he put me on ignore, but apparently that's not enough, so he proceeds to argue with me -- wait, he can't keep arguing with someone he's put on ignore, can he? Is that how "ignore" really works? KKKK.

Elvis, buddy, since I haven't put you on ignore, I can assure you that your so-called facts are not facts; they're lunacies. And not just about politics either. You were the one who hilariously claimed that HIV can't be transmitted via heterosexual intercourse, remember?

And listen, you, a "douche" buster being upset about that "name calling" business? Come on! Doesn't become you.

I think the Head-in-the-Sand posters' new "Ignore Feature" here is to whenever possible avoid directly challenging the inarguable facts that, for example, I post since they never have the facts on their side to refute them but to instead refer to me and what they cannot refute in safe replies to other posters who, they must assume, will not expect them to provide any substantiation for their lunatic assertions.

Sure looks that way to me anyway.

[Xpartan]

Tiny, Tiny, Tiny. Please don't have such a tiny view of the world. What you have done there is chosen 5 winners from the capitalist marketplace. You have omiitted all the innumerabkle losers that the wiinners ALWAYS must go with. So if you select USA, you must also select South And Central America and Africa, bcos these countries are the CONSEQUENCE of the USA success.

The video I posted explains very clearly why there have been few success socialist stories. Bcos they have been smashed by bombs, illegal coups and sanctions, bcos they stood in oppoition to the neo-liberalism that they wanted to change. Isn't it obvious?? Also note that the USSR had the fastest growing economy for much of the 20 thC.

You're just too funny. You know the expression the proof's in the pudding?

Where is your pudding? Where is the USSR today? Did anyone bomb it? Coups, sanctions? What?

Where are the socialist states of the Eastern Europe? Did anyone bomb them? Coups, sanctions, any other misdeeds from evil capitalists?

Why with the first chance, they dumped socialism (all of them) and went back to the old and trusted market economy, huh?

Why is it that the only true socialist countries in the world today (namely Cuba and North Korea) are also the poorest and most miserable?

Pudding dude!

[Tiny 12]

Your missing the main point here Tiny. Capitalism only has winners if there are an equal or greater number of failures. You can't point to a winner and say 'look and how great capialism is' bcos you would also need to point to the related failures to give a fair reflection. What that means is that USA and UK and blah blah, would not be "successful" if there were not a huge number of impoversihed and exploited people living on next to nothing in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia. That cannot be ignored.

And I agree with your teacher of socialism. Imagine this Tiny. Imagine you live in socialist world which for whatever reason you don't like. And every now and then a country steps forth and decides that it wants to set forth and try a new economic model called capitalism. But every time a country tries it, it is bombed to smithereens by the world's leading powers, or it is isolated like a plague of lepers and sanctioned until its population die of starvation. And then I tell you: "look, capitalism just doesn't work. The evidence is all around you. ".

What would you think of that Tiny?

Hi JustTK, I believe the USA would be a lot better off in general if it hadn't gone around overthrowing regimes and getting involved in needless wars during the last 100 years. Yeah, your argument may make sense in isolated instances, like the United Fruit Company in Central America, but they pale by the side of the lives and money we've wasted on wars. And on giving up commercial opportunities, like trade with Venezuela.

I do not buy that capitalism is a zero sum game. The transition from socialism to capitalism, and globalization, and improvements in technology have lifted billions out of poverty. The globalization and technology came largely as a result of capitalism.

I did business years ago in a small, poor Asian country that went through an extended period of socialism. More than one person told me something to the effect of "our GDP per capita in 1965 was the same as Singapore's. Look at us now." Singapore's per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power is now 9X higher. The people in that country are smart and entrepreneurial, and like Singapore the country has a system based on British common law. The biggest difference is the economic system.

[JustTK]

But your explanation doesn't make sense to me because you're only looking at third world countries where crony capitalism, rent seeking, absence of the rule of law, and coups were common.

Your missing the main point here Tiny. Capitalism only has winners if there are an equal or greater number of failures. You can't point to a winner and say 'look and how great capialism is' bcos you would also need to point to the related failures to give a fair reflection. What that means is that USA and UK and blah blah, would not be "successful" if there were not a huge number of impoversihed and exploited people living on next to nothing in Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia. That cannot be ignored.

And I agree with your teacher of socialism. Imagine this Tiny. Imagine you live in socialist world which for whatever reason you don't like. And every now and then a country steps forth and decides that it wants to set forth and try a new economic model called capitalism. But every time a country tries it, it is bombed to smithereens by the world's leading powers, or it is isolated like a plague of lepers and sanctioned until its population die of starvation. And then I tell you: "look, capitalism just doesn't work. The evidence is all around you. ".

What would you think of that Tiny?

[Beijing4987]

Anybody remember Henry "Make the Economy Scream" Kissinger. Or the numerous coups in South America? BTW: Hong Kong is not a country.

[Tiny 12]

Tiny, Tiny, Tiny. Please don't have such a tiny view of the world. What you have done there is chosen 5 winners from the capitalist marketplace. You have omiitted all the innumerabkle losers that the wiinners ALWAYS must go with. So if you select USA, you must also select South And Central America and Africa, bcos these countries are the CONSEQUENCE of the USA success.

The video I posted explains very clearly why there have been few success socialist stories. Bcos they have been smashed by bombs, illegal coups and sanctions, bcos they stood in oppoition to the neo-liberalism that they wanted to change. Isn't it obvious?? Also note that the USSR had the fastest growing economy for much of the 20 thC.

I'm not that familiar with the events described in the video. I may read up on Morales and Indonesia. I agree that the USA Embargo on Cuba has been a disaster and the USA had no business helping to overthrow Lumumba.

But your explanation doesn't make sense to me because you're only looking at third world countries where crony capitalism, rent seeking, absence of the rule of law, and coups were common.

Your argument is similar to my Marxist government professor's. He said you can't say that socialism doesn't work because it's never really been tried. That's not a very convincing argument to me.

Taking a quick scan through the following, it looks like the USSR's economic performance was only impressive during Stalin's time, as a result of mobilization of men and resources, not as a result of improvements in productivity. Or put another way, maybe treating your people like slaves is a good way to juice GDP growth.

https://nintil.com/the-soviet-union-gdp-growth/

[JustTK]

Hi JustTK, Can you provide an example of a socialist country that's produced as much innovation or prosperity, on a per capita basis, as the United States, Switzerland, Ireland, Singapore or Hong Kong?

I can't think of a single truly socialist country that was an economic success story. That's why you no longer see socialism in its pure form, except in a few economic basket cases like Cuba and North Korea.

Tiny, Tiny, Tiny. Please don't have such a tiny view of the world. What you have done there is chosen 5 winners from the capitalist marketplace. You have omiitted all the innumerabkle losers that the wiinners ALWAYS must go with. So if you select USA, you must also select South And Central America and Africa, bcos these countries are the CONSEQUENCE of the USA success.

The video I posted explains very clearly why there have been few success socialist stories. Bcos they have been smashed by bombs, illegal coups and sanctions, bcos they stood in oppoition to the neo-liberalism that they wanted to change. Isn't it obvious?? Also note that the USSR had the fastest growing economy for much of the 20 thC.

[Tiny 12]

This is where we totally disagree. Please explain the mechanism of socialism that will prevent or slow innovation? What is it about worker ownership that will prevent innovation? I just don't see what you see. I thiink you are assigning smthg to socialism that does not exist. Most of the best modern innovations have come from the public sector. And in the past they came from common individuals.

Hi JustTK, Can you provide an example of a socialist country that's produced as much innovation or prosperity, on a per capita basis, as the United States, Switzerland, Ireland, Singapore or Hong Kong? Those are the reasonably-sized developed countries with the lowest government revenues and expenditures as a % of GDP. And they also have the highest per capita GDP, when you kick out the petrostates.

I can't think of a single truly socialist country that was an economic success story. That's why you no longer see socialism in its pure form, except in a few economic basket cases like Cuba and North Korea.

[JustTK]

I think the point is being missed. We do not have capitalism today. We have crony capitalism or fascism in the USA. The Bill of Rights has been destroyed, and the irony is that has been the left not the right doing it.

Hi Elvis.

I don't think so. Most rational people that understand economics recognise that 'pure capitalism' is an illusion. It cannot exist in the real world. As soon as we have a winner and a loser in the market place, we have imbalances in wealth and power, and that always leads to cronyism, corruption and exploitation.

Biden is just a stooge, someone who has been in government 50 years skimming off $ while selling influence and everyone knows it. Even though he can barely speak a sentence and has to be fed lines lest he make a fool of himself, the media has been told to treat him with kid gloves, and they have.

I think among the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made was allowing unlimited financial donations to candidates. Government is supposed to be like an impartial referee that steps in when there are problems.

All agreed. That is why I say the USA is the most corrupt nation on Earth. It's Govt is 100% corrupt. Sanders would never be allowed to be president.

So yeah, I do think capitalism is the answer... Sure, there are some things that should be in the hands of government for the public good, but you are not going to grow the pie with socialism.

This is where we totally disagree. Please explain the mechanism of socialism that will prevent or slow innovation? What is it about worker ownership that will prevent innovation? I just don't see what you see. I thiink you are assigning smthg to socialism that does not exist. Most of the best modern innovations have come from the public sector. And in the past they came from common individuals.

[PVMonger]

And? I am unaware of any social media companies that do not have policies about derogatory remarks. The world is not being deprived of critical information when someone says someone else is a punk ass * I could care less if that post is kept up or not. Hell, you guys say worse about Trump all the time, and no one censors you.

Are you trying to equivocate this with the all right wing censorship and the stuff about 1-6, the vaccine, Covid, and Hunter Biden's laptop? Really?

You were the one who didn't believe that Donnie the Dumbass didn't request that Twitter take down a post that was critical of him and insinuated that it didn't happen because I didn't provide links. Than, when I provided links, you come up with some bullshit what doesn't even pertain to what your issue was in the first place.

So I will ask you one more time. Did Donnie the Dumbass (or his minions) ask Twitter to take down a tweet that was critical of him? A simple YES or NO will suffice.

You are the one accusing "the left" of spewing hate towards conservatives and that social media is complicit in that effort. But when "the right" does exactly the same thing, all we hear is "crickets" from you. And, FYI, the fact that rightwingnut media didn't report Donnie the Dumbass' actions, does not mean that it didn't happen. What it means is that rightwingnut media didn't want you to know. Just like has been pointed out in Dominion's lawsuit against FUX Snooze.

[Xpartan]

PVM, I have Spidy on ignore because all he does is name call. When you call someone the devil, you are done IMO because you are calling me and everyone who voted for him, 75 million people, evil, and that means you do not have a functioning brain when it comes to difference of opinion. If you look at the red-blue divide as good versus evil, I am done with you.

Xpartan is so factually challenged I had to put him on ignore. He would challenge my facts and was too lazy to look them up.

So, Elvis puts me on ignore, then he broadcasts to everyone that he put me on ignore, but apparently that's not enough, so he proceeds to argue with me -- wait, he can't keep arguing with someone he's put on ignore, can he? Is that how "ignore" really works? KKKK.

Elvis, buddy, since I haven't put you on ignore, I can assure you that your so-called facts are not facts; they're lunacies. And not just about politics either. You were the one who hilariously claimed that HIV can't be transmitted via heterosexual intercourse, remember?

And listen, you, a "douche" buster being upset about that "name calling" business? Come on! Doesn't become you.

[Tiny 12]

Likewise, for heaven's sake didn't believe ANYTHING that FUX news tells you. The propaganda they spew, will rot your brains and have you killing your family members (true story).

While corruption is definitely rampant in politics, don't be fooled, the Republicans are masterful at the craft of grifting the system. You only have to look no further than you last president Donnie "the Devil" J. Dummkopf. Even you would vote for him as "dog catcher". To coin a phrase, "the fish rots from the head".

Ranking The States From Most To Least Corrupt
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...least-corrupt/

In this more comprehensive report on corruption, it shows per capita, Louisiana is the most corrupt state, followed by Mississippi.

The writer appears to believe that the survey of state political reporters is the best measure of corruption. And on that list, seven of the top ten states voted for Biden.

Mississippi and Louisiana are small states. I bet there were many times more corruption convictions in Illinois, New York and California than MS and LA. And Mississippi and Louisiana suffer from a culture created by over 100 years of misrule, prior to 1965, by the Democratic Party.

Tooms is probably going to bring up a similar argument about Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Monaco in another post I made this evening. And you'll probably agree with him while you disagree with me about Louisiana and Mississippi. You guys would have no problem understanding how the failure to segregate data by age groups blows away antivaxxers argument that the vaccines result in a higher probability of hospitalization from COVID. But when it comes to looking at literacy, corruption and homicide rates, your numeracy and analytical skills become sadly lacking.

[Tiny 12]

What Elvis and the rest of the rightwingnuts will do is yell "FAKE NEWS" at the top of their lungs. Primarily because you posted articles from CNN and factcheck. Org and other (according to them) "fake news" sources. 'Cause if something isn't reported by rightwingnut media then it didn't happen. And they all seem to forget that Donnie the Dumbass told his sheep at a rally to get vaccinated and they boo'ed him.

What you're saying is that if the news source agrees with your point of view, it's not biased. From allsides.com,

"From 2017 to 2021, the bias of CNN's web news shifted significantly, from Center, to Lean Left, to Left. CNN, its employees, and its content are commonly associated with liberal media bias by voices across the political spectrum in the public discourse. ".

The majority or most of the rest of the sources you guys pull from are rated "lean left" or "left" by Allsides. That's true of The Intercept, the Guardian, and Global News in Tooms' post that you quoted. I don't think Factcheck is particularly biased, but I don't necessarily trust them. They publish pieces by green (inexperienced) journalists on issues like climate, energy and economics, and said journalists sometimes don't have a clue what they're writing about.