cancel reply
Posting mode: Reply

Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
name e-mail subject pw(deletion)
Post and go
Bump thread?

  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Javascript must be enabled for all of our addons to work.
  • Come chat and see that we're all a bit crazy on IRC!
  • Do not post any artwork from and/or
    Jeremy Bernal. This is now a bannable offense.

File: Maurice%20Sklar_destruction_of_america_[1].jpg - (45.97 KB, 400x286) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
47071 No.3494324

What is Trump's 9/11 going to be?

File: 71L2-U1vlpL._SY550_.jpg - (60.02 KB, 367x550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I was very critical of Trump at first but I'm warming up to'em. The economy is soaring, unemployment is down, he's really not doing that bad a job.


Some event at the superbowl for sure.
But not Trump's. The deep state's.


employment would soar if they would just fucking get rid of automation in the factories, PEOPLE NOT ROBOTS.




That's anti-science though. Literally regressive.


science has nothing to do with it.

File: smbc_President_Economy.gif - (397.13 KB, 576x4500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Presidency has jack-all to do with the economy in real-time, and the policies tend to take years to yield fruit or famine. It's just deliciously ironic that this happened the exact same week as Trump crowed about how great the Stock Market has been doing.


If they got rid of automation in factories, then I'd be out of a job.

File: poster_opt.jpg - (144.61 KB, 550x786) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

no you wouldn't, you would be first in line to get a job and probably a delicious promotion to boot.


I program and maintain PLC's and the systems they run. For some reason I doubt that I'd be getting any promotions if I no longer served any purpose.


The faggot forgot Alaska.

File: slowpoke_halloween.gif - (42.03 KB, 457x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

And I was slightly mistaken - the GOP Tax plan is going to have an immediate impact by shifting the window for the US hitting the debt ceiling to 2 weeks sooner than it otherwise would have due to the cuts causing funding shortfalls.
I would say "Now watch the GOP try to 'reform' entitlements", but saying that would be a massive pic related.


>>3494357I remember you telling me once it seemed like the less you do the more you got paid.

File: fix_it_and_done_for_a_quarter.png - (465.29 KB, 1748x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

and I still do less and still get paid more. Once you have a Programmable Logic Controller, and its system up and running, you're basically sitting on your ass until something is updated or goes terribly wrong.

Assuming everything stays the same and all routine maintenance and checks get done... I don't really do anything other than protect the people from horrific unspeakable disaster.



Probably fired and getting to jail..

Things piling up..

Because he's a fucking liar and a grandeur syndrome manchildren.

Remember those tax cuts savings?

How about employment?

Russia? He's pulling a hardcore watergate with the Nunes bullshit (which is an extremely biased and convenient edit, and most people cant see the full thing because.. you know, classified).

And then wall street is going down...

File: oldshitforMOAB.jpg - (8.12 KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

He smuggles a waterfowl into the white house for a free turkey dinner but the chef says....NON, c'est une degrassi portmanteau absiddian, and refuses because white wine is for PASTA NIGHT ONLY, now they have to eat fucking-SPAGOHLLI garden salad and he rips a napkin and calls for a complete recess. Ivanka gets mad and has a bad mark from a P.R. journalist and they call her about it saying she was gaining weight and they try to blame it on her bailey's instruction regime but it was the fact they just can't eat the whole swan without at least it being italian cuisine and not Nato Inspired, cache money, they blow up over the bill and refuse it right in front of all the French Garcon - Von Bon Appetite Regionals, a French Tradition of aspiring Gourmet Cooks, and are Snubbed from the Judge's Booth due to 'Performance Disagreement with the Sponsors...chikity chase cuts off from there, they high tail it back to America and are mocked by the media, he has to go on vacation, where is the president then, he is definitely not at the Sauna soaking it up at little Toyko's shut in sushi bar...but only the bravest of popparazi's have the sheer recklessness to be caught in soy-town. >pic is u



>Once you have a Programmable Logic Controller, and its system up and running, you're basically sitting on your ass until something is updated or goes terribly wrong.

Companies don't find it useful to have one guy just sitting and watching the automation do its work. If there's nobody to do it on the side, they outsource the upkeep and maintenance to specialists where one guy can handle multiple job sites, through VPN connections to the actual PLCs so they don't even have to leave their offices as long as things are working.

So, option a) you're bullshitting again and you're actually glorifying your janitor's job because they told you to press a button on some machine
or, option b) you're on the short list for getting fired


south choina sea disputes.

might escalate into embargo or full on non-nuclear warfare and force domestic product prices to shoot up, all in the middle of this 'non-existant' terrible economic depression we're in

that or he like, he forgets his gravy for his KFC #4



>Programmable Logic Controller, and its system

I do repairs and keep logs on basically everything in the plant. Automation is more than just robot arms. I do just sit around most of the time though, but when something goes down and its costing the plant millions per hour, they get their money out of me.


Again, online monitoring is a thing in PLCs and their systems, quickly becoming the default mode of operation with no stand-alone logic on the factory floor at all - everything is wired up together and controlled from a central office - and any fix that can be done without calling in experts and spare parts any of the plant technicians can do under instruction. Stuff like replacing a fuse or rebooting a computer. It's more cost-effective to not have dedicated staff for the purpose, because you don't need highly paid specialists sitting around twiddling their thumbs doing nothing most of the time. Smaller companies outsource, and larger companies with multiple locations concentrate this function.

So again, either you're bullshitting again and you're actually just a janitor who's been "upgraded" to do the bidding of the specialists, or on the short list for being obsolete.


Mind you, I've seen lots of peope going "Oh, I program PLCs", when they've actually just got the basic training to launch the software and change a few values from the logic diagram. Some of the more adventurous ones have read an actual book and think they're qualified to change the logic itself when the boss tells them to "fix it", and then horrible things happen.

Aka. "upgraded janitors".


He'll get pissy at NK, insult them and nukes get launched. He will find some excuse to blame liberals for it.

He had to fake some memo about democrats spying on him to take away heat from the undeniable fact he's worked with Russia, he faked his medical report to cover up the fact he's a fast food addict fatass, his supporters are violent psychos in denial, he's a shitty failure of a president, and if anything is really going to be his 9/11 if NK doesn't nuke us, it will be the second American civil war. THAT is probably inevitable, and would probably be good in the end. The nation is already horribly divided, one side wiping out the other would at least unify the nation and give only one side power. Knowing conservatives, in the 3% chance they'd win, they'd just blame each other when shit is still a mess, without liberals to pin it on.


Trump's 9/11 is going to be an economic collapse of a scale that the world has never known. It started three days ago. By end end of next week there will be runs on the banks,

Ugh, quit being hyperbolic. While I wouldn't be surprised if it does crash, it wouldn't happen overnight due to just how big the market is now. It'd be more like the '07 crash, where for 2-4 years people were asking "Are we in a recession?"

The economy is a bit like an ocean-liner - course correction has to be done gradually to avoid doing harm.



>The economy is a bit like an ocean-liner - course correction has to be done gradually to avoid doing harm.

It's more like an ocean liner with a broken rudder - nobody can really steer it, but many claim they can wave some voodoo shit at the controls and make shit happen . The only real thing they can do is shut down the engines, but then you're stuck drifting anyhow.

File: 43Bs-Favorite-Website-After-Lulz.jpg - (62.38 KB, 500x377) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

It’s just 43B lashing out, as usual. His posts are never about the topic at hand, he’s just trying to troll to momentarily forget his sad, pathetic (and rapidly coming to end) life.

Think of him as Hirtes 2.0.

File: oglaf_cry-wolf.jpg - (168.68 KB, 760x596) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

The problem is that him doing so presents the same issue that Republicans had under Obama - that there was such manufactured outrage 24/7 that people eventually stopped listening to even legitimate criticisms. And I don't want that shit to happen when it comes to Trump, because this is an asshole that openly advocated for torture because "even if it doesn't work, they deserve it." That's shit that should never be considered "normal".



GoogleFuFailure. Friend. Comrade. We need to get serious for a moment here.

You're a good kid. You try to do the right thing, and you like to think critically, and you try to be intellectually and morally consistent. You don't like to follow the crowd. You refuse refuse to compromise on what you know is important.

What you need to realize here is that Trump is not some kind of "outlier". He isn't a rogue. He isn't saying or doing anything new or radical. Trump is exactly the same as every rightwinger, except he doesn't pretend to give a shit.

You talk to any random rightwinger in a bar, and they will openly advocate for torture because "even if it doesn't work, because they deserve it." There has been no point in our nation's history where that kind of depravity was not normal for rightwingers. And they share all of his views about non-whites, and women, and foreign policy, and economics, and every other dimwitted, knuckle-dragging, insipid, vile viewpoint that he regularly expresses.

That's why they love him. Because the entire right wing is composed from top to bottom with depraved lunatic monsters who don't know anything and have strong opinions about everything.

There's no point in worrying about whether your criticisms are "legitimate" or not. You are not going to reach this human garbage by being logical and consistent. Your only valid option is to demonize them like they deserve, shut them down, crush them and then have yourself a good hearty laugh when they whine about how they're being "unfairly maligned" or "censored" in some way.

I was a naive liberal like you at one point. What I have learned in the past few years is that trying to be very rational and consistent and fair is nothing more than a trap. Politics is not some sort of after-school debate club where the best arguments win. Politics is an all-out take-no-prisoners war. Don't give those evil bastards anything, and rest easy with the knowledge that they'd do worse to you.

File: Wonderella_Golden-Mean-Fallacy.png - (467.59 KB, 647x981) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

There's no point in worrying about whether your criticisms are "legitimate" or not. You are not going to reach this human garbage by being logical and consistent.
Have a relevant clip from Thank You For Smoking -
"But you still didn't convince me."
"Ah, but I'm not after you - I'm after them."

The "them", in this case, are the moderates/undecideds who may or may not like Trump. Unfortunately, a shitload of them do fall into the "Golden Mean" principle, where they try to paint false equivalencies instead of admitting that sometimes one side is objectively wrong in their assertion. Climate Change tends to be a big one here.




1.5 USD a week.. WOW AMAZING!
Meanwhile Ryan got 500,000 from the Koch brothers for gifting them 1 trillion.

And even better, giving 3.4 Billion for WellsFargo, who just was found to have defrauded millions.


The "them" that you're speaking of aren't watching and don't give a shit. They are stuffing their faces with whatever food is popular, watching whatever unrelated distraction is on the television screen, and completely ignoring politics one way or another. Their response to you is "oh I wish everyone would grow up and just stop fighting".

They literally do not give a shit and are not interested in learning. You are wasting your breath. You push the overton window in your direction and they will blindly go along with you, all while crowing about how "apolitical" and "above the fray" they are. You give the rightwingers an inch, and they will pull all those people along with them into all-out fascism. And the "moderates" won't even realize it or care.

File: You-keep-using-that-word.jpg - (36.05 KB, 684x384) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.


> fascism

I know exactly what it means. You clearly do not.


Do you? They changed the definition in 2009.


Fascism remains the same no matter how you try to spin it.



>This is why we need regulation. Unregulated capitalism eats itself alive every time.
>a problem created by a government that was trying to regulate market crashes out of existence by pumping the economy full of debt
>oops the economy is going into a bubble! More government intervention needed!


Notice that with the leftists these days? They're huge on pro-big government.

That's nuts. You see hippies and other people, who probably were "anti government", "anti establishment" who are now pro-government, pro-establishment, pro-rules, pro-laws... it's crazy.


Liberals love big government when it lets them get their way, but the second small government defies big government and lets individual states give prescriptions and research grants for medical marijuana, the left gushes over small government.

Cherry picking, goalpost moving, and crying.


Conversely, hardcore conservatives hate "big government" for interfering in their private lives, but pass a sodomy bill into law to crack down on the Gays, and they'll sing your praises.



>If by "Big government" you mean the laws that work.

Law is not synonymous with government. In a western style society, the law is supposed to be above the government in authority, binding the government on what they're allowed to do, so they don't do stupid things just because it seems like a smart idea at the time, or because they're corrupt. Ideally, if you have good laws that work, based on well-thought and time-tested principles and value systems, you don't need a government - all you need is a legal system to apply the law both in letter and in spirit, and the society runs itself.

That's the point of a constitution. The point of a government then is to figure out the principles, values and principles that would make the government unnecessary.

However, the big problem is that when you elevate and authorize a special group of people and call them "the government", this group of people automatically start to protect themselves from being disbanded and stripped of their authority, so they will try their best to avoid actually doing the job appointed to them. They become career politicians, "representatives", the political class whose primary interest is keeping themselves in power.

That is why, government is a necessary evil, that should be assembled and put to action on as necessary, only for as long as necessary, consisting of people who are picked from the general population and return to the general population as soon as their term in government is done.



>This wild-wild-west capitalism is just going to keep destroying the nation.

There's nothing wild-west about the capitalism we have - the society is more regulated now than it has ever been - it's crony capitalism: capitalism in collusion with the government, in abuse of the government, at the willing participation of the government to the benefit of the political class and the rich.



>Protip: leftists care about passing policy.

Leftists think it's a metric of merit to count how many new laws they have passed, even as they're unable to uphold the existing ones, and the ones that they do end up hurting everyone.

That's exactly the hallmark of a political system that has developed its own ends and lost its purpose, like a driver who is concentrating on keeping the steering wheel level, instead of watching out the window to see if the car is actually going where it's supposed to.



> You don't have any alternatives so shut your bitch mouth until you do.

I already told you, but you choose not to listen. Multiple times, in multiple threads.

Redefine the role of government: government is not leadership. Government is not supposed to "fix" anything or give any specific group of people any power to "steer" the society in any way. Government needs to be non-partial, non-partisanal.

You reject this idea because you recognize that it denies your leftist wannabe-Stalin ass any power and would force you to actually listen to the people who you'd like to rule.


Or to put it it other words: you're complaining that I have no alternatives and therefore we should stick to yours. But that's simply the same thing as saying, "I can't think of anything else to do, therefore we should keep banging our heads into this wall here."

Expecting some politician like Bernie Sanders to "fix" the economy - knowing exactly how the political system work and what it will do to people like Sanders - you can just as well vote for Mussolini. No difference, because it's not the individual people but the system that is corrupt - it's the system that is causing the problems and not whomever happens to be sitting on the throne. Only the rhetoric and the propaganda changes - the outcomes don't.

There's no working with the system. The system must go. Whether we have an alternative or not is irrelevant: one must be found anyways.


Let's suppose for the sake of imagination, that instead of voted representatives we form a body of applicants who announce their willigness to serve as the government body, and then out of this body we draw the members of government by lottery to serve like the jury of a legal court. They recieve their compensation, serve their time, and return back to their places in society.

Then, to support these citizen-politicians, we institute a number of data-gathering organizations which are tasked to ask questions, measure indexes, gather statistics and provide information for the public, under the public's supervision as to the truth and relevance of that data.

What would happen to party politics?



>HOW DO YOU DO IT? What are the specifics?

If you agree on the basic premises that I've laid out, the question is not how would I do it, but how would YOU do it?

If you keep fighting against it all along, then how will it ever be accomplished? Also see >>3494796



>Do you have president?

A president is a vestige of royal power, that should not exist even in the present system. For example in Germany there is no president, but a chancellor, equivalent to a prime minister, who is the head of the government and does not reside above the government like the US president does.

>A congress?

Define congress.

>Is everything judged by mob rule?

As is generally true, the majority is not the same as the people, true democracy - the rule of the people - cannot be based on mob rule. Observe also that the current first past the post system is geared towards the majority, therefore mob rule. If you have a problem against the mob, you have a problem against the current system.

>Who runs the military? Who runs the hospitals?

The generals and the doctors. Do you believe the US government is literally running the hospitals?



>>If you like my idea it's up to you to figure out how to make it happen.

No, that's a misrepresentation of the argument.

If you agree with the premises that the current system is untenable, then you agree the current system must change.

Being consistent with my own position, I cannot dictate to you how it must change, instead I have to ask you how would you like to see it changed, and then we can come to an agreement over that. If however you keep negating the idea and arguing that it won't work, then we have no discussion because you're simply saying "nay" instead of exploring the possible options.

>You don't have a plan, you don't have a goal, you just want to whine because you're such a cuck

Point in case. You will not hear my case, none of my proposals, you're just complaining and making personal attacks. It is YOU who has no argument.



>Stop bitching and start a revolution.

How can I start a revolution when you're standing on the barricade against me? You're demanding me to do something that you are trying to negate.

>It's what we're doing.

What you are doing is simply maintaining the status quo. You try to uphold the current system, because by making a revolution within the framework of the current system, it allows you the same power that you would deny the other people, and that's what makes you morally corrupt.

You criticize mob rule, yet You want mob rule, you criticize corrpution, yet You want to maintain corruption, because you want the mob to be on your side exclusively.



>We know our plans work because they have worked all over the world.

How very well has it worked, when every country in the world is suffering under the same problems?

>Make some. Make a real, logical, reasonable, plan that can happen in the real world not just a statement of vague ideals but a real plan of action. We are all waiting.

You are demanding a single man to design a whole new system of government before you will even hear about it. You're just dodging the question:

Do you, or do you not agree with the basic premise that the current system is fundamentally wrong?



>Make some.

Besides, I made some, and you're pretending I didn't: >>3494796

Being consistent with my own position, I cannot dictate the ultimate form of the government without asking other people how they would like it to work. You are demanding me to become the designer-dictator of the new government, which goes directly against the very principle that I am putting forward. You are making an impossible demand.

Failing to meet that demand, you make an appeal to ignorance fallacy: because we do not know what the ultimate form of the new government would be, yet, we should not pay attention to it, and instead continue with the existing system even though the system is not working.

I already pointed out that you are banging your head into the wall because you can't think of anything else to do. Then you lie to yourself and everyone else that this activity is a good thing because at least you're doing something, even though it's observably harming you.


3B is engaging in

>Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people
>when an individual is unable to integrate difficult feelings, specific defenses are mobilized to overcome what the individual perceives as an unbearable situation. The defense that helps in this process is called splitting. Splitting is the tendency to view events or people as either all bad or all good.[1] When viewing people as all good, the individual is said to be using the defense mechanism idealization: a mental mechanism in which the person attributes exaggeratedly positive qualities to the self or others. When viewing people as all bad, the individual employs devaluation: attributing exaggeratedly negative qualities to the self or others.

tl;dr: 3B is making distortions to tell himself a fairy story, to protect his fragile ego. When this fails, he goes into:

>Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden, "true self" has been revealed. This may be the case when the narcissist experiences a "fall from grace", such as when their hidden behaviors or motivations are revealed, or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.
>Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum, which may range from instances of aloofness and expressions of mild irritation or annoyance to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder.
>Narcissists are often pseudo-perfectionists and create situations in which they are the center of attention. The narcissist's attempts at being seen as perfect are necessary for their grandiose self-image.

In other words, when 3B falls on his face during his attentionwhoring, he gets upset and anxious and starts throwing tantrums. When other people point out how mad he's getting, he turns it aroud as "No, I'm pulling your strings!"

It's kinda like watching an idiot punching himself in the face and going "Look what you're making me do!". It's amusing.



>Dude, you don't even have a step1. You have nothing.

You're in denial. The first step to solving a problem is recognizing the problem. Answer the question: is the current government system framework faulty or not?

>Is shit fucked up? Yes. Do we need to burn it all to the ground? No. It can be fixed. We know the system works, it's worked before.

No it does not. Again, you're simply denying and contradicting all that I've been telling you. The government system we have is caught in a progress trap:

>In a progress trap, those in positions of authority are unwilling to make changes necessary for future survival. To do so they would need to sacrifice their current status and political power at the top of a hierarchy. They may also be unable to raise public support and the necessary economic resources, even if they try.

To fix this system, things need to get worse (for the politicians) before it gets better. That means the system cannot be fixed from within the system - the system is actively fighting your attempts at fixing it! No matter who you elect, they will find it impossible to change anything!

> We know what kind of laws, taxes and economics work best on both a national and global scale but for those systems to be put into place the 1% have to be taken out of power.

No -we- don't. You're speaking with authority and expertise you don't have. You are asserting the objectivity of your subjective values there.

>How about you? What is your step 1? Do you even a step 1?

Step 1 in solving a problem is defining the problem and having people agree that there is a problem. Right now you are part of the problem because you refuse to recognize it.



>We know the system works, it's worked before.

Btw. that is known as Escalation of Commitment

>Escalation of commitment is a human behavior pattern in which an individual or group facing increasingly negative outcomes from some decision, action, or investment nevertheless continues the same behavior rather than alter course. The actor maintains behaviors that are irrational, but align with previous decisions and actions.

More on commitment bias:
“The difficulty lies not in the new ideas,
but in escaping the old ones, which ramify,
for those brought up as most of us have been,
into every corner of our minds.”
— John Maynard Keynes



Actually, almost every single fall was because certain protections and regulations were removed.

There was a regulation that prevented the trading of the famous "subprime mortages" and their non stop speculations and movements between banks in an unsustainable way. Which, you know.. was removed by BUSH Jr.



Sounds like GOP's "Fiscal Conservative" and "Trickle Down Economics" that have been demonstrated again and again that never work.


By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority (mob rule). Perhaps one of the difficulties in defining these two words - democracy and republic - stems from the fact that many people consider them to be synonyms, which they aren't. they are no more alike than an apple and a banana, and yet they are often used interchangeably.

incidentally, a king/queen system (monarchy) is not inherently evil or even inferior to a republic or even a democratic system. the right person in power can actually run the country better than any congress could hope to. it is dangerous for different reasons, but not anymore than when corrupt/evil people are elected.



Trickle down doesn't exist, it's a phrase literally made up by Democrats and applied to any policy that they don't like


Goddamn, at least read the wikipedia entry before you make stupid claims uttered solely to make you and your garbage, non-working-ass narrative feel better.


well, the way I heard it was that "subprime mortgages" were caused by the anti-discrimination laws. A penniless ghetto nigga shows up at a bank, says "gimme mortgage or I'll sue you for discrimination" and the bank taught by several such lawsuits bends over and gives the mortgage which they won't be paid, but hey, it still costs less than the lawsuit. And this keeps repeating until the bubble bursts.



This is utter garbage and did not happen. Unscrupulous lenders basically said, "Fuck it, there's no regulation to force us not to lend to people who can't pay! We'll take these people to the fucking cleaners!" and then they did it over and over until the bottom fell out.


Bernie sure doesn't.

What happened when he got popular and threatened the establish quo? They offered him material shit and he jumped at those trinkets like a pig in shit. Pure politician in Bernie, just dying to get out.


Even worse is that we're seeing the same cycle repeat with Payday Lenders, which charge exorbitant interest rates (as in 400% APR -, and the Trump administration has been decidedly cozy with them.
And for added irony, it's under the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau as headed by Mick Mulvaney that's doing it -



>By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority (mob rule).

That's a false definition of democracy. If we take democracy to mean the rule of the people, then it cannot be a rule of a simple majority as the majority is not the same as the people. So what you actually got is:

Republic - charter
Democracy - popular consensus/compromize
"Partisanism" - mob rule aka. the system we currently have

That's how I would outline it.



>I agree, which is why step 1 for us is removing those people and replace them with people who don't take bribes.

You say you agree, but you haven't understood a word I have been telling you: no matter who you vote into office, even if they don't take bribes, they can't change anything because the system is corrupt. The progress trap happens because the system develops its own goals of maintaining the system first, in order to then do whatever else. It gets trapped into self-preservation mode which automatically prevents it from making the necessary changes to actually fix what's wrong with the system.

>See, step 1!

The step 1 is to get people like you to understand exactly what is wrong with the current system, because when the fault is correctly understood the solution to the fault becomes obvious.

>Really easy if you actually have a goal but you don't. You just want to whine.

You call it whining because you don't want to listen. You've invested your ego into this Bernie-shit like a true believer to a UFO cult, and when your prophecies continue to fail you just cling tighter and tighter to them.

The goal is obvious: to have a society that works, that has just rules and values, that doesn't waste resources into pointess politicizing and partisanship, a society that can actually govern itself rather than being led by the nose by the hucksters who happen to be sitting on the throne this week. The first step towards that goal is to have people like you understand what fools you're being by defending the very system that is hurting you, clinging to it like a child clings to an abusive parent because that's all they think they have.



>This is utter garbage and did not happen.

Actually, it was a bit of both. Banks were given the requirement to lend money to poor people, so the banks started makking and selling these shit loans onwards to investors to get rid of them. Toss the hot potato.

> Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives

The main contribution of the CRA to the matter was, that banks could now excuse themselves to the regulators for making a bunch of predatory loans by claiming that they were complying with the CRA. Clinton relaxed the rules even further, and then Bush did it again.

>In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices. CRA regulated banks may also inadvertently facilitate these lending practices by financing lenders. They noted that CRA regulations, as then administered and carried out by Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, did not penalize banks that engaged in these lending practices.


>Democracy - popular consensus/compromize

To expand on this difference:

In actually deciding on some matter, a majority view will prevail in practice Even if you poll the population for the answer, a majority view will emerge, which would technically make it a "mob rule". However, the difference to the current partisanism is that the majority can be different in each individual case, not leading to a situation where a particular majority can decide all matters.

So under partisanism, the party which is currently ruling represents some subgroup of the people and decides according to their interest. In contrast, if we pick representatives by lottery or other means not out of the parties which consist of mainly elite interest groups, but out of the population at large, within that sample there will be a different majority for each question asked and no 1+1 deals where one popular issue drives other unpopular decisions.

Currently the partisan politics works by the party promising to deliver on some single issue, and then does whatever the hell they want, because once in office you can't get rid of them for a number of years. Doesn't really matter if they keep their promises or not, because the next time you just shuffle some seats and the same people are back in government again.


I think his argument is more analogous to the argument people make against newer cars. Essentially that because you cannot see the mechanics behind the car that even if you rolled up your sleeve and put every ounce of willpower into fixing the car in the end there is nothing you can do if one of the main parts of the car breaks down (like the CPU or software) because you have no control over it.



So you're saying it's possible for a person to learn how to fix a transmission, but not an onboard computer? If the analogy holds up then that just means people are too lazy or stupid to fix the government, not that they have no control.



>Do you think the government is some shadow cabinet that exists outside of the people who we elect

You weren't talking to me, but yes, I do think there is a powerful shadow group of unelected people who're running the government, or at least, trying to nudge it's hand in a favorable direction.

Throughout the 90s, and to today, the concept of "Deep state" has been disused. Most countries have one. The NYTs, time, thenation, they've written about the concept.

In America, that would be the secret FISA courts. The CIA, NSA, DHS and "Administrative" executive officials that are not elected and have staff with great power against other government officials. They have staff that outlast multiple presidents. The choices they make over their lifetime have a subtle, but almost invisible impact, over most citizens.

All the people who were in the memo who were making contingency plans against Trump, who were destroying evidence, using burner phones? Those were deep state.

If not for this memo going public, I believe that we were on course to have Trump falsely unseated due to fake Russian bullshit. Fake Russian bullshit that project vertitas proved the media kingpins and producers believe/know to be fake, but are enjoying the ratings of. Fake Russian bullshit that has not in a year's time managed to produce something despite Trump being the most hated man in the country.



>Do you think the government is some shadow cabinet that exists outside of the people who we elect?

No. I'm saying no matter who we elect, the system changes their behaviour. It does this necessarily, because in order to change anything, the government must stay in power so other people don't void their work, therefore the primary aim of the government automatically becomes to maintain itself.

Put short: individual politicians may be willing to commit political suicide, but the political body at large will not. The party will not make changes that would lead to the party dropping out of government. That should be self-evident.

>I don't understand how you seem to separate the people who make up the government from the government.

I don't. I separate the people who make up the government from the system of the government, like I separate the players from the game of football. "Government" can mean both the people, and the system - that's what's confusing you.

>Your argument is like saying, "The car won't run, but if we replace the broken parts of the car it still won't run because the car is broken."

No. My argument is like saying, "The car won't run, because all along its build and workmanship is so poor, that even if we replace parts it will very soon break down again. Get a better car." What I'm saying is, don't polish a turd!

>The car is the sum of it's parts. It functions as well as the parts put in it work together. The same is true for governance.

Even if you replace every part of a Yugo with brand spanking new parts, it's still going to be a Yugo. If you replace every part that's wrong about it with better parts, you'll be building an entirely different car.



>I think his argument is more analogous to the argument people make against newer cars.

I could go there as well, but so far I haven't. You buy a car, and you get a machine that has an essential part you cannot fix because it's practically unobtainable and you'd need to build your own semiconductor foundry to replace it, which is the point of planned obsolescence. Only the manufacturer, or in this case, the political elite, can give you access to the part/politics, so you have to play their game on their rules.


>So you're saying it's possible for a person to learn how to fix a transmission, but not an onboard computer?

In context, that would mean the people should form their own shadow government, analogous to building their own research centers, factories and supply chains to replace the parts they presently cannot make.

It is possible, but the government is actively fighting against it, calling it treason, similiar to how car manufacturers will call your attempts at reverse-engineering their stuff copyright infringement, patent infringement... etc. because they have put laws in place to protect themselves from being bypassed.

> If the analogy holds up then that just means people are too lazy or stupid to fix the government, not that they have no control.

Not lazy, not stupid, but merely ignorant and powerless through lack of organization because they simply don't know what they could be doing. Ignorance - the lack of awareness - is not stupidity.


That's exactly what lobbyists do.



>>The car is the sum of it's parts. It functions as well as the parts put in it work together. The same is true for governance.

Besides, you forget that nothing is truly just the sum of its parts. How it works also depends on where it is and what you're doing with it. A bicycle under water is nominally a bicycle, but you try pedaling it and you're going nowhere - you can't actually "bi-cycle" with it so it isn't a bicycle under those conditions.

What the system says it is doing is not necessarily what it IS doing. That's called the operational fallacy. For example, the concept of the system of a car says it is turning gasoline into motion, but a real existing car is mostly turning gasoline into heat and noise, and as a byproduct the car moves.



>Yet history proves you wrong. Once the flood gates were open to legal bribery the democrats lined up to give up political power in exchange for wealth.

You're twisting the issue. The democrats still had the political power; they were simply selling their application of it to the highest bidder.

>If we limit how much money they can get out of it then the votes become more important than the money

But that's part of the problem: votes become equivalent to money. You simply swap one special interest group for another, and then the government starts to maintain its own power by becoming ultrapopulist, or at least pretending to.

You still haven't solved the problem where politicians promise you the moon for your vote and give you a wheel of cheese instead, because they can't give you the moon. You've also yet to solve the problem where the government decision is driven by the majority mob instead of representing the whole people.



>Your argument is basically that greed and hunger for power is what makes the goverment impossible to fix but that's exactly the tools we propose to use to fix it.

No, I'm saying the government system auto-corrupts even if it had perfectly selfless people in it, because they rationally have to protect their own status and power in order to do anything. This forces them to act in counterproductive ways.

>If we make it so that serving the people instead of the 1% is how you win the money and power the sociopaths will still chase that money and power they will just do good things to get it.

That's not helping, as the point of a government is not to be out there fishing for votes and begging to be let to rule. You can't buy a good government by giving the sociopaths money for it, as they will cheat anyways.

You're also still under the illusion that the government's purpose is to act as a big daddy or mommy for the society, so the people wouldn't have to think for themselves.


And you also forget one of the main premises that I put forward to you: the ultimate purpose of a government is to make government unnecessary.

Governmet is necessary to make changes in society. When things are running as they should, there's no need for government and it should be disbanded. That's not possible if being in the government is somehow profitable in terms of money or status, because then the government will be filled with people who want to change things when change is not necessary.

The system of politics for money breeds a class of people who try to poke holes in things, invent victims, tragedies and faults where things are going just fine, just in order to rally and campaign and make money out of doing politics.


A corollary to that problem is the point that when there IS something genuinely wrong with the society that needs changing, the issue gets muddled by all the other politicizing by people who just want the status and the money. All the really pressing issues get lost in the noise.

So you we've got rampant poverty - but what about the immigrants! The transgenders! The gun policy! Vote for me instead, I'm solving the more important issues than the other guy, give your votes and your money to me! My special interest group will save you from climate change! My special interest group will save you from the terrorists!



>But your problem, your blind spot, is that you think sucking the cock of big donors and the powerful is what you must do to stay in power.

Nope. That's just one of the ways, which happens to be the most profitable at the moment. I already outlined several others that don't depend on sucking 1% cock.

Means to stay in power as a politician:
1) blatant populism
2) distraction with other issues
3) plain lying
4) manufacturing conflicts
5) propaganda



>The voters have the power. The voters, the mob, always has the power. If we have to we will gun the corrupt down and retake the nation by force.

And then what?

You throw out the politicians, replace them with your politicians, and come next election time - whoops! Now you're in the position where you have to lie, cheat, propagandize, lobby and distract the public so they would not vote you out of office and put the other guys back instead.

As a government, you're forced to do hard unpopular choices like cut welfare benefits to avoid welfare abuse, raise taxes, cut public spending to stop the debt spiralling out of control, and all those will result in the popular opinion turning against you, so first you have to make sure the voters can't turn their backs on you - and that means you have to betray the voters by doing absolutely jack shit about the things you went in there to fix.

That is the progress trap. When things have to get worse for them to get better, the government is stuck into self-protection mode and can only become more corrupt.



>The real muscle in any nation is always going to be the mob. Get the mob on your side and nothing will stop you.

And if the other guy gets the mob on their side, nothing will stop them either. By claiming that might is right, you have no word when the opposition happens to gain the upper hand. Winner takes it all.

That's exactly why you don't want mob rule in the society, and why you don't want partisanal "democracy". Government can't be a system of mob rule, but everyone's rule, and that's why instead of forming the mobs we call political parties and their supporters, we must instead put the people directly in charge of themselves: the representatives we have must come directly from the people and go back to the people.


Hu, wasn't Reagan who popularized that term? Reagan.. the GOP "god" and moron who killed unions and pretty much sold the government to oligarchs?


That pretty much how Trump won.

File: a908b22cba447b6346c62205e88b9ba2.jpg - (109.04 KB, 736x1029) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I think it will be something like Eyes Wide Shut Except he uses a super viser and has to play a game of cards or golf with Putin. If America loses, its just because they rigged the weather and China was behind it or the deck was re-hearsed and the media faked it(sic). Or that maybe his Toupee was bugged and caused it all. Why does anyone care, its not like he is prophet of your destruction, like so very much of you aspire to be. And practically have been. >Much Nodding (faggotry)

File: 1518230000946.png - (1336.57 KB, 1700x1312) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

You should have more political threads, this FURRY board doesn't have enough of them.


Sorry if I sound edgy, but democracy doesn't solve anything for democrats or republicans. It's a "too many cooks in the kitchen" scenario. Nothing ever gets done and we get mediocre bills that help multimillion dollar corporations, but do jackshit for both parties or the people that they're representing. To be elected as a politician in a democracy, you have to make a lot of false promises that won't be implemented in your term. Democrat politicians lie to brown people and LBGTGRILLEDBBQ types by promising them free shit and the ability to have orgies in public. Republican politicians lie to the white and Christian majority by promising them a return to the 50s. Democracy is a dictatorship with the illusion of freedom.

That's why I'm fascist, citizens get immediate change once there's a homogeneous entity. Diversity of ideals is a downfall.


Dayum, lose the piss and make Nick a girly trap and I'd be in heaven.



File: liberals.jpg - (35.51 KB, 480x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

This is the future you face when you have soyboy liberals as your enemy.


>>3495582 Huh... okay? While I appreciate you acknowledging how great we are and how we like to have fun and have a great since of humor, you should know that term "soy boy" is a fash term. So it's kind of conter intuitive.

I understand you're totally trying to do the right thing and all and I appreciate that, but "soy boy" is kind of considered hate speech in some circles. Just making sure you got the memo is all.



I understand you're totally trying to do the right thing and all and I appreciate that, but "hate speech" is kind of considered a thing liberals whine when they encounter facts that run counter to their dogma. Just making sure you got the memo is all.


:( I'm not sure but this almost sounds like you're insulting me. I mean it's okay and all if you're just trying to be helpful, but hate speech is actually a very serious issue and I'd appreciate it if you would not make light of it. You need educate yourself on the dangers of hate speech.

We liberals have a great since of humor without resorting to racial slurs and hate speech is not okay. It is a real thing and it is very serious and in our new world it will be a thing of the past.


"Hate speech" is a social construct that's repeatedly redefined and selectively enforced to criminalize opponents of the left-wing. To put it in blunt terms, they just want an excuse to jail white straight men, but they have to hide behind weasel wording to obtain their goals. You seem like a nice person, but you're gullible for falling for an inconsistent ambiguous criteria.



Call it fash if you want, but you're still a soyboy.



File: - (41.76 KB, 950x534) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>>3495623 skree much?

File: 365370ac757724498e648d7ac8ee5f5d10182d73_hq.jpg - (178.61 KB, 682x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I think we should be cultural imperialists again, because we could re-educate the unfortunately misinformed leftists at home and then re-colonize and re-civilize the world where the British empire failed. It would be the best thing.


To be honest, a return to the '50s - an era when the New Deal still lived in more-or-less its intended form - doesn't sound bad at all right now.
Also, is it not telling that only when LBJ solidified an intent to appeal to Black Americans by passing the Civil Rights Act and making public shows of equal rights that the ideologically-Left-except-I-also-want-to-be-a-bigot Dixiecrats turned to the Republican party? Does anyone else find that completely fucked up?

Anyway. Fascism's inclination to favor nativists is something that I can sorta get behind, but its inclination to also practice ethnic favoritism is weak as hell and probably ain't gonna work in a melting-pot; you'll just end up with wannabe-FDR-toppling U.S. Fascists circa 1930s, who were purely de.generate corporatist ne'er-do-works. It didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now - they're far too comprised of people who buy guns for display/photography, and who wouldn't defend their own without excessive monetary compensation at any rate.



>doesn't sound bad at all right now.

Yeah, in the same sense as how setting your clothes on fire seems just fine in the beginning when it's just comfortably warm.

The New Deal was the starting gun for today's woes, because it was the date the government decided they needed to start protecting the economy against delfation by maintaining a continuous level of inflation - aka. printing more money for the rich.

Of course in the beginning, it was a boon for everyone since the banks got bailed out, people didn't lose their savings any more in waves of bank runs, and new credit was fueling an expansion of the economy. The government also kept expanding and using the poor unemployed people as cheap labor to build roads and bridges for the corporations to use for free - infrastructure paid by debt.

Then WW2 hit and everyone either went to war, or to work for the war machine, and everything went up becuase there was no unemployment and exports were flowing to the rebuilding of Europe, which masked the fact that the New Deal was allowing the rich to get even richer than before. The New Deal is hailed as a victory for socialism, but the victory was rather incidental - the actual winners were the banker capitalists.



Funny that people love to discredit the hate speech thing on purpose to make the complains as crazy.

When in reality whites and specified people in power, just want the right to denigrate and deny the lives of other groups of people that are different from them.

They just want to get back the right to lynch blacks, murder gays and be the "good ole good country" run by racists and xenophobic assholes.


Are you fucking shilling? Or are you serious? Because this whole alt left whack job ultra sensitivity bullshit is just that. It's bullshit dude!
It's like everyone knows Nazis are obviously bad news, KKK white power types are obviously bad, but it's like that's their fucking go to card for EVERYTHING, their corner stone to garner support.
We're against Nazis so you either kiss our asses or you're one of them? No! Okay! That's a steaming load of shit! I'm not gonna accept that.
If you're the kind of person who lynches gays and blacks or wishes you could ... then yeah for sure, no question, you're a fucking scum bag pig who deserves every bad thing that comes your way. But common! If you fart to loud it's considered "hate speech" fucking pepe is hate speech now, dukes of hazard? Hate speech. Your vintage Almond brothers vinyl? Hate speech!

Simple saying "well hey huh maybe it's okay to be white? White people... maybe not so bad?" hate speech. "Maybe Trump isn't such a horrible president after all." hate speech. "Wow... these liberals these days... their kinna... insane... " hate speech.
Burning the American flag? Perfectly acceptable.
"Only good cop is a dead cop, fuck the police, they all need to be tortured to death" no problems there.

it's gotten ridiculous!

If you cannot see the problem in having an ever growing list of forbidden terms that fall under the category of "hate speech" and becoming so ultra sensitive that at any given moment you're looking for any reason to flake the fuck out but you get to be as hateful as you want? .... yeah... that's a huge a fucking problem.

And then to sit there and seriously act as if racial prejudice is an exclusively Caucasian thing? That's just flat out stupid and wrong. I'm not gonna feel guilty for laughing at a Merry Melodies Speedy Gonzalez cartoon. Or hate myself for being white. You're fucking delusional. I'm not trying to "return to good o'l days of hang'n n-ggers, and beat'n dem queer boys" I just want return to the days when we could be human, when we could laugh at a joke without looking over our shoulder, when we could post memes without having to run it through an appropriateness check list, or talk about history in an economic political context without someone getting all triggered.
If you're not shilling with that post, then you can go shit yourself you nansy pamby soy boy faggot bitch cunt!

File: - (1.80 KB, 54x26) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.




>When in reality whites and specified people in power, just want the right to denigrate and deny the lives of other groups of people that are different from them.

>democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.

>Ignorance is Strength details the perpetual class struggle characteristic of human societies;[6] beginning with the historical observation that societies always have hierarchically divided themselves into social classes and castes: the High (who rule); the Middle (who work for, and yearn to supplant the High), and the Low (whose goal is quotidian survival). Cyclically, the Middle deposed the High, by enlisting the Low. Upon assuming power, however, the Middle (the new High class) recast the Low into their usual servitude. In the event, the classes perpetually repeat the cycle, when the Middle class speaks to the Low class of "justice" and of "human brotherhood" in aid of becoming the High class rulers.

And there you have the true rationale for why the middle class liberals are raising an issue over "institutional racism" or identity issues, or any other "problem" that mostly applies to the lower classes and other minorities who can be elevated into the status of victims. These "progressives" both believe in their cause, and understand intuitively their underlying purpose of gaining and keeping power for their own benefit - a curious habit which Orwell called "doublethink" - where the pursuit for power is offset by the rationalization that they're doing it for a "good cause", all the while knowing that once the power has been achieved it no longer matters what happens to the people they were fighting for.



Manwhile in Trump's land.

THANKS OBAMA! oh wait, Trump's the president now..


Deep state plot to steer our attention elsewhere when the swamp is gettin too dry.

C: mute



>deep state...

What do you think it means when you use those words? What is the "Deep State" to you?



Deep State=Illuminati/Jews/New World Order/any other bullshit Alex Jones conspiracy


>>3496223 The same jew families that've been in power since the pharaos.


The thousands of fellow travelers Obama ordered hired on right after Trump got elected.

That's an ooooold trick to do with an incoming administration that you hate.



>State within a state is a political situation in a country when an internal organ ("deep state"), such as the armed forces or public authorities (intelligence agencies, police, secret police, administrative agencies, and branches of government bureaucracy), does not respond to the civilian political leadership. Although the state within a state can be conspiratorial in nature, the deep state can also take the form of entrenched unelected career civil servants acting in a non-conspiratorial manner, to further their own interests (e.g. continuity of the state as distinct from the administration, job security, enhanced power and authority, pursuit of ideological goals and objectives, and the general growth of their agency) and in opposition to the policies of elected officials , by obstructing, resisting, and subverting the policies and directives of elected officials.

Point in case

Only 14% approve of the congress, yet somehow 95% of the congressmen get re-elected time and time again.

>Congressional elections are stagnant, and because of the high invincibility of House incumbents, very few districts are truly competitive, with elections shifting very few seats from one party to another. One of the most important reasons as to why incumbents are nearly unbeatable is because they normally have much better financed campaigns than their opponents. Other potential theories include the aggressive redrawing of congressional boundaries known as gerrymandering

Other important factors include pork-barrel spending to secure votes, and voter lock-in (need to vote for a winner to avoid splitting votes). All these reasons ensure that the actual people in power almost never change, and no change is in sight since the very same people have the power to shoot down any advance that would put limits on themselves.

For example, the congress shot down the Citizen Legislature Act which would have put a 12 year limit on incumbents. This is deep state.


In fairness, that's Congress in general, so the "filthy conservatives" are taking exception to the "dirty liberals" and vice-versa, while the attitude towards their own Congressperson might be good.


In that case, the approval rating should be closer to 50% than 0%


And in that case, it can also be chalked up to:
"Damn those Blue Dog Democrats!" vs. "Damn those pinko liberals!"
"Damn those obstructionist Tea Party quacks!" vs. "Damn those RINOs!"

That would put it down near 25% at best, and then couple that with how paralyzed Congress has been since 2014 or so...


Or, it could be that republicans approve of republican majority governments, democracts the democrat majority governments, and 50% of people don't want either, as was in the last presidential elections.

That would explain the same 25% rate, which drops to 14% when you consider the other effects. Either way, the point is that the congress isn't representing the people in any sense, and all the government is just looking to secure its own ass from election to election.

Delete Post []