Short of some catastrophic economic collapse or WW3, there is no one who even has a chance of beating Donald Trump. Even if these things happen I still think he has a good shot.

First of all what is "fair" is totally subjective, but for the sake of argument lets pretend "fair" is defined by your metric. If we just keep pumping resources into the 3rd world and they are not providing at least enough resources to maintain what they use, all that is happening is we are subsidizing overpopulation. The potential human population is infinite. Eventually there will not be enough resources for anyone, and by your metric this is "fair". The Western world balances out these factors, but this is being subverted by funneling in populations from the 3rd world who don't have these checks and balances, which is subverting this balance and making less resources available for all as a whole.

"You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is." No, I didn't say this. I said Sociology is the lowest ranking of scientific rigor, and thus is more fallible than all the other sciences. So all of the history of Sociology (more than 40 years BTW) agrees with you? Interesting theory. Too bad you can't produce any of these studies for examination.

There are an infinite number of potential explanations, but lets just start with one. How about a combination of nature and nurture being the cause? Happy now? You were in fact using a false choice fallacy.

OH NOES! DON'T REFUSE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT! I don't know how I would cope if you don't bother supporting your own argument! Is this supposed to motivate me some how, you refusing to make your own points?



This is you making the argument of a conclusion in the nature vs nurture debate, you are just to ignorant to realize what your own arguments consist of. Speaking of reading, you can't even read and understand your own words.

You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule.

Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.

1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"

This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.


2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"

Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.



3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"

You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?



4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"

Oh, so no investment huh? Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.


5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"

That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.


6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"

Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.


Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.

Interesting retort. Call me blind and move on. Speaking of blind, you missed the part where I already answered your question, a Republic is not mob rule. You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different. Every single argument you have made for Communism is one that has been used in past failed attempts.

Again, your first point goes back to the question of scale. Even if some small homogeneous communities can operate Communism effectively does not prove it can be scaled to an international level. Western countries are below replacement level birthrates from natives. The populations are increasing because of uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is essentially proving my point.

All social sciences are the least scientific form of science because they are the least able to follow rigorous scientific method. This is not even a debate, it is well known even among social scientists. FFS, the man who was said to have invented Sociology as a science is the originator of the concept of the scientific hierarchy itself.

The premise you are presenting here is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. You proscribe two potential options, and exclude any other possibilities when many more options exist.

So far you haven't provided any of these studies for review anyway, so your point is moot. Again, the nature vs nurture debate is NO WHERE NEAR being concluded.

No, I am saying you are claiming you must put the flag down or else there will be impending doom, as demonstrated in bold above.


We aren't talking about Vod, we are talking about standards. I don't care who you decide to trust. I do care how you use the system designed to warn people of fraud as a tool of retribution, especially as demonstrated by your selectively applied standards. I brought up Vod to prove the point you are willing to apply this standard to your opponents but not your pals. Inherent trustworthiness is subjective. The trust system is not supposed to be a trustworthiness ranking system, it is meant to be a system of indicating users likely to defraud others. Useful systems don't use subjective metrics. You can make subjective conclusions, but they shouldn't be used systematically because they are by their very nature unfit to be part of any objective system. I don't have to prove anything about Quickseller, the burden of proof is on the accuser. What grudges am I motivated by? Am I abusing the trust system to fight my grudges? What exactly do I win here? More stalking from halfwits like you? Am I supposed to be disappointed you put me on ignore? All you are doing is saving me time rebutting your half baked arguments.

So you don't want to respond to any of the points I made but now I am some how obligated to reply to your distractions? That is not name calling, it is a descriptive term alluding to your behavior of calling out "THE SKY IS FALLING!" so you can rush in to save us from the imaginary doom you claim is impending.

I know you know I am right, you are just playing a game of wills. The problem is this isn't a game you or anyone else will win. If you win, we all lose. Grow the fuck up chicken little. This whole pushing impending doom so you can step in to pretend to be the savior act is played out.

So why is it then you aren't opening a flag against Vod? He has been responsible for all the same acts as listed above. I have proven he was lying about me using his own contradicting words to justify his abusive negative ratings. If lying is the metric then about half of this forum can go into a dumpster. Also who gets to decide what is a lie and not just a difference of opinion, or simply a mistaken conclusion? Lying necessitates intent, and you have no way to prove in this case what exists only in the mind of another. The purpose of this system is to protect people from fraud, not to put ointment on your inflamed butt holes.





Then don't deal with him. See how simple that is? This is all about the fact he upset you. He didn't do any harm to you other than agitating you, and everyone knows it. Flagging people for making too many accusations is not a precedent that should be set, regardless of how stupid or baseless they are. Baseless accusations fail on their own lack of merits, no additional action is needed.

However punishing accusations again opens right up that 4 lane highway of abuse of being able to silence LEGITIMATE accusations against the people here MOST ABLE to rob massive amounts of value from the most amount of people. You are essentially putting the entire community at risk so you can play your little pretend game he is a threat and get your revenge. This demonstrates to me you don't give a fuck about this community or its safety, you just want your pound of flesh at any cost. You, by trying to justify these types of flags are far more of a threat to the security of the forum than Quickseller could ever be.

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

What you mean to point to is irrelevant. The fact is even if the resources were more evenly distributed, you know what would happen? Human population would just continue to increase infinitely until there were not enough resources for anyone. You aren't solving anything, you are describing a fantasy.

I never said anyone deserves anything. Facts are facts regardless of what anyone deserves. Your so called studies are based in Sociology, which first of all is the least scientific of any school of science, but this specific debate of nature vs nurture you are pointing to is an ancient and never-ending debate no where near being concluded. Your so called studies regarding this mean nothing even if they were valid, because the premise itself (that it is proven one way or the other) is flawed.

You and I both know Quickseller is more of a threat to himself than you or anyone else. No one really believes your horse shit chicken little, people just don't like him so they are willing to persecute him. Show me a real scammer with proof and you can pour gasoline on him and I will light the match.

There is plenty of room in the box, but I think Suchmoon is sleeping right now so I will have to show you later.

I am stopping me, because I am trying to show you goobers you have an opportunity for a reset here and you are immediately setting it on fire just to continue your little obsessions. Quickseller has no authority. You do. Grow the fuck up and get over it.

Yeah well, I say you are really secretly a Mr. Potato Head, and you claiming not to be is a lie. See how easy that is? Grow up people and use the system to protect people, not to fight your petty fucking interpersonal disputes.

See everyone? It never stops. This is how tyrants operate. First they punish you for accusing them, then they punish anyone who objects to that abuse. Its always more and more until everyone is in a little box they have the key to.

BTW, by this logic above, I could by your metrics open a flag for Vod for accusing me of lying in a negative rating and directly harming my ability for trade by doing so, and never being able to substantiate it. I would expect you all to support it because it would be no different from your flag on Quickseller. You see how this is just the old system? We have a chance to end this bullshit. Stop being petty cunts.

I can verify both the lies about KYC as well as the margin lending losses. Regarding margin trading, it is a WELL KNOWN tool of market manipulation (read fraud) used to control precious metals prices for example. Also I am very familiar with the Clamcoin market, and it was well known to have a lack of liquidity. This was not an accident it was a setup. This is exactly the type of behavior Cryptsy was exhibiting, in fact point by point. If I remember right Cryptsy didn't have margin trading, but they played similar games with liquidity and other processes. For example they would let people drive up a coin's price then disable the front end so they could scalp the order books via the API which was still active.

Both systems are capable of abuse. Only one of them is a failed model in its own right.

Considering your use of the collective "the US" I doubt that. Either that or you are being willfully disingenuous. IMO it is more likely this was the work of Israel, they have a lot more to gain from the US attacking Iran.

"The US" is not monolithic.

Sorry, but you are the one running in circles. If it is valid to flag people for making an accusation, all we have is the same broken system we had before where the trust system is openly used as a tool of retaliation for punishing users for making reports against certain users. I believe this is intentionally designed to subvert the intent of the system. The system is not here for you to punish people for saying things you don't like, it is here to protect people from fraud and theft. You know this, but you like other mall cops can't cope with your loss of dictatorial control and are clinging to it with every ounce of semantics and twisted logic you can muster.