The subject has been discussed before, albeit shortly. If I remember correctly there were plenty of denials and accusations of conspiracy theory. Well it is a fact now.

Considering that Communism was created by bankers as an efficient means of taking control of a nation and stripping it of resources, and systematically creating a perpetual system of dependence of the population, I would argue they are in fact pushing Communism.

I think you have been reading too many coins4commies comments, his bullshit is starting to leak into your brain via operant conditioning xD After all what makes the resources cheaper to extract than breaking the economy, throwing everyone into poverty forcing them to work for meager wages, with no independent infrastructure with which to educate and rise up from this servitude?

The theft of land from whites does not need to be a Chinese initiative in order for them to advocate for it, help cause it to happen, and take full advantage of the resulting situation.

I see, so you openly admit you plan to subvert the government and rule of law to implement your ideology in spite of the fact that it has no popular mandate? You can't have a functioning society without borders any more than you can have a functional house without doors. It is good to know you are at least being honest about your totalitarian aspirations finally, though I think we all knew this for some time.

Mexico is a safe harbor nation, and has already offered these people asylum. Once you leave your nation, you are mandated to apply to the first safe harbor nation you enter for asylum. The law doesn't say you get to bounce from nation to nation and pick the country you would like best.

Asylum is supposed to be for emergency situations and is being abused in this case as cover for economic immigration. EVEN IF they had a legitimate reason to claim asylum, by those same international laws you evoke, they do not have a right to claim asylum in the US, and they CERTAINLY don't have a right to just rush the border.

Do you have any idea of how revoltingly privileged you are, and how arrogant and myopic you sound to everyone else? OFC you don't.

Really I am not sure how you manage to get your head that far up your ass. What you have is not knowledge, it is conditioning. It is the kind of "knowledge" a parrot has. You absorb and regurgitate. You have little to no ability for critical thought or logic. You think that if anyone disagrees with you they simply haven't been conditioned enough yet to understand your advanced ideology.

No, it could not be that you advocate for ideologies that directly result in loss of life and freedom from your position of extreme privilege, understanding what you advocate for only on the most superficial levels. It must be that everyone else is just ignorant and needs to hear you ramble about returning the means of production to the workers a few more times before they "get it".

Socialists and Communists are masters of the superficial. They are good at talking and fantasizing, but when it comes to empirical data, evidence, history, science, basically anything not totally subjective they have problems.

There is an old saying:

When the government fears the people, you have freedom. When the people fear the government you have tyranny.

Some of you may have been following the events in South Africa as the Communist party there takes control and begins the race based theft of land supposedly justified by past "colonialism" generations ago. I find South Africa to be a perfect microcosm of the destruction that Communism brings anywhere it goes, even in our modern age.

One angle of this situation you may not be aware of is that China is itself very involved in this situation, and is set to be the direct beneficiary of this ideological push. Most of the citizens of South Africa that would get land entitlements would not be working the land, as history shows the vast majority of that land is sold for cash. Of course China is right there to buy up all that prime real estate that would otherwise not be on the market unless it were for the state intervention.

Again this is a perfect example of how Communism operates. They come in and infiltrate organizations and change policy to fit Communist goals. They use minority groups and victim classes as human shields to cover for what would otherwise be inexcusable policies. Since these actions are taken in the context of "helping" some "victim", people are then more tolerant of the victimization of others in order for this to happen because they perceive it as righting some wrong.

Not only was there no wrong to be righted here, but the local population will be driven into poverty and starvation. Zimbabwe is a perfect example of what this will result in. Now instead of living with true legal equality to whites, they will trade in their white brothers for Chinese masters. The Chinese don't have the same taboos about racism as the West does either, so they will have no qualms subjugating the local population and colonizing their asses back into mud huts.

An interesting related video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q340jE0pBC0

"Thinking outside the box" and being assured of your position at the pinnacle of human evolution is not a substitute for logic.

Except Florida and California are real places. Socialism is a concept. You showing me a subjective picture about a subjective topic that exists only within your mind is not proof of its efficacy. In fact it is not even an argument, it is just you repeating your pathological need to always play the role of the educator, and anyone who disagrees with you is simply ignorant and in need of your benevolence graced upon them via your superior knowledge. It is a stale shtick and you are essentially a walking appeal to authority.





Your definition of Socialism is constantly shifting depending on how little of an argument you have at the time to support it. You can define Socialism as a can of smashed assholes, you still don't explain how that can comes into reality, or how the workers "own the means of production" without stealing the property and rights of others. All of the failures I have mentioned involved people just like you spouting about how they were going to return the means of production back to the workers. Saying it is not the same as doing it.



Democracy is mob rule. Individuals, minority groups, and fringe individuals have no rights under a pure Democracy. In a pure Democracy the many always take the rights of the few. This is how power is centralized via pure Democracy, by uniting the majority against the minority.





No, it is just math, you don't get to deconstruct math out of reality too. It is a fact endless money printing will inevitably debase the buying power of a currency. There is nothing to debate there, it is a fact no matter how "strong" the economy is. Thanks for the nifty chart proving my pointing that the policies you advocate debase the buying power of the wages of workers. You want to lie to them so they can be robbed by bankers, have them dependent on these policies, and grateful for them getting handed back SOME of their own money. Banks are the primary beneficiaries of money printing.

Communism and Socialism are banker lies designed to strip our bones, and you gleefully welcome them barely understanding what you do on a superficial level while claiming the authority of an expert and educator.





People are resources now? I thought they were workers. Which one of us is fighting for the workers again? You don't get to determine what resources are idle, the market does. Supply and demand create price signalling which tunes the supply and price of products and resources EXACTLY where they need to be to be most efficient at delivering these products. Now you want to come in and play around with this finely tuned machine that keeps us all warm, fed, and safe cause "workers should own the means of production".



  

You need to stop naming logical fallacies if you aren't even going to bother to take the time to learn to use them correctly. It is just sad... like picking up a gun and threatening to shoot as you point it at your face. I made very specific criticisms in direct response to your premise.

A straw man would be for example when you reply

"My definition of socialism has always been workers owning the means of production. None of the failures you have mentioned involved that."

to my statement of

"I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried."

that would be a straw man, because I point out the end result of attempting to implement your ideology and you simply say "workers owning the means of production isn't totalitarianism!". You give the appearance of arguing against my point while never even addressing it. You go ahead and keep misusing logical fallacies though if you like, I will keep showing you the real definitions with examples of you yourself demonstrating them.




Oh were you? So I suppose some how magically your ideology would only effect the RIGHT people wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't indiscriminately steal wealth from people arbitrarily designated as the "1%" now would it?

What you have is a pretty fantasy. You keep telling me about how great it would be but you aren't giving me any details on how that is going to happen without systematically robbing and stripping people of their rights.

So it is only fair if people don't make a profit is what you are saying? Of course you are the one who gets to determine the appropriate amount of profit if it is even allowed right? What is the motive to take the risk tying up your resources if there is no profit? No one would be complaining? I highly doubt that.

You drop a naked man in the middle of a forest and he either works or he starves. The world doesn't owe people a living, and Capitalism did not invent this situation. Which would you rather lose? A finger or all your profit from 20 years of labor? A lot of people would chose a finger.

You act as if "Capitalists" waved a magic wand and made these people rich, as if they didn't work or provide value to the economy to earn it. So now you think you can take that same magic wand and just make everyone rich. If everyone gets the same then exceptional people have no motive to work exceptionally hard to create all the great things we enjoy, you know like more food than we know what to do with for example.

I don't know what you are rambling about here but most jobs in modern nations have quite strict safety regulations. People do have a choice to choose a more dangerous job and be compensated more for that risk, or choose a safer job that pays less. Also who ever heard of grants or scholarships right? Or educational loans, I mean that is clearly an evil Capitalist invention.

Another name for that is a red herring, or a distraction from the Marxist origins of his ideology he claims is science based.

Do you ever get tired of insulting people just because they don't agree with you? Seems like you are more driven by anger and arrogance than truth and what is good for the people. No one called your prediction stupid but you, I offered you a bet at the numbers you claimed were possible and you pussed out because YOU were the one not confident of your predictions, and you say things you don't actually believe.

You have fun jerking each other off while it lasts, this year is going to painful for dems full of hubris. You keep on celebrating your win while we box you in The dems were HANDED the house to give them just enough rope to hang themselves with. Trump's base is not getting smaller, if anything it is growing because of people like you acting like lunatics. This is just wishful thinking on your part. Hey maybe you can find a few thousand more ballots and can change that? Even if you did get control again, you know what you have to look forward to? Civil war as a direct result of your willingness to delegitimize the vote of the people in Donald Trump from day one with zero evidence to back up the claims. I guess delegitimizing the government is only ok when you disagree with them right? That won't back fire at all!  

The terriffs are working, and China is the one paying he highest price. You seem quite excited over the prospect that the government is going to fail to get anything done. Again that brings us back to your motivation of anger and arrogance. You are gonna be real surprised when Muller is done. Have fun making yourself even more of a joke jerking off in public until then.

Are The Police Racist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo

How are entry costs enforced beyond regular market forces? How are monopolies maintained? Government. Monopolies can not exist without government to enforce regulations upon potential competing upstarts, raising the barrier of entry. This is not Capitalist. Capitalism encourages actual competition so that not only are resources used the most efficiently, but accurate price signaling can be created by free markets creating a timely and accurate pricing mechanism for resources.

Capitalism leads to totalitarism does it? Before impugning the system that gives you all of the things you enjoy in your daily life, maybe you want to look up the word totalitarianism, and you know maybe how it is spelled. Big corporations can't take control without the complicity of government. Even under a Socialist system this is still exactly just as much of a problem, so I am not sure what your argument is here. The world isn't perfect therefore Capitalism is a a failure?

You know who does need a centralized entity to regulate their lives for "the common good"? Socialists do. Otherwise how else can you rob people to pay for your handouts unless you have a government powerful enough to take the resources by force?

Capital comes from natural resources brought into the market by the induction of labor, usually by issuing credit. "the reward of capital" That is quite a detailed explanation!

Rich people get richer faster than anyone else because the market is willing to pay them the most for the goods and services they provide, because they have value. If they did not have value no one would pay for it. Now if you are talking about fraud and theft, that is not Capitalism, that is crime.

There is ALWAYS going to be a power hierarchy. It is the way it is in nature, and it is a natural organic structure within human society. Some people are natural leaders some people are natural followers. None of your wishing, praying to the ghost of Karl Marx, or theorizing will ever change that.

Also, the Rick & Morty reference used as if it has academic value gives you loads of credibility. After all, you have to have a high IQ to get most of the jokes in that show right?

Yes, yes... you do your mental gymnastics after the fact and deconstruct your way out of it as usual. There was no good reason to even bring that up as it in no way supports any of your countless red herring arguments designed to distract from the Marxist origins of your Postmodernist ideology known as "Critical Theory".

Oh I see! It is not that you are totally full of shit and I just called you on it, it is because I got confused! Thanks for clearing that up Professor Postmodern!

If it is a completely different thing unrelated to psychological maturation, why did you even present it as an example of Postmodernism being based in science? Could it be that you yourself have an extremely superficial knowledge of all these subjects and are simply a pretender using these topics as a veneer to give your ideology the appearance of the authority of real science? Nah.

All I am saying is people just like you making the same arguments you are to push censorship on pretty much every platform on the internet, as well as laws compelling speech in several countries including the USA. This is already happening. We are talking about it. Your argument in support of your premise is poor.

There you go talking about your precious political compass as if it means some thing. A political compass is nothing more than a visual aid to demonstrate a certain view of political interrelationships. It is no more based in fact than a map of Mordor would be.
Furthermore the image you use is a pathetic attempt at giving Socialists a facade of authority by remaking a more respected and more recognized version of that chart, and using that association to give it the appearance of credibility.

I don't care what qualifiers or extra names you tack on to your constantly shifting definition of Socialism. Nothing you are saying is anything different than all the people who pushed these ideas in the past resulting in horrible failures resulting in millions of deaths. You claim over and over your version of Socialism is some how magically and in some unspecified way different than all the other times it has been tried.

Your intent is irrelevant. You might believe feeding your child bleach will cure their flu, that doesn't mean just because you didn't intend to kill them feeding them bleach won't kill them. No one wanted totalitarianism before, you think anyone ever asked for it? No naive people like you HANDED THEM CONTROL. It is ok though, it will be different this time right?

"1.  Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money.  Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth.  Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy."

You are in way over your head. Increasing a monetary base decreases the buying power of the currency. This is a fact of math. You can't deconstruct your way around math. Oh the current money holders aren't wise are they, and you are? If you are so wise why don't you have all the money and hand it out as you please?


"2,3. An explanation of inflation was never meant to be an argument for socialism but a prerequisite for anyone who wants to discuss Marcora or any of the economic stimulus policies that are used to boost capitalist companies.  It was meant to give you an understanding of the relationship between money supply, inflation, and economic growth.  Resources are finite but they are not all being used.  This is what we mean by the economy running at full "capacity" or "steam" as I once put it.  Creating new money to chase resources that are already in use would not be wise but that is not what we are talking about."

Yet you are arguing for inflation in order to pay for your entitlement programs. Claiming your ideology creates economic stimulus is not the same as proving it. Yes, that is exactly what you are talking about, you want to create new money to chase the same already existing resources. These "idle resources" you talk about DO NOT EXIST.

"4. Could be a chicken egg thing. Higher wages for the working class means more disposable money for this large group of people to spend.  Higher demand leads to an increase in production to meet the demand.  This is a lot more activity than what the "money holders" who got "robbed" would have done with that money. "

The fact that you would even give credence to the idea that consumption creates productivity is quite illustrative of your inability to use logic and understand the most basic of economics principals, as well as your willingness to bend reality to meet your bias.

It could not be a chicken and egg thing. Burning through more resources is not the same thing as being efficient or productive. More "activity" is not automatically better. By that logic, lets just set everything on fire! Think of all the activity that will result from rebuilding!



I think the more important question you should be asking is what quality of life would these same people have WITHOUT being able to enjoy the fruits of Capitalism? The fact that poor people exist is not an argument against Capitalism.

Actually I was just asking a simple question. He referred to Obama investigations as if they were a common occurrence. What investigations?

That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.

Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?

1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.

2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.

A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.

4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?

"This has already happened." This what? I already responded to your single go to "Marcora laws". This is not empirical data that Socialism will stimulate the economy. First of all because the country is not Socialist. Second, even if it was, Socialism can coast on the fruits of the previous Capitalist system for some time until it fails.

This is the lie Socialists are best at selling. This is why I said Socialists are like an 18 year old with a credit card. Sure you can live off of a credit card and not produce as much as you consume for a little while, but eventually the debt comes due and your lie collapses.

It should be simple to grasp

1. Government has to take that money from workers by force
2. Businesses are already created with that money
3. Economic activity is already stimulated because we are operating under Capitalism
4. Workers are already paid and consume more from the economy

You can say whatever you like, that doesn't make it true. You don't even bother explaining how Socialism will "stimulate economic activity", you just accept it as a given and everything magically works out. Once again, more theories are useless unless you have empirical data to back up your arguments.

Once again you talk for me. Why even have a debate if you are going to just make up arguments for me yourself and argue them. I never said anything about the gold standard, you did. For about the 800th time, you are the one advocating a change, the burden of proof is on you to support your argument.

"it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases."

What the fuck are you even rambling on about?