US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Endless Soul]

Therein lies the problem. People think they have a choice between the two parties, when the corporations have ensured that there is no real choice between the two parties at all.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The problem, I think, is that Microsoft, Apple, and Google all support the same party. How, then, is one supposed to choose?

Those are "technical consumer product" corporations - no real difference in terms of politics. None of them want "content" wars and I honestly think they wish the patent monster would get fixed so they don't have to spend so much on defensive patent portfolios.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Agreed that to a large extent you're choosing *which* corporations will get a better ride and screw you more as a taxpayer when you vote Dem or GOP.
Both the Progressive/Occupy surge on one side and some parts of the Tea Party from the other (minus astroturfs and hijacks) - they are bottom level responses to both parties dropping the pretense it was anything else.

For a while one could point clearly to the GOP as the lesser of two evils for common folk. But now if you look at the corporate ownership, the tentacles clearly have a grip on both sides of the aisle - making Kang and Kodos not so funny now.

Agreed.
Both "grassroots" groups are now bought and paid for by special interests (Koch Bros own the Tea Party, Soros owns OWS), and now are little more than mouth pieces for their respective lobbists.

Since even protest groups are easily sucked into the money/lobby machine, I have little hope that any real grassroots uprising will survive the lure of big-money.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Agreed.
Both "grassroots" groups are now bought and paid for by special interests (Koch Bros own the Tea Party, Soros owns OWS), and now are little more than mouth pieces for their respective lobbists.

Since even protest groups are easily sucked into the money/lobby machine, I have little hope that any real grassroots uprising will survive the lure of big-money.

Oh yayyy, the false equivalency game, I love that one. Soros owns OWS? Ugh, no. Laying aside the dubious issue of whether he's even provided them funds (he hasn't), simply helping support a grassroots movement that's already attracted national attention doesn't transfer ownership to said donor. Whereas the tea party only even got off the ground in the first place thanks to big monied interests like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and solely positive coverage on Fox and CNN.

Also, a key difference between Soros and the Kochs - Soros is in the same top 1%. He is filthy rich, just as they are. And yet he votes against his economic interests for the betterment of others. The Kochs do not. And I have to yet to see a Soros equivalent to the Kochs as damning as the whole Walker-Koch-phone call incident.

Soros doesn't own OWS. He hasn't organized OWS, like Dick Armey actively helped organize tea party groups. Hell, you can't even call OWS organized. And that's the point. After all this time they still don't even have a coherent, clear message, and that to me is the best evidence of their actual grassroot nature. Whether it stays that way, who knows, but that's how it began, and that's how it is at the moment.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Since even protest groups are easily sucked into the money/lobby machine, I have little hope that any real grassroots uprising will survive the lure of big-money.

That is because the entire system revolves around money. It's why people like me refuse to believe that Capitalism is a long term viable economic system. It all boils down to the "other" Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

I hate to sound cynical or negative but that is the simple truth, proven throughout history and as long as anything of value can be consolidated and be made exclusive or near exclusive to a few at the expense of the many, it will never matter what people do because history will repeat itself.

You need money to do anything that matters in the system, unless you're capable of revolution and even that can be co-opted (if anyone seriously thinks that the Libyan rebels did all the work and weren't co-opted in any way, I have a Nigerian bank account with your name on it).

None of this will change until things get bad enough for people to really understand how they got screwed so much. I fear by the time that happens it will be too late. OWS is not made up of people who understand the problem, but I won't deny that it is a start. Unfortunately like the Tea Party it lacks any semblance of the bigger picture and is mostly people frustrated at increasingly deteriorating conditions but not knowing what to do about it. That's why slogans like "tax the rich" and "get government out of my medicare" became popular....they're just grabs for something because no one is seriously discussing problems and solutions.

The cold hard truth is that simply adding jobs will not fix this economy. Nor will re-regulating the FIRE economy, fixing taxes, or dumping a bunch of stimulus in infrastructure. It's just a simple matter of math, or to be more precise, exponential math, which it appears nearly every economist, politician, and finance industry worker failed miserably. I can excuse the general public because hey, the education system does suck....but these are supposed to be educated and well informed men. Supposed to be.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Oh yayyy, the false equivalency game, I love that one. Soros owns OWS? Ugh, no. Laying aside the dubious issue of whether he's even provided them funds (he hasn't), simply helping support a grassroots movement that's already attracted national attention doesn't transfer ownership to said donor. Whereas the tea party only even got off the ground in the first place thanks to big monied interests like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and solely positive coverage on Fox and CNN.

Also, a key difference between Soros and the Kochs - Soros is in the same top 1%. He is filthy rich, just as they are. And yet he votes against his economic interests for the betterment of others. The Kochs do not. And I have to yet to see a Soros equivalent to the Kochs as damning as the whole Walker-Koch-phone call incident.

Soros doesn't own OWS. He hasn't organized OWS, like Dick Armey actively helped organize tea party groups. Hell, you can't even call OWS organized. And that's the point. After all this time they still don't even have a coherent, clear message, and that to me is the best evidence of their actual grassroot nature. Whether it stays that way, who knows, but that's how it began, and that's how it is at the moment.

Drink the Jim Jones kooaid much?

Yes, in fact Soros is funding them through the Tides Foundation, MoveOn, and the Working Families Party (ACORN incognito).
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/04/o...-fingerprints/

Originally Posted by Solace

That is because the entire system revolves around money. It's why people like me refuse to believe that Capitalism is a long term viable economic system. It all boils down to the "other" Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

If we lived under Capitalism then you might have a point, Solace.
However, we don't.
As H.G. Wells pointed out in his book The New World Order (Chapter 4), "There never has been anything on earth that could be properly called a Capitalist System."

So long as fractional banking, corporations, fiat money, progressive taxation, and centralized banking exist, there will never be a capitalist system.

I hate to sound cynical or negative but that is the simple truth, proven throughout history and as long as anything of value can be consolidated and be made exclusive or near exclusive to a few at the expense of the many, it will never matter what people do because history will repeat itself.

When you say "proven" throughout history I do hope you're not referring to Marx's version of history.
Because he was dead wrong.
Mercantilism replaced the manoral state in the 1500s, and gave birth to corporatism in the 1700s-1800s.
Mankind has been living under corporatism of one form or another ever since.

None of this will change until things get bad enough for people to really understand how they got screwed so much. I fear by the time that happens it will be too late. OWS is not made up of people who understand the problem, but I won't deny that it is a start. Unfortunately like the Tea Party it lacks any semblance of the bigger picture and is mostly people frustrated at increasingly deteriorating conditions but not knowing what to do about it. That's why slogans like "tax the rich" and "get government out of my medicare" became popular....they're just grabs for something because no one is seriously discussing problems and solutions.

It's already too late, Solace.
We've got one shot left and people will not make the right choice.
They're too conditioned by the TV, media, etc.

The cold hard truth is that simply adding jobs will not fix this economy. Nor will re-regulating the FIRE economy, fixing taxes, or dumping a bunch of stimulus in infrastructure. It's just a simple matter of math, or to be more precise, exponential math, which it appears nearly every economist, politician, and finance industry worker failed miserably. I can excuse the general public because hey, the education system does suck....but these are supposed to be educated and well informed men. Supposed to be.

Agreed to a point.
The fractional banking system, Keynesian economics, and the fiat money system are basically shot.
There's a reason our money doesn't go as far as it did for our forefathers in the 1910s or prior.
It's because while the numerical value has increased, the overall buying power has decreased exponentially.
In this way, corporations are able to get the lumpenproletariat, proletariat, and petty-bourgeoisie to work for lower and lower wages.
That causes increased poverty, but also allows for the aristocracy to increase their profits immensely.

Had we an actual capitalist system, this would not be the case.

[DonQuigleone]

I don't really understand the obsession with Fiat money. Even gold is fiat currency, due to it's lack of any other inherent value. Gold, like money, is only as valuable as people think it is.

Likewise I don't see why fractional reserve banking is incompatible with capitalism, or even what the problem with it is (so long as the reserve is kept high enough). Furthermore, you don't need to take money from the bank to do business (though it makes it a lot easier...). Fractional reserve banking simply means the banking is lending your money for you, while guaranteeing you will not lose it, and also doing the work for you.

I also don't see how what form of taxation used effects whether you live in capitalism or not.

I'll give you a pass on corporations, they can be anti-competitive.

I think the core of capitalism is the concept of free enterprise and free movement of goods. Capitalism is described primarily by how the private sector behaves, the government is more of a fringe element, acting in a regulatory manner, while "skimming" from the top in the form of taxes. Government interference may make it a better or worse capitalist system, but it's still capitalistic. Just like the way if I puncture the tyres of your car, your car is still a car, albeit a useless one.

Capitalism doesn't mandate banking, taxation or anything, simply the free movement of goods, and free enterprise. That is Capitalism. Perhaps I'm wrong though, what do you think is capitalism? And what makes our economy non-capitalistic?

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Drink the Jim Jones kooaid much?

Yes, in fact Soros is funding them through the Tides Foundation, MoveOn, and the Working Families Party (ACORN incognito).
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/04/o...-fingerprints/

The very fact that that article uses phrases like "Communist sympathizer" and "ultra secretive" and "empty-headed Naomi Klein followers" (an intelligent woman by the way) as polemical epithets automatically makes me doubt its credibility, and its purpose to do anything other than further its agenda. Besides, I can easily find a counter article http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79D01Q20111014 But either way, my other point still stands. Donating money to something doesn't mean one owns, organizes, or controls it.

And please do not even bring up that ACORN crap. They registered minorities and low-income citizens to vote, votes which would most likely be Democrat. That was the SOLE reason they were attacked by Faux news and the GOP. There was no "widespread voter fraud," no shadowy behind the scenes evil communo-fascist conspiracy. James O'Keefe did a hit piece on them, and the Right ran with it. ACORN registered a large number of potential Democratic voters, and that was the only reason they were set up as an evil boogeyman by the GOP.

As for them working "incognito," that's an even more outrageous claim. Since, you know...ACORN doesn't exist anymore

[Xellos-_^]

Rick Perry wants to get rid of three agencies of the federal government. Just don’t ask him to identify the third one.

In easily the most painful moment of an already uneven set of debate performances, the Texas governor on Wednesday night fumbled badly when describing how he would cut government in the CNBC Republican debate.

Perry’s lack of knowledge about his own political platform was awkward on the stage and immediately raised eyebrows in the Twitterverse, and could possibly be a pivot point in his campaign with longer-lasting implications for the race.

It went down like this. Perry began by saying “ I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the -- what’s the third one there? Let’s see.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z2

perry is done

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Had we an actual capitalist system, this would not be the case.

Likewise, we've never had a true socialist system. This isn't about either or though. This is about a basic truth of centralized power. If I have everything, or nearly everything, I have leverage. Depending on the kind of person I am (and judging by history people in such positions are rarely benevolent), I'm going to use that leverage to protect and expand my interests. Meaning I'm interested in keeping what I have and getting more of it if possible. This means less for you but I don't care until the torches and pitchforks start burning and poking me.

Since people can't really agree on what to define Capitalism as, I'd appreciate you taking the steps to explain to me what you think "true" Capitalism is, and how it would be better than other systems.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

The very fact that that article uses phrases like "Communist sympathizer" and "ultra secretive" and "empty-headed Naomi Klein followers" (an intelligent woman by the way) as polemical epithets automatically makes me doubt its credibility, and its purpose to do anything other than further its agenda. Besides, I can easily find a counter article http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79D01Q20111014 But either way, my other point still stands. Donating money to something doesn't mean one owns, organizes, or controls it.

And please do not even bring up that ACORN crap. They registered minorities and low-income citizens to vote, votes which would most likely be Democrat. That was the SOLE reason they were attacked by Faux news and the GOP. There was no "widespread voter fraud," no shadowy behind the scenes evil communo-fascist conspiracy. James O'Keefe did a hit piece on them, and the Right ran with it. ACORN registered a large number of potential Democratic voters, and that was the only reason they were set up as an evil boogeyman by the GOP.

As for them working "incognito," that's an even more outrageous claim. Since, you know...ACORN doesn't exist anymore

Facts don't enter into your thinking do they.

The WFP was created by labour unions, ACORN, and other community organizations.
Bertha Lewis was co-chair of the WFP in 2009 until the ACORN scandal broke.
They were intimately related to each other and had the exact same address for their headquarters in New York City.
To think that ACORN "doesn't exist anymore"--yet the same people are part of and operating the WFP--is ludicrous.

[ATM]

Wow I didn't know there was a political tread, how serious or politically correct one has to be here? just asking hehe.

If I was a US citizen I woul definitely vote for D.r. Ron Paul, since I'ma bit of liberitarian.

I also hope that Donal trump doesn't jump again into the race.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

Likewise, we've never had a true socialist system.

Agreed.
Karl Marx screwed up socialist philosophy.
Had it gone the Owenist route, things may have been quite different.
The sad truth is (according to Ruhle Otto) Engles was originally a staunch Owenist.
Pity, because of the two (Marx and Engles), Frederich seemed the more stable and grounded in reality.

This isn't about either or though. This is about a basic truth of centralized power. If I have everything, or nearly everything, I have leverage. Depending on the kind of person I am (and judging by history people in such positions are rarely benevolent), I'm going to use that leverage to protect and expand my interests. Meaning I'm interested in keeping what I have and getting more of it if possible. This means less for you but I don't care until the torches and pitchforks start burning and poking me.

That is the problem.
I agree.
Lenin understood this in 1923-24 when he realized that Marx was wrong and started the NEP.
He realized that he had to end War Communism lest he face a peasant uprising which was starting to look like a real possiblity for him in the 1921-23 period.
If Lenin could figure this out, can we hope that our Puppet-in-Chief and his Wall Street backers will also?

Since people can't really agree on what to define Capitalism as, I'd appreciate you taking the steps to explain to me what you think "true" Capitalism is, and how it would be better than other systems.

Here's a very quick summary of my view of what an actual capitalist society would look like.

"True" Capitalism is a system that neither hinders nor uplifts an individual or cooperative of individuals in their pursuit of happiness while also maintaining the society in which it conducts its business and is thus reliant.

In capitalism, power rests in the hands of the proletariat in the form of a democratic commonwealth/republic and the keeping and bearing of arms (Lenin also believed in an armed proletariat).

Wealth is redistributed from the the aristocracy to the proletariat by outlawing fractional banking, fiat money, and any other mechanism that undermines the buying power of the money earned by the laborer.

Corporations cannot exist in an actual capitalist system as a corporation is by definition a creature of the state.

Under a capitalist system, taxation for the maintenance of government must be uniform over the enumerated census (evenly distributed), and tariffs should be imposed at every tier of market (county, state, national, international).

Business must be allowed to follow the same life cycle as their creators and thus should be born, live, and die accordingly.

The ideological goal of capitalism is that all people are created equal and thus endowed with inalienable rights. Therefore, the quest for an egalitarian society--a society where there are no classes--is the ideal that capitalism chases after.

This was the view of the Classical Liberals, and it was they who invisioned what capitalism was supposed to be like.
Sadly, their vision never got beyond theory.

The Austrian model is closer to actual Capitalism then many others, but it too suffers from influences by people like Rothbard Murray who are changing it into a form of Objectivist-economics.
And I despise Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

Austrian economics.

[ATM]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Agreed.
Karl Marx screwed up socialist philosophy.
Had it gone the Owenist route, things may have been quite different.
The sad truth is (according to Ruhle Otto) Engles was originally a staunch Owenist.
Pity, because of the two (Marx and Engles), Frederich seemed the more stable and grounded in reality.
[/URL]

wow wow, wait a minute Karl Marx didn't screw up any socialist doctrine. His doctrine was "comunism" wihch was developed into an economic system by frederic Engles. The guy with the socialist doctrine was Benito Mussolini and as the Russians adopted comunism the germans adopted a Type of socialism.

[james0246]

So...I missed the recent debate (I recorded it, but probably won't get to see it till the weekend). The one part I saw had Gingrich acting like a crazed loon with pointless ad hominem attacks (amongst other fallacies) on the Wallstreet Protest people (even one of the moderators was growing annoyed by his nonsensical answers), and Romney looked very evil for some reason (did he dye his hair?). Anything else interesting happen?

[ATM]

Originally Posted by james0246

So...I missed the recent debate (I recorded it, but probably won't get to see it till the weekend). The one part I saw had Gingrich acting like a crazed loon with pointless ad hominem attacks (amongst other fallacies) on the Wallstreet Protest people (even one of the moderators was growing annoyed by his nonsensical answers), and Romney looked very evil for some reason (did he dye his hair?). Anything else interesting happen?

How was D.r Pauls performance was he even there?

And what do you think about the women of the view conducting a political debate, doesn't it sounds goofy to you that these women dare to step into the political arena, I don't think they have the knowledge to do so.

[Kaiba]

Agreed.
Karl Marx screwed up socialist philosophy.
Had it gone the Owenist route, things may have been quite different.
The sad truth is (according to Ruhle Otto) Engles was originally a staunch Owenist.
Pity, because of the two (Marx and Engles), Frederich seemed the more stable and grounded in reality.

Erm, why?

Marxism was a reaction against Owenism, which had already been tried ( and failed badly as it suffered many of the exact same problems that the Soviet Union did). It was posited to be more realistic as it actually with politics, economic, history, and other stuff - while Owen's was ultimately acknowledged to be the "Oh, let's have everyone get along!"

Really, people who don't understand Communism, when they make their arguments against it, are really arguing against Owenism. While Marxism is severely flawed, there's a couple Marxist ideals ( especially in history) that I respect. Owenism is just garbage.

And really, I don't understand your definition of capitalism. While I'm going to attack it, I would ask where you came up with it. Because Burke, Locke, and Friedman, all of whom can be defined as classical liberals, would never argue that society should pursue egalitarianism.

Wealth is redistributed from the the aristocracy to the proletariat by outlawing fractional banking, fiat money, and any other mechanism that undermines the buying power of the money earned by the laborer.

Oh God.
I'll go ahead and ask what's the point of a bank if you don't have fractional reserve, and a capitalist system is absolutely not capable of surviving without banks. Secondly, the United States lived in a reign where there was no fiat money - between Jackson's destruction of the bank and Lincoln's establishment of the greenback. And that era was arguably the lowest point in American history. Honestly, if you want to know what money looks like without government backing - Google Bitcoin. Which is massively inferior to the dollar explicitly because it's not government backed.

Corporations cannot exist in an actual capitalist system as a corporation is by definition a creature of the state.

You do, however, acknowledge that businesses can exist. What's the difference? Especially since the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club, and other political groups? Those are all corporations. Would you shut them down?

Under a capitalist system, taxation for the maintenance of government must be uniform over the enumerated census (evenly distributed), and tariffs should be imposed at every tier of market (county, state, national, international).

I won't talk about how a flat tax is such a ridiculous idea, but TARIFFS? In a capitalist system? The idea capitalist system is one where the free market is supreme, and tariffs are pretty much the ultimate chains on that. And how many tariffs, how much, and what if the people ( since you're in a republic), don't want tariffs?

Business must be allowed to follow the same life cycle as their creators and thus should be born, live, and die accordingly.

So, you would argue that Apple should be destroyed right now? If so, what happens to all of Apple's stuff?

Honestly, Austrian is woo. It's unfalsifiable, and is not deserving of respect. The fact that people conflate Friedman with Hayek and his goons is despicable, really?

[ATM]

By the way I wish that someone on the democratic side challenged Obama, unfortunatelly only Hillary has the knwledge or the power to do so. And she is also stablishment. And I don't like stablishment, heck the only difference I see between lots of democrats and republicans is that they have different sponsors in name only. While big oil supports Reps (just an example), Unions support dems. And both are powerful and have their own agendas, in which ppl's true wellfare is a very low priority. Dems need someone like Dr. Paul but they don't have him.

That's why some leftists like Jesse Ventura (I know hes a little wacky to say the least) seek to change parties in order to support Ron Paul, ain't that awesome? that to opposites, as the mainstreet media wants ppl to believe, one on the far left and the other in the far rgiht can come to terms and have some common ground?

Also want to know what you guys think about Silvio Berlusconi steping down, and how long will the EU. will ramain together. I think the days of the Euro are numbered.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ATM

wow wow, wait a minute Karl Marx didn't screw up any socialist doctrine. His doctrine was "comunism" wihch was developed into an economic system by frederic Engles. The guy with the socialist doctrine was Benito Mussolini and as the Russians adopted comunism the germans adopted a Type of socialism.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

No...NO...JUST NO!


Benito Mussolini was a FASCIST!
He wrote the doctrine of fascism.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma.../mussolini.htm

Karl Marx and Frederich Engles developed what they called "Scientific"-socialism, more commonly known today as Marxism.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...ific-socialism

Communism and socialism existed as an idea prior to Marx and Engles.

Charles Fourier being among the most famous of the "Utopian" Socialists who postulated that if everyone lived in communes (he called Phalanxes) with no private property there would be world peace and...get ready for this...the oceans would magically transform into lemonaid.
Needless to say, Fourier was a nutjob, but then again so was Marx!!!

[ATM]

Originally Posted by Kaiba

It's unfalsifiable, and is not deserving of respect. The fact that people conflate Friedman with Hayek and his goons is despicable, really?

By Friedman you mean Milton Friedman?