**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

In 1945, our debt/gdp % was.......

You keep repeating yourself man. And it's not really even relevant. The economy in 1945 was a completely different animal than it is now. You really can't be making these comparisons.

Despite the higher taxes of the era, we had a much more robust economy for the average citizen, a more powerful country, we pretty much annually balanced the budget

You keep talking about a balanced budget. Sure, it sounds good, but it doesn't necessarily help poor people.

productivity and GDP per Capita went up, unlike what's been going on ever since 1981.

False. GDP per capita has been going up, consistently, for over 60 years now.

If wealthy people getting wealthier, made everyone else wealthier, we wouldn't have 51% of US workers making a wage that leaves them in poverty

It DOES make everyone else wealthier. Household income is up. Alot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._thru_2014.png

See those two huge dips in the early 90's and middle 2000's. Coincidentally, those were the periods where were were ruled by tax & spend democrats!

Obama has not put in a large tax increase on the wealthy,

Dude....c'mon. You can't say Bush passed large tax cuts on the wealth, and then say that discontinuing those tax cuts (which obama did) isn't a "large tax increase". When you pass a tax cut, and then repeal it, the effects are opposite....but EQUAL. If Obama didn't pass a "large tax increase", then Bush didn't pass a "large tax cut". You can't have it both ways.

If the ACA gets repealed, what am I gonna do?

Get a job!

I don't know, looks like my family will have to shovel more money to the Pharmaceutical industry and Healthcare industry for me to gain coverage again.

What the F man? A few posts ago your family was among the top 10% wealthiest in the country. Now you're complaining about not getting enough government subsidies? Isn't your family the exact people you want to pay more??

I get it now. You only support policies that you perceive as hurtful to people you perceive as having more than you do.

Jealousy is NOT an economic policy

[wufwugy]

Take the stuff about what caused (and what would solve) the 08 Financial Crisis and Great Recession with a grain of salt. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance among many economists in order to make the case that it was due to lack of regulation, sinister behavior by banks, and consumers unable to afford the homes.

[Jack Sawyer]

Lots of alternative facts being thrown around here

[Poopadoop]

It DOES make everyone else wealthier. Household income is up. Alot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._thru_2014.png

See those two huge dips in the early 90's and middle 2000's. Coincidentally, those were the periods where were were ruled by tax & spend democrats!

Lmfao. Try looking again.

There's a big drop in the 1988-92 (Bush Sr.) period, followed by a large rise in the 1992-2000 (Clinton) period, a slow decline in 2000-8 (Bush Jr.) and a sharp drop after that (crash at tail end of Bush), followed by an increase from about 2012 when the economy recovered.

[Poopadoop]

You might also try looking at some more of those graphs, like this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ...old_income.png

[wufwugy]

I'd refrain from deriving anything from those charts. They're virtually meaningless.

[Poopadoop]

I'd refrain from deriving anything from those charts.

More generally, I'd suggest learning to read a chart.

[JimmyS1985]

You keep repeating yourself man. And it's not really even relevant. The economy in 1945 was a completely different animal than it is now. You really can't be making these comparisons.


You keep talking about a balanced budget. Sure, it sounds good, but it doesn't necessarily help poor people.


False. GDP per capita has been going up, consistently, for over 60 years now.


It DOES make everyone else wealthier. Household income is up. Alot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._thru_2014.png

See those two huge dips in the early 90's and middle 2000's. Coincidentally, those were the periods where were were ruled by tax & spend democrats!


Dude....c'mon. You can't say Bush passed large tax cuts on the wealth, and then say that discontinuing those tax cuts (which obama did) isn't a "large tax increase". When you pass a tax cut, and then repeal it, the effects are opposite....but EQUAL. If Obama didn't pass a "large tax increase", then Bush didn't pass a "large tax cut". You can't have it both ways.


Get a job!


What the F man? A few posts ago your family was among the top 10% wealthiest in the country. Now you're complaining about not getting enough government subsidies? Isn't your family the exact people you want to pay more??

I get it now. You only support policies that you perceive as hurtful to people you perceive as having more than you do.

Jealousy is NOT an economic policy

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016...me-how-do.aspx

My family is wealthy, I'm not. Even when I worked I was poor. LOL I remember in 2004, I worked at a restaurant, and no shit, my wage was $2.13 an hour. I was so pissed to see how little my wage was, and the tips were only like $4 an hour, just barely more than minimum wage. I purposely got fired about 4 weeks into that job. And I had no way of knowing if my managers were skimming my tips, which is a well known practice that managers do to low wage employees in this country.

I once helped a private contractor refinish a wood floor for several days. Refinishing floors, come on, that's not easy work. I estimated my hourly on that job, to be roughly $6.50 an hour. Almost a waste of time, but I guess I got some experience in refinishing wood floors, not that I ever put it to use.

Another time I got a job at a Pizza restaurant. Delivery. Didn't even pay an hourly (is that even legal?) Between the price of 93 octane gas which was about $3 a gallon in January of 2006 I believe, wear and tear on my car, and my tips, I was actually practically volunteering for them. Definitely made sure I got fired from that job as well.

Most my jobs paid shitty, to the point where I didn't even like working. Even when I had a clean legal record, the jobs that I got were really bad paying, to the point it just pissed me off lol. It's one thing to come home from work, economically way better off but pissed off. I had the worst of both worlds, I come home from work, I'm still totally making a poverty level wage, and pissed off. That's why I left the work force, and I'm a lot happier. I might get back into it, we'll see. I've been entertaining the thought.

My best paying job, paid $13 an hour by the end of it, started out at $11 an hour. So I was finally making about $1250 a month, but after rent, food, utilities, cable and internet, insurance on my car, and gas, I had about $200 left over. I had a long commute, and my commute to the University was about 35 miles and I estimated I had to pass through 20 different police jurisdictions to get there, possibly more, and a huge portion of them were these notorious speed traps, and I had a car that just STUCK OUT like a sore thumb, and cops LOVED to fuck with me.

So a cop would nab me for 12mph over the speed limit, and immediately wipe out the next 6 weeks of disposable income. Just infuriated me. That's another reason I quit working, when the commute alone is risky enough that you can lose 6 weeks of disposable income for a low level traffic offense, it's almost a gamble, going to work. The sad thing about that job, is of the part-time temp's working there, I was probably the highest paid if we compared salaries, so every other low level employee had it worse than me. And that job had no paid vacation, sick, dental. You don't show up to work, you fall behind on making payments on everything.

One job, after 6 months, you get a raise, but you only get 1 raise, and that's your pay cap for that job from here on out. I was a bagger at a grocery store, 6 months in, I got more work experience than 90% of the baggers there due to the baggers figuring out that it's a lot of hard work for really bad pay. My raise? Fucking $.10 an hour. Pissed me off so bad. What's the point of the raise? God damn insult, work 100 more hours just to make $10 extra? Fuck that. Every bagger at that grocery turned to stealing out of purses women left behind to make up the difference.

Then I went to college full time so I didn't have a lot of time for work, and had a small part time job at a daycare. I got biweekly paychecks of like $135, or $67.50 a week. That was such a bad wage, (the wage was so bad, I turned to drug dealing to make up the difference, which paid a lot better, and was a lot less work, albeit a shit ton more legally risky).

When I think about all my jobs I've held, not a single one of them, did I have enough disposable income left over after bills to afford something as basic as health insurance.

Family plays the market, I got everything I need. Money bags mom, can make more money with the click of a mouse than I can in 6 months of working at the restaurant. No commute, I don't have to worry about cops wiping out huge portions of disposable income either.

You're right GDP per capita has gone up. Median Household INcome, which is what the ordinary American makes, has stagnated. There's a huge divergence between GDP per Capita and Median Household Income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...old_income.png

Which lead me to this article in the wikilinks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income..._United_States

Pretty much accurately sums up everything I've been saying in the whole article.

"The U.S. ranks around the 30th percentile in income inequality globally, meaning 70% of countries have a more equal income distribution."

So our society is going to be known for it's remarkable, socioeconomic inequalities within a few decades. I guess we're trying to beat El Salvador, which had 2% of the population taking in 95% of the nations income. Sounds lovely.

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCen9-RELM When I did work, this was the song I played the most in my work station. Although some of my jobs I didn't work nearly as hard as the guy mentioned in the song, but I definitely felt like him.

[wufwugy]

More generally, I'd suggest learning to read a chart.

That which makes up a household changes, and using it to speculate doesn't yield intended results.

[Jack Sawyer]

Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping, cites no evidence.

Here we go again. Full circle paranoia.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping, cites no evidence.

Here we go again. Full circle paranoia.

He's been reading r/the_donald again.

[Jack Sawyer]

If the Christian SCIENCE monitor sees this, you know shit just hit the fan.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...ellite-program

Same thing explained elsewhere

https://qz.com/919982/a-nasa-enginee...han-it-sounds/

I guess if you can't see the global warming/climate change data, then it obviously isn't happening. Great!


Meanwhile, record budget increases for the military ...

[a500lbgorilla]

All I've ever wanted from those that govern was a sense of competence.

[wufwugy]

Interesting movies you're playing.

[oskar]

All I've ever wanted from those that govern was a sense of competence.

lol get rekt noob

[bigred]

Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping, cites no evidence.

Here we go again. Full circle paranoia.

First, the leakers were the bad guys for Flynn. Now it's "Obama wiretapping" (never happened) are the bad guys. It's not the crime but the rat! Makes me start to get more excited about what this could potentially mean for Sessions but I'm probably reading too much into this.

[BananaStand]

Trump is accusing Obama of wiretapping, cites no evidence.

Here we go again. Full circle paranoia.

They accused Trump of working in kahootz with the Russians, and cited no evidence. In fact, all the evidence on the Russia thing suggests that the Russians had a hair across their ass for Hillary, going back a decade. Yet still we have this massive taxpayer-funded inquiry.

Why can't Trump play that game too?

Even if he made it up out of thin air just to offset all the Russia-bullshit, I'd call that a brilliant play. If the press wants to play petty little games, they really can't cry when Trump beats them at it.

[Poopadoop]

They accused Trump of working in kahootz with the Russians, and cited no evidence.

Who are 'they'?

All I've heard is that Russia hacked the election, not that Trump was in cahoots with them on it. There's also of course Trump's suspiciously friendly tone towards Putin and the general lack of honesty Trump has in general, and some other minor bits and bobs about Trump associates talking to Russians. This certainly raises suspicions, but I haven't heard any credible source saying Trump deliberately worked with Russia to win the election.

On the other hand, your fearless leader woke up one day, found himself unsupervised, and read a Breitbart news report. He then went on a tweet rampage accusing Obama of tapping his phones without having all (any?) of the facts. Seems a bit impulsive if not outright retarded.

[BananaStand]

Seems a bit impulsive if not outright retarded.

It would only be outright retarded if he was actually guilty of deliberately working with Russia.

It's being investigated by the same congressional committee. If there are wiretaps, whatever is on them would certainly be exposed to congressional democrats. In other words, if Trump was guilty of any wrongdoing, then his latest accusation would be him deliberately exposing evidence against himself. That would be impulsive and retarded.

So if Trump really believes that there were wiretaps, then he also believes that the contents of tapped conversations do nothing to implicate him.

It's also possible, and most likely in my opinion, that Trump doesn't believe there were wiretaps, and this is just a ploy to distract attention away from the whole Russia story. Doesn't matter what Trump does nowadays, the press can't write about it without dropping a few sentences about Russia. Now Spicer is basically saying 'no comment until congress finishes this once and for all'. In which case, it seems neither impulsive nor retarded. More like genius

[Poopadoop]

Discussion starts at 4:00

[Poopadoop]

More like genius

Ya he's clearly a mastermind.

If you think the Russia thing is just going to go away because Trump tweeted something outrageous, guess again. If he's guilty and there's evidence he's guilty, he's going down sooner or later. If he's not guilty then he's not going down (or at least not for that).

He can tweet any nonsense he wants, it's not going to change what happens with the investigation.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This use of language is inflammatory and misleading*.
There is only your personal, subjective, moral judgement on him by your use of the word, "guilty."
At least, I'm not sure what kind of "guilt" you're talking about if not your personal judgement.


*The President can't be guilty of breaking any laws, because it's a part of being President that you can't be prosecuted for any crimes while you hold office. Without a trial by jury, there is no assessment of guilt under the law. Without impeachment, the President cannot be tried.

While the President has limited constitutional protection from criminal prosecution, the President has widespread practical immunity to any prosecution while holding office. E.g. in most cases of wrongdoing, the files would be sealed until the President left office, and the case pursued then, if at all.

[Poopadoop]

This use of language is inflammatory and misleading*.
There is only your personal, subjective, moral judgement on him by your use of the word, "guilty."
At least, I'm not sure what kind of "guilt" you're talking about if not your personal judgement.


*The President can't be guilty of breaking any laws, because it's a part of being President that you can't be prosecuted for any crimes while you hold office. Without a trial by jury, there is no assessment of guilt under the law. Without impeachment, the President cannot be tried.

While the President has limited constitutional protection from criminal prosecution, the President has widespread practical immunity to any prosecution while holding office. E.g. in most cases of wrongdoing, the files would be sealed until the President left office, and the case pursued then, if at all.

Don't read your own interpretations into my words. I never said he was going to be prosecuted in a criminal case, I said he was going down.

If it comes to light that he did something that was blatantly offsides to win the election, then whether or not he can be found guilty by a court of law is immaterial. He can still be 'guilty' of a wrongdoing and he can still be impeached ('go down').

[BananaStand]

It seems to me that this all could have been put to bed very quickly and quietly if it were completely untrue. Either there were wire-taps, or there weren't. I don't see a lot of gray area there. So if the allegations were untrue, Comey could have sent out a press release first thing this morning that categorically denies it.

Instead, he is imploring the DOJ to do it for him. What's up with that?

[bigred]

It seems to me that this all could have been put to bed very quickly and quietly if it were completely untrue. Either there were wire-taps, or there weren't. I don't see a lot of gray area there. So if the allegations were untrue, Comey could have sent out a press release first thing this morning that categorically denies it.

Instead, he is imploring the DOJ to do it for him. What's up with that?

I think he's leaning on the DOJ given they need to approve wiretapping and he's also not the most credible person in the public opinion right now. I mean, what would a press release do that this doesn't? This also enlists the DOJ so it seems like a 2 for 1.

[Jack Sawyer]

Even if he made it up out of thin air just to offset all the Russia-bullshit, I'd call that a brilliant play.

Of course you would.

In other news, the sky seems blue

[BananaStand]

I mean, what would a press release do that this doesn't?

He would be putting his statements on record. His reluctance to do that seems fishy to me.

[BananaStand]

Of course you would.

In other news, the sky seems blue

Tell me what's so bad about a little counter-intelligence?

There's really only a small number of facts in this whole mess: Flynn was wire-tapped, He was in Trump Tower, We don't know who ordered the wire taps, and we don't know who leaked them. That's it.

Everything else, literally every single thing that's been reported on this story outside of those facts, is speculation.

Why should the press and the democrats be the only ones allowed to spin it to match their preferred theories. They're all getting a well-deserved taste of their own medicine.

[wufwugy]

With "phase 1" of the healthcare reform rollout, we may be seeing the first real legislative problem regarding Trump (and the Republicans). So far, it changes next to nothing regarding Obamacare. I argued extensively against Trump during the primaries on this. It seems he is on the course he said he would be on (and his supporters ignored): that healthcare should be a "right", thereby ensuring everybody gets much worse care for much higher cost.

[BananaStand]

It seems he is on the course he said he would be on

Disagree. Trump's talking points on healthcare during the campaign were
-Transparency in pricing
-Competition across state lines

Neither of those seem to have materialized in the new bill. Though Trump promises them in phases 2 or 3. Whatever that means.

[wufwugy]

Disagree. Trump's talking points on healthcare during the campaign were
-Transparency in pricing
-Competition across state lines

Neither of those seem to have materialized in the new bill. Though Trump promises them in phases 2 or 3. Whatever that means.

That's part of what he said during the primaries. Multiple times he alluded to universal coverage a few different ways.

A couple months ago I was telling my sister I fully expect Trump's healthcare plan to keep the pre-existing conditions and (effective) mandates. She, like many other conservatives when confronted by that idea, was surprised since there was mass hallucination among Trump supporters where they ignored some of what he said.

[Jack Sawyer]

On Trumpcare

[Jack Sawyer]

I like how a significant amount of people absolutely loved the Affordable Care Act but they would absolutely hate and loathe Obamacare.

[Jack Sawyer]

This. Is. HUGE.




Also, we are, collectively, completely, totally and royally fucked. We just don't realize the extent of our fuckedness yet.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/17/k...es-564433.html

[Savy]

Sounds like what you'd basically expect. It does make me somewhat want to go live in a forest off the grid.

[Jack Sawyer]

On chafitz or however his name is spelled

This morning, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) suggested that the Republicans’ proposed Affordable Care Act replacement would require Americans to “make a choice” in order to pay for health care. “Maybe, rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and they want to spend hundreds of dollars on, maybe they should invest in their own health care,” he told CNN. There are a lot of things wrong with this statement, including the fact that average health care spending per capita is thousands, not hundreds, of dollars annually. But one of the most subtly frustrating details is how “that new iPhone” is used as a stand-in for frivolous luxury — not a central fixture for many people’s lives.Chaffetz is the latest of many people to imply that you can’t be poor (or simply not-wealthy) if you own a smartphone. A certain subset of internet users gets enraged every time a homeless person or refugee shows up with one, or when the government funds them for low-income Americans. But a smartphone is probably one of the most useful and efficient pieces of technology you can buy. It's a miniature computer that the average person consults dozens of times a day — not just for sending selfies and watching cat videos, but for arranging childcare, keeping in touch with family, staying on top of work emails, reading books, and managing classwork.

In some cases, smartphone ownership isn’t just nice, it’s practically required to participate in the workforce. Mobile broadband is the only way that many low-income Americans access the internet, where companies are increasingly keeping their job listings. Workplace “bring your own device” policies assume employees already have the equipment to stay in touch at all times.
Granted, Chaffetz didn’t say “smartphone” here, he said iPhone, one of the most expensive smartphone models. The average Android phone costs around a third of the iPhone’s roughly $650 price tag, and if price is your biggest concern, you can get one for under $200. But even leaving aside the existence of cheaper secondhand iPhones, there are still valid, practical reasons to spend that extra money. Maybe your friends and family use iMessage, and you don’t want to be left out of conversations. Maybe you’re worried about the vulnerabilities of budget Android phones that run on outdated software or get important updates late, something privacy expert Christopher Soghoian has called the digital-security divide. Or maybe you want something that repair shops can quickly fix if it gets broken — when a button got stuck on my own HTC phone last year, some stores refused to even look at it.

None of this should distract from the basic stupidity of saying that a little belt-tightening will offset the tremendous cost of health care, or the sociopathy of believing that people only deserve treatment if they live like monks. But Chaffetz’s choice of example perpetuates the outdated idea that smartphones are still somehow more optional than, say, a car or landline telephone. That notion makes it easier to downplay information technology’s overall importance, and get away with things like cutting low-income broadband aid or gutting consumer internet protections. And even if you don’t care about the iPhone, that’s worth calling out.

My point isn’t that you absolutely must own an iPhone; in fact, I haven’t had one for years. It’s that we shouldn’t be using the iPhone as shorthand for dumb, spendthrift purchases, any more than we’d shame someone for not picking the cheapest possible car when a slightly more expensive model fit their needs. And to be clear, we’re not talking about the difference between a Kia and a Ferrari. $450 won’t even pay for an emergency room Band-Aid application. (If you want to spend $15,000 on a Vertu, that’s on you.)

[wufwugy]

On Trumpcare

Be aware that this guy only gives the echo chamber version. Example is in how he characterizes Obamacare as originally right-wing etc etc. It's not. I remember believing it was too back when I was in the echo chamber.

I'd take his views with a grain of salt.

[wufwugy]

This. Is. HUGE.

They wouldn't get away with this without government education brainwashing us all from childhood. You'll never find a more ardent defender of the state than those who were educated by the state. Well, maybe you could if you found somebody who depends on the state for "well-being"...

[Jack Sawyer]

Full circle

[Jack Sawyer]

They wouldn't get away with this without government education brainwashing us all from childhood. You'll never find a more ardent defender of the state than those who were educated by the state. Well, maybe you could if you found somebody who depends on the state for "well-being"...

You have an inherent bias against the current education system. In your view, education in the US as it is is nothing but a brainwashing-the-youth-operation? If so, how and in what ways does the brainwashing happen?

[Poopadoop]

Full circle

This is what is slightly amusing about Trump (or slightly scary depending on your perspective). The guy has no tendency to reflect at all, he just reacts to whatever happens when it happens.

Here, he meets the Russian ambassador at a VIP reception. A few minutes later he's giving a speech talking about having better relations with Russia.

The other day he reads a Breitbart news report that Obama tapped his phones, and immediately starts having a twitter tantrum accusing Obama.

Thinking fast and slow. Donald, you need to try thinking slow sometime.

[Poopadoop]

You have an inherent bias against the current education system. In your view, education in the US as it is is nothing but a brainwashing-the-youth-operation? If so, how and in what ways does the brainwashing happen?

They're being subjected to subliminal messages telling them 'it's ok for the government to spy on you'.

[Savy]

They're being subjected to subliminal messages telling them 'it's ok for the government to spy on you'.

The mad thing is most people seem to be ok with this in the UK.

[Poopadoop]

The mad thing is most people seem to be ok with this in the UK.

Most people don't think they have anything to hide.

[wufwugy]

You have an inherent bias against the current education system. In your view, education in the US as it is is nothing but a brainwashing-the-youth-operation? If so, how and in what ways does the brainwashing happen?

I don't think it's "nothing but". However, that is one of its core facets and is something I don't think it can escape as long as education is a tax-funded service.

What is the indoctrination? If you've been through American (or even just western) education, you'll notice a narrative and you'll notice vast swaths of thought ignored. My field of study, economics, is one of the worst. It's a giant government legitimizing program. We spend countless hours rationalizing government intervention into markets while almost entirely ignoring economics that argues otherwise. The funny thing is that economics only began making sense to me after I found the work by those economists who argue otherwise. The mainstream narrative in academics is chock full of convoluted and unexplained logic.

On history, they teach nothing remotely close to reality, and instead that which conforms to a narrative. They teach that Lincoln was GOAT and FDR saved the world and the Confederacy was evil and the Crusades were evil, all of which is false at worse and deeply misleading at best. The list here is virtually endless.

What do they teach regarding quantitative skills? Virtually none of it is personal finance at the k-12 level. This is probably the most important possible thing you can teach people when it comes to quantitative skills, yet it's eschewed. What do we learn instead? Algebra, trig, calculus, all things that don't matter for shit to 99% of those who take them. The last thing the state wants is a populace good at personal finance. Teach people personal finance and they start questioning why the government is involved in their lives. Can't have it. It's an existential crisis for the state.

Everything we are taught is filtered through the assumption that government is a necessary good. If it wasn't subtle it wouldn't work. That's why it's not obvious. A credible argument can be made that my view is delusional. That's an essential factor for why the indoctrination works.

[Savy]

Most people don't think they have anything to hide.

Then they're idiots aren't they because that isn't the point at all.

[wufwugy]

They're being subjected to subliminal messages telling them 'it's ok for the government to spy on you'.

As somebody who has seen the ins and outs of religion due to being born into it and then leaving it, let me tell you about the religion of government.

[wufwugy]

Full circle

I checked the sources. They don't appear to be saying what Pakman says they said.

Is he still a friend of the The Young Bolsheviks?

[Poopadoop]

Then they're idiots aren't they because that isn't the point at all.

The point is that the gov't shouldn't intrude on your life? No of course they shouldn't. Neither should Google or Tesco or anyone else who collects data on you without you knowing it (except that it's an open secret). Gov't is no different to them imo.

If the gov't were to start arresting people 'cause they looked at some communist website then I'd have a bigger problem with it.

[Savy]

The point is that the gov't shouldn't intrude on your life? No of course they shouldn't. Neither should Google or Tesco or anyone else who collects data on you without you knowing it (except that it's an open secret). Gov't is no different to them imo.

If the gov't were to start arresting people 'cause they looked at some communist website then I'd have a bigger problem with it.

The difference is none of those companies collect data on me without it being my choice. Except google I suppose, they're scum too.

[Poopadoop]

Everything we are taught is filtered through the assumption that government is a necessary good.

Your whole thesis is reasonable inasmuch as the people who run the education system would want to validate their own existence. But whether they organise the system with that specific overarching goal seems questionable.

I've mentioned this before, but learning is not just about acquiring knowledge. It's about enhancing and sharpening the ability to learn. For example, the ability to think critically and independently is actively encouraged through education (or at least it was in mine). I don't think a gov't bent on keeping people in line would want that ability being developed.

[Poopadoop]

The difference is none of those companies collect data on me without it being my choice. Except google I suppose, they're scum too.

Well for one, it's not really your choice to not have a Tesco Clubcard, or at least not in your interests since it saves you money.

But regarding the gov't, do you think there is someone in a gov't office who has a light go off every time you, Savy, get on the internet? Obviously not, right?

So what do you think they use those powers for? Crime prevention, stopping terrorists, etc., or something more sinister? If the former, then isn't this a good thing? And if the latter, then what sinister purpose exactly do you think they're using the info for?

[Savy]

So what do you think they use those powers for? Crime prevention, stopping terrorists, etc., or something more sinister? If the former, then isn't this a good thing? And if the latter, then what sinister purpose exactly do you think they're using the info for?

There are a few things here but ultimately they don't keep your information safe so it isn't an issue of what the government want that information for it's what anyone wants it for.

[wufwugy]

Your whole thesis is reasonable inasmuch as the people who run the education system would want to validate their own existence. But whether they organise the system with that specific overarching goal seems questionable.

I've mentioned this before, but learning is not just about acquiring knowledge. It's about enhancing and sharpening the ability to learn. For example, the ability to think critically and independently is actively encouraged through education (or at least it was in mine). I don't think a gov't bent on keeping people in line would want that ability being developed.

I'd say somewhere along the line the critical thinking became a purpose of education institutions. Government is doing a great job of quashing it.

Do you think the unprecedented fascist sensibilities of university students is an example of them learning critical thought?

[wufwugy]

Don't get me wrong, I think the institution of education is one of the great pillars of civilization. My issue is government intervention because I think that is doing a great deal of harm.

[Jack Sawyer]

I checked the sources. They don't appear to be saying what Pakman says they said.

Is he still a friend of the The Young Bolsheviks?

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...eech-reception

"President Donald Trump met last April with the Russian ambassador at the center of a pair of controversies over engagement between Trump allies and the Kremlin, despite claims by his spokeswoman that he had "zero" involvement with Russian officials during the campaign.

Trump met Kislyak during a VIP reception April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel shortly before a foreign policy address, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. In the speech, Trump said an "easing of tensions and improved relations with Russia" is possible.
The Wall Street Journal article, published May 13, 2016, reported Trump "warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign ambassadors who came to the reception.""

He is not on frienemy terms with The Young Turds AFAIK, so I guess he is.

[Jack Sawyer]

I checked the sources. They don't appear to be saying what Pakman says they said.

So what do the souces say?

[wufwugy]

One of its original intentions was to culture the progeny of aristocracy into the aristocracy.

I wonder what happens as the state gets greater and greater control. Maybe it cultures citizens into being "good" citizens.

[wufwugy]

So what do the souces say?

“Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia,” Trump said during a February 16 press conference. He said he contacts with Russia were limited to talking twice to Vladimir Putin after election day.

On February 20, Trump spokesperson Sarah Sanders flatly declared that the Trump campaign had “no contacts” with Russia.

Pakman's quote of the WSJ also doesn't match up. The Trump campaign statements can all be true while also the Kislyak stuff being true. They would just be talking about two different things.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't think it's "nothing but". However, that is one of its core facets and is something I don't think it can escape as long as education is a tax-funded service.


What is the indoctrination? If you've been through American (or even just western) education, you'll notice a narrative and you'll notice vast swaths of thought ignored. My field of study, economics, is one of the worst. It's a giant government legitimizing program. We spend countless hours rationalizing government intervention into markets while almost entirely ignoring economics that argues otherwise. The funny thing is that economics only began making sense to me after I found the work by those economists who argue otherwise. The mainstream narrative in academics is chock full of convoluted and unexplained logic.


On history, they teach nothing remotely close to reality, and instead that which conforms to a narrative. They teach that Lincoln was GOAT and FDR saved the world and the Confederacy was evil and the Crusades were evil, all of which is false at worse and deeply misleading at best. The list here is virtually endless.


What do they teach regarding quantitative skills? Virtually none of it is personal finance at the k-12 level. This is probably the most important possible thing you can teach people when it comes to quantitative skills, yet it's eschewed. What do we learn instead? Algebra, trig, calculus, all things that don't matter for shit to 99% of those who take them. The last thing the state wants is a populace good at personal finance. Teach people personal finance and they start questioning why the government is involved in their lives. Can't have it. It's an existential crisis for the state.


Everything we are taught is filtered through the assumption that government is a necessary good. If it wasn't subtle it wouldn't work. That's why it's not obvious. A credible argument can be made that my view is delusional. That's an essential factor for why the indoctrination works.

So, you are more of an anarchist?

What do we learn instead? Algebra, trig, calculus, all things that don't matter for shit to 99% of those who take them.

I’m part of the one percent then?


BTW, don’t say I didn’t warn you


http://economicalmillennial.com/mill...to-automation/

On history, they teach nothing remotely close to reality, and instead that which conforms to a narrative. They teach that Lincoln was GOAT and FDR saved the world and the Confederacy was evil and the Crusades were evil, all of which is false at worse and deeply misleading at best. The list here is virtually endless.

The confederacy kind of is evil? Wasn’t that particular war over slaves? Confederacy wanted to keep slaves, others wanted slaves be gone?


Plus yeas, what’s going on in Texas schoolbooks is nothing short of preposterous, but I was under the impression that that was more of a Republican/Christian Fundamentalism thing rather than ALL of government


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/o...tory.html?_r=0

Teach people personal finance and they start questioning why the government is involved in their lives. Can't have it. It's an existential crisis for the state.

The definition of dumb motherfuckers. However, they have to be taught anyway, even if they don’t want to be taught.

Everything we are taught is filtered through the assumption that government is a necessary good. If it wasn't subtle it wouldn't work. That's why it's not obvious. A credible argument can be made that my view is delusional. That's an essential factor for why the indoctrination works.

You do need the government for some of the basic required societal stuff wuf. Particularly in modern times. Without government we’d have anarchy. That has been tried before, and out of those experiments came governments ironically. Now, there is a good and a bad side to everything, but having no government would be infinitely worse.


Having corrupt assholes at power and then blaming the government for them is unfair as well. The three branches are not functioning as they should, and that could be cause for an uprising (which is kind of what we are looking at right now in US politics), but that’s a different topic.


The Barbarian people know a lot about having no government. First group you get when starting up a game of Civ.


Where are their societies now?

[Jack Sawyer]

Pakman's quote of the WSJ also doesn't match up. The Trump campaign statements can all be true while also the Kislyak stuff being true. They would just be talking about two different things.

Yeah, the "Russia is a ruse" quote. That apparently was just another lie, as was pointed out in the link I put up there. Here is another:

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-pers...n-cc59ae305032

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Donald Trump has claimed repeatedly that he has had no contact with Russian officials as a presidential candidate.[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]He was lying.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Trump personally met with the Russian ambassador on April 27, 2016, prior to a major foreign policy speech. The Wall Street Journal, in a report that was [/COLOR]little-noticed[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)] at the time but was recently picked up by AMERICABlog News, [/COLOR]reported the meeting last year[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)].[/COLOR]

The specific WSJ article, detailing the event. Paywall though

https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...tin-1463172396

[wufwugy]

So, you are more of an anarchist?

Do you date? Is it anarchy? No?

I too believe in not having the government intrude into private matters.

The confederacy kind of is evil? Wasn’t that particular war over slaves? Confederacy wanted to keep slaves, others wanted slaves be gone?

Yeah, it's misleading at best. The Confederacy was WRONG in it wanting to keep slaves and the Union was RIGHT in using force to stop it. But that is not the only part of the story and yet it is the only part taught. Teaching the other parts of the story would be very detrimental to the power of the state. The federal government doesn't want you to know that it is stepping way outside of its intended bounds today. It doesn't want you to know that slavery was an unsustainable and collapsing economic paradigm. It doesn't want you to know that Lincoln did a lot of wrong things to succeed. It doesn't want you to know that there is a very legitimate argument that the intentions of the Constitution were more represented by the Confederacy than by the Union. It doesn't want you to know that war was avoidable. It doesn't want you to know that the supposed racist white patriarchy marched to half a million deaths to stop slavery. It doesn't want you to know that when somebody waves a Confederate flag today that it has nothing to do with slavery.

The definition of dumb motherfuckers. However, they have to be taught anyway, even if they don’t want to be taught.

Why are they being taught things other than that which would best benefit them?

You do need the government for some of the basic required societal stuff wuf. Particularly in modern times. Without government we’d have anarchy. That has been tried before, and out of those experiments came governments ironically. Now, there is a good and a bad side to everything, but having no government would be infinitely worse.

You make the case for government for the essentials, for law and security. I'm not arguing against that.

Having corrupt assholes at power and then blaming the government for them is unfair as well. The three branches are not functioning as they should, and that could be cause for an uprising (which is kind of what we are looking at right now in US politics), but that’s a different topic.

Corruption is a symptom. A cause is monopoly power. If the populace gives legitimacy to the government to intervene into the "welfare" of the citizenry, there WILL be mass corruption. There's no way around that because it's a tax-funded monopoly.

[Poopadoop]

There are a few things here but ultimately they don't keep your information safe so it isn't an issue of what the government want that information for it's what anyone wants it for.

I agree they have no business tracking what average people do. But I'm curious as to what specifically people think the gov't is doing to spy on them, and how they are in danger of being harmed by it.

For example, I've heard people complain about cctv on public streets being an invasion of privacy, to which I think 'What privacy? you're on a public street.'

[Poopadoop]

I'd say somewhere along the line the critical thinking became a purpose of education institutions. Government is doing a great job of quashing it.

Do you think the unprecedented fascist sensibilities of university students is an example of them learning critical thought?

Do you think the government is trying to create a generation of fascists? I don't understand how that would serve them.

[wufwugy]

Some in government (and outside government) probably are. Fascism is intensely pro-government, but obviously not all kinds of government.

I don't think there is a cohesive agenda. I think the ball that teeters on the edge of the net tends to fall on one side of it due to myriad natural influences.

[Poopadoop]

Some in government (and outside government) probably are. Fascism is intensely pro-government, but obviously not all kinds of government.

I don't think there is a cohesive agenda. I think the ball that teeters on the edge of the net tends to fall on one side of it due to myriad natural influences.

Well ok maybe.

But let's take the question in another direction. What makes you think the education system is what's responsible for the sudden rise in fascist beliefs among university students (assuming that exists). Couldn't it be other things that haven't nothing to do with education, like media for example? Or could it be a reaction to disillusionment in general with democracy?

[Savy]

I agree they have no business tracking what average people do. But I'm curious as to what specifically people think the gov't is doing to spy on them, and how they are in danger of being harmed by it.

For example, I've heard people complain about cctv on public streets being an invasion of privacy, to which I think 'What privacy? you're on a public street.'

Ultimately the question has to be what is the benefit to why they are doing this. I don't have much of a problem with CCTV but I'd be very surprised if it didn't turn out to be a complete waste of money. You do also get CCTV that intrudes on peoples private property which is a no go.

Also this whole average people thing is a bullshit argument. There are pretty strict measures in place for getting a warrant to go into peoples homes. There is a reason for this. Now what happens if the government essentially is able to gather huge amounts of information on anyone they want and do what they want with it. This is clearly not even remotely ok. They attempt to get away with it because they say TERRORISM!!!!!! but it's just complete bollocks.

There is a very good bit of Will Self on question time talking about it but I can't seem to find the clip on youtube unfortunately.

[wufwugy]

All three of those play. The "disillusionment with democracy" thing is probably mostly just reaction to their preference losing.

A neat thing is that it appears that the generation younger than Precious Snowflakes isn't buying into it.

If I had to list the top elements that have led to this, they would probably include a reduction in Christianity, increase in prosperity, increased government intervention for resident welfare, and the media-government complex. In one generation we went from "you have to earn what you get" to "everybody gets a participation trophy." Those are some of the core reasons I think that transition happened.

[Savy]

All three of those play. The "disillusionment with democracy" thing is probably mostly just reaction to their preference losing.

A neat thing is that it appears that the generation younger than Precious Snowflakes isn't buying into it.

If I had to list the top elements that have led to this, they would probably include a reduction in Christianity, increase in prosperity, increased government intervention for resident welfare, and the media-government complex. In one generation we went from "you have to earn what you get" to "everybody gets a participation trophy." Those are some of the core reasons I think that transition happened.

Wuf just become religious again, you know you want to. We don't mind.

[Jack Sawyer]

It's not the government that's out of control, it's the intelligence agencies that are out of control.

Unelected bodies that truly understand how information is currency nowadays. The true power of information/

[Savy]

It's not the government that's out of control, it's the intelligence agencies that are out of control.

Unelected bodies that truly understand how information is currency nowadays. The true power of information/

Look at the laws that are getting passed (fml) in the UK related to cyber security. It's absolute madness.

[Poopadoop]

Look at the laws that are getting passed (fml) in the UK related to cyber security. It's absolute madness.

Sounds like someone's a bit upset about not being able to look at sheep porn any more.

[wufwugy]

It's not the government that's out of control, it's the intelligence agencies that are out of control.

Unelected bodies that truly understand how information is currency nowadays. The true power of information/

Why don't you think the government is out of control?

[Jack Sawyer]

But but but, what about the children!?

[wufwugy]

Wuf just become religious again, you know you want to. We don't mind.

Couldn't do it.