Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[hack]

Why do you think Soros is about control and authoritarianism? What evidence is there to back that against the very clear principles he's outlined consistently over the past few decades in his public body of work?

I think the bottom line about Soros is that you can get to know what he stands for. Your words show that you very clearly don't know. But his books are short and to the point, and he backs what he believes through his Open Society Foundation. You don't have to resort to stating facts about him (is billionaire; has hedge funds) as if they are stand-alone indictments. We can see for yourself and decide for ourselves, or accept at face value whatever self-reinforcing bullshit it is that we like to feed ourselves. Needless to say however, I am an unabashed fan. Surviving the Nazi occupation of Budapest gives him a bit of a perspective on fascism that you or I will never have. I've read the books; I've seen him speak. I've dealt with the NGO I just mentioned and seen a difference. He's awfully impressive. You should read the books.

[Hannibal]

Why do you think Soros is about control and authoritarianism?

Um, the fact that he overwhelmingly supports authoritarian (Left wing, of course) candidates and advocates for authoritarian policies, the redistribution of wealth, and the consolidation of power into the hands of fewer people? He funds the far Left Wing organization moveon.org, an organization that agitates consistently for big government candidates and Socialism. He is a globalist who overwhelmingly supported the EU -- a centralization of power -- over the Brexit -- the decentralization of power. He bankrolls a lot of the Sturmbateilung type goons that you see at Trump's rallies carrying the hammer and sickle flag and "down with capitalism" signs too.

His candidate of choice was Bernie Sanders, a Marxist who honeymooned in the USSR and openly supported the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Need I go on?

[entropy]

hack.. if he supported the R's, the media and D's would rip him for how he made his money and how he is influencing policy.

But since he's on their side...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump gets purple heart

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-trump-purple-heart/index.html

Ashburn, Virginia (CNN) A military veteran supporting Donald Trump gifted the Republican nominee his Purple Heart Tuesday, prompting Trump to say he "always wanted to get the Purple Heart" and this was "much easier" than serving in combat.

[Wild Hoss]

anyways, I was at the gym and some guy was talking to 2 other guys about the election.

Most people call it a "bar". Just FYI.

:D

[Wild Hoss]

But since he's on their side...

....different people do the same thing.

[hack]

hack.. if he supported the R's, the media and D's would rip him for how he made his money and how he is influencing policy.

But since he's on their side...

If only it were that simple, but it's not. If it were the NYT wouldn't have spend any of its fast-shrinking pool of capital on, say, this investigative piece that ties Hillary to Russian nuclear interests: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us...m-company.html. It's just not that simple. You're right that there's media bias - Bernie Sanders certainly agrees wtih you on that. It's just not nearly as ham-fisted and ever-present as you make it out to be. Don't have to take my word on it. If it was as you say it is the NYT obviously never would have purused that story.

[Wild Hoss]

Warren Buffet calls Trump out:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/01/news...p-tax-returns/

[hack]

Um, the fact that he overwhelmingly supports authoritarian (Left wing, of course) candidates and advocates for authoritarian policies, the redistribution of wealth, and the consolidation of power into the hands of fewer people? He funds the far Left Wing organization moveon.org, an organization that agitates consistently for big government candidates and Socialism. He is a globalist who overwhelmingly supported the EU -- a centralization of power -- over the Brexit -- the decentralization of power. He bankrolls a lot of the Sturmbateilung type goons that you see at Trump's rallies carrying the hammer and sickle flag and "down with capitalism" signs too.

His candidate of choice was Bernie Sanders, a Marxist who honeymooned in the USSR and openly supported the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

Need I go on?

Yes, please. I deleted my initial reaction. Let's stick to the facts. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/agenda/. Show me the policies associated with terms like Marxism, socialism or authoritarianism -- you should know what they are if you're going to use those words. Do you see anything there about abandoning free-market capitalism in favor of a command economy? Centralized control over take-home pay at all levels of an organization? Nationalizing private assets? Is there even anything there that hasn't been a part of American policy in the past?

[Ghengis Jon]

Why do you think Soros is about control and authoritarianism?

Because he is not like Saint Murdoch or the Koch saints. :-D

These are perfect reasons why that Citizens United has to be done away with.

[entropy]

CNN is reporting that Trump asked a mother with a crying baby to leave one of his rally's..

I'm starting to side with those who think we are all part of a really bad reality show...

[froot loops]

The problem is that the Republican approach has never been to pivot to the issue. It's to back down and whimper "Please don't call me a racist". Pivoting to the issue substantively requires that you point out that the Khan family, in the end, is just one example. There's no pretty or pleasant way to do this.

Or you can ignore it and stay on message. It is a footnote just like Chris Christie's abhorrent RNC speech. It isn't about cowering, that's laughable. About Hillary Clinton they are chanting "Lock her up" and "Hang that bitch". She hasn't really addressed that and it is a footnote, good campaigners stay on message, Trump is playing a losing hand by responding to it. It is gaining him nothing.

As a president you have to have a thick skin, people are always trying to provoke you. You can't take the bait. For a decade Obama has had to deal with that wretched Birtherism he has rarely responded to such filth.

[Da Geezer]

Hack said:

I assuredly do not think capitalism "works perfectly". What recommends capitalism as an economic system can be summarized in two sentences: " Man is evil. Power corrupts".

Why?


And, just for good measure (and to send my friend Hack into a snit), Christianity is the only religious system based on the idea that man is evil. Only one.

Well I'm sure you may wish to play semantics, but the basic idea that man is with sin/fallible/must cast off earthly whathaveyous is also pretty core to Buddhism, in which one is trapped in the cycle of birth and reincarnation until reaching that stage of enlightenment and getting to go to Nirvana. Same dish, different spices.

Q#1 (capitalism and man being evil): Market capitalism posits the "invisible hand" of the free market directing man's naturally acquisitive instincts toward beneficial outcomes for society as a whole. An example would be the multitude of small fracking firms operating rigs throughout the country. When oil gets around 35, they shut down because they can't make money. When oil hits 50 they come back online because they can make money. Each operator is looking out for his own sweet ass, but the cumulative effect is rapidly adjustable supply reacting to market signals.

What market capitalists such as myself understand is that the same acquisitiveness that drives the invisible hand also drives entities to collude and try to subvert the market. When we talk, I often say "atomise everything", and that is an underlying premise in pure capitalism. Hack, one of the things you have pointed out is that government has a valid function in preventing monopoly and promoting competition. Your and my fundamental disagreement is that I view government as the biggest threat, and you view big business as the biggest threat. Lord, man, look at the relative power of the two, and tell me where big business can legally kill a person, or legally imprison a person, or legally take a person's property.

Q#2: (religion): Calvinist Christianity believes in "total depravity", the first element of TULIP (http://www.theopedia.com/tulip). Man cannot achieve his own salvation (or nirvana, or heaven or eternal bliss or whatever) by his own activities. In Buddhism, you have the eight-fold path leading to nirvana. For Hindus, karma means "deeds" and salvation is ultimately achieved through good deeds (done by reincarnated souls). Many, perhaps most, Catholics believe man is ultimately good and achieves salvation through the Church.

To Christians (Protestants), man cannot save himself. Salvation comes from God through irresistible grace (the "I" in TULIP), and through an outside actor (God in the form of Jesus). Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead, confirming his divinity.

For our purposes, let me just say that the most salient argument against religion in general is that it has been used throughout history as a control mechanism. If man's ability to attain paradise comes from his own actions, religions can be used to offer heaven to those who follow the religions' preferred behaviors. The Crusaders were offered heaven for their "service" in exactly the same way as Muslims have been offered paradise for jihad.

Protestant Christianity breaks this pattern. Because of "total depravity", any form of coercion is to be mistrusted. Government is to be limited. Laws are the creation of man, but there is a skepticism about anything man-made. Most importantly, fealty to the scriptures, (sola scriptura) presages fealty to a constitution.. Parenthetically, it is not chance that the Protestant Reformation started in exactly the same place, in exactly the same year, as the invention of the printing press.

[hack]

I'll give you a more-thoughtful answer later, but just for now:

tell me where big business can legally kill a person

That's it right there. I think the Massey Energy coal mine fatality is a great example of all of this. Bought-off regulators, walled-off CEO, securitized company with a fiduciary duty, etc. Corrupted powerful people on both sides. 29 people died. I think the truth is that smart thing to do is to fear all forms of power and understand how they collude. I see no purpose in addressing only one variable in that equation. That's why I'm a Lessig guy in presidential politics. Policy isn't so relevant in an environment too corrupt to ensure proper implementation.

[Da Geezer]

DSL said:

Where do you get your evidence that 10% of all votes actually cast are fraudulent?

I'm not going to get into a statistical debate with someone who presented "evidence" of 14 persons out of 84,000,000 having duplicate registrations. I read your article, and the actual number in your own article was over 5,000,000. I'm perfectly willing to take your own figures and to assume, like you evidently do, that there are no duplicate registrations within individual states, and no fraudulent, non-citizen, or deceased persons registered. That still leaves at least 5.95% fraud, by your figures.

Anyone who posts something that doesn't even pass the giggle test shouldn't be asking for others to present their "evidence".