What's new

Even Koch-funded operations not so stupid as to think Medicare For All wouldn't ultimately save money

#22
Ah, at last, we get to the real problem: reverse racism
...It's just racism, and it's probably more a problem with the bureaucrats than the politicians. Granted, the Democrat politicians have spent the last few decades supporting policies that are specifically intended to benefit some ethnicities more than others, rather than direct and general anti-poverty measures, but I pin that more on the fact that they're politicians and thus looking to garner votes. It's actually not that I think their discriminating against white people, as much as it is they're discriminating in favor of minorities. Which is, ya know, still racist, and still unacceptable in any meritocratic system. Not all racism is oppression, oddly enough, it can just mean that one group is promoted above others. Which does not mean those not receiving the privileges are oppressed.

Denial of privileges isn't oppression, and most Western welfare systems are very much a form of privilege. It's only oppression if one group is explicitly denied something granted in general terms. Very technically speaking, the limited suffrage wasn't oppression as it was originally described as a specific privilege of land-owning male citizens. Can't remember if "white" was one of the qualifiers or not off the top of my head. Of course, these days, it's generally considered a baseline right of democracies to vote, rather than a specific privilege to some particular class. Though this post-dates the US, and the US actually still enumerates voting as a specific privilege instead of a general right of the citizens.

And do note that this is me explaining why I don't consider the denial of welfare to poor whites to be a form of oppression, not an attempt at re-defining oppression to excuse the horrible things people have done throughout history. I do still consider it abhorrent, but not by definition a form of oppression. Because I have complex views that involve not needing buzzwords to see things as bad, they can be bad independently of any buzzwords. Or at least the typical ones.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#23
...It's just racism, and it's probably more a problem with the bureaucrats than the politicians. Granted, the Democrat politicians have spent the last few decades supporting policies that are specifically intended to benefit some ethnicities more than others, rather than direct and general anti-poverty measures, but I pin that more on the fact that they're politicians and thus looking to garner votes. It's actually not that I think their discriminating against white people, as much as it is they're discriminating in favor of minorities. Which is, ya know, still racist, and still unacceptable in any meritocratic system. Not all racism is oppression, oddly enough, it can just mean that one group is promoted above others. Which does not mean those not receiving the privileges are oppressed.

Denial of privileges isn't oppression, and most Western welfare systems are very much a form of privilege. It's only oppression if one group is explicitly denied something granted in general terms. Very technically speaking, the limited suffrage wasn't oppression as it was originally described as a specific privilege of land-owning male citizens. Can't remember if "white" was one of the qualifiers or not off the top of my head. Of course, these days, it's generally considered a baseline right of democracies to vote, rather than a specific privilege to some particular class. Though this post-dates the US, and the US actually still enumerates voting as a specific privilege instead of a general right of the citizens.

And do note that this is me explaining why I don't consider the denial of welfare to poor whites to be a form of oppression, not an attempt at re-defining oppression to excuse the horrible things people have done throughout history. I do still consider it abhorrent, but not by definition a form of oppression. Because I have complex views that involve not needing buzzwords to see things as bad, they can be bad independently of any buzzwords. Or at least the typical ones.
Meritocracy is a myth. The only way to actually have anything resembling one is to take all children from their parents at birth and have them raised by the state. And even that STILL doesn’t account for effects of parental health and nutrition pre-birth.
 

IndyFront

Speaks in Calabi-Yau manifolds
#24
Not all racism is oppression, oddly enough, it can just mean that one group is promoted above others. Which does not mean those not receiving the privileges are oppressed..
Actually yes it does. To those of us who actually value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention equity and equality, it is.
 
#25
Meritocracy is a myth. The only way to actually have anything resembling one is to take all children from their parents at birth and have them raised by the state. And even that STILL doesn’t account for effects of parental health and nutrition pre-birth.
...Meritocracy is defined by giving power and wealth based on merit. It doesn't necessitate any control on an individual's capacity for merit beyond maybe giving a level playing field in educational infrastructure. A meritocratic system can function perfectly fine with a bloody eusocial species, let alone the relatively-narrow-in-potential modern human species, because the only thing that is required to be a meritocracy is that progression be defined by performance.

Equality of opportunity, bizarrely enough, doesn't enter the picture of required traits. At all. Which is why meritocratic systems tend to have a static upper class, because that upper class is consistently high-performing individuals investing their wealth into getting an advantage over the general population. They're still progressing mostly, if not entirely, by the merit of their actual performance. Seriously, one of the definitions Google offers for meritocracy is "a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people".

Actually yes it does. To those of us who actually value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to mention equity and equality, it is.
No, it doesn't, at least by the definition of oppression I work with. It's discrimination, but oppression, to me, means that general rights are being specifically withheld. As such, the situation of specific privileges that are generally withheld would not qualify under the definition of oppression. The latter is still a bad state, but the exact term "oppression" doesn't apply, because the term, to me, means that there is active detriment, rather than unequal privilege. I'm a bit of an ass with definitions. It's a large chunk of the reason I viscerally despise the progressive left, because they constantly redefine or ignore definitions of words to suit their purposes.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#26
...Meritocracy is defined by giving power and wealth based on merit. It doesn't necessitate any control on an individual's capacity for merit beyond maybe giving a level playing field in educational infrastructure. A meritocratic system can function perfectly fine with a bloody eusocial species, let alone the relatively-narrow-in-potential modern human species, because the only thing that is required to be a meritocracy is that progression be defined by performance.

Equality of opportunity, bizarrely enough, doesn't enter the picture of required traits. At all. Which is why meritocratic systems tend to have a static upper class, because that upper class is consistently high-performing individuals investing their wealth into getting an advantage over the general population. They're still progressing mostly, if not entirely, by the merit of their actual performance. Seriously, one of the definitions Google offers for meritocracy is "a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people".


No, it doesn't, at least by the definition of oppression I work with. It's discrimination, but oppression, to me, means that general rights are being specifically withheld. As such, the situation of specific privileges that are generally withheld would not qualify under the definition of oppression. The latter is still a bad state, but the exact term "oppression" doesn't apply, because the term, to me, means that there is active detriment, rather than unequal privilege. I'm a bit of an ass with definitions. It's a large chunk of the reason I viscerally despise the progressive left, because they constantly redefine or ignore definitions of words to suit their purposes.
It’s impossible to judge merit without removing the massive advantages that rich people are born with. If you want to see how talented/skilled people actually are, you need to prevent their families from helping or harming them, including through influence. A rich person can be 60% less skilled than a poor person, but in the US version of “meritocracy” will recieve significantly better outcomes in life.
 
#27
It’s impossible to judge merit without removing the massive advantages that rich people are born with. If you want to see how talented/skilled people actually are, you need to prevent their families from helping or harming them, including through influence. A rich person can be 60% less skilled than a poor person, but in the US version of “meritocracy” will recieve significantly better outcomes in life.
You can, in fact, judge merit of the rich. The "advantages" they have are genuine performance enhancers, and thus they are of higher merit. You just judge them by the work they do, simple as that. If their parent's wealth gave them an immense advantage in education? Well, that's why one of the definitions Google gives is a class of educated or skilled persons in power. Meritocracy is not equality of opportunity, and fundamentally isn't equality of outcome. You're conflating things that aren't actually required to be implemented together.

I literally said that a eusocial species, like ants (as in a species with a biological caste system) can be a meritocracy. Because, even though the capabilities of individuals are fundamentally and utterly different, you can still judge them based on real performance. All a meritocracy requires is judging a person on performance, also known as merit. It's not their talent that's being rewarded, it's their real achievement. And if they have ludicrously wealthy parents who spend vast sums of money on their education, then that's entirely acceptable, because it's still their personal performance, even though they didn't attain the skills to do so on their own. Nobody does in a functional meritocracy, because you have an education system that some people perform better in than others. So even if those people have a lower baseline ability, their superior educational experience leads them to a higher status.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#28
You can, in fact, judge merit of the rich. The "advantages" they have are genuine performance enhancers, and thus they are of higher merit. You just judge them by the work they do, simple as that. If their parent's wealth gave them an immense advantage in education? Well, that's why one of the definitions Google gives is a class of educated or skilled persons in power. Meritocracy is not equality of opportunity, and fundamentally isn't equality of outcome. You're conflating things that aren't actually required to be implemented together.

I literally said that a eusocial species, like ants (as in a species with a biological caste system) can be a meritocracy. Because, even though the capabilities of individuals are fundamentally and utterly different, you can still judge them based on real performance. All a meritocracy requires is judging a person on performance, also known as merit. It's not their talent that's being rewarded, it's their real achievement. And if they have ludicrously wealthy parents who spend vast sums of money on their education, then that's entirely acceptable, because it's still their personal performance, even though they didn't attain the skills to do so on their own. Nobody does in a functional meritocracy, because you have an education system that some people perform better in than others. So even if those people have a lower baseline ability, their superior educational experience leads them to a higher status.
So you don’t want a meritocracy, what you want is a hereditary aristocracy as those advantages keep compounding on themselves, all the way until the whole thing falls apart because you have inbred manchildren running the nation.
 
#29
So you don’t want a meritocracy, what you want is a hereditary aristocracy as those advantages keep compounding on themselves, all the way until the whole thing falls apart because you have inbred manchildren running the nation.
You do realize that this collapse has happened to literally every system of government in the history of humanity, save for a handful that have never lasted long enough for that to have a chance of happening because they're fucked from the start (like socialism), right? That's no unique failure state of meritocracy, that's a failure state of literally every system with any form of ruling class. And the systems that don't have a ruling class... Well, they tend to implode within the first 50 years, long before any chance of that failure state can happen.

And besides that, there's actually limits to how far those advantages go. Not everyone can become ultimately competent, as is needed to be at the top of a meritocratic system. Besides that, the middle class is close enough that prodigies would shoot up into the realm of the upper class, thus bringing new blood into the arisocracy or undermining any de-facto hereditary rule. You don't see families of famous scientists very often, after all, and in modern times it's supremely rare for a wealthy family to stay wealthy after three generations, because the children and grandchildren routinely piss away all the wealth.

And, even if you get a stagnant aristocracy, the moment they start falling down, the meritocracy has to already be broken as a system for it to become a failure state. Otherwise they get replaced by whoever's most competent outside of them. Meritocratic systems are relentlessly self-correcting, because the entire point is to be "rule by the competent". If an incompetent comes in, and the meritocracy is functioning, then they get kicked out of any form of rule, regardless of the wealth or status of their family.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#30
You do realize that this collapse has happened to literally every system of government in the history of humanity, save for a handful that have never lasted long enough for that to have a chance of happening because they're fucked from the start (like socialism), right? That's no unique failure state of meritocracy, that's a failure state of literally every system with any form of ruling class. And the systems that don't have a ruling class... Well, they tend to implode within the first 50 years, long before any chance of that failure state can happen.

And besides that, there's actually limits to how far those advantages go. Not everyone can become ultimately competent, as is needed to be at the top of a meritocratic system. Besides that, the middle class is close enough that prodigies would shoot up into the realm of the upper class, thus bringing new blood into the arisocracy or undermining any de-facto hereditary rule. You don't see families of famous scientists very often, after all, and in modern times it's supremely rare for a wealthy family to stay wealthy after three generations, because the children and grandchildren routinely piss away all the wealth.

And, even if you get a stagnant aristocracy, the moment they start falling down, the meritocracy has to already be broken as a system for it to become a failure state. Otherwise they get replaced by whoever's most competent outside of them. Meritocratic systems are relentlessly self-correcting, because the entire point is to be "rule by the competent". If an incompetent comes in, and the meritocracy is functioning, then they get kicked out of any form of rule, regardless of the wealth or status of their family.
In america, opinions like yours get us Trump, because people buy into the idea of “he’s rich, that must mean he’s good at what he does”, even though it’s only his father’s money that’s kept him out of the poorhouse, and every time he’s tried to run a business on his own it’s failed miserably.
 
#31
On a similar topic, Donald Trump effectively just admitted that Socialised Medicare works to lower drug prices. In the span of two paragraphs he complains that drug prices are high, then blames foreign government run health care are able to bargain the price down:

The Whitehouse.Gov said:
Second, government programs and private payers do not always have all the tools they need to negotiate more reasonable prices.

Third, many Americans, especially our seniors, face high out-of-pocket costs for the drugs they need, because out-of-pocket costs are typically calculated based on drugs’ sky-high list prices. (Gives an example)

Finally, foreign countries and their government-run health-care systems bully our drug manufacturers into unrealistically low prices, allowing other countries to freeload off of American innovation.
Link
 
#32
In america, opinions like yours get us Trump, because people buy into the idea of “he’s rich, that must mean he’s good at what he does”, even though it’s only his father’s money that’s kept him out of the poorhouse, and every time he’s tried to run a business on his own it’s failed miserably.
While it's true that opinions like mine get us Trump, that's because of a visceral hatred of the progressive left. Given what happened with them when Obama became president and the track records at play, I'll take the less-than-totally-incompetent populist interested in demolishing some major corporate monopolies and unfucking things broken by globalism over a corporate shill of a woman with an established track record of corruption and incompetence in politics that represents only the corporate Democrats.

Also, Trump's money is largely his own, at this point. He's dropped off the Forbes list for five years and come back to billionaire status, having his wealth halve during the recession, then coming back and keep going upwards right up until he became President. Pretty much immediately after becoming President, he started losing wealth again.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#33
While it's true that opinions like mine get us Trump, that's because of a visceral hatred of the progressive left. Given what happened with them when Obama became president and the track records at play, I'll take the less-than-totally-incompetent populist interested in demolishing some major corporate monopolies and unfucking things broken by globalism over a corporate shill of a woman with an established track record of corruption and incompetence in politics that represents only the corporate Democrats.

Also, Trump's money is largely his own, at this point. He's dropped off the Forbes list for five years and come back to billionaire status, having his wealth halve during the recession, then coming back and keep going upwards right up until he became President. Pretty much immediately after becoming President, he started losing wealth again.
1. Citation on Trump having any interest in dismantling a corporate monopoly.

2. Citation on proven corruption by Hillary

3. Citation on Obama having done anything to provoke that hatred of progressives other than being black. (Or conversely citation on hateful progressive Obama supporters if that’s what you meant, I couldn’t quite parse that bit)

4. Citation on Hillary being politically incompetent in any way where Trump isn’t significantly worse

5. Citation on “Globalism” being a bad thing and “wrecking” things in the US.
 
#34
1. Citation on Trump having any interest in dismantling a corporate monopoly.
The whole Fake News thing. Fox is practically the only Republican-side voice in mainstream media, with every other major cabal news source hurling endless shit at Trump the entire election cycle and through his current term. Similarly, with some recent shitshows in social media, he might take aim at another major pillar of the public dialogue that appears to be extremely politically biased and using their power to undermine democracy. When you dig into it, nearly all corporately-owned media is owned by two or three companies at the top, with many of the exceptions being alternative media that incorporated to streamline actual journalism like Philip DeFranco.

2. Citation on proven corruption by Hillary
While it seems to never get proven, she, and her husband Bill, have a lengthy history of scandals, which causes a very heavy amount of suspicion about them actually being corrupt scum themselves, because you get certain innate biases of the human mind pinging it as damn near everyone who works closely with them is caught up in some shady deal or another. Even I genuinely suspect outright corruption, because there's just way too much surrounding them for it to be pure coincidence. And, of course, you have Hillary herself openly saying she wants Wall Street to be writing financial regulation... In spite of the clusterfuck of 2008 being precisely the result of that. At the least, she's a corporate shill surrounded in corrupt scum, and this is a pre-existing track record in politics.

3. Citation on Obama having done anything to provoke that hatred of progressives other than being black.
It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense

4. Citation on Hillary being politically incompetent in any way where Trump isn’t significantly worse
The thing is that Hillary has a track record of it. We knew she was subject to incompetence, such as storing government work emails in her private, insecure, servers and not noticing that about a hundred of them were classified documents (admittedly lacking the header, but she failed to realize they were classified information in the absence of it). Her incompetence is known and proven to lead to the leaking of classified information, while Trump had no track record of anything close to that before becoming President. The choice was an unknown in Trump and an established votemongering liar who's been mired in scandals over the course of decades (probably atypical mostly in how many times she's been caught, all things considered).

5. Citation on “Globalism” being a bad thing and “wrecking” things in the US.
...The Rustbelt. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, name a major manufacturing city and you've got a place fucked, at least in part, by globalism and Democrats. Because globalism means outsourcing, which has fucked manufacturing in the US, leading to a sizable number of people stuck with worse jobs or student loan debts from needing college degrees to get a job. The Democrats responded to the increasingly-fucked job market in these cities by offering welfare, instead of doing anything to try and bring new jobs to the place, like reducing red tape or cutting down on certain tax rates, because welfare gets them the same votes actually fixing the situation would, while being trivial to implement. This welfare then leads to a not-insignificant section of the population refusing to get a job because they don't really need one, making the economy worse. And the Democrats won't take the PR hit of going anti-union to unfuck what overpowered unions have broken, like the education system in Chicago.
 

Ravan

Well-known member
#35
The whole Fake News thing. Fox is practically the only Republican-side voice in mainstream media, with every other major cabal news source hurling endless shit at Trump the entire election cycle and through his current term. Similarly, with some recent shitshows in social media, he might take aim at another major pillar of the public dialogue that appears to be extremely politically biased and using their power to undermine democracy. When you dig into it, nearly all corporately-owned media is owned by two or three companies at the top, with many of the exceptions being alternative media that incorporated to streamline actual journalism like Philip DeFranco.


While it seems to never get proven, she, and her husband Bill, have a lengthy history of scandals, which causes a very heavy amount of suspicion about them actually being corrupt scum themselves, because you get certain innate biases of the human mind pinging it as damn near everyone who works closely with them is caught up in some shady deal or another. Even I genuinely suspect outright corruption, because there's just way too much surrounding them for it to be pure coincidence. And, of course, you have Hillary herself openly saying she wants Wall Street to be writing financial regulation... In spite of the clusterfuck of 2008 being precisely the result of that. At the least, she's a corporate shill surrounded in corrupt scum, and this is a pre-existing track record in politics.


It's actually not hatred towards progressives that's the issue caused by the Obama presidency, it's that a minority president inflamed them in such a way that the sort currently fucking things up actually started getting mainstream for the first time. If you actually pay attention to the age range of a lot of the activists, they pretty much grew up with a black president being the norm for them, as far as their political understanding, leading to a group with far fewer reservations about IdPol, leading to all this hate speech nonsense


The thing is that Hillary has a track record of it. We knew she was subject to incompetence, such as storing government work emails in her private, insecure, servers and not noticing that about a hundred of them were classified documents (admittedly lacking the header, but she failed to realize they were classified information in the absence of it). Her incompetence is known and proven to lead to the leaking of classified information, while Trump had no track record of anything close to that before becoming President. The choice was an unknown in Trump and an established votemongering liar who's been mired in scandals over the course of decades (probably atypical mostly in how many times she's been caught, all things considered).


...The Rustbelt. Detroit, Chicago, Pittsburgh, name a major manufacturing city and you've got a place fucked, at least in part, by globalism and Democrats. Because globalism means outsourcing, which has fucked manufacturing in the US, leading to a sizable number of people stuck with worse jobs or student loan debts from needing college degrees to get a job. The Democrats responded to the increasingly-fucked job market in these cities by offering welfare, instead of doing anything to try and bring new jobs to the place, like reducing red tape or cutting down on certain tax rates, because welfare gets them the same votes actually fixing the situation would, while being trivial to implement. This welfare then leads to a not-insignificant section of the population refusing to get a job because they don't really need one, making the economy worse. And the Democrats won't take the PR hit of going anti-union to unfuck what overpowered unions have broken, like the education system in Chicago.
1. No citation. All republican side news sources are widely known liars. The truth, the facts, do not support their positions.

2. Your own article shows rhat there has been no wrondoing ever shown on her part, and only an affair on his. So again, you are full of bullshit

3. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say

4. You privided no citations. Just continued talking piints from the far right. You are full of shit

5. No citations. Continued accusations against democrats with no citations. You are full of shit.

Conclusion: you and your side are full of shit.
 
#40
1. No citation. All republican side news sources are widely known liars. The truth, the facts, do not support their positions.
You asked for a monopoly that Trump was working against. What matters is not how justified the related narrative is, but that Trump is wanting to tear down a problematic monopoly. Unless you can prove that the non-Republican MSM aren't a monolith of both finances and opinion, then I've answered your question of where a corporate monopoly Trump wants gone is. Cut the crap with moving the goalpost. If this was SB, I'd be in the middle of digging through the rules to report your ass. And then set it down if I couldn't make a reasoned argument in favor of it, though I'm quite certain I could catch you for bad-faith debating because you're holding me to a vastly higher standard than yourself.

2. Your own article shows rhat there has been no wrondoing ever shown on her part, and only an affair on his. So again, you are full of bullshit
I started with "while it seems to never get proven", then went into how that history of scandals, in combination with certain statements by Hillary, leave her with an atrocious reputation. She has a track record of apparent corruption and known incompetence, so some people took a gamble with the politically-recordless Trump over the widely-believed-corrupt-and/or-incompetent Hillary Clinton. Cut. The crap. With the goalpost moving. And actually read my goddamn posts.

3. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say
Basically, eight years of a black man in the White House led to a round of college and high school graduates who's formative political years left them with far less suspicion of identity politics than normal, leaving them much more vulnerable to the blight that is the current progressive left. Which is currently busy exploding because of a number of prominent transphobic Feminists (or just ones who draw the line at normalizing literal mental illnesses categorized as anxiety disorders and delusions, rather than actively being against support structures for trans people) and a decent chunk of the non-TERFs actually not caring a lot about racial issues.

4. You privided no citations. Just continued talking piints from the far right. You are full of shit
Here's the Wikipedia article on the Email controversy, go ahead and check their citations if you are actually interested in reasoned debate and not just trying to shut out an opposing opinion. If you don't accept Wikipedia... Go do your own damn research, you willfully ignorant leftist fucktard. Because I'm not digging for citations if you're just going to keep moving goalposts and making unsupported claims, when I'm (somewhat) frequently making claims with unprompted citations.

5. No citations. Continued accusations against democrats with no citations. You are full of shit.
Go do your own goddamn research on the topic then. Because I'm done with your unsubstantiated claims being combined with calling for me to cite my information. It's not that hard, I've done it, and changed my opinion because the facts didn't support my claims. In this very thread, in fact. Look up "Chicago's education system" in Google, and you'll see fucked up financing, atrocious outcomes and calls for oversight. Look at the record of employment in Detroit and cross-reference it with various outsourcing information.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top