Hillary defends her recent statement that she wishes to deport child migrants. Basically, Hillary's reptilian shapeshifting behavior manifests itself yet again, now that Bernie is almost certainly out of the picture. Without Bernie, she is free to shapeshift into Trump.

She is the embodiment of liberal capitalism: constantly accommodating whatever it is that poses a challenge so as to protect the establishment, the real establishment.

Yeah, that's true, but from what I've heard, a lot of the documents are image form and not text.

It's part of the bullshit 'positivity' society we are living in. 'That's so sad', 'this makes me angry', pouty faced emoticon, 'oh wow', the sound babies make when they are amused in adult form.

2.6 TB of data being transferred over a year or two isn't something that noticeable, especially at huge firms like this one. So, the IT department couldn't possibly have figured out something was up. You can probably steal 2-3 gigabytes a day and it wouldn't raise eyebrows.

Leticia Montoya, sitting on the board of directors and being a shareholder in over 10,000 companies, is a true example of genuine capitalist entrepreneurial spirit. Her innovation and effectiveness as an investor should be an example to all plebeian rabble. How is it that a person can sit on the board of directors for over 10,000 companies, you ask? Easy: be someone else's tax shelter signatory.

We both know that what No 10 said was a boldfaced lie. How is the public in the UK? Do they have amnesia and forget these things within 1 week of learning of it? Wouldn't it be swell if Jeremy Corbyn moved to No 10...

I don't know the answers to most of your questions, but what I'm starting to notice now is states simply reprimanding Panama as a state. For example, the French government put Panama back on the "tax haven blacklist". So, as I guess is to be expected, we are back to playing the musical chairs game: reprimand one location, move operations to the next one. This is very typical of neoliberalism and liberalism generally--in fact, it is part and parcel of the mechanism of liberalism itself.

Ha! What do you expect from someone who fucked a pig in the mouth?

Also, while we are either paying attention to these Panama Papers or whether or not the cop finally caught up to the chihuahua, one of the biggest bribery cases also unfolded, namely the Unaoil bribery case.

By the way, Bernie Sanders was talking about this issue exactly in 2011.

It took them something like 15-18 hours after the fact to even acknowledge its existence. This is odd, seeing as over 100 media and news groups outside of the Big Media in America have been in on this for over a year.

While CNN has finally covered the Panama Papers, they seem to think this is one of the more pressing issues to cover.

The Editor in Chief of Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the lack of United States individuals in the documents, saying to "Just wait for what is coming next".

I'll just leave this here. Israel is a fascist, genocidal state. There is no other way to look at it.

Unlike Hanover, I have history on my side, so the moral scale tips in my favor here, I think.

This debate has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Jews are forward looking or Arabs are backward looking. That much is completely irrelevant. It has everything to do with whether or not Israel as a state constitutes a violent occupation of sovereign land. The fact is that they are literally manifest destinying the fuck out of someone else's homeland. Who cares at all if anyone is forward looking here? Palestinians were forced into the position they are in. They are justified in taking every action that they take because, frankly, all moral rules went out the window the moment the West and the Israelis began their occupation of Palestine, slightly prior to 1948.

What is it with all these Westerners and not batting an eye whatsoever when it comes to taking other people's land and resources? Israel needs a state? Well, why didn't you give them New York City, Boston, the entire state of Delaware, or how about London or Manchester? How about give them Alaska or Texas or Wyoming? I mean, you already did what you're trying to do in Palestine in those other places, why continue the genocide? There's almost no one living in Wyoming anyways. Seriously, the hypocrisy is beyond comprehension here, which allows the conclusion that Israel as a state has nothing to do whatsoever with providing Jews with a homeland, but everything whatsoever with Westerners trying to assert their dominance in other people's lands.

If that is the case though presumably if the Palestinians somehow got the upper hand, invaded Israel and forced the Israelis to live under their occupation, the international community should do nothing. If it was the Israelis who were subjugated, we should just ignore it. — Baden

I'd say so, yeah. They can move back to Europe, or the West can graciously designate Leeds as the new sovereign Israel state. Then, if Jews wish to go live in Palestine, then they can apply for a work-permit.

The problem with this whole approach to Israel is that there are clear analogies that make the moral dilemma easier to resolve. Do you condemn Vietnamese people from shooting up their French colonial masters? Do you condemn Indian nationalists from assassinating English and Japanese colonials? You shouldn't, because they were justified in doing so. Western-backed Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and resources is the exact same scenario, just slipped under the guise of the Trojan horse of "Jewish freedom and emancipation." Remember, the group that constantly expels Jews from place to place most recently (and even back up to the Roman era) consisted mostly of European leadership. If you're feeling guilty that Jews have to move yet again, once again, I suggested a permanent homeland: Leeds, United Kingdom.

Where did liberte, egalite, fraternite originate, if not from the poor of Europe, or the anarchic tribes of Africa, America, Arabia, and Asia? We would not have even the proposition egalite if it weren't for poor people. In fact, it seems like all America got was liberte, if that, and of course, fraternite among the likes of Vanderbilt and Carnegie. Was the American constitution (the good parts) itself not drawn, in a huge part, from the Iroquois? What did the 'Founding Fathers' (genocidal psychopaths, the lot of them) contribute to humanity? While they were drawing up this constitution to preserve their own prolonged power, they were applying the opposite principles in digging mass graves for the continent that they were consciously trying to empty out, so that their Empire of Liberty may stand. When the Haitians revolted, they intervened to try to stop Blacks from being free. Let's look at the first Black president of Mexico, who was assassinated: he immediately freed all the slaves! The pedophile Thomas Jefferson was still raping a 14 year old black slave. These are not the actions of brilliant, virtuous individuals. Rather, they were just articulate versions of Donald Trump and other political figures we see on television today: freedom leaves their mouths as they pass another New Jim Crow law. All their idiotic ideas must be repealed legally. Even the slave-freeing amendment puts in a loophole so that these assholes can keep using slave labor from prison labor. Then, as you know as well as I, these assholes then passed the Jim Crow laws, effectively extending slavery until the present.

I repeat: no good political ideas that came out of the rich white men that founded the United States are there as ways to advance humanity as a whole, but these good ideas, free speech, religious freedom, originated from poor and oppressed peoples--not those assholes. The ideas that did come from them was to couple these ideas of freedom and liberty with slavery and imperialism--the paradoxical oppression that lingers and stays with us until this very day. Once again, the proof is in the pudding: America has been at war since its founding the the present, no hiccups, only strongarming and war-mongering. America is a nation of brutes as leaders... well-dressed brutes, to be sure, but blood drenches from their shiny shoes.

Once again, for the last 500 years of human history, the least trustworthy and the most brutal of all people were rich white men. Ideas that advanced humanity, brought humanity forward, were found among the poor and downtrodden, who conspired against them. They slowly incorporated these ideas, filtering out the good parts, and keeping them in name in legal form, while slowly forming an apparatus around them so that these human tendencies towards freedom can be controlled.

And I should be thankful for Newton, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume? What of all the poor and dead thinkers, probably better thinkers--who knows?--whose potential was stifled through the hierarchy? What of these poor and dead thinkers that influenced the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, and even the lord-sage of American 18-19th century political philosophy Thomas Paine? These poor don't get the credit, but these rich assholes didn't just come up with ideas about equality among humans out of a vacuum. Nor was it their intention to ever follow through with it.

We have a tendency to assign credit to these men, but the fact is that they drew from the work of others. Oh, these are great men, they say. They are brilliant men, one of a kind! Well, to hell with that, the mere existence of great men in oppressive societies means the stifling of millions of other great humans. I will take their ideas, and be rid of their names and association, because we are still living the rich white male hierarchy, and this sort of credit-giving continues the narrative that we are supposed to live, after systematic white-washing over generations.

Here's the thing: America has almost never been 'great' for brown people or most poor white people. So, the benefits that you received have almost all gone to you and no one else. I'd advise you drop the entire notion of America being great. America was built on the back of slaves, and today it is profiting off the back of world-slavery. People living in it are unhealthy, in debt, and distracted by nonsense. How is that great? The fact is that it isn't all that great. There are greater places. I don't respect lies.

As for scientific advances, you can't just stroll on down and give all credit to rich white people. These advances came from thousands of years of effort from people globally, and didn't require divine right rule, slavery, or any of that other nonsense to come into fruition.

Because we don't live in 1776 anymore and it turns out that almost every idea rich white people had were bad ideas that should be shredded and thrown into a nuclear waste dump?

Didn't the OP place it under the "Politics and Current Affairs" section?

What the hell is it with you and sexual policing?

Every single foreign policy decision Hillary has made has resulted in massive instabilities, worse off conditions for the people, tens of thousands of deaths. This is the Kissinger-mind. So, no one can possibly claim she has been a good secretary of state, nor that she has ever been correct with any foreign policy decision she has ever made.

You don't create movements in America by running for office. America has an unjustified faith in its electoral system. Most people think voting actually matters in America. Apart from certain local elections and ballot-based issue voting, it really doesn't. Americans don't really understand how to street organize in a sustainable way, at least not since the 1960s (and early 70s), and even then, that 'organizing' was nothing compared to the Wobblies and the Communist Party in its heyday, and of course no where near where Eugene Debs, the Railway workers, early Teamsters, and so on. This was deliberate, of course: the masters of organizing people are communists, and America has since thrown the commies out and left a no-trespassing sign.

Either communism or bust, that's the lesson. Communists, millions and millions of them, is what we need.

Nixon is basically the male Hillary.

Well, when it comes to invading America and reaching American soil, the best foreign country to ask is England. Drafting that letter to David Cameron now entitled "Restore English Honor: Please Invade Michigan Now".

It's nothing like Syria...

When the need arises, it will be too late, just like in Syria. As for gun homicides skyrocketing, I'd suspect that they would skyrocket and the other forms of homicide would decrease. So you'd see a similar number of homicides but with guns instead. Anyways, to me that is a necessary trade-off. I guess when robots become more commonplace in national militaries, then having guns at all is probably a waste of time and we'd have to look to more potent forms of protection.

For the record, I am not in support of 'lax gun controls', I do agree there needs to be some agreed upon regulations. But I also think that people should be armed.

The issue is that if you look at gun homicide rates by country, there is no correlation whatsoever with the gun laws and the related gun homicide deaths. Places where guns are completely illegal or nearly illegal for private citizens can still have incredibly high gun homicide rates, while other places where gun laws are relatively lax have low gun homicide rates, and vice versa. For example, Mexico and Brazil have really restrictive gun laws, and they still have really high homicide rates.

Guns are a good way to distribute power in the event there is a concentration of power in the hands of a state, or if there is a political army that is generally oppressive. Arming people to resist the state or said gang is a much more arduous task if the state itself has all the guns. Look at the Syrians who are unable to fend off ISIS for instance. As for the argument of preventing people from getting guns to stop crazy people, this logic has stopped the event of crazy gun murderers almost zero times. The truth is that if someone really wanted a gun, they will almost always be able to find a way to get a gun.

Generalized label: Techno-syndicalism / Communist
Form of government: All efforts are to be made to push towards complete automation and collective ownership of the vast majority of human tasks, with distribution of resources to based on some sort of dual form of "basic-income" baseline which is then adjusted for individual needs and abilities.
Form of economy: Techno-syndicalism
Abortion: Encouraged. We are suffering from global human overpopulation and the labor market is facing huge automation difficulties, the whole purpose of reproducing is fast becoming unnecessary, at least for another generation, and abortion is a good remedy to the problem.
Gay marriage: Any form of legal marriage is not recognized by the state, since marriage is an outdated form of a commercial contract between people. In my ideal world, there would be no need to divide up resources in a marriage, since women would never starve or be materially worse off in the event of a collapse of the marriage, since the society provides free childcare and guarantees housing and food, as well as other amenities. If you want to stay or live with a person, the solution is simple: just stay or live with that person.
Death penalty: Perhaps initially, when we're killing the fascists off, but after a while it will be phased out and ultimately banned.
Euthanasia: Yes.
Campaign finance: No need for political parties in a syndicalist society, but mediums for discussion as far as the affairs of society are concerned can be regulated.
Surveillance: None after the revolution, enough to get rid of the fascists prior.
Health care: Universal right.
Immigration: No borders, no citizenship.
Education: Skills-building education as a focus, life-long commitment by all. Free, of course. People are to be forced to learn multiple histories.
Environmental policy: All private cars will be banned and remains of said cars to be used to build extensive public transportation. Cars are the leading cause of death in the world and are generally redundant, to be honest. Also, humans are too stupid to drive.
Gun policy: People can have guns.
Drug policy: All drugs legal.
Foreign policy: "Foreign" policy focus will be on figuring out how to remove borders and the concept of citizenship, nation-states, and all that nonsense.

It looks like the US is catching up to Oxford-style parliaments. Two fascist Cubans whose families probably lost their slave plantations 'back in the good old days', and a pampered boy heir, fighting for Chief Executive Officer of the nation. This period of American history reminds me of the immediate post-Flavian era of Rome.

Obama should pull a fast one and say he's gonna nominate someone even more fascist than Scalia, the Republicans are all like "okay, we'll do it", and then he comes out and says "see, you guys are full of shit" and proceeds to nominate a Marxist.

Unfortunately I spent too much time in the scientific socialism camp, so my thoughts are not advanced enough to posit a fully fledged system worthy of good criticisms. All I know is what the problem is, I am only just beginning to think about what alternatives there are.

That being said, I think you put it right: it'll definitely involve some sort of loving grace from the machines, something akin to, or derived from, Project Cybersyn. I think it would involve something like a directly democratic process. Outside of that, I only have vague ideas that might sound good, but due to obvious reasons (the Dark Side preventing it), there isn't that much data regarding alternative economic systems in recent years. We'd have to go throughout most of history to see examples, and we'd have to think of something new that is derived from those instances.

You are talking about a completely different time and technology type altogether. The steam engine simply augmented human brute strength, but it still required humans to direct it. In fact, the automation you saw during the industrial revolution was not an automation that was directly replacing human jobs, it was an automation that replaced humans due to its greater productive capacity. The people that lost their jobs were people who did not fit into the production quotas required by the market, given each machine plus one human could produce X, then the production quota / X is equivalent to the number of laborers required. If X increases as a result of augmented powers from machinery, then that specific company requires fewer workers. But it opened up possibilities to do other things in a more effective manner, so the market boomed. This, coupled with colonialism, ensured a growing world economy. It still required, nonetheless, humans to direct the operations, in other words, to augment their productive capabilities with this augmented power source.

Today's technology is a completely different species, although it has existed for millenia in more primitive forms. Today, we have general purpose machinery, the ability to remove the necessity for humans altogether for the vast majority of work. What we are augmenting here is our brain power, plus our brute strength. There is nothing left for humans to augment in this case--this is all there is to human labor: brains and brute strength.

Well, remember that Marx maintained that labor creates all wealth simply because money itself is the material form representing labor time. So, because products may be produced without human labor expended, at least after the machine itself was made by the laborer (or, as we will soon see more and more of, machines that make machines), the condition for the demise of capitalism is specifically the abolishing of labor-based monetary schemes, which we have today. In effect, when we exchange money for goods, we are exchanging labor for labor. Of course this cannot be sustained forever. We have to transition to a purely money-as-distribution-of-goods model, where labor expended and money itself is completely disconnected.

To clarify my position, I am optimistic that the technology can get to the level of societal-wide catastrophe. I am really optimistic that they'll figure out ways to automate most of human labor, but I am entirely pessimistic that human society as whole will be better off materially. What we'll end up with is most likely a techno-fascist feudal corporatist society. I don't understand why the fuck people in my generation are all dancing and being happy and shit. The only dancing you should be doing is a funeral dance.

I am more of the camp that there is warranted technological optimism, although I am pessimistic about it. As I come from a younger generation than both BitterCrank and swstephe (I assume, although I am not really that 'young', nearing 30 in a couple years), basically all the jobs that I worked beginning from my very first job at 12-13 to the present has been working some sort of automating machine that accomplished tasks that, prior to getting my first job, when I was a child, I remember vividly seeing multiple people toiling away as human appendages to the institutional productive idea. My first job was data entry using MS Access (late 90s), a job which my dad paid me to do, as his secretary just got laid off, the second was writing an online payment processing script (roughly at 15 years old) for a tourist company, who then subsequently fired the woman who was doing all that paperwork for them as well as the greeting cashier, before I made them a website, which allowed them to fire the three marketing and customer acquisition experts they had on payroll. Around 17-18, oddly enough, I became one of the IT helpdesk guys for the college I was attending; all the equipment I was maintaining had the symbolic blood of the eradicated labor, the printers and computers that got rid of the typists, the network wiring that got rid of the messenger boys, the online blackboard system for classes that got rid of teachers and paper mill producers. Then, I became the self-checkout guy at a grocery store back when these were brand new, and I was singlehandedly manning 12 machines, which, I guess, means 11 other people were fired in order to make room for these machines. Of course, when I became a union organizer, my job wasn't really automated, except for the fact that I wrote a scraper script to steal contact information for workers at the stores I was trying to flip, and then I quit because they started introducing self-checkout machines at these fastfood joints. And when I worked at a think tank, I replaced the data gatherers with scripts of a similar caliber. When I was in university, I used online search engines to find papers for my research, and that must mean a bunch of librarians were fired.

I'd say that in my short life (~30 years) I've personally been part of the replacement of over a thousand workers as a result of the technology that I was hired to operate. I don't know what the fuck these people are doing now, but since being young means, generally, to toil away at the lowest rungs of work as far as skill is concerned, then, looking around, I'd say that the technology is really eating us up, and my generation, more or less, will be competing for fewer and fewer openings.

For the record, I use 'suffer' here to mean simply a negative turn of events insofar as their profitability goes.

As I see it, there isn't that big of a difference except juristically as far as state owned versus privately owned trust funds go. As far as they are actors in the market, state actors are simply more privileged investors, in many cases, with responsibilities also their citizenry (although, in practice, this isn't always the case; much of Aramco profits, for example, go straight to the Saudi lordships; I'm sure the same happens to other state run entities).