Benkei
2.9k
↪Frank Apisa Again, that is in no way, shape or form a sensible reaction to my original question and a silly proposition so removed from reality it's totally useless to entertain. If I could dictate everybody would be rich I'm sure I'd get a 99% approval rating. — Benkei

What the heck are you talking about, Benkei?

You originally said, "So, I think in the meantime I agree with it being better to vote for Biden next fall, but...

What then? I'm afraid that for too many Americans "not Trump" is the goal and once they have that everything is back to the corporate stranglehold on politics. What's the game plan in the long run? Aside from the obvious and just moving en masse to the Netherlands."

I am just trying to find out what you think should happen.

What should the politicians do that will YOU happy?

What is the "long run game plan for America" that YOU see as the proper one...the best one for America or for the world?

You seem to be complaining about what is going on...but what is YOUR solution?

That is all I am trying to do. I have no idea of why you think that question to be "removed from reality" and "useless to entertain."

I asked a question, Benkei.

What would you do if you were able to DICTATE what could be done?

If you would put that out there, you would see that you would only satisfy about half the people...because half the people would disagree with you about getting intense orgasms each day.

That is the problem politicians face. There is no way to satisfy the electorate.

That is my point.

Wants are not needs and unless needs are met first there is no want. There is death. — Outlander

Okay.

So...so let's change the question from "if elected DICTATOR for life, do you think you could do what the American people WANT" to "if elected DICTATOR for life...do you think you could do what the American people NEED?"

In fact, do you think you could even determine what their "needs" are...without asking?

And do you suppose there would be a huge difference between what our fractured society deems to be "needs" and what it deems to be "wants?"

My point was that politicians are in a near impossible position.

Do you disagree?

So, I think in the meantime I agree with it being better to vote for Biden next fall, but...

What then? I'm afraid that for too many Americans "not Trump" is the goal and once they have that everything is back to the corporate stranglehold on politics. What's the game plan in the long run? Aside from the obvious and just moving en masse to the Netherlands. — Benkei

What exactly do you want from the politicians we elect, Benkei?

Do you (we) want them to do what the people want?

That seems to be the demand I hear most often.

How in hell can any human possibly do what the American people want?

How can anyone even think that is possible?

Could you...if given free rein? Suppose you were elected DICTATOR for life...could you "do what the American people want?"

I certainly couldn't! I cannot even imagine anyone who could.

Roughly half the people in America want something that is almost diametrically opposed, and irreconcilable, with what the other half wants!

(By the way: I doubt anyone, anywhere...could get the politicians of their nation to do what "the people" of their nation "want."

:up:

Baden
10.2k
We will all live with the consequences.
— Frank Apisa

Well, I guess I could live with senile creepy Yoda as long as he is given constant access to a teleprompter and stays away from my sister. Anyhow, Trump is getting worse daily, that's inarguable. And not just him but his whole shitty family. — Baden

Agreed!

I live in a safe Biden state...New Jersey. I've even considered staying home if he chooses Stacey Abrams for the second spot. She is totally unprepared for the job. (I am confident he won't do that!) I have no idea why anyone is touting her. My feelings are that he should choose a woman...preferably a woman of color. There are several women that I think are much closer to being ready to take over immediately. Kamala Harris, Susan Rice, Condoleezza Rice (!)...come immediately to mind.(CR would give the Republicans something to think about.) My preference is for Harris. My guess is Biden will probably be taking the high road with Trump rather than wallowing in the cesspool with him...and Harris looks like she could take over the dirty work with no trouble. She could kick Trump in the balls three times a day and six on Sunday.

Baden
10.2k
↪Frank Apisa ↪180 Proof

So, Trump is Darth Vadar and Biden is what? A senile Yoda?? — Baden

Trump is a danger to our Republic...and has caused our Republic more damage than all of its foreign enemies through the years...mostly because the damage he is causing emanates from the Oval Office. Perhaps you cannot see that, but it is so.

As for Biden...he is a life-long public servant who has done things that I love; things that I like; and some things that I dislike...a lot.

But he is a decent human being...a man of empathy and intelligence.

Yeah, he has lost a step or two from his prime. So have I. But even with that step or two of loss...he will be a MUCH better leader for our nation than Trump.

Those who would rather stay home than vote for him should stay home; those who would rather vote for a third party candidate than vote for him should vote for a third party candidate; those who would vote for Trump's re-election should vote for Trump.

We will all live with the consequences.

We may think we believe in the golden rule, — Pinprick

Of all the idiomatic indulgences used in a philosophical forum...the term "believe in" is the most needlessly over-used. It exacerbates fogging up the problems being discussed rather than helping to make them more clear.

Do you "believe in" democracy?

Do you "believe in" God?

Do you "believe in" the Golden Rule?

Wouldn't a more specific phrasing be better? For the three examples above:

Do you prefer a democratic state over a totalitarian one?

Would you guess that at least one god exists; do you guess that no gods exist; or do you not make a guess on the question?

Are you inclined to treat people the way you would like to be treated by others...or do you think that notion to be intrusive or unworthy in some way?

Even the use of the words "believe" or "belief" is over-used...a kind of lazy way of saying what we actually mean.

Yeah. Had a version of it over in another forum in a thread about Mike Flynn.

The guys comment essentially was, "He did not lie. He just didn't tell the truth because he wanted to protect his son."

There is no such scientific consensus. The evidence is mixed, but the consensus, if anything, is that masks are somewhat effective, some more than others. Don't fall victim to all-or-nothing thinking: even a 20% reduction of the probability of transmission is better than nothing. — SophistiCat

Well said!

I wear a mask because it almost certainly has some value in protecting others if I should be infected and not know it. And, not incidentally, it does show that I am one with others trying to get through this thing. It is the kind of thing Trump would be doing to greater advantage...if he only had a brain.

Yes, I'm in agreement here. In my heart of hearts, I am happy with things being forced to their crisis. In my conscience of consciences, I feel like I'm able to feel that in my heart of hearts only because I've never been all that happy or successful in the old status quo, and I feel uncomfortable following my gut-feeling here. I think the the question of whether to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' in this particular election is partially a referendum on whether that way of thinking even makes sense anymore, on its own terms, even if you've always disagreed with it on principle. I do think the answer is that doesn't, and I think I barged into this thread not having seen the types of posts StreetlightX was responding to, which are frustrating (sorry @Frank Apisa, I can't buy what you're selling). I do still object to the transposition of manichaean-framing-in-outrageous-terms from one level to another. I'm not saying we should suppress anger, I think anger is often good and useful, but there's a kind of trench-warfare bitterness and frothing that hurts everyone involved, to no good purpose. — csalisbury

No problem, C. We disagree on this issue...and disagree strongly.

Baden is all wet on this...as are all the Sanders supporters who, in states that matter, will not vote or will vote third party.

But that is the nature of our system. And if Trump is re-elected, I guess those people will consider it a victory of some kind. "We showed them!" will be their triumphal hymn.

This next election will NOT be one of choice between two evils. Joe Biden is not evil in any sense of the word...and Donald Trump is a pervasive, unrelenting, frothing evil from the depths of depravity. Trump is a man doing more damage to our Republic and the institutions that allow it to flourish than any of our enemies have ever managed.

Do what you will...and live with the consequences, my friend.

Oh, shit. My bad.

I have twisted up those two so often, by now I should be getting it correct.

Thanks, 180.

(Although, even Condoleezza would be okay with me.)

StreetlightX
5.3k
But who decides and how do they decide what fair compensation is?
— prothero

Ideally, anyone with a stake in how things are run. This means workers, employers, and even the surrounding society and community for whom the work impacts upon - and ideally enriches (and not just in a monetary way). I don't have any easy answers as to the mechanisms by which such principles might be incarnated. It's even possible and likely that the market will still play a role in some manner (markets, after all, are not capitalist: they existed long before capitalism, and will probably exist long after it. The problem with capitalism is the political elevation of a very specific configuration of the market as being the sole arbiter of value). — StreetlightX

The first thing that must go (and probably the first thing that WILL go) is the notion that everyone has to earn their living...earn their food, clothing, shelter, education, communication, reasonable means of travel, reasonable amount of entertainment..

We should be more interested in insuring that everyone have those things without requiring that they work for it, because MANY people are so counterproductive, eliminating them from the productivity process will increase the availability of all those things, thus easier for them to be provided.

What is certain, as best I can determine, is that it will continue to be spelled philosophy.

All the rest is in flux or doubt.

Yep!

Bitter Crank
8.7k
We all know the world is run by the corporations, might as well make it obvious who’s running what
— Justin Peterson

Why not just eliminate the corporations? There's nothing that requires us to have corporations that have the rights of persons (as is the case in the USA). There's no physical law, like gravity or heat transfer, that says we have to have profit making corporations. If we wish to rid ourselves of them, we can (assuming we can muster the will to do so). — Bitter Crank

Right on, BC.

If not all of them (I think definitely not all of them)...certainly most of them...and for sure the ones that deal primarily with NEEDS rather than WANTS. (With an expansive definition of NEEDS.)

And I would suggest expanding your idea to profit making in general, rather than just "corporations."

We should start immediately with Healthcare. Every profit motive for healthcare insurance should be ended tomorrow. No insurance companies, salespeople, commercial pitches for healthcare insurance should be allowed to endure...PERIOD.

We can move on from there.

Yup...a good one indeed.

At the White House, the press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, told CBS News Trump was taking hydroxychloroquine.

“I can absolutely confirm that,” she said.

“The president said himself he’s taking it. That’s a given fact. He said it. The president should be taken at his word.”


And she did it while maintaining a straight face.

Now I understand why, on her first day in this job, she said that she would never lie to the press.

↪Frank Apisa If you don’t like thought experiments that bend reality fair enough. If you don’t get see that it is meant as a means of creating a bridge from zealotry to more considerate thought fair enough again.

Note: this isn’t actually about god, religion or science - that’s merely the vehicle for putting yourself ‘In Another’s Shoes’. — I like sushi

Just having a bit of fun, Sush. Yanking on the chain a bit. No meanness intended (or taken, I hope).

It is a fun thread...and I thought I'd bust some balls. Can't play golf...where I usually do my ball busting.

If you say someone is a philosopher, you are indicating that he/she has a hobby of collecting stamps...

...oh, wait a minute. I'm not gonna post this until after I check on that word. Lemme see...where is that "put on hold" button. Oh yeah....

3017amen
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa

NICE!

That reminds me of this thought experiment:

Imagine someone coming to you declaring or proclaiming " I saw God yesterday and he said... ." How would or should, one react? Would the general inclination be that of disbelief or something else... .

Through logic, how should one go about justifying such an experience (?). — 3017amen

The "thought experiment" is an absurdity. It was not really a thought experiment at all. It was a set-up to make something not especially logical...seem logical.

In this situation I hope you share my optimism and think that Donald Trump will be the absolute worst US President in our lifetime.

(And I assume we both do see many US presidential elections still) — ssu

At my age, I doubt I will see many more elections...but, like you, I hope Trump is never surpassed as the absolute worst US President of ALL TIME.

The thing I am most disdainful of, though, is not Trump...but rather that he still has enthusiastic supporters. I truly hope those supporters are never surpassed as the most damaging to the Republic.

Whatever!

Chester
193
↪fdrake Socialism is the concept that the workers own the economy. It's a bullshit idea that never works. Also when people point to China they conveniently forget that China has prospered by
stealing Western ideas whilst sub-contracting for it. China itself is not a place for building and developing new ideas because the state can just take them from the individuals who build them at any time...that's why socialist states end up falling behind Western states.

Socialism kills individual endeavour. — Chester

Bullshit.

Or if you are a religious person...horse shit.

A lot of folks are still - after 2016's swing state turnout debacle - missing the forest for the trees ... :roll: — 180 Proof

Yes, indeed!

Anyway, my short list for Biden's VP contains these five prospects (2 Black Women, 2 White Women, 1 Hispanic Woman - 3 midwesterners & 2 southerners), any of which I believe would energize the Biden 2020 campaign and mobilize Democratic, Independent & (some) Republican women to vote this fall in record numbers like 2018.

Rep. Val Demings, D-FL
Gov. Gretchen Witmer, D-MI
Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-TX
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN
FLOTUS Michelle Obama (D-IL) — 180 Proof

Good list...any of whom would be vastly superior to Pence being a Big Mac away from taking the reins.

I know there is lots of blow back to mentioning Condoleezza Rice and Kamela Harris...but they still are high on my list.

But look - I'm not denying that there are reasons to vote for Biden. Just as there are reasons to vote for Trump, or third-party candidates, or whatever. I'm just saying, that the smug ease with which those equating not voting for Biden with Trump supporters and somehow responsible for his victory, is, well, shit, and peddled by shit people. — StreetlightX

ANYONE who helps Trump get re-elected, which includes almost all of the childishly disappointed Sanders people who are not voting or who will vote third party...are reprehensible for the re-election should it happen.

It is totally appropriate for anyone with a brain to equate "not voting for Biden" with Trump supporters. People "not voting for Biden" are the kind of people who, at least in part, are responsible for his victory in 2016...and will, at least in part, be responsible for Trump's re-election in 2020 should that happen.

The shit you speak of...are the people who would help Trump...not the people warning against doing so.

The fact that we do not have universal healthcare for everyone in this country...is a more derisive comment about us than anything ANY of our enemies has ever said about us.

The fact that we are the wealthiest country that has ever existed...yet we have people who struggle to barely make ends meet...is a more scathing comment about us than anything ANY of our enemies has ever said about us.

The most frequent way billionaires become billionaires is to cheat and shortchange the people who work for them...and the customers who buy from them.

The current system sucks like a black hole...and must make major adjustments.

I think there are people alive right now who will see many of those adjustments made.

They have indeed...and will probably lift lots more during the decades to come.

I am hoping they China lead the world to understand that an amalgam between the benefits capitalism has to offer and the benefits socialism has to offer...is the best way to go.

I'd loved for America to have been that leader.

There is no chance of that happening.

There is this small country in the far East called China. It has been a socialist/communist country since 1945. During the last 2 - 3 decades, it has made adjustments by borrowing ideas they see as useful from capitalism...while remaining decidedly socialist.

They are now the second strongest economy on the planet...and probably will move into the number one position during the lifetime of people now considered Senior Citizens.

Socialism has not failed as thoroughly as you are supposing in your opening remarks.

Chester
189
↪fdrake I think talking to leftists is a complete waste of time...they invariably learn nothing from history. The old leftist ideas died for a reason...people didn't like the results, the ideas didn't die because normal people were brain washed by the right...a favourite leftist fantasy. — Chester

Old leftist ideas have died???

When did that happen?

Damn, I stay away from the news for a few hours...and history happened.

I have come to the conclusion that people who describe themselves as "atheists" do so because they are the reverse side of the coin on which "theist" is the obverse.

I know, I know...they claim differently, but their explanations all sound hollow.

I like sushi
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa I don’t see how that follows. — I like sushi

You asked us to do something absurd...something that by the nature of your "suppose" would end up where you want us to end up.

I merely presented a short cut to the same place.

jgill
500
Will Biden be able to contend with the pressure exerted by Stacey Abrams? Will he buckle? — jgill

Biden stated unequivocally that the person he will select as his vice-president will be a woman...and will be qualified to step into the job starting from day one of the new administration.

Stacey Abrams is not in any way qualified to do that.

There is no way he will select her. She is not exerting any pressure...she is simply satisfying some need she has.

Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst. If they were planning to lose the election by alienating as many supporters as possible, they couldn't have done a better job. And yet not voting Dem is still understandably a very difficult step for many progressives to take. Absolute shit show. Of course, the Dem leadership will just sleepwalk into the election pretending everything's fine like they did with Hillary. — Baden

The Bernie Sanders people helped elect Trump...

...and are doing their best to see that Trump gets re-elected.

The Trump supporters are mostly ignorant savages.

The Sanders people who are not willing to get on-board with Biden...are even worse. .

The reason for saying that is in part a self-correction because I was ripshit when Biden became the clear nom, and angrily declared never to vote for him. I still won't but I've come to think its more nuanced a question if you've something at stake. — csalisbury

Anyone who think there is nothing at stake...is probably not old enough; intelligent enough; or sane enough to be voting.

THERE MOST ASSUREDLY IS LOTS AT STAKE.

Imagine there actually is a god...and further imagine that the GOD actually reveals itself to everyone in an unambiguous way so that everybody realizes that there indeed is a god.

Now, follow this thought experiment through.

Any flaws with it will be my answer to your question.

Everything can be doubted and that includes perception as per skepticism. — TheMadFool

Yeah, the Trump administration tells us this often.

They ask, "What are you gonna believe, you're lyin' eyes or what we tell you is so?"

Any "rights" you suppose you have...almost certainly came to you because others fought and died to obtain them.

It appears that the only right gods (if there are any) are concerned with is the right to die.

Judas is indispensable to the story...to the myth, if you will.

Without Judas...there is no story.

My guess is that there was a time when EVERYONE on Earth "perceived" that the sun, moon, and stars traversed the sky around the flat Earth below.

It is not an hallucination, but it is an illusion.

I can bring 10 people to a spot on a roadway during a hot summer day...and they will all "perceive" a reflective body of water way down the other end of the road.

It is not an hallucination, but it is an illusion.

How does that play into the calculation?

Marchesk
3.2k
In fact, America could dramatically increase its overall productivity...if it limited the number of people who are allowed to work.

EVERYONE should be provided with "enough"...and "enough" should be defined as the kind of life one could live if earning $50,000 to $60,000 per year.
— Frank Apisa

Sounds fantastic, but can this be afforded? $50K times the number of adults in the US (rounded down to 200 million) is 10 trillion dollars.

The second part of this is that you're paying people not to work, unless they want to. Question is whether the economy can be productive enough to support the taxation needed to provide everyone with that $50-60K a year. — Marchesk

If our economy can produce enough for everyone NOW...and we can make it more productive by removing counter-productive people...of course it can be productive enough.

We have much more than enough for everyone already.

We have enough food, enough clothes, enough shelter, enough education, enough healthcare, enough transportation, enough communication devices, enough televisions, enough refrigerators, enough tacos, enough nose hair clippers, enough ear wax removers, enough of EVERYTHING...and we can have even more if we were not forcing unproductive people to work rather than leaving the work to EFFICIENT willing people or machines.