Kamala Harris 2020! (+ Dem primary discussion?)

[Replay]

As most of you probably heard, Senator Kamala Harris announced her candidacy for the Presidency of the United States today!

I'm planning to vigorously support her campaign in the primaries and beyond - I've been tracking her career since the beginning of the decade, and have been very, very impressed by her record on tackling corruption.

By now, I know one thing for sure - she has a heart, a soul, and bravery that a lot of our candidates don't.

I would like to encourage others among my fellow Americans to research her record as well and consider a vote for Senator Harris, and to encourage support for her campaign among our Canadian friends here as well.

Feel free to discuss her and the issues here!

https://splinternews.com/kamala-harris- ... 1831925566

[Julius Seeker]

I think the most interesting thing is that 31 years ago Bernie Sanders was still an old man =D

[Shrinweck]

I'll keep an eye on her but as of now I like Warren, Biden, and Sanders in roughly that order. Bloomberg would be an acceptable candidate to me but I would never in a million years vote for him in the primary assuming candidates I still liked were in the mix.

I really like Sanders but I'm just not comfortable with someone who would be in their 80s being president.

[kali o.]

Lol -- I better stay far away from this thread.

PS Shrin - Biden is a pedo

[Eric]

I'll keep an eye on her but as of now I like Warren, Biden, and Sanders in roughly that order. Bloomberg would be an acceptable candidate to me but I would never in a million years vote for him in the primary assuming candidates I still liked were in the mix.

I really like Sanders but I'm just not comfortable with someone who would be in their 80s being president.

If it was anybody other then Trump I wouldn't hate Warren's chances, but despite everything I still feel like he'd eat her alive.

[Shrinweck]

Yeah she really falls for his shit super easily so far but the primaries are far enough away that I'm still going to be optimistic about her unless she keeps making blunders.

Honestly I'm still mulling it over and I'm completely open to changing my mind once things get into full swing.

[Replay]

Thank you to one and all for a reasonable, intelligent discussion on the issue!

I'll easily vote any ticket of Warren/Harris/Sanders and also Cory Booker. These are voices I strongly feel need to have a seat at the table.

Uncle Joe I'd have to talk about my support for; particularly his role in the transition of the 1996 Omnibus Counterterrorism Act to the later PATRIOT Act. He's been a little too close to a lot of security-state stuff I feel has been un-Constitutional.

Bloomberg is unfortunately on my hard pass list. He knows what he did; so do I, but I will follow an example above and kindly shut my mouth about it in the interest of preserving kindness and dignity around here.

[Julius Seeker]

The US politician I like the most right now is AOC. She's gained a tremendous amount of political power and influence in congress, and she's not even old enough to run in 2020.

Trump eat Elizabeth Warren alive? She doesn't look like 300 cheeseburgers to me.

Even with the Russian pee stuff, the constant outrage outbursts, and general childish behaviour, he is not exactly a difficult target:


Eventually the US is going to wake up and realize they have to elect a President who actually does his job. Not a professional Twitter troll who occasionally rolls out a 10 minute speech repeating the same 3 or 4 phrases. Work ethic and job competency should be what voters keep an eye on for 2020.

On which democrat I think is best? I think there are several good ones at a glance. I am far more familiar with Warren and Bernie. In terms of background, Bernie is a Western democratic socialist (despite running on social democratic policy), while Warren is a pure social democrat. Both practices would be healthy for the Eastern US, and strong social democracy is easily the best fit for the American economy: it's clear that tearing down FDR's foundation hasn't been healthy for American society: even Republicans will admit that economic structure was superior to what we have now.

You guys probably know more than me on this topic. I'm politically active, but involved with my provincial Green Party. I'll have more to say on that at a later date.

[kali o.]

Jesus fucking christ...must resist...

AoC is a communist arguing against capitalism, thinks the world will end in 12 years and came to office with like.12k votes...and thats who is impressing you?

Holy fuck...the west is doomed. im moving to Poland.

[Replay]

The problem I have with Warren right now is that she handled her Native American ancestry fact-finding mission *so badly* that I do feel concerned about her ability to project strength in 2020 in public relations.

The right answer to "Pocahontas" was "Fuck you, Donald, you're a bully and you're spitting on my heritage."

Instead of that, she goes and takes a DNA test. THEN she makes the biggest mistake of all - finding out that her Native ancestor was ten generations back, she *hangs her head in shame and gives up*, rather than pointing out that doing that is exactly what has marginalized Native ancestry in America in the first place.

The right answer *there* was "Yes, I am part Native American - my ancestor was ten generations back, but he or she didn't deserve to be marginalized they way they were then, and shouldn't be now, and even though my percentage of Native blood is small, it does not deserve to be forgotten."

The failure to come up with these positions of strength in this minor public relations test makes me very, very concerned about her chances of beating a habitual bully who lives on mocking those without enough thick skin or experience to properly fight back.

I don't see Harris as having that problem. She's a cop, a prosecutor, and a tough woman all around. Indeed her own problems will have to do with those on the left who won't vote for a police officer - I've already seen a lot of "Fuck the police" in response to her campaign, which I feel is counterproductive, there are problems with U.S. policing no doubt, but I've lived places where the cops don't like to go and it's definitely not better.

I have more to say on this all, but it's late, and like another of our valued community members here I'm holding my tongue a bit in the interest of preserving the public good.

[Julius Seeker]

Kali:
She's not a communist, but rather a Western socialist. Her policy positions are also pure social democracy, I don't even think I have heard one pro-union speech from her (unlike Bernie and Ojeda, for example, who seem more open to proposing socialist policy). Her most newsworthy proposition is the 70% marginal income tax rate, which is simply back to pre-Reagan levels, and considerably less than FDR's 90%. FDR's rates gave the US government the power to dig the working class out of poverty and end the great depression. Social democratic policy is healthy for capitalist societies, it's been tested and proven across the Western world.

Also, Poland? That was kind of out of nowhere. Enjoy your new life in the home of the Warsaw pact =)


Replay:
What I find most confusing is that such a trivial and irrelevant thing is even an issue. She could smoke crack, for all I care: if her policy positions are solid, and her work ethic top notch, then she's a good candidate. It's not like she's going out an volunteering strategically sensitive information to rival powers =)

I don't know a great deal about Harris, so I have little to say on her. She seems like a good enough candidate.

[kali o.]

Western socialist is another word for communist. But if that doesn't work for you, anti-capitalist is the same thing, as she has already gone on record for restricting any system that allows profits beyond an arbitrary threshold. You know what you accomplish with that? The same thing Trump has been battling to reverse -- companies moving to a tax favorable country.

As for Poland, they've been pretty fucking on the ball the last few years. No fucking around with progressive/destructive policy for them. Come visit me when you get bored of compelled speech and Trudeaus tanking of the budget

[Julius Seeker]

In advance: I apologize for the wall of text I have here (I wrote more than I thought).

Just to clear up what I mean with what I am talking about since communism and socialism are loaded terms because of how they were marketed for about half of the 20th century.

Communism is a society where each takes according to their needs, and each offers according to their abilities.

To detail further: it is anarchical (as in, no government authority) in nature and stateless, and no longer functions on a central currency. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe is one example of a Utopian near-communist society. Both Roddenberry and Karl Marx believed we would reach this phase of civilization through the unification of the earth, and automation technology reaching a point where we would be - as a planet - in a post-scarcity world. Star Trek TNG realized this through the replicator. Where Marx and Roddenberry differ is how it comes about. Marx believed society would reach this phase through social conflict (with capitalism and socialism being earlier phases). Roddenberry wrote of it coming about with FTL technology and contact with alien civilizations.

Socialism is the ownership of business by the working class.

Western socialism is a convenience term I use because of "socialism" being marketed as a term for the USSR and PRC. Which, IMO, is better defined as authoritarian state corporatism - these are not societies where the working class has much or any power - while Western socialism goes in the opposite direction and offers more control to the employee. It is anti-capitalist, true, because it aims to give more investment to the working class over non-involved investors, who only care about a company's profitability and position in the competitive marketplace, rather than how the business is run; many aren’t even aware of what they’re invested in, the only business of investors is the money business. Socialist organizations, like worker unions, can function within a capitalist framework, but conflict with it.

Marxism is the theory that society is moving away from a more hierarchal class system to a stateless and classless society because of conflict and revolution. He formulates this as capitalism transitioning to socialism and eventually technological and social progress will allow for communism to occur.

Social Democracy is the public management of capitalist economies and a framework to aid workers in the country (such as social security in the US, and the minimum wage) to make them happier and into healthier consumers.
This is the most successful method of regulating and protecting capitalism that western society has ever devised. The marginal tax rate of 70-94% is a return to the status quo of the pre-Reagan years was the foundation of a powerful and wealthy economy in the US. This didn't have an adverse effect on companies in the US, rather the opposite, this system attracted companies to the US because it was a comfortable place to start up, and a robust consumer class allowed them to prosper.

The Scandinavian economy involves a balance of socialism, social democracy, and capitalism. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all routinely rank in the top 5 countries with the highest standard of living.


On Trump, I realize you're a fan, but the guy is lazy, what little he has done is uncalculated. He has done little to the economy except to jam a few pins into it. He has also harmed the US public sector by chiseling away at its foundation with no plan in place to finance spending. Lowering tax rates didn't do much of anything except give a raise to wealthy executives; that helps nothing.
The tariffs are a drop in the bucket. Does anyone know if they even bring in as much money as what has been spent on the bailout relief?
I have little faith Trump knows what's going on, he's an all talk and no action President; good, only for people who aren't paying attention to what the government’s doing (or not doing). That the US has continued to run despite not having a particularly active President is a testament to how strong it’s been built by Presidents and governments going back to FDR.

On Poland, I don’t doubt they aren't progressive. That's not a good thing at all. They're a developing nation with an economy of about 1/3rd of Canada - one reason they're not progressive. A second reason is they're one of the most religious countries in Europe, they even teach creationism in schools. I have no idea why you'd want to move to a country so lacking in progress - I always considered you to be progressive (despite not being politically left, and supporting Trump); one of the rare non-reactionary right-wingers.

As for Trudeau, if you don't know how I feel about him: he legalized weed, now he can fuck off. =)
I am not a supporter of Trudeau or the Liberal party.

[kali o.]

Point to point reply to properly address wall of text, especially since a lot of that seems like a definitional exercise.

1. Communism only works, regardless of what Marx or Rodenberry think ( ) when the net cost of labour for goods and services approaches zero (ie. 100% Automation). Outside of this, it does not work and leads to death and mass suffering due to human nature and math.

Should that time come, however, it is interesting to consider the ramifications for society. With compelled service, work for welfare, etc it *could* theoretically work. Without, a large portion of society would devolve into brain-in-a-vat sloth and we'd naturally see a split into two vastly separated classes -- the leaders and the utterly powerless.

You would have people taking their weekly rations, their free micro suites, their automated healthcare, their recreational drugs, doing a whole lot of nothing and entirely removed from decision making. It would be a freefall for humanity in the long term.

2. "Scandinavia" are capitalistic countries, that exploited (and exploit) their vast natural resource reserves to create (on the back of capitalism) a certain social safety net. They are not burdened by military costs (a mistake) and they benefit from the Schengen agreement without the EU costs. Places like Norway take a hardass stance on immigration, because they understand their social safety net is fragile and would be decimated if they followed Sweden's lead.

3. Not once, in your history, have you ever cared to examine or somehow quantify how much a president "works". But you are now. Why? Due to a hostile media. You may wish to consider whether they are trustworthy, as they clearly have an oppositional agenda. Beyond that, I guess you can look at the booming US economy and job numbers, two years in, and say Trump has nothing to do with....I guess. Here is the reality though -- the markets move entirely on perception and expectation. A president owns the economy on day 1.

Tariffs are incredibly important, as I've posted before (for brevity, search Kali + Tariffs if you missed it).

Are you aware of what Trump has accomplished so far? https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-admini ... lishments/

4. Poland had the 7th most visa applications in the Schengen Area last year -- dwarfing your favorite Scandinavian countries.,..perhaps you should look into it more?

5. Progressivism (or Left, Liberal) have taken on vastly different meanings in the last 10 years. It is NOT progressive to welcome and cheer government compelled speech, as Canada did in bill C-16. It is NOT progressive to allow the government the authority to take kids out of homes if parents do not conform to unscientific gender advocacy and the whims of children (aka Bill 89). It is NOT progressive to allow the mentally ill and drug addicted to have free reign and rot on the streets. It is NOT progressive to piss away future generations wealth with unsecure migration and free access to the social safety net. It is NOT progressive to repatriate terrorists. It is NOT progressive to authorize killing babies up until the moment of birth.

I parted ways with Progressivism a long time ago. For good reason. It's a dangerous path western society is currently on -- more dangerous than you probably appreciate (imo). See you in Poland

[Julius Seeker]

1. I don't think communism would work now either. But given the proper technological advances, it's something we can hypothetically achieve in some form.

On whether the weak would become slaves to the powerful. That all depends on if there is a motivation to do that, or if it is an easy task to achieve. For example, if we reach a technological level where people can have as much or as little as they want, and there is no path to dominating others (perhaps adequate law enforcement AI, maybe it's not worth anyone's time) then it can be sustained. Another option is physical-perceived virtual worlds - not so much a holodeck or a VR helmet, but something more akin to a benevolent/voluntary Matrix or what we've, where the user can define their parameters.

2. Even with Sweden's issues, it still offers one of the greatest standards of living in the world and a healthy economy. Canada's resources and resource production dwarf's Sweden, our resource and mineral exports make up about 37%, while Sweden's only makes up 9%; and Canada's total export value is multiple times higher.

On immigration, according to the CIA World Factbook - in 2017: Sweden receives 5.3 migrants per 1000, which is higher than the US's 3.9. But it is lower than Canada's 5.7 and lower than Norway's 5.9. Norway is not as "hardass" as some of your sources may have led you to believe.

Also, what is wrong with the safety net? It has functioned great for the people putting the standard of living of Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians well above that of Americans. Additionally, these countries are fiscally responsible. Sweden usually ends the year with a small deficit or a surplus. The US has a ridiculously large deficit. Total economic growth of Nordic countries remains on par with the US. Sweden's economic growth is on par with the US despite the immigrant burden resulting from the crises across the Arabic world, Africa, and the Balkan (primarily the Yugoslavian collapse, and the Romanian revolution in the late 80s) regions before that. All this despite the substantial immigrant burden from the strife from the Balkan regions in the 1990s and the Arabic world almost ever since. Not so fragile, is it?

Why is Sweden's military budget is a mistake? What is the reason?

2.B. Market growth was consistent from early in Obama's 8 years, and it continued in 2017 under Trump. The value of US companies was significantly down in 2018. Does Trump own that?

3. I haven't had issues with the work ethics of past presidents, because it never seemed to be a problem. His actions hamper others from doing their work in more way than one. This is not indefinitely sustainable; eventually, the US will need someone who does their job.

The US economy has been "booming" for years BEFORE Trump got into office. GDP growth in 2014 and 2015 exceeded 2017 and 2018. Unemployment was down significantly more in Obama's period than Trump's. Trump's greatest accomplishment is that nothing has broken yet (except the deficit. And I suppose the stock market, which I didn't want to pin on him, but I guess he owns it).

Is Trump doing what you want him to do? Pretend this was a simulation game, and you were to design your own US President, does that guy come close to what Trump is?

I'll look up the tariffs posts later. I am not opposed to tariffs, but I oppose them when they're haphazard.

4. https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/statis ... tics-2017/ - Sure (although I am not sure the significance). Poland is WAY bigger. Scandinavian countries combined have a comparable number (Around 600K vs 825K), despite having half the population (20 million vs 38 million in Poland). Interesting enough, Finland ranks 6th, above Poland, and is also a much smaller country.

What I am curious about is what you would do in Poland? You live in BC; I also lived there (Nanaimo), beautiful place.
If you're part Polish, then I will do the Canadian thing and apologize for being an asshole.

5. Didn't we have a discussion about abortion a few years ago where I pointed out that I mostly (not in all situations) opposed it on biological reasoning? And you thought I was an asshole for doing so?

On a personal note: I am not much of an expert on the politics of "identity" because it doesn't interest me; my interest as it relates to that is mainly in how it factors into marketing - like in that talk about Roseanne we had earlier.

All that trigger warning stuff, I am not in favour of that - but I am also not in favour of any social systems that exclude people who are different from others (physically or in they prefer to represent themselves): all those things I would consider regressive. What I do favour is open and constructive dialogues between people who disagree; it's interesting to see other viewpoints.

And yeah, the meaning of the word is loaded. I, unfortunately, don't have the time to keep up with sites like TYT, because every time I watch them I end up getting pissed off. But I also refuse to let them define what I mean by progressive. Especially with guys like Jimmy Dore who plugs his ears and spews (sometimes literally), he's a cunt.
So forget all that. What I mean by thinking you’re a progressive is that I always had the opinion you want similar aspirations and growth of human civilization; ethical and sustainable, scientifically aimed, as opposed to a more clamped down and enforcement of arbitrary morals. Our disagreements, in that case, are in how we get there. Am I wrong?

Politically and technologically, my interests lie mainly in environmental sustainability efforts, renewable/efficient energy solutions, the expansion of knowledge, an efficient system of social management that allows the highest degree of freedom for the greatest number of individuals - and anything that gets us there.
Part of the reason I like leftist economies is that of the strong track record. I also feel that with the growth of automation we will have to delve deeper in that direction; as automation inevitably occupies much of the available work positions. The only other real solution is to oppose automation, which I would consider a regressive policy. We're on the verge of a new era, technologically, where AI is improving at drastic rates - that will lead to a far greater efficiency in various positions.

I think it's exciting times we live.


But, we're now WAY off the topic of democratic primary candidates. Probably best to split this one out.

[Replay]

Replay:
What I find most confusing is that such a trivial and irrelevant thing is even an issue. She could smoke crack, for all I care: if her policy positions are solid, and her work ethic top notch, then she's a good candidate. It's not like she's going out an volunteering strategically sensitive information to rival powers =)

I don't know a great deal about Harris, so I have little to say on her. She seems like a good enough candidate.

It doesn't matter to you.

It does matter to a great many Americans.

Should it matter? No.

Will it matter? Well, that's my concern.

The famous exchange between Adlai Stevenson and one of his supporters comes to mind:

"Sir, every thinking person in America will vote for you."
"That's all well and good, ma'am, but I need a majority to win."

Stevenson did lose in the end.

Warren *has* to get more forceful in her speeches and her defense of her own reputation if she wants me to back her in the primaries. The kindly-librarian thing she has going on now is all well and good for Congress, even possibly desirable there, but the President of the United States has to be a fighter.

Does this mean I don't support her generally? No. If she wins the primaries, will I support her in the general? Absolutely. But I will still have concerns, until she learns to defend herself from bullies without committing a gaffe - because bullying is at the core of the Republican Party these days, and has been ever since our fearless leader took over. Anyone with a trace of remaining shyness or meekness will be subject to vicious, career-ending savageries from next June all the way into next November.

You are Canadian; your sensibilities are more patient and measured than the average American voter. You *have* to understand the schoolyard core that still underlies so much of American politices - and the ignorance, too. I was out celebrating in 2008 at a bar, where I met someone who *did not know what day it was*, or that it had been an election day and that's why everyone was in the bar celebrating, much less the election of the first black President in U.S. history. Nice guy! We hung out a few times afterwards and he proved to be quite a kind and decent man in the end; but it was still an eye-opening look into my nation's issues.

Yes, this issue is going to matter in America - and this election is too important to field another flawed and defeatable candidate in.

[Replay]

Kali:

I parted ways with Progressivism a long time ago. For good reason. It's a dangerous path western society is currently on -- more dangerous than you probably appreciate (imo).

Also Kali:



Maybe, like, cut down on the death threats if you want people to listen to you about the "dangers of progressivism"?

[kali o.]

Kali:

I parted ways with Progressivism a long time ago. For good reason. It's a dangerous path western society is currently on -- more dangerous than you probably appreciate (imo).

Also Kali:



Maybe, like, cut down on the death threats if you want people to listen to you about the "dangers of progressivism"?

Yes genius, we all know you don't understand nuance or mockery. No need to keep proving it.

[kali o.]

On whether the weak would become slaves to the powerful.

A voluntary matrix is of no benefit to society/humanity and is just another pathway to two disparate classes. Placing the masses in a fantasy, whether via VR or drugs or whatever, is not a boon, it's slavery -- at least as far as I can see.

2. Even with Sweden's issues, it still offers one of the greatest standards of living in the world and a healthy economy. Canada's resources and resource production dwarf's Sweden, our resource and mineral exports make up about 37%, while Sweden's only makes up 9%; and Canada's total export value is multiple times higher.

I'm unclear what you are getting at here other than maybe highlighting Canada is extremely mismanaged due to debt spending. If that's the case...sure.

On immigration, according to the CIA World Factbook - in 2017: Sweden receives 5.3 migrants per 1000, which is higher than the US's 3.9. But it is lower than Canada's 5.7 and lower than Norway's 5.9. Norway is not as "hardass" as some of your sources may have led you to believe.

Again, totally not clear on what you are saying here (especially your use of the word migrants). Are your numbers a percentage of population? Ok. Unlike Sweden, Norway's immigration numbers have decreased YoY. And, if you want to learn more about Norways requirements and integration policy, this is a good read:
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentasset ... norway.pdf

Also, what is wrong with the safety net?

You go into a bunch of broad and slightly confusing (and even incorrect) claims. Nothing is wrong with a safety net -- but uncontrolled migration has shot just the healthcare costs alone in Sweden to 12%+ of GDP. These things you like are fragile, and require not only investment, but continued support through productive and working citizens.

Why is Sweden's military budget is a mistake? What is the reason?

Because the PRIMARY duty of a government is to protect the citizenry from threats, domestic and foreign. Relying on others is an extraordinarily dangerous and naïve long term plan.

2.B. Market growth was consistent from early in Obama's 8 years, and it continued in 2017 under Trump. The value of US companies was significantly down in 2018. Does Trump own that?

This simply is not factual.

Here is a graph to highlight your 1st incorrect assertion, market growth is entirely different and Trump has to contend with a rising interest rate:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/

As to your final statement, feel free to provide me context and citation for your statement so I can properly address it.

3. I haven't had issues with the work ethics of past presidents, because it never seemed to be a problem.

aka because the media didn't tell you to think that way until now.

The US economy has been "booming" for years BEFORE Trump got into office. GDP growth in 2014 and 2015 exceeded 2017 and 2018. Unemployment was down significantly more in Obama's period than Trump's. Trump's greatest accomplishment is that nothing has broken yet (except the deficit. And I suppose the stock market, which I didn't want to pin on him, but I guess he owns it).

False statements here again. 2018 supersedes 14/15. 2017 is comparable. You conveniently left out 2016.

Your unemployment assertion is 100% false. Did you hope I just wouldn't know that actual numbers?

Too much left so I will cut it here. You are right -- we are derailing a bit now. We can debate again in a new thread another time -- but lets keep it focused. This is too all over the place, lol.

[Julius Seeker]

1. Other luxuries aren't a benefit to society either, they're a perk, and often a distraction. The "voluntary Matrix" thing was only a thought of a potential future luxury, not where I actually believe all society is heading. It also isn't slavery, slavery is forced work.

I can see how a virtual world could end in slavery of a sort (Minor spoilers on Black Mirror that may somewhat apply to concept revelations in season 1, 3 and White Christmas)

Spoiler: show

See the episode of Black Mirror episode 15 million merits - which doesn't explicitly state that they are copies in a virtual world, but I suspect they are slave copies of humans forced into creative slavery.

But I also imagine that we can avoid it as easily.

Regardless of any idea I could have, we already have PLENTY of luxuries that seem sufficient: most Americans are not in the workforce, it's no longer required. Of the 328 million people in the US, only 162 million are in the labour force (employed + unemployed); roughly 49.3%.

For the record, I am not suggesting we should move away from having a workforce, I am saying it is going to happen due to technological advancements.

The decrease in available work positions as a result of automation and the AI era we've entered (simply looking at the great leaps we've made in car AI advancement is a good indication of what the next 50 years holds). farming and manufacturing automation has been going on since the dawn of history, but spiked in the industrial era, and continues to progress: we need FAR fewer people in these positions than we used to. As I said before, there's the AI factor as well.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013 ... e-1300.png (sorry, image size is huge, so I posted a link instead).

Asimov's book, iRobot, is a series of short stories about conflicts in the 3 laws of robotics - these are Mcguffins for the most part. The interesting arc is the development of AI, and how humanity used it to develop the FTL drive, which we used to explore and colonize other plants. Utilizing AI to develop technology to carry us to the stars is an optimistic possibility; but it can also lead to other developments (some are talked about in his later Robot trilogy, such as the end of labour and disease, longevity treatments, etc...). Point being, advancement aided by AI is a potential we considered 70 years ago, and it's becoming reality, we have already been increasing our capacity with computers, AI is another tool.


One of our goals should be to increase our capacity to eliminate most to all cost. Humanity has been improving technology since before the dawn of civilization to do this, regardless of the economic system. The major factor is our tools kept getting better, while much of Europe saw poverty in the "dark ages" - other parts of the world saw important developments in milling and also pulp paper, and the high adoption of codexes (as opposed to scrolls). We were able to more effectively conduct science in the medieval era: we got gunpower, chemistry, biology, and several new fields of mathematics by the end of it; Europe's driving economies were the globalist merchant leagues, and later the nationalized trade empires that basically copied the system and nationalized it. The steam engine, electricity, the computer, handheld phones with access to a world of knowledge. In 120 years we went from horse and buggy to electric cars we can tell where to go; where will the next 120 years take us? All of which save us cost in many ways.



2. The point that Sweden's economy is propped up by natural resource exploitation is false, as it is a small part of the economy. Canada was used as a point of comparison - but I don't disagree we mismanage our resources.

3. Yes, it was a percentage of the population. That is the relevant number. Norway's number is significantly higher than the US, as is Sweden. Still, they maintain two of the highest standards of living in the world, and can afford it.

4. 12% of the GDP for healthcare is low. The US has not been below 12% since the 1980s; and, that's with lower access than what Sweden has today. Sweden can afford it with its tax system, as the budget is balanced.

5. What threats?

6. GDP is a measure of total spending. My post was about market value growth, which apparently, Trump owns:


7. The media was heavily critical of Obama's work ethic. Trump did as well. They focused on Obama golfing way too frequently. Trump tweeted about it dozens of times, and brought Obama's golf up dozens more times on his campaign. Once in office, Trump dwarfs the amount of time Obama spent on the golf course. Yes, I got this information from the media, it's kind of their job.

8. The GDP grew 5.5% in 2014/15, higher than the 5.3% in 17/18. 2016 was an off year, sure.

US unemployment rate trended down from WAY before the Trump era.





Anyway, for the record, and on topic; I don't think any of the democratic candidates are radical; and I don't think AOC's return to a 70% marginal income tax rate is anywhere near radical. Now, abolishing the minimum wage and replacing it with mandatory unionization of the workforce, along with extensive legal powers, this would be radical leftism.

[kali o.]

It also isn't slavery, slavery is forced work

No, slavery is bondage. I'll leave everything else aside, as I promised.

[Julius Seeker]

It also isn't slavery, slavery is forced work

No, slavery is bondage. I'll leave everything else aside, as I promised.

Phrasing! =D

[Julius Seeker]

Replay:
What I find most confusing is that such a trivial and irrelevant thing is even an issue. She could smoke crack, for all I care: if her policy positions are solid, and her work ethic top notch, then she's a good candidate. It's not like she's going out an volunteering strategically sensitive information to rival powers =)

I don't know a great deal about Harris, so I have little to say on her. She seems like a good enough candidate.

It doesn't matter to you.

It does matter to a great many Americans.

Should it matter? No.

Will it matter? Well, that's my concern.

The famous exchange between Adlai Stevenson and one of his supporters comes to mind:

"Sir, every thinking person in America will vote for you."
"That's all well and good, ma'am, but I need a majority to win."

Stevenson did lose in the end.

Warren *has* to get more forceful in her speeches and her defense of her own reputation if she wants me to back her in the primaries. The kindly-librarian thing she has going on now is all well and good for Congress, even possibly desirable there, but the President of the United States has to be a fighter.

Does this mean I don't support her generally? No. If she wins the primaries, will I support her in the general? Absolutely. But I will still have concerns, until she learns to defend herself from bullies without committing a gaffe - because bullying is at the core of the Republican Party these days, and has been ever since our fearless leader took over. Anyone with a trace of remaining shyness or meekness will be subject to vicious, career-ending savageries from next June all the way into next November.

You are Canadian; your sensibilities are more patient and measured than the average American voter. You *have* to understand the schoolyard core that still underlies so much of American politices - and the ignorance, too. I was out celebrating in 2008 at a bar, where I met someone who *did not know what day it was*, or that it had been an election day and that's why everyone was in the bar celebrating, much less the election of the first black President in U.S. history. Nice guy! We hung out a few times afterwards and he proved to be quite a kind and decent man in the end; but it was still an eye-opening look into my nation's issues.

Yes, this issue is going to matter in America - and this election is too important to field another flawed and defeatable candidate in.

Sorry, I had a more robust reply, but I think I must have closed the tab.

Anyway, it amounted to something like: there's a bit of sexism in both Canadian and American politics insofar as both our countries have a general perception that men are more competent in politics. This definitely exists to a far lower degree in European countries. But, on the bright side, it is rapidly getting better.

As a strategic candidate, Bernie might be the best shot. He has his advanced age, but he's also the current most popular Senator in the US.

[Replay]

Kali:

I parted ways with Progressivism a long time ago. For good reason. It's a dangerous path western society is currently on -- more dangerous than you probably appreciate (imo).

Also Kali:



Maybe, like, cut down on the death threats if you want people to listen to you about the "dangers of progressivism"?

Yes genius, we all know you don't understand nuance or mockery. No need to keep proving it.

Whatever you say. Hey, I have a trip planned to L.A. for later in the year. You want to meet up for lunch?

[Replay]

Seek - it's early no doubt, the primaries haven't even started and won't until later this year.

I will vote for any combination of the following in 2020, for the following reasons:

-Warren: Because of her principled career of speaking out against financial crime and legislating to keep Wall Street in check, during her Congressional tenure.
-Booker: Because he saved a constituent once from a burning building.
-Harris: Because she's a tough woman and a liberal prosecutor who wants to reform the private prison complex and reduce America's vast prison population.
-Sanders: Because he wants to help send American students to college, and has been a powerful voice against corruption to boot.
-McKinney: Because she tried harder than anyone in America to end our endless, nightmarish foreign wars and expose the truth about this "War on Terror".

Dubious for me:
-Biden: Too close to corruption without reforming it. No record of challenging our worse foreign "allies" - indeed, he cozies up to them. No good record on protecting Constitutional rights over counterterrorism legislation. Too close to the sins of the "War on Terror" generally.
-Gabbard: Powerfully homophobic in her earlier years. Not enough time has passed for me. Maybe in a later cycle but not now.

Hard pass:
-Any Clinton. Any Bush. Bloomberg. Giuliani. Most of the GOP generally, after the changes that Bushism wrought and that Trumpism is currently wreaking. Anyone taking money from a certain major investment bank that shall remain nameless.

Trump's prospects are currently dire. He's under vicious assault from his own for "blinking" on the shutdown and his inability to get the wall started - but 60% of America blamed him for the last one, and if he tries it again he'll likely lose even more support. His former allies are falling like dominoes to the Mueller probe. His empire has been substantially damaged by his Presidential terms, according to many reports. A U.S. President has never been successfully criminally prosecuted during their time in office that I know of, but the usual result is the loss of Congress and power during scandals like this. I doubt he wants the job anymore or even really wanted it in the first place. I'm sure he wants to go back to Mar-A-Lago and golf and hang out with the Russian mob and the finest hookers they can all provide, just like the good old days.

But there has to be a recognition of the sins and failures of liberalism in 2016 too. The civil war between the Sanders/Clinton factions of liberalism hasn't been resolved. Clinton hasn't really owned up to fucking up and screwing everyone else over with backroom deals or the alienation that caused - in the interest of unity I won't single her out, others are not blameless either, but she got the nod and had the responsibility and needs to take some of it too.

I will get at some of your ideological points here as time permits possibly; I just feel it's important for those who will probably come down on the liberal side of this divide to organize earlier rather than later, and really start discussing how to present a unified front in 2020.

Have a great day and thanks for your debate!

[Replay]

CNN''s Jill Filopovic thinks Kamala's leading the pack.

I go up and down on CNN for sure - they have their agendas and backers, same as any, for all the pretenses at being the closest to neutrality that they accompany that network - but it's a nice pulse on what Democratic moderates are often thinking.

[Replay]

Harris endorses the Green New Deal:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... n-new-deal

[Julius Seeker]

I’m not entirely sure the contents of the Green New Deal, but I am a strong supporter of sustainable and clean energy sources. I think we’re decades overdo. Our technology is obviously in a significantly better place. The infrastructure is going up quickly. We’re getting closer to some incredible energy storage options as well. I think 2035 is a good target date to eliminate consumable fuels for energy production - some of us are looking at an earlier 2030 date.

In my opinion, the environmental crisis is the major crisis of our time. People of all generations and places are heavily motivated to meet the challenge.

[Replay]

Getting that from concept to reality will be a massive undertaking, and an especially difficult one given how, well, I'll let a better voice explain it for us:



We're heading into recessionary headwinds with a roughly $1t deficit.

The problem with America is that nothing really gets done these days without the approval of the Federal Reserve. They "own" roughly half our debt, which we have too much of to finance this.

How on board they are with it all is anyone's guess.

Generally speaking the globalists around the Fed are actually pro-environmentalism, though it takes a pretty ugly fashion sometimes - oddly enough, the world's elites these days have some very radical environmentalists who actually propose brutal, eugenic population control policies against poor people. And the fact that the current Democratic Party is going to want to finance it with windfall taxes is probably going to poison them against it; I don't see your average Fed banker worth a few million going to be happy about Ocasio-Cortez' proposed 70% highest marginal rate - though at this point I support it merely because in my personal experience a great many of the people in America who have gotten rich over the last few decades, in my experience, are not benign people, sad to say, and it is getting impossible to recover the needed amounts of wealth towards society and a future for young people any other way. But not all rich people are evil; and it *does* de-incentivize success at the highest levels, so I'm torn too.

One of the best prototypes for the whole thing was when Biden announced potential $50/hr jobs for qualified solar workers back at the start of the Obama Presidency. That never really materialized, but it's actually exactly what America needs again - good, manufacturing cleantech jobs where people actually make things that are crucial to American progress, at a wage that also allows for raising a family and saving for retirement and so forth.

One way or another, what is needed are *successful* greenpower projects - and it's probably going to require government-paid salaries for government projects, since there's a lot of R&D needed still to allow anything to get to a consumer level. The other big sticky wicket will be getting the electric and hydrogen car as a mass-market vehicle past the Rockefellers. Exxon runs a lot of America - look at Tillerson at State, for instance, even if he was eventually pushed out - and they simply don't want hydrogen and electric power running America unless they control it.

My feeling is that, for the collective survival of the planet, they've got to start getting out of their own way.

They have immense resources - either *they* start building electric and hydrogen cars and fuel stations now, and using their oil money to start a green revolution of some kind - or their premier product is going to burn half the world to death and freeze the other half to death.

The verdict's increasingly in on climate change - and yes, it is real, and while we have more than the usual "oh my god only a decade" to solve it, things are getting worse and not better. It's an upward overall trend, but actually the primary trend is to exacerbate local extremes, for a lot of reasons - two primary mechanisms being that hotter weather at the equator produces bigger clouds, which migrate to cold regions to precipitate out as they always do, and also that storms form better around particulates in the air generally (like gasoline/oil residues) than they do around a clean sky, because water droplets will often use a particle to "seed."

It's the best idea of our lifetimes.

Whether or not we can actually do it will depend on a lot of things and people coming together that currently hate each other to bits.

[Replay]

America needs a 21st-century power and transportation and housing approach:

* A shift from oil to electrolyzed hydrogen as the primary energy storage vector. It's an incredibly powerful fuel that can be *made from water* - we have plenty of that, 70% of the planet is covered in it and turning some excess seawater to hydrogen would possibly help allay fears about sealevel rise too on a mass scale. Oil produces dirty residues and climate change; hydrogen will too - no doubt - but it does burn to clean water in its purest form. America already has substantial natgas talent and engineering skills and companies that need to be incentivized to turn their intention to hydrogen power production.
* Electric and hydrogen cars.
* Solar power/electric refueling station infrastructure.
* Free solar panels for homes if possible - otherwise mass adoption will be too expensive - and two-way grid development and health.
* Power companies that will actually pay out to consumers for excess electricity and develop new business models wherein homes generate revenue and power for America instead of it being a constant cost - this will be a tough one, some very rich people will see a longstanding hustle go away on that score.
* Repair of traditional infrastructure. Our bridges, roads, water supplies all suck. Eisenhower would tell us we're fools not to get this fixed too while we're at it, and he'd be right.

[kali o.]

Whatever you say. Hey, I have a trip planned to L.A. for later in the year. You want to meet up for lunch?

I'm not in LA - I'm in Vancouver for the next 2 months, living in a hotel. Gonna park some money in Coal Harbour while the market is slow. Closest I'll come is Arizona. I'm not sure meeting sounds fun though...

You leftist folks in the US are nuts though -- between your advocating for expensive socialist policies, and conspiracies against the president, you are ignoring the real issue -- spending. If you don't get your budget in line before Trumps first term is over, the inevitable creep of the interest rate is going to kill you.

Like, I am not exaggerating. The US is fucked if it doesn't get spending under control.

[Replay]

Like, I am not exaggerating. The US is fucked if it doesn't get spending under control.

It's impressive to watch you trash the deficit caused by the *candidate you supported*.

It's almost as if our national problem set has a lot more to do with dishonest and predatory billionaires, shady foreign real estate interests, and other forms of established corruption, than Muslims or liberals or the Green New Deal or progressivism or any of the other things you regularly speak out against.

I'm not sure meeting sounds fun though...

Of course not. That would remind you that there's a person behind the persona here you've bullied for a decade, and you always hate that.

But I'll still extend the offer in a spirit of Shrine unity and forgiveness.

Let me know.

[kali o.]

Let me know.

No.

Globalism is why you have billionaires with an increasing wealth gap. That's a worldwide phenomenon if you want to take two seconds to look beyond the commie talking points. As to Trump, making moves to bring manufacturing back to the US, and certain tax/regulation cuts to attract business -- well, those moves are a net positive to the budget. Federal government in general needs to be slashed -- most issues and governance should occur at the state level....so not sure you want to debate who is actually supporting government bloat and spending...cuz it ain't me.

[Replay]

No surprises here.



I redacted another large post since you don't like to read and won't read it anyway.

The TL:DR: Your candidate sucks, his deficit is staggering, the cuts aren't really helping the economy all that much, and I still remain convinced that predatory capitalism is far more of a threat to America than any progressive movement ever will be.

[Replay]

Fun to watch Trump voters up in arms as they realized they've gotten screwed and are now paying higher taxes though. It's almost like the entire tax cut was never really supposed to do anything other than enrich a tiny section of corrupt plutocrats who siphon wealth away from the larger economy!

[Shrinweck]

Bloomberg said he isn't going to run... Probably for the best. I really didn't see him winning the primary.

[kali o.]

Fun to watch Trump voters up in arms as they realized they've gotten screwed and are now paying higher taxes though. It's almost like the entire tax cut was never really supposed to do anything other than enrich a tiny section of corrupt plutocrats who siphon wealth away from the larger economy!

The latest data shows returns up 1.3%....but you wont hear the media report on that. This is putting aside the point that people are paying less taxes thanks to the cuts (I dont want to confuse you...).

Enjoy your fake news, Mental.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/filing-sea ... ry-22-2019

[Replay]

Fun to watch Trump voters up in arms as they realized they've gotten screwed and are now paying higher taxes though. It's almost like the entire tax cut was never really supposed to do anything other than enrich a tiny section of corrupt plutocrats who siphon wealth away from the larger economy!

The latest data shows returns up 1.3%....but you wont hear the media report on that. This is putting aside the point that people are paying less taxes thanks to the cuts (I dont want to confuse you...).

Enjoy your fake news, Mental.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/filing-sea ... ry-22-2019

Uh huh.

Now, many are suffering an unwelcome surprise: As of March 29, total tax refunds were about $6 billion lower than over the same period in 2018.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/ ... -2020.html

[Replay]

By the way, don't get me wrong - I'm sure *your* taxes from your usual predatory remodels and so forth are way lower. Trump has been an unprecedented boon to predatory capitalism of all sorts, and I am sure he will continue to fight to repeal consumer protections, protect the optics of selling luxury condominiums to wealthy mobsters, and to enrich the corrupt class sitting at the top of the U.S. economy generally.

The nation as a whole is getting screwed, though, the same way it does under every modern GOP administration.

The trillion-dollar deficit will be an issue next year - because Trump owns that. He won't own *up* to it, but he did it; he blew a hole in the budget a mile wide with the cuts, and when the tide goes out next time - possibly from the subprime auto-loan crisis, possibly from the affordable-housing issues, possibly from the trade wars, possibly from the threatened border closure, and very probably most of all because the GOP is the GOP and will try to start some future and economically disastrous wars, because nobody ever learns - there won't be a budget to redline to afford the needed stimulus packages, as there was in 2008 - and I will be making sure he and the GOP own the fallout, because no matter what, no matter their own ineptitude, just as they did in 2008 they will blame the liberals trying to pick up the pieces.