2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Monteverde]

I back Biden all the way. I hope he runs. I quite like O'Rourke. I think if Warren gets the nomination she will lose the election. Way too easy to attack and untrustworthy.

I'm pretty centrist. I don't like either extreme of the parties (e.g. Sanders, Trump, Cruz). Obama was not perfect but he was a damn site better than the current candidates (Biden excepted).

[South Odreria]

Lesser evil is one thing, she thinks that murder is good, which in my VERY humble opinion makes you a bad president, and human.

Who thinks murder is wrong?

Probably a majority of people.

[Ism]

Lesser evil is one thing, she thinks that murder is good, which in my VERY humble opinion makes you a bad president, and human.

Who thinks murder is wrong?

I think you've been playing too much CK2.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Who thinks murder is wrong?

I think you've been playing too much CK2.

It's not murder if nobody finds the bowman.

[Caldreania]

Workers democratically owning the means of production is possible, and has been done in many worker-owned businesses. That, at least, is the kind of democratic socialism people like Bernie and AOC are striving for. A little more socialist than social democratic, I'd say.

And to be clear:

social democrat: more regulated capitalism, may or may not be step towards socialism

democratic socialism: using the bourgeois apparatus of the capitalist state to strive for socialism, may or may not have social democratic policies as step towards socialism.

So, yeah, it's all really nebulous and confusing.

The "means of production" are privately owned, and in almost all businesses, are not owned by the ones allowed and hired to use them. I am not sure on what drugs you'd have to put an owner or shareholder for them to just give up their own property.

I am not sure how you can strive for socialism without the use of violence, brutal force and threats. Never has socialism been attempted without forceful theft of property. If "democratic socialism" means that they'd wait for the owners of the means of production to give them up, then, sure, that's better, but what small percentage would ever do that? In the end, all that nonsense about "wealth redistribution" and "seizing the means of production" would only ever work with brute, tyrannical force, which has thus far lead to any nation attempting socialism end up no different, structure wise, from their fascistoid counterparts.

Adding the word "democratic" doesn't make a thing less disgusting or less wrong.

[Pasong Tirad]

Workers democratically owning the means of production is possible, and has been done in many worker-owned businesses. That, at least, is the kind of democratic socialism people like Bernie and AOC are striving for. A little more socialist than social democratic, I'd say.

And to be clear:

social democrat: more regulated capitalism, may or may not be step towards socialism

democratic socialism: using the bourgeois apparatus of the capitalist state to strive for socialism, may or may not have social democratic policies as step towards socialism.

So, yeah, it's all really nebulous and confusing.

The "means of production" are privately owned, and in almost all businesses, are not owned by the ones allowed and hired to use them. I am not sure on what drugs you'd have to put an owner or shareholder for them to just give up their own property.

I am not sure how you can strive for socialism without the use of violence, brutal force and threats. Never has socialism been attempted without forceful theft of property. If "democratic socialism" means that they'd wait for the owners of the means of production to give them up, then, sure, that's better, but what small percentage would ever do that? In the end, all that nonsense about "wealth redistribution" and "seizing the means of production" would only ever work with brute, tyrannical force, which has thus far lead to any nation attempting socialism end up no different, structure wise, from their fascistoid counterparts.

Adding the word "democratic" doesn't make a thing less disgusting or less wrong.

Great.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=449364

[Trumptonium1]

Lol.

Whatever you say.

Riddle me this, how can you be a socialist if you don't want to implement socialism?

It's what happens when your heart screams "SOCIALISM" but your brain says "Sober the fuck up"

[Liriena]

Workers democratically owning the means of production is possible, and has been done in many worker-owned businesses. That, at least, is the kind of democratic socialism people like Bernie and AOC are striving for. A little more socialist than social democratic, I'd say.

And to be clear:

social democrat: more regulated capitalism, may or may not be step towards socialism

democratic socialism: using the bourgeois apparatus of the capitalist state to strive for socialism, may or may not have social democratic policies as step towards socialism.

So, yeah, it's all really nebulous and confusing.

The "means of production" are privately owned, and in almost all businesses, are not owned by the ones allowed and hired to use them. I am not sure on what drugs you'd have to put an owner or shareholder for them to just give up their own property.

I am not sure how you can strive for socialism without the use of violence, brutal force and threats. Never has socialism been attempted without forceful theft of property. If "democratic socialism" means that they'd wait for the owners of the means of production to give them up, then, sure, that's better, but what small percentage would ever do that? In the end, all that nonsense about "wealth redistribution" and "seizing the means of production" would only ever work with brute, tyrannical force, which has thus far lead to any nation attempting socialism end up no different, structure wise, from their fascistoid counterparts.

Adding the word "democratic" doesn't make a thing less disgusting or less wrong.

So what you are saying is that the use of violence to establish and expand an economic system makes it "disgusting" and "wrong"? Oh boy, have I got some bad news for capitalists, then.

[Liriena]

I think you've been playing too much CK2.

It's not murder if nobody finds the bowman.

You can always imprison and kill all your subjects so there's nobody left to complain.

[Liriena]

I'm still cautiously, semi-reluctantly stanning for Warren, at least until Bernie is in the poll.

[Genivaria]

Who thinks murder is wrong?

Probably a majority of people.

Shit, typo. I mean who thinks murder is GOOD?

Who thinks murder is wrong?

I think you've been playing too much CK2.

I don't know WHAT you're talking about. *executes another prisoner*

[Valrifell]

I'm still cautiously, semi-reluctantly stanning for Warren, at least until Bernie is in the poll.

From a perspective based purely on media coverage I don't think Warren is the way to go, anymore. She could still salvage it, sure, but I don't think her ancestry will go away.

"BUT HER EMAILS" will be replaced with "BUT HER HERITAGE"

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I'm still cautiously, semi-reluctantly stanning for Warren, at least until Bernie is in the poll.

From a perspective based purely on media coverage I don't think Warren is the way to go, anymore. She could still salvage it, sure, but I don't think her ancestry will go away.

"BUT HER EMAILS" will be replaced with "BUT HER HERITAGE"

Yeah. She would be better than Trump but the whole heritage thing is going to drag her down.

On another note, I don't really care about her heritage, so why do so many other people care?

[Washington Resistance Army]

From a perspective based purely on media coverage I don't think Warren is the way to go, anymore. She could still salvage it, sure, but I don't think her ancestry will go away.

"BUT HER EMAILS" will be replaced with "BUT HER HERITAGE"

Yeah. She would be better than Trump but the whole heritage thing is going to drag her down.

On another note, I don't really care about her heritage, so why do so many other people care?

People wouldn't, but she made a big deal about it for a long time and then her DNA test showed she was like 1/1024th native or some shit lol

[Hammer Britannia]

Yeah. She would be better than Trump but the whole heritage thing is going to drag her down.

On another note, I don't really care about her heritage, so why do so many other people care?

People wouldn't, but she made a big deal about it for a long time and then her DNA test showed she was like 1/1024th native or some shit lol

Yeah, basically she claiming "I am a Native Waman, respect and vote for meeeeeeee" which just goes to show her character >_>.

I also have doubts she's a woman and that she's secretly an Agendered amorphous blob

[Loben]

People wouldn't, but she made a big deal about it for a long time and then her DNA test showed she was like 1/1024th native or some shit lol

Yeah, basically she claiming "I am a Native Waman, respect and vote for meeeeeeee" which just goes to show her character >_>.

I also have doubts she's a woman and that she's secretly an Agendered amorphous blob

a chance to be the first 1/2020th person in office.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Yeah. She would be better than Trump but the whole heritage thing is going to drag her down.

On another note, I don't really care about her heritage, so why do so many other people care?

People wouldn't, but she made a big deal about it for a long time and then her DNA test showed she was like 1/1024th native or some shit lol

Ah, it was some bid for the IDPOL crowd to vote her in.

I'm not really going to root for her much, but she would still be better then Trump.

[Thermodolia]

All wealth is income. Whether one obtained that wealth by making a salary, investing in the stock market, inheriting it, finding a briefcase with a million dollars on the streets, or finding diamonds under their basement, it's all income.

I hope you declare that when you inherit your parents' assets so you pay the proper higher rates of tax.

This assumes I’d even want their shit

[Thermodolia]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

Nah. We don't need it.

Yes we do. Nuclear energy is the most efficient green energy there is

[Thermodolia]

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014 ... enewables/

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#


Also if you read the article you posted its main complaint is the inability to store energy and our current system isn't setup for renewable. To go 100% it would include storage for excess and modernization of the grid. So yeah, we don't need nuclear.

Your source is just a blue map of the US. That literally means Jack shit

[Thermodolia]

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gowrisan/pdf_ ... ttency.pdf

Intermittency is also an issue for renewables.

I have to agree with this. I support the Green New Deal, but I'm under no illusions of both the limitations of the sources themselves and the space needed, which would cut in to agricultural space and reduce food yields. We will have to include nuclear power as part of the solution, and we should remember that nuclear technology has come a long way since 1986. Hell, we can commission newer plants to replace the older more hazardous ones. All we need to do is keep them away from dangerous areas such as fault lines or likely tsunami/wildfire zones.

We are already building two new nuclear power plants. They should be online sometime in 2020-2021

[Far Easter Republic]

The main thing I noted in Liz's speech was the fact she mainly listed problems then gave light details on how she would solve them. And that collage card where she listed herself as Native American although she's obviously whiter then a snowstorm in Alaska.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Nah. We don't need it.

Yes we do. Nuclear energy is the most efficient green energy there is

Yes, but mankind needs Fusion power more and fission should be used as a temporary source until fusion comes.

Also we need to be ludicrously safe with fission. The anti nuclear movement back in the 60's was missguided in banning it, they should have advocated for massive safety regulations and inspections.

[Thermodolia]

Not fans of nuclear waste, I guess.

Launch it into the sun tbh

Even better idea. Recycle it.

People who want to save the planet and mitigate climate change. Nuclear energy doesn't have a good reputation.

Nuclear is fine, modern plant designs are exceptionally safe and only prone to accidents when there's serious human error or if you do something retarded like build it in an area that gets hit by big ass earthquakes.

Actually Fukushima would have been fine if the back up gensets weren’t built at ground level. They got flooded which began the entire problem

[The Biggles Syndicate]

Yes we do. Nuclear energy is the most efficient green energy there is

Yes, but mankind needs Fusion power more and fission should be used as a temporary source until fusion comes.

Also we need to be ludicrously safe with fission. The anti nuclear movement back in the 60's was missguided in banning it, they should have advocated for massive safety regulations and inspections.

I'll agree with you there, but good luck trying to break Hollywood's grip on nuclear science.