2020 US Presidential Election

@alephy Employers are absolutely analogous to Feudal Lords. They admittedly do have less power over their employees than a feudal lord would have over their serf, which is a sign of historical progress which ought be celebrated, *but* they do still have power over their employees (some of which is dispersed throughout 'employers' as a broad class), and the power to coerce them. This is not an equal exchange on level terms by a full voluntary nature and to pretend that this is the case is to deny reality. I never said that work was paramount to violence; I said that the enforcement of a need to work for an employer or else starve or be rendered otherwise destitute is violence - by the nature of the society in which we live, this is the case. The wealth to feed everybody exists, were we collectively as a species to actually bother to use it to those ends. Simply asserting "It's voluntary though" isn't really an argument I'm afraid, because I think I've illustrated relatively plainly why the exchange isn't actually voluntary, and I have not yet met a proper contention to that. So you might not want to argue with me on the 'true communism versus true capitalism point' because not only has capitalism killed innumerably more people than this supposed 'communism' of places like the USSR has, there has been widespread starvation in developing countries under capitalism, not to mention the kind of intolerable conditions many people in these countries have been put through just to continue to survive (though I imagine you see sweatshop labour as wholly voluntary so I'm not entirely sure how to get through to you on this). Now, I will condemn without reservation the atrocities of places like the USSR and China because I am against tyranny and authoritarianism of all kinds, but you really can't pull the 'not true communism' thing considering how both of these countries were instances of merely a different form of capitalism, run through the state, which is something that definitionally did not work towards a communist society; all of the relations of production were much the same as in other capitalist countries, except instead of private capitalists things were run by the state and party officials. I will also say that there is no such thing as 'social communism but not economic communism', as communism is inextricably a fully socioeconomic ideology. The means of production in the USSR were not owned by the workers, they were owned by the head of the Bolshevik party. Also I maintain that 'true capitalism', were it to exist, which it cannot (nor can one 'true communism', as such, as communist organisation necessarily would vary from place to place depending on the material conditions of those societies), would be extremely terrible to live under. And as you say, China since about the days of Nixon has grown a private sector - also, yes, by all means disband Tencent and Alibaba, they've been particularly annoying lately. I have *many* quite important criticisms of the USSR and China, but I will spare you for now as this post will likely be very long anyway. I am not an ally or a proponent of these regimes, despite the material benefits many people under them may have gained after the removal of the Tsar and landlords, respectively. It is laughable to project defences of the kind of brutal repression that went on in those countries (and still goes on) onto me, because I will have none of it. Also if you think East Germany is a politically neutral example to be using considering the kinds of secret policing stuff that went down as well as the general inability of the central planners there, who suffered from much the same institutional problems that the Bolshevik party did, to organise an economy, then you are very wrong I'm afraid. (as far as things go I'm not a fan of central planning or an excessive drive towards bureaucratisation) Now, people have suggested various ways to get around the money problem. One is labour vouchers, which I'm not super keen on - the difference between labour vouchers and money is that labour vouchers expire rather than are exchanged when one purchases a commodity wit them - because of the drive towards centralisation that would probably result from instituting a labour voucher system (in much the same way that money is enforced by the institutions of capitalist states, which are maintained by violence), but if someone could give a good argument on how to effectively decentralise such a measure I would be interested. Decommodification of the necessities of life is really my priority, though, and I think before anything else that's an important next step. Now there are some ways this can be approached. One is through the institution of social programs, which I think can be a very useful stopgap to curb the coercive potential of the market. Another way is for people to try and collectively resolve issues through mutual aid. I think some combination of the two is necessary to this end. In particular (despite also being subject to some warranted criticisms), programs like the National Health Service in the UK did help a great many people, and in doing so served the productive capacities of the UK (as a very ill country is not as productive a country as it could be). I can't help but find it amusing that you would accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and then immediately misrepresent what I was saying in that way. I did not take any issue with putting 'rape and murder' together as broad equivalents with each other. What I *did* take issue with was the equivocation between 'theft' and 'rape and murder', as rape and murder are obviously far more severe than theft, and achieve very different things. To elucidate a little more as you seem to be struggling a little, in the context of a transaction of employment, the *threat* of death via starvation is functionally equivalent to starvation, for the purposes of determining whether or not someone actually voluntarily agrees to the exchange, because *in either case*, their decision will have been quite heavily influenced by a drive to avoid starvation; there is no sufficient qualitative difference. It is quite obvious, that for example, in an exchange, the threat of theft is not equivalent to an instance of rape, these are quite plainly qualitatively different things. Wait, you think Yang is left? Now your categories are confusing me to be honest. He strikes me as more a neoliberal techbro. Now, while I agree with some form of universal basic income when implemented in a particular way (free of the corrupting influence of the market), Yang's UBI proposal was laughably ineffectual. For one, it seems intended to *replace* people's social security, which sets a very bad precedent and lays the groundwork for eroding what people still have. Another problem with UBI implemented haphazardly when necessities have not been decommodified is that the market will simply adjust and inflate the currency so as to render that quantity useless. I agree that as envisioned by these people, UBI is absolutely a bandaid solution to keep the capitalist system running a bit longer - which in the long run probably won't work, but will keep it ticking along just a little bit longer until the system finds a new way to try and adapt, to the cost of the vast majority of people (such as in the case of coronavirus, where for the sake of propping up the economy and slowing the meteoric decline of the stock markets, many people are forced to go out to work and expose themselves to levels of risk that should be unacceptable to any society that dares consider itself 'civilised'). I also agree that banning technological progress is not only a doomed venture but also a contemptuous one. What is necessary is a shift towards a society where declining needed labour-time does not throw people into the misery of poverty. If these problems are to be properly solved to the benefit of most people, and not just a few billionaires (plus the one trillionaire), there needs to be a move away from capitalism. Oh, back on the covid thing for a little bit, UBI/furlough is part of alleviating the economic trouble until covid-19 can actually be dealt with effectively, yes. Because if these people do not have disposable income, wealth cannot flow, and if wealth cannot flow, then capital accumulation cannot occur at the rate it needs to to maintain the system. So, a bandaid fix, yes, but better than nothing at this stage if we don't want the system to just collapse out from under us. Also, a 'solution' definitely does exist to automation on the left of politics (though, sure, it's not standing for election right now - though I will note that there's a better chance from the Democrats), but it does exist. That is, to make automation not a *problem*. There is nothing about automation inherently that causes people to be worse off, it is the economic effects downstream of being able to produce more efficiently, and a shamefully rigid adherence to the notion that people must work for a particular amount of time for a wage to continue to sustain their existence. When society becomes more productive, why should people be punished for that? It seems counterintuitive.

@songofsisyphus when it comes to thread consistancy i usually appeal to the op who made the thread if things are getting too off topic, and i don't think veru cares too much about things just being on trump or biden wev derailed this thread many, many times, so don't worry to much i think its kinda just a politics thread, but if veru says to keep it presidents we'll keep it presidents

I do not censor content and condemn those who do. Smell the freedom, have a ball.

Really, so long as they don't mind the shit posting between their serial talks. I don't really care. I love long intense discussions about serial things. But I also love to laugh. So bring forth memery as well.

TBH though, this isn't the best format to have these kind of debates or dicussions. I would rather see people do it in person. 1. Things tend to stay more civil. 2. You would have access to the internet but sitting there digging for something 10 minutes while your opponent waits for your reply would be entertaining since the pressure would be on. 3. I find it's best to find something that you and your opponent can agree upon so that when you destroy each other during the debate over whatever topic, you at least have that thing(s) to remind you, "I'm human, they are human and our only difference is our experiences."

This is the most civilized political debate thread I ever read. Everyone should pat themselves on the back. I'm neutral in these kind of posts but Personally I think the problem is some people are more emotional about their beliefs and others very logical and some a mix of both. The emotional people will say there beliefs even if its illogical because they "feel" its right and the logical ones are always playing devil advocate on finding a proper answer for a particular issue to appease multiple groups however doing do they hide their true opinions because they need the votes so they may avoid the question or half heart the answer because they don't want to lose votes. Then the mix of both try to be logical but their pride forces them to give an illogical answer at times even when most of it is sound. Its basically a game of rob Peter pay paul.

Johnny Rotten supports Trump. LOL This is hysterical. https://youtu.be/TGE1jMWt7dE

https://youtu.be/uhibVl0m8FM Trump refuses to denounce QAnon, fields questions about health in combative town hall Regarding QAnon. I don't understand why people are fighting against this so much. And by people, I of course mean the media. Corey Feldman has been talking about this for years. He is kooky and you have to take what he says with a grain of salt (I say this soley because of his cringe music and lyrics). https://youtu.be/exGPcHIGO44 https://youtu.be/0TlM6XPxk2g But there have been countless documentaries about underground pedophile rings with people of power made in not just the US, but England and Austrailia as well. It is a thing. https://youtu.be/83NtUIlv-Oo https://youtu.be/Rt4a9ie5MGk https://youtu.be/PnZiDxkwgrU https://youtu.be/z14U4E4W9jk https://youtu.be/z54vuyKEK5s A link to MouthyBuddha's Pedogate part 1 - He has been removed from YouTube and all of his videos have been wiped. https://brandnewtube.com/watch/pedogate-2020-pt-i-by-mouthy-buddha_5XhhumfpGEXTCHV.html Pedogate pt 2 by MouthyBuddha https://www.bitchute.com/video/SvAUa1FcvDk/