I made it last July ish I think because I had a feeling that the chances of him winning were 60% or higher. Funnily enough I could've taken it without underscores.
yeah, but this one's so obviously your alt. Literally nobody else has both such a hateboner for /r/neoliberal and also posts on /r/drama. Just you and this account.
This is exactly what you did with PK too, everyone knew it was Jackrousseau. And you acted like you were pulling one over on everyone forever. And then you admitted it like you revealing some master troll and everyone was like yeah, duh.
in /r/drama, disagreement on politics is evidence you're mentally disabled, salty, and on the verge of a breakdown, and this doesn't seem to change much no matter what opinions you hold
It's not less weird that you're picking political fights on a dating app. If anything that makes it worse. Accidental sperging is one thing but purposeful sperging is far worse.
I mean I agree, Webby is a weird ass person. He's kind of a specter haunting /r/badeconomics and its offshoots like /r/neoliberal. His Twitter is funny in a watching monkeys throw poop at each other at the zoo sort of way tho
better a smug centrist than someone this fixated on moderates
Wrong.
you would think hard lefties would focus on the alt-right, no?
No. The left-right spectrum isn't really true to life. Neoliberalism is just as oppositionary to Socialism as Fascism, even if they might dislike Fascists more due to killing and shit -- after all, for a huge chunk of Socialism's lifespan its "enemy" was pretty much entirely classical liberalism +/- imperialism. Sure, socialists might not like nationalism and racial purity, but they also don't like private ownership of the means of production.
There's no way to compromise with Trump or the GOP at this point, because the things they want are so absurdly bad and so against basic facts they can't be tolerated.
Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.
Shocked, I asked him what he meant.
“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.
The list goes on, one simply has to look at who they put in charge of the EPA, department of energy and the department of education to see what the goal is.
Are you saying the GOP doesn't want to dismantle the federal government?
I'm saying that the GOP (just like the Dems) represents a somewhat diverse body of conservative American thought, and the presence of the occasional kook doesn't make them all "Leninist" kooks who freebase Atlas Shrugged anymore than the recent presence of Bernie Sanders as a non-Independent makes all Democrats a bunch of no-job-till-40, economically illiterate loonbags.
I'd say post bussy, but with your exemplary thought process I'm afraid you're a fucking child.
Shrinking the federal government is the first step in "dismantling" the federal government, I literally linked you a quote from the guy that has been in charge of GOP economic policy for years literally saying that.
I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.
Thriftway Company, a small oil refinery in Farmington, New Mexico, asked Gorsuch for a meeting to discuss the regulations limiting lead content of gasoline, the program under Section 211 of the Clean Air Act designed to reduce the amount of lead in gasoline in annual phases, and to receive relief from the standard.[6] In December 1981, while EPA was developing revisions to those regulation at the request of the Reagan Administration, Gorsuch met with representatives from the company, who asked her to excuse Thriftway from compliance with the lead limits because "the company faced financial ruin if it could not obtain quick relief from the regulations". Gorsuch did not commit herself in writing but she did tell them they could count on her promise as the word of the EPA Administrator that she would not enforce the regulations.[6]
Bullshit like this graph that shows poverty in steep decline until we rolled out "The War on Poverty," where it dropped aggressively for a few years then went up, where it has raised and fallen, but never continued the downward trend it was on.
Again, what?
It's almost cringeworthy to have this little understanding of basic econ.
There is a point in receiving benefits where if you have a job and you're making around $11/hour, with benefits, your lifestyle is that of making about $60k/year. If you get a few dollar raise, lets say to $16/hour or a promotion (maybe to manager), you lose all the benefits and you're down to just the money you're making, which would even out to $33,280 before tax. Of course, to fix this you would have to nearly double your income to about $30/hour, which could take years, or over a decade.
So with that looming over your head, why the fuck would you ever want to aim for any kind of success or achievement? "Oh, if I work really hard, I can make 50% of what I'm making now!"
I'm really baffled as to where you people read this shit at, it's just weird.
I'm just baffled that you people think, "OH! The government could totally fix this!"
Bullshit like this graph that shows poverty in steep decline until we rolled out "The War on Poverty," where it dropped aggressively for a few years then went up, where it has raised and fallen, but never continued the downward trend it was on.
There is a point in receiving benefits where if you have a job and you're making around $11/hour, with benefits, your lifestyle is that of making about $60k/year. If you get a few dollar raise, lets say to $16/hour or a promotion (maybe to manager), you lose all the benefits and you're down to just the money you're making, which would even out to $33,280 before tax. Of course, to fix this you would have to nearly double your income to about $30/hour, which could take years, or over a decade.
Uh, this isn't an argument supporting what you claimed. Seriously, there are many studies showing welfare doesn't recuce your will to work.
Using your logic nobody would work in most of Europe.
If anything, these programs increase upward mobility, not decrease it.
I'm just baffled that you people think, "OH! The government could totally fix everything!"
Well, considering the drivel you tried to claim here I'm not baffled anymore, it's obvious. You tried to claim welfare didn't reduce poverty, a claim that conflicts with all available data, and you tried to claim welfare reduced upward mobility, again, a claim not supported by facts.
Let me ask you this then, since it seems like you don't give a shit about middle-class jobs, who is going to pay for all of your social safety programs?
Only obsolete because regulations made it cheaper to manufacture overseas. What are some if you're real solutions then? To replace jobs it started at $80,000 a year without a high school education?
Realistically we don't have the money because United States government is $20 trillion in debt.
However I'll play your little game, and what makes you think that we would suddenly be able to change the way that the entire US government spends tax money?
Only obsolete because regulations made it cheaper to manufacture overseas.
No, you can very clearly go look at employment graphs in relation to manufacturing - that is simply not true dude, if we removed ALL regulations it would have still been cheaper to manufacture over there.
What are some if you're real solutions then? To replace jobs it started at $80,000 a year without a high school education?
The reality is the days of being able to get out of HS and start making 80k a year are gone and they're never coming back, manufacturing jobs don't even pay that anymore - that's a pipe dream.
I'd suggest massive infrastructure programs and converting the workforce to the green energy sector.
Realistically we don't have the money because United States government is $20 trillion in debt.
Lol, that isn't how debt works for a government dude. That isn't even a lot of debt for the size of our economy.
However I'll play your little game, and what makes you think that we would suddenly be able to change the way that the entire US government spends tax money?
Vote for people pushing common sense programs and solutions?
Stop voting for people with a vested interest in crippling the federal government?
Jesus quit calling me dude. It makes you sound even more childish.
manufacturing jobs don't even pay that anymore - that's a pipe dream.
Also, the remaining coal mining jobs do pay that much.
That isn't even a lot of debt for the size of our economy.
Debt has to be paid back. Our GDP is $17.8 trillion, so I would say that's a pretty large amount of debt. Are you comfortable essentially enslaving your children and their children to the debt of the US government?
Stop voting for people with a vested interest in crippling the federal government?
I'm no republican, but I'd prefer no federal government. I think the idea of the state is quickly becoming obsolete and rendered rather useless by technology.
Also, the remaining coal mining jobs do pay that much.
And those jobs are vanishing, no matter what, they are never coming back.
Debt has to be paid back. Our GDP is $17.8 trillion, so I would say that's a pretty large amount of debt. Are you comfortable essentially enslaving your children and their children to the debt of the US government?
There isn't a debt crisis. As long as the economy is growing, the debt isn't a big deal.
I'm no republican, but I'd prefer no federal government. I think the idea of the state is quickly becoming obsolete and rendered rather useless by technology.
Ok, but there's no real government there anymore, why aren't they doing great?
using this logic
If government works so well, what went wrong with Soviet Russia? Why are Venezuelans selling their children and eating their pets?
Anyways, relative to surrounding countries, Somalia is doing pretty well. 14 competing airlines, over 20 ISPs, private security militias. Somalia has highest gun ownership and lowest per-capita homicide rate. They didn't have a genocide (looking at you, Rwanda.) Either way, coming out of decades of an extremely violent civil war isn't the best place to be when judging a rather young society.
Anyhow, calling Somalia anarchism is like saying that burning down a church leads to atheism. This would be worth reading.
If you love tyranny so much, you should try North Korea. Everything is free, safe, and taken care of for you there.
Incorrect, because those countries went to the opposite extreme - my argument isn't more government is always better, it's that a strong central government is good - a balance.
If you love tyranny so much, you should try North Korea. Everything is free, safe, and taken care of for you there.
Tyranny lmao. I swear to god anarcho-capitalism has to be the most retarded ideology on the planet.
"We believe in really bland talking points about how being a good protestant is the key to success and how government is really just trying to turn your sons into homosexuals and your daughters into race mixing whores."
Your dot org reference basically confirms you're too stupid to make decisions for yourself or have any perspective on real life, so I'm mocking you for being a dipshit little good boy.
Nothing, it shocks me that even most liberals think the govt sucks but they want more of it. I'm not sure how it's even possible to think that way but they do. It's mental when you hear them bitch about how bad public schools are then when someone wants to give parents options they bitch about that
Diversity of ideas not of skin color. I don't give a fuck if my representative is pink as long as Senator Majin Buu has ideas what would benefit my district.
Making it massively expensive to start or operate any kind of mine or manufacturing business in indeed good, right?
Gutting the middle class was definitely a really good thing, right?
Writing policy that literally helps makes it affordable to build shit in rural China, ship it on a train to a port, and then load it onto a ship and bring it all the way across the ocean to another port where it is then distributed all over the entire United States by a train to truck, or a truck was definitely a good thing, right?
Meanwhile people in western New York to Wisconsin are massively un/underemployed.
Making it massively expensive to start or operate any kind of mine or manufacturing business in indeed good, right?
Yes, it is a good thing, profit margins are not more important than our health, have you ever considered the cost to society from pollution?
EPA return on investment is insane.
Gutting the middle class was definitely a really good thing, right?
Are you trying to claim environmental regulations are why the middle class declined? Do you have any idea how absurd a claim that is?
Writing policy that literally helps makes it affordable to build shit in rural China, ship it on a train to a port, and then load it onto a ship and bring it all the way across the ocean to another port where it is then distributed all over the entire United States by a train to truck, or a truck was definitely a good thing, right?
Well, trade and cheap consumer goods are a massive boon to our economy, was in fact, a good thing.
But research shows that the automation of U.S. factories is a much bigger factor than foreign trade in the loss of factory jobs. A study at Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research last year found that trade accounted for just 13 percent of America's lost factory jobs. The vast majority of the lost jobs — 88 percent — were taken by robots and other homegrown factors that reduce factories' need for human labor.
"We're making more with fewer people," says Howard Shatz, a senior economist at the Rand Corp. think tank. General Motors, for instance, now employs barely a third of the 600,000 workers it had in the 1970s. Yet it churns out more cars and trucks than ever.
In a survey by the consulting firm Deloitte, global manufacturing executives predicted that that the United States — now No. 2 — will overtake China as the most competitive country in manufacturing by 2020. (Competitiveness is measured by such factors as costs, productivity and the protection of intellectual property.)
The Reshoring Initiative, a nonprofit that lobbies manufacturers to return jobs to the United States, says America was losing an average of 220,000 net jobs a year to other countries a decade ago. Now, the number being moved abroad is roughly offset by the number that are coming back or being created by foreign investment.
Meanwhile people in western New York to Wisconsin are massively un/underemployed.
LOL.
This is nuts, you actually believe environmental regulations are to blame for literally any of this, don't you?
This is nuts, you actually believe environmental regulations are to blame for literally any of this, don't you?
Yes. Its pretty simple, really.
"Hey your underground mine moved this creek on top of this ridge down 3 inches and over 2 inches to the left. You disturbed the stream, we're shutting down your mine until further notice."
Government regulations have very little to do with coal's problems. Repealing the CPP [Clean Power Plan, a regulation passed by President Obama] or opening federal lands to mining won't rescue King Coal from the drubbing it is receiving at the hands of cheaper, cleaner natural gas and wind power....
The challenge is as Sisyphean as it is undesirable. His plan represents a broadside against the market and climate forces that have made great strides in modernizing American power generation. Even Trump's stated grounds for his avowed goal, employment, would most likely be undermined by his intervention....
As my colleagues demonstrate, short of an improbable event that sends natural gas prices soaring, there is little chance of a coal renaissance in America. That's a good thing, for plenty of reasons.
Yes, it is a good thing, profit margins are not more important than our health,
SOOOOO, you're bitching about social safety nets in another thread, but here you are saying it's a good thing to destroy the jobs of millions of people, effectively making them poor.
You literally care sooooo much about poor people that you want to make more of them.
The market is not perfect for everything dude, there are many areas where the government should be involved.
For example - scientific research is something the government should heavily fund.
Green energy as well - it's in our absolute best interest to go fully green as quick as possible, and fossil fuel companies would rather keep pumping their dirty fuels for as long as possible.
They don't lose their jobs though, they'd still be elected, they'd just be running a crippled federal government and keeping it that way.
I don't get why you guys are trying to resist this, I seriously thought this was common knowledge, look at GOP epa/department of education/energy picks, look at them trying to gut regulations and privatize everything, what do you think the end game is?
No, they just want to dismantle and or seriously reduce the power of the federal government and give more power to the "states."
This is mainly because the federal government tends to stop some of the more regressive states from basing the law on their religion, or discriminating against people based on race/sexual orientation or religion.
Yeah like those "regressive" states that legalized marijuana and gay marriage and allowed sanctuary cities. Damn states rights are just a conservative conspiracy!
I don't view the places I'm talking about as hellholes because of crime rates or poverty, I view them as hellholes because of backwards social attitudes.
...then people can choose to live there or choose to not live there. Why do you want a tyrannical federal government to be up everybody's ass?
Who do you think legislates more favorably, and in touch with the constituents, in a place like Drew, Mississippi? The state/local government or some flashy guy who spends most of his time in DC, with a little time in Jackson, MS?
No, they just want to dismantle and or seriously reduce the power of the federal government and give more power to the "states."
Well, if that happened, you could have single-payer healthcare and co-ed bathrooms and all the affirmative action you can handle. You wouldn't have to deal with the half-assed compromises that you get when you federalize policy. Heck, enslave white people up there in New Hampshire for all I care. Make that Girls girl your hereditary monarch. It doesn't affect me.
Christ, you act like red states are fucking Soviet satellite countries. Stop blaming your failures on where you grew up, man the fuck up and take responsibility for yourself.
Did you seriously just post a fucking op ed as proof of anything? That in addition to you not understanding what a 3rd world country is tells me that all you'd be good for is posting bussy, if not I have no reason to put up with your white nonsense anymore.
Are you retarded? It's an op ed citing research you mongoloid.
In 2005, in the midst of a career of traveling around the world to help set up elections in some of the most challenging places on earth – Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, Lebanon, South Africa, Sudan and Yemen, among others – my Danish colleague, Jorgen Elklit, and I designed the first comprehensive method for evaluating the quality of elections around the world. Our system measured 50 moving parts of an election process and covered everything from the legal framework to the polling day and counting of ballots.
That's not research you dumb fuck, there's no real statistical or significant value/numbers going on in that system, it's based entirely on the ideals of those who use it. That's why the article is, again, an OP ED, and you're a retard.
There's nothing in the link you posted about statistical analysis, it's all theories, forecasts and predictions. Thanks for shutting down your own argument for me.
That means keeping it small enough to be firmly under the control of the people. We can end it should we need to kind of thing. That's what conservativism has ALWAYS been about. Are really really this fucking dense?
I didn't say I agreed with the sentiment, you fucking simpleton. I am simply explaining the meaning, because you're either a mouth breathing retard (speaking of drowning things in bathtubs), or a disingenuous retard (again; bathtime).
Mr. Radical dude who would save our country- I think you ought to make a grand statement. Set yourself on fire 🔥 in front of the White House.
I have no interest in saving this country, I'm a small state rights democrat now, fuck everyone else. If middle America wants a 3rd world country, I say we let them have it.
"The people" means individual states you dingus. Someone who clearly hates the overwhelming majority (by area) of the country should be all for that kind of thing, since won't the idiot conservatives crash and burn if left to their own devices? Socialist Utopia in New England and California, dystopian corporate hellhole in between.
Just to be clear here - Donald Trump made me a state rights democrat, I don't give a shit about the federal government anymore, if middle America wants a 3rd world corporate dictatorship then let them have it, that's their choice.
I'm simply pointing out the GOP is blatantly trying to dismantle the federal government or weaken it to such an extent it won't be able to function correctly.
You have party dogma shoved so far up your ass you can't even imagine a person can be educated and informed who genuinely believes that the role of the federal government shouldn't be so oppressive. It's not your role, or anyone else's, to tell someone what their best interests are - the whole reason we vote is to express those interests. The mental gymnastics you're going through to justify writing off half the country as brainwashed idiots by using the other side's brainwashing is Olympian.
You have party dogma shoved so far up your ass you can't even imagine a person can be educated and informed who genuinely believes that the role of the federal government shouldn't be so oppressive
Are you just making stuff up, dude? I said the exact opposite of that, I said the reasons are all over the place. I don't even know where you got this at.
I's not your role, or anyone else's, to tell someone what their best interests are
Well this is just cringe. Facts aren't subjective dude, they aren't based on feelings - if you're a poor rural person that votes for "small government" you are absolutely voting to harm yourself.
The whole reason we vote is to express those values and desires.
And again - you're heavily confused, values and desires do not = facts.
How someone feels isn't relevant to the reality of things.
The mental gymnastics you're going through to justify writing off half the country as brainwashed idiots by using the other side's brainwashing is Olympian.
Again - facts are not subjective, no matter how hard you kick, no matter how hard you cry or how loud you scream - facts are not subjective.
Not only are these people voting to harm themselves, they're voting to harm other people. When these people send crazies into government, crazies that want to gut science, education and every social program we have - those people are wrong, they're objectively wrong.
I mean, you could define them as cartels even - let's say the government vanished tomorrow, what's to stop them from forming a cartel and operating exactly as they do now?
You didn't ask a real question dude, it was stupid. You seem to think the only reason a cartel/business has power is the government - that makes no sense.
Let's say the government vanished, a corporation could still declare themselves a "single entity." There's nothing there to stop them.
You're not willing to actually examine what you're arguing for. There's an important point in there but you're just regurgitating other peoples talking points.
There was no point, the argument a corporation only exists because of a government is just weird, it makes no sense dude.
Call it what you want - a cartel, corporation - whatever. Their power isn't given to them by the government, they'd exist with or without a government because there's money to be made.
So private property rights are enforced by the government? Police don't protect the capital? There aren't codified tax structures and liability that keep individuals from being responsible personally?
And what about the power to write legislation? Corporations are taken seriously when it comes to writing legislation and regulations regarding their particular industries. That means, that corporations can write laws that make it very very difficult to compete with them which means that any possible company they will never compete with them has to jump over a bar that is raised so high intentionally to keep them out of the marketplace. This is how regulations create monopolies that fuck every body. By using the power given to them by the government.
So private property rights are enforced by the government? Police don't protect the capital? There aren't codified tax structures and liability that keep individuals from being responsible personally?
Lol? A corporation can enforce private property in the absence of a government. What's to stop these mega corps from forming their own merc armies?
As for taxes, there is no government in your scenario, so again, what's to stop the corporations from doing whatever they want?
That means, that corporations can write laws that make it very very difficult to compete with them which means that any possible company they will never compete with them has to jump over a bar that is raised so high intentionally to keep them out of the marketplace.
Holy shit, think about this for a second - in this no government scenario, whats to stop these mega corps from forming a cartel and snuffing out any and all competition?
This is how regulations create monopolies that fuck every body. By using the power given to them by the government.
The idea that monopolies only exist in the presence of regulations is bat-shit insane dude. Corporations could do literally everything on your list without the government, in your world of no government there's nothing there to stop them - they could form mega cartels, they could snuff out any competition, take over entire states at will.
Your argument seems to be resting on a seriously question foundation.
Wonderful Socratic Tai Chi, but I think you're wasting your time w/ this person. They seem to get all their ideas about political economy from 1980s cyberpunk novels.
Although "trust" has a specific legal meaning (where one person holds property for the benefit of another), in the late 19th century the word was commonly used to denote big business, because that legal instrument was frequently used to effect a combination of companies.[4] Large manufacturing conglomerates emerged in great numbers in the 1880s and 1890s, and were perceived to have excessive economic power.[5] The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 began a shift towards federal rather than state regulation of big business.[6] It was followed by the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, the Robinson–Patman Act of 1936, and the Celler–Kefauver Act of 1950.
At this time hundreds of small short-line railroads were being bought up and consolidated into giant systems. (Separate laws and policies emerged regarding railroads and financial concerns such as banks and insurance companies.) People for strong antitrust laws argued the American economy to be successful requires free competition and the opportunity for individual Americans to build their own businesses. As Senator John Sherman put it, "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act almost unanimously in 1890, and it remains the core of antitrust policy. The Act prohibits agreements in restraint of trade and abus e of monopoly power. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies.[7][original research?]
The railroads are actually a decent example of this:
This isn't refuting my argument, I just gave you multiple examples of monopolies coming into place without the government helping them really - in fact, the government was the only entity able to stop them.
This is a pretty stupid argument dude. You're asking for examples of monopolies that formed up without the government - and now you're trying to hand-wave them away by claiming they might have broken up in the future.
Standard Oil never reached monopoly status–at best it was 92% of the market, even though Rockefeller was buying up every possible competitor. Because of this, people started essentially building super shitty refineries and businesses, and Rockefeller would buy them. Standard began eating itself alive because of this and started losing market shares, and by the time they were actually broken up they had less than 60% of the market.
All of this, of course, came about at a time where consumer fuel prices were brought down from $0.35/gallon to about $0.07/gallon due to the efficiency of their processes, while also putting the entire whale oil industry out of business (checkmate environmentalists.)
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88 percent of the refined oil flows in the United States. The state of Ohio successfully sued Standard, compelling the dissolution of the trust in 1892. But Standard simply separated Standard Oil of Ohio and kept control of it. Eventually, the state of New Jersey changed its incorporation laws to allow a company to hold shares in other companies in any state. So, in 1899, the Standard Oil Trust, based at 26 Broadway in New York, was legally reborn as a holding company, the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey (SOCNJ), which held stock in 41 other companies, which controlled other companies, which in turn controlled yet other companies. According to Daniel Yergin in his Pulitzer Prize-winning The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power (1990), this conglomerate was seen by the public as all-pervasive, controlled by a select group of directors, and completely unaccountable.
In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55 percent was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them.[30] The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard's operations from the period of 1904 to 1906[31] and concluded that "beyond question... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products".[32] Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up[33] and at least 147 refining companies were competing with Standard including Gulf, Texaco, and Shell.[34] It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11 percent).
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
Corporations do NOT get their power from government
Actually they do. If you think about it for half a second, corporations are 100% imaginary entities created by law. We all just pretend they exist because doing so makes the economy and the legal system work if we do.
If the government vanished tomorrow, so would corporations.
Let's say there's no government, I'm in charge of a large business, I turn that business into a cartel, what's the difference between that and a mega corp?
Why would people listen to you? Why wouldn't the employees instead for some sort of anarcho-syndicalist co-op? Lefties seem to think that those are awesome.
cartel, what's the difference between that and a mega corp?
What is your point? A cartel is by definition illegal and cannot use the machinery of the state to enforce its contractual agreements or property rights. Which is why when Don Corleone has a falling-out with someone, he has them shot instead of bringing a lawsuit.
Why would people listen to you? Why wouldn't the employees instead for some sort of anarcho-syndicalist co-op? Lefties seem to think that those are awesome.
Because that isn't how humans work, it's never how humans have worked - why didn't they do this for the hundreds of years they were basically slaves?
What is your point? A cartel is by definition illegal and cannot use the machinery of the state to enforce its contractual agreements or property rights. Which is why when Don Corleone has a falling-out with someone, he has them shot instead of bringing a lawsuit.
Ok, and in your scenario - there's no government, there's nobody to stop them really, why wouldn't they just snuff everyone out?
Okay, so the organization falls apart instead of becoming a workers' collective. I'm still not seeing how these defunct legal fictions manage to rule the world?
The corporations have the money - people need to eat.
What money? A series of bookkeeping entries on bank servers somewhere? You've already destroyed the legal system -- and with it, enforceable property rights? Do you think there's some vault full of gold somewhere a la Scrooge MacDuck?
There might be some useful physical capital laying around (forklifts, buildings, machines, computers, etc.), but how the imaginary corporate entity is supposed to wrest that from the hands of the flesh-and-blood natural persons who are looting the joint?
Ok, and in your scenario - there's no government, there's nobody to stop them really, why wouldn't they just snuff everyone out?
Easy: The mafia organization doesn't scale. Those infamous "five families" were all tiny organizations. They couldn't rely on the legal system, so they had to rely on blood ties and longtime personal loyalty. And you can't scale that up to multinational-corporation size. Even the Colombian cartels of the 1980s were smaller than a mid-sized regional company. Even with the family ties and personal loyalties, those groups had crippling principal-agent problems when they tried to expand geographically -- watch any movie about the Mob in Vegas and you'll see what I mean.
I mean, maybe in your government-collapse scenario, Bill Gates manages to rally his family and lifelong friends (along with some ambitious young up-and-comers who aren't afraid to use violence in place of contract law) into a "Microsoft Cartel" . . . but it's going to be a tiny gang in the Pacific Northwest. It's not going to be able to control a regional office on the East Coast, let alone a factory off in China.
Jesus I can't do this anymore, every single time I think anarcho-capitalists aren't retarded someone like you comes along and just makes these same, absurd arguments that make no actual sense.
What money? A series of bookkeeping entries on bank servers somewhere? You've already destroyed the legal system -- and with it, enforceable property rights. Do you think there's some vault full of gold somewhere a la Scrooge MacDuck?
To be clear here - you understand that currency can exist with no government, if the government vanished tomorrow there would be some currency system still. So I'm not sure what argument you think you're making here.
Property rights would still be enforceable, there's nothing stopping them from having their own standing armies to protect their property.
There might be some useful physical capital laying around (forklifts, buildings, machines, computers, etc.), but how the imaginary corporate entity is supposed to wrest that from the hands of the flesh-and-blood natural persons who are looting the joint is beyond me.
See above.
Easy: The mafia organization doesn't scale. Those infamous "five families" were all tiny organizations. They couldn't rely on the legal system, so they had to rely on blood ties and longtime personal loyalty. And you can't scale that up to multinational-corporation size. Even the Colombian cartels of the 1980s were smaller than a mid-sized regional company. Even with the family ties and personal loyalties, those groups had crippling principal-agent problems when they tried to expand geographically -- watch any movie about the Mob in Vegas and you'll see what I mean.
This is just drivel, you can absolutely scale a cartel up - like this is just nuts man, it's literally nuts. The idea that a massive corporation can't scale up and use their monopoly to crush competition is rooted in some anarcho capitalist fantasy world.
I mean, maybe in your government-collapse scenario, Bill Gates manages to rally his family and lifelong friends (along with some ambitious young up-and-comers who aren't afraid to use violence in place of contract law) into a "Microsoft Cartel" . . . but it's going to be a tiny gang in the Pacific Northwest. It's not going to be able to control a regional office on the East Coast, let alone a factory off in China.
And again - your entire argument seems to hinge on the delusion that there won't be any currency system in place in the event of no government.
every single time I think anarcho-capitalists aren't retarded someone like you comes along
Where did I say I was an anarcho-capitalist? I'm not. I was an economist for several years and now I'm a corporate lawyer. It's possible that I might know something about the intersection of law and economics.
Alternatively, the teenager who just finished Snow Crash is probably right.
As the saying goes, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand.
Yeah I was just saying the other day I miss the Chinese caliber smog cities and lighting rivers on fire.
Back in my day a businessman could dump a tiny bit of toxic waste in the poors water supply and everyone looked the other day - but today with this political correctness and tyranny of big government you can't do that anymore.
Don't tell anyone but we actually all believe in Global Warming and are lying about it because we want to Flood the Coasts and drown all the people like you.
So long as we're seriousposting and shit, bear in mind that "destroy their own jobs" is actually "either have part ownership in or receive kickbacks from whomever ends up with government resources after the fire sale."
And yeah, super cliche, but look at Russia. That shit happened like 15 years ago.
Exactly. I can understand why people might have reluctantly voted for her. But you can't trust the people that show up at rallies with any kind of enthusiasm, waving banners and shit.
Like, wtf is wrong with you? Don't you have porn to jerk off to?
If you want to get in some tramp's pants there are a lot of things you shouldn't do, and talking politics is one of them. She's a Berniebot so she almost a guaranteed lay, and this guy fucks up what should be a slam dunk because he can't stop himself from being your typical preachy /r/politics style "better than you" idiot democrat. It's no wonder republicans are out-breeding these people.
Well yeah, that's the difference between autism and being retarded. It's wrong to have sex with retards, while autists you just want to avoid like the plague, mostly for your own benefit.
Man this sucks. This girl is perfectly willing to have a discussion about her political beliefs - and how rare is that - and then he goes and starts being condescending to her, lame.
259 comments
n/a mmzznnxx 2017-05-26
/u/the_reason_trump_won
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-05-26
This
n/a ownersinc 2017-05-26
But unironically
n/a doughboy011 2017-05-26
How did you manage to snag that account name?
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-05-26
I made it last July ish I think because I had a feeling that the chances of him winning were 60% or higher. Funnily enough I could've taken it without underscores.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-26
DID SOMEBODY SAY NEOLIBERAL??
n/a imguralbumbot 2017-05-26
Hi, I'm a bot for linking direct images of albums with only 1 image
https://i.imgur.com/Q2qar6X.png
Source | Why? | Creator | ignoreme | deletthis
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-26
n/a fingerpaintswithpoop 2017-05-26
n/a TrailerParkBride 2017-05-26
Why are you conversing with your alt account?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-26
Every account on reddit is my alt, that's why.
n/a SineadObama 2017-05-26
yeah, but this one's so obviously your alt. Literally nobody else has both such a hateboner for /r/neoliberal and also posts on /r/drama. Just you and this account.
This is exactly what you did with PK too, everyone knew it was Jackrousseau. And you acted like you were pulling one over on everyone forever. And then you admitted it like you revealing some master troll and everyone was like yeah, duh.
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-26
r/drama is so paranoid to think that i'm one of PK's alts. Haven't you also considered that other people have r/neoliberal who aren't PK?
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-26
Yeah but we may as well be your alts.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-26
Our language and posting style is nothing alike. Lol at this sub's paranoia reaching /r/anarchism levels though.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
Every account on reddit is my alt, that's why.
n/a doughboy011 2017-05-26
Syndrome on Reddit: When all of your accounts are alts, none of them are.
n/a [deleted] 2017-05-26
[deleted]
n/a ur_mom_IoI 2017-05-26
Still salty af after your posts there lol
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-26
yes definitely can't dislike neolibs without being salty
n/a ur_mom_IoI 2017-05-26
what if ur always salty tho
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-26
in /r/drama, disagreement on politics is evidence you're mentally disabled, salty, and on the verge of a breakdown, and this doesn't seem to change much no matter what opinions you hold
n/a jerzyshor 2017-05-26
So a normal person tells an idiot girl what's up right away instead of fucking her and then teaching her? I need to sub to that place.
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-26
It's more like a salty ESS user visiting Tinder, then going on long winded dumbs rants because the girl likes Bernie.
n/a itsaboyffxiv 2017-05-26
But Bernie was retarded
n/a zbaile1074 2017-05-26
he meant well
n/a BannaHamHock 2017-05-26
This guy seems like a normal person to you huh? That's pretty revealing.
n/a jerzyshor 2017-05-26
Yeah, I don't suffer from crippling social awkwardness.
n/a BannaHamHock 2017-05-26
And yet, the guy going on an autistic political rant in a dating app is what you consider normal? Ok lol
n/a jerzyshor 2017-05-26
Making fun of Bernie kids is always fun.
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-05-26
n/a Chicup 2017-05-26
Its like watching a debate at a "Turning Point" center.
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-26
Buzzword is, itself, a buzzword now.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a Pedante32 2017-05-26
People are taking webby seriously? O_O
n/a folieadeuxxmachinam 2017-05-26
this is not drama this is just two idiots posting bullshit
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-05-26
They guy has to be on the spectrum to get this into politics that much with a girl he presumably likes.
n/a Eifert 2017-05-26
Webby is a weird person who probably does that for shits and giggles. It's Tinder not marriage.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-05-26
It's not less weird that you're picking political fights on a dating app. If anything that makes it worse. Accidental sperging is one thing but purposeful sperging is far worse.
n/a Eifert 2017-05-26
I mean I agree, Webby is a weird ass person. He's kind of a specter haunting /r/badeconomics and its offshoots like /r/neoliberal. His Twitter is funny in a watching monkeys throw poop at each other at the zoo sort of way tho
n/a Wordshark 2017-05-26
Is "webby" the white-bubble txts in the chat? He's badly misinformed about Bernie Sanders
n/a chaosakita 2017-05-26
Lol as if there's anything to be informed about
n/a PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-05-26
And with that tone, this is as far as he will ever go.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-26
No kidding, get bored of fucking them first.
n/a folieadeuxxmachinam 2017-05-26
sir? fuck your taint respectfully. anyone can be gay for politics.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-26
so drama
n/a dadumplum 2017-05-26
can't comment on this post but what is up with this dude's seething hatred for neoliberalism in particular
n/a TrailerParkBride 2017-05-26
PK's alt for buttmad shitposts
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-26
Smug centrists deserve crucifixion.
n/a dadumplum 2017-05-26
better a smug centrist than someone this fixated on moderates
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-26
Wrong.
No. The left-right spectrum isn't really true to life. Neoliberalism is just as oppositionary to Socialism as Fascism, even if they might dislike Fascists more due to killing and shit -- after all, for a huge chunk of Socialism's lifespan its "enemy" was pretty much entirely classical liberalism +/- imperialism. Sure, socialists might not like nationalism and racial purity, but they also don't like private ownership of the means of production.
n/a vtheawesome 2017-05-26
That's pretty Autistic, my man.
n/a CuriousKrow 2017-05-26
We all have our white whales. For me it's marxist and fatties.
n/a Chicup 2017-05-26
Often one in the same, somewhat ironically.
n/a Pyccknnxake 2017-05-26
Bernie is an idealogue who can't compromise to help the country
/#IMPEACHTRUMP
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
There's no way to compromise with Trump or the GOP at this point, because the things they want are so absurdly bad and so against basic facts they can't be tolerated.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
lol that's some prime b8 right there
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you saying the GOP doesn't want to dismantle the federal government?
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
This guy is pretty much in charge of GOP economic policy.
Or we've got Bannon:
The list goes on, one simply has to look at who they put in charge of the EPA, department of energy and the department of education to see what the goal is.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
I'm saying that the GOP (just like the Dems) represents a somewhat diverse body of conservative American thought, and the presence of the occasional kook doesn't make them all "Leninist" kooks who freebase Atlas Shrugged anymore than the recent presence of Bernie Sanders as a non-Independent makes all Democrats a bunch of no-job-till-40, economically illiterate loonbags.
I'd say post bussy, but with your exemplary thought process I'm afraid you're a fucking child.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Literally GOP doctrine is to seriously reduce the size of the federal government and it has been for years, that's the entire point.
This isn't some "fringe" element of the GOP, it's standard GOP doctrine.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
How the everliving fuck do you function every day being this fucking stupid?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Shrinking the federal government is the first step in "dismantling" the federal government, I literally linked you a quote from the guy that has been in charge of GOP economic policy for years literally saying that.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
Dude, I can't stay hard unless you, at the very least, spit in my mouth and tell me I hate the poor.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I don't really think you guys hate the poor, I think you're people just caught up in an ideology, a lot like libertarians are.
It's easy to see why you'd dismiss facts if that's the case, I don't really blame you.
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
Oh, fuck yeah, assume my nationality and political beliefs based on my unwillingness to burn the GOP in effigy. That's fucking good shit.
Oh fuck yeah, a smug teenager with barely coherent ideas is accusing me of not liking facts?!
🍆 💦
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You told me I need to spit in your mouth and tell you that you hate the poor, why would I NOT assume you're a republican?
How has anything I said been incoherent?
n/a subpoutine 2017-05-26
Sorry, feeling really sleepy right now. I'll eat out your bussy tmm bby. 😴
n/a ABillionYearsOld 2017-05-26
Everything you've said is incoherent.
n/a Ennui2778 2017-05-26
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
So to be clear here, you see nothing fishy in the GOP constantly putting people in charge of departments those people want to destroy?
n/a Ennui2778 2017-05-26
They're working on reining in bloated bureaucracies that have gone far beyond their original mandates?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you done with the mental gymnastics now?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Can you tell me what is wrong with this?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
What's wrong with gutting our social safety nets and deregulating everything while we sell our basic services off to corporations?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
You mean the things that keep poor people poor?
The same programs that disincentive any kind of personal achievement?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Repeating bullshit I see.
Social safety nets do not keep people poor, that's just hilarious.
This is like some retarded "bootstrap" stuff.
Studies have shown them to reduce poverty.
Again, what? You realize we can point to countries with very generous social safety nets with higher per capita innovation than the US, right?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Bullshit like this graph that shows poverty in steep decline until we rolled out "The War on Poverty," where it dropped aggressively for a few years then went up, where it has raised and fallen, but never continued the downward trend it was on.
It's almost cringeworthy to have this little understanding of basic econ.
There is a point in receiving benefits where if you have a job and you're making around $11/hour, with benefits, your lifestyle is that of making about $60k/year. If you get a few dollar raise, lets say to $16/hour or a promotion (maybe to manager), you lose all the benefits and you're down to just the money you're making, which would even out to $33,280 before tax. Of course, to fix this you would have to nearly double your income to about $30/hour, which could take years, or over a decade.
So with that looming over your head, why the fuck would you ever want to aim for any kind of success or achievement? "Oh, if I work really hard, I can make 50% of what I'm making now!"
I'm just baffled that you people think, "OH! The government could totally fix this!"
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you out of your fucking mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty
This was one of the most misleading ways I've ever seen someone use a graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Income_Study
You're trying to use a post ww2 boom ending to claim welfare someone KEPT people poor, that is insane delusional.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-war-povertys-surprising-success
Even more.
Uh, this isn't an argument supporting what you claimed. Seriously, there are many studies showing welfare doesn't recuce your will to work.
Using your logic nobody would work in most of Europe.
Even more reading:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/the-real-poverty-trap/?_r=0
If anything, these programs increase upward mobility, not decrease it.
Well, considering the drivel you tried to claim here I'm not baffled anymore, it's obvious. You tried to claim welfare didn't reduce poverty, a claim that conflicts with all available data, and you tried to claim welfare reduced upward mobility, again, a claim not supported by facts.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Get the FUCK out of here with anything by Paul Krugman.
The man is a fucking idiot.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
LOL, right, whatever you need to tell yourself dude.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
In 1998, Krugman said:
He is not a smart man.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You aren't refuting anything he said dude, and again:
http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
Notice anything?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Let me ask you this then, since it seems like you don't give a shit about middle-class jobs, who is going to pay for all of your social safety programs?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I don't give a shit about jobs? lol? No, I just support real solutions and not fluff about bringing obsolete jobs back.
This might shock you - but the US has more than enough money to fund these programs, we just decide not to.
As a US citizen, you get the least from your taxes in the western world.
https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/OECD_Tax_Wedge_Charts-04.png
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Only obsolete because regulations made it cheaper to manufacture overseas. What are some if you're real solutions then? To replace jobs it started at $80,000 a year without a high school education?
Realistically we don't have the money because United States government is $20 trillion in debt.
However I'll play your little game, and what makes you think that we would suddenly be able to change the way that the entire US government spends tax money?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
No, you can very clearly go look at employment graphs in relation to manufacturing - that is simply not true dude, if we removed ALL regulations it would have still been cheaper to manufacture over there.
The reality is the days of being able to get out of HS and start making 80k a year are gone and they're never coming back, manufacturing jobs don't even pay that anymore - that's a pipe dream.
I'd suggest massive infrastructure programs and converting the workforce to the green energy sector.
Lol, that isn't how debt works for a government dude. That isn't even a lot of debt for the size of our economy.
Vote for people pushing common sense programs and solutions?
Stop voting for people with a vested interest in crippling the federal government?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Jesus quit calling me dude. It makes you sound even more childish.
Also, the remaining coal mining jobs do pay that much.
Debt has to be paid back. Our GDP is $17.8 trillion, so I would say that's a pretty large amount of debt. Are you comfortable essentially enslaving your children and their children to the debt of the US government?
I'm no republican, but I'd prefer no federal government. I think the idea of the state is quickly becoming obsolete and rendered rather useless by technology.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
And those jobs are vanishing, no matter what, they are never coming back.
There isn't a debt crisis. As long as the economy is growing, the debt isn't a big deal.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/opinion/commentary/ct-america-debt-crisis-insolvency-20160418-story.html?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Do you also want no "state government."
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
I think all government is going to be rendered obsolete sooner than later.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
If you think government is going to be obsolete, I think you're in for a let down.
The government forms far too vital a role in the functioning of society. Nobody wants to live in Somalia.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
The failed socialist state.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Ok, but there's no real government there anymore, why aren't they doing great?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
using this logic
Anyways, relative to surrounding countries, Somalia is doing pretty well. 14 competing airlines, over 20 ISPs, private security militias. Somalia has highest gun ownership and lowest per-capita homicide rate. They didn't have a genocide (looking at you, Rwanda.) Either way, coming out of decades of an extremely violent civil war isn't the best place to be when judging a rather young society.
Anyhow, calling Somalia anarchism is like saying that burning down a church leads to atheism. This would be worth reading.
If you love tyranny so much, you should try North Korea. Everything is free, safe, and taken care of for you there.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Incorrect, because those countries went to the opposite extreme - my argument isn't more government is always better, it's that a strong central government is good - a balance.
Tyranny lmao. I swear to god anarcho-capitalism has to be the most retarded ideology on the planet.
n/a Wordshark 2017-05-26
Maybe small, wealthy, homogenous countries are the only ones that can implement such generous welfare programs without going bankrupt?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Yep, and likely just for now. We'll see how their economies handle a few million unskilled refugees.
n/a khanfusion 2017-05-26
lol been listening to AM radio and your church elders, I see. Good boy.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
what???
Here, read. Don't just assume.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/modeling-potential-income-and-welfare-assistance-benefits-in-illinois/
n/a khanfusion 2017-05-26
"We believe in really bland talking points about how being a good protestant is the key to success and how government is really just trying to turn your sons into homosexuals and your daughters into race mixing whores."
GOOD point
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
what the fuck are you on about, now?
n/a khanfusion 2017-05-26
Your dot org reference basically confirms you're too stupid to make decisions for yourself or have any perspective on real life, so I'm mocking you for being a dipshit little good boy.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
I hope you get hit by a bus you stupid piece of shit.
n/a khanfusion 2017-05-26
And I hope YOU learn to forgive whatever girl you end up with for not being a virgin!
n/a donaldthelion 2017-05-26
Nothing, it shocks me that even most liberals think the govt sucks but they want more of it. I'm not sure how it's even possible to think that way but they do. It's mental when you hear them bitch about how bad public schools are then when someone wants to give parents options they bitch about that
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
I know, right? I wish I could mental gymnastics as well as they do.
n/a ur_mom_IoI 2017-05-26
white men can be diverse too
n/a CuriousKrow 2017-05-26
Diversity of ideas not of skin color. I don't give a fuck if my representative is pink as long as Senator Majin Buu has ideas what would benefit my district.
n/a ur_mom_IoI 2017-05-26
same thing imoi
n/a MrUnsmileyMan 2017-05-26
Vote Majin Buu, or he'll turn you into candy and eat you!
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-05-26
Diversity is a shit ideal.
The most 'diverse' countries in the world are all complete shitholes.
n/a ur_mom_IoI 2017-05-26
kys then
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
What if the EPA doesn't actually do anything good?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you on meth?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
No.
Are you familiar with regulatory capture?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
The EPA, factually, does good, and has done good for years, in spite of republican efforts to gut it.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Making it massively expensive to start or operate any kind of mine or manufacturing business in indeed good, right?
Gutting the middle class was definitely a really good thing, right?
Writing policy that literally helps makes it affordable to build shit in rural China, ship it on a train to a port, and then load it onto a ship and bring it all the way across the ocean to another port where it is then distributed all over the entire United States by a train to truck, or a truck was definitely a good thing, right?
Meanwhile people in western New York to Wisconsin are massively un/underemployed.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Yes, it is a good thing, profit margins are not more important than our health, have you ever considered the cost to society from pollution?
EPA return on investment is insane.
Are you trying to claim environmental regulations are why the middle class declined? Do you have any idea how absurd a claim that is?
Well, trade and cheap consumer goods are a massive boon to our economy, was in fact, a good thing.
But:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/265cd8fb02fb44a69cf0eaa2063e11d9/mexico-taking-us-factory-jobs-blame-robots-instead
LOL.
This is nuts, you actually believe environmental regulations are to blame for literally any of this, don't you?
This is just weird man.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Yes. Its pretty simple, really.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Yeah, you believe it because you're delusional dude.
Coal mining vanishing had nothing to do with regulations, that's a blatant fabrication.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/08/even-freed-from-regulations-dont-expect
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
SOOOOO, you're bitching about social safety nets in another thread, but here you are saying it's a good thing to destroy the jobs of millions of people, effectively making them poor.
You literally care sooooo much about poor people that you want to make more of them.
I can't even.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Coal jobs did not vanish due to regulations dude, you made that up.
Manufacturing jobs did not vanish due to regulations, you made that up.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
I'll give you that coal is being pushed out by cheaper energy.
Regulations certainly don't help though, especially in mfg.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
We should be straight up trying to kill fossil fuels in favor of green energy, there's no logical reason not to.
We're in a green energy arms race with China and if they win we lose a lot of power globally.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/92fd/2dc44b65168d6090b04a5fb9f68a5a0084f0.pdf
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Or maybe we should let the market take care of it instead of government forcing it?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
The market is not perfect for everything dude, there are many areas where the government should be involved.
For example - scientific research is something the government should heavily fund.
Green energy as well - it's in our absolute best interest to go fully green as quick as possible, and fossil fuel companies would rather keep pumping their dirty fuels for as long as possible.
n/a Clark_Savage_Jr 2017-05-26
Without looking it up, can you name a single environmental regulation enforced by the EPA?
n/a TheGreatWolfRuss 2017-05-26
He's actually right you dimbass
Current republicans are just shills for corporations who want to gut the government and cut taxes
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
sure is altruistic of them to destroy their own jobs
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
They don't lose their jobs though, they'd still be elected, they'd just be running a crippled federal government and keeping it that way.
I don't get why you guys are trying to resist this, I seriously thought this was common knowledge, look at GOP epa/department of education/energy picks, look at them trying to gut regulations and privatize everything, what do you think the end game is?
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
Oh so you don't mean dismantle the federal government. You mean the much less sensational "budget cuts".
Clearly this is the end of western democracy as we know it.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
rofl, yeah republicans are basically anarchists you figured it out dude
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
No, they just want to dismantle and or seriously reduce the power of the federal government and give more power to the "states."
This is mainly because the federal government tends to stop some of the more regressive states from basing the law on their religion, or discriminating against people based on race/sexual orientation or religion.
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
Yeah like those "regressive" states that legalized marijuana and gay marriage and allowed sanctuary cities. Damn states rights are just a conservative conspiracy!
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You know exactly which states I'm talking about.
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
I do, it's the ones you don't like.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Yeah, I don't like them because they're backwoods hellholes dude, I didn't just randomly decide to not like them.
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
lol
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you claiming they aren't?
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
Something tells me you don't have the same hatred of inner city hellholes
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I don't view the places I'm talking about as hellholes because of crime rates or poverty, I view them as hellholes because of backwards social attitudes.
n/a ason 2017-05-26
Post your hellhole bb.
n/a ironicshitpostr 2017-05-26
Your classism and racism is showing, dude. Try to keep it under wraps a little better.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
How in the hell is that classism or racism. I literally grew up in one of those places.
n/a ironicshitpostr 2017-05-26
My god. Internalized classism and racism. The hardest kind to eradicate.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You seem to have internalized autism tbh.
n/a ironicshitpostr 2017-05-26
Wow, and now ableism - you're a triple threat.
But yeah, I'm probably on the spectrum a little.
n/a LedinToke 2017-05-26
it's a spectrum, everyone is on it by default, it's where you're located on it that matters.
For example, me simply writing this stupid shit out shows that i'm in the ultraviolet range
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
...then people can choose to live there or choose to not live there. Why do you want a tyrannical federal government to be up everybody's ass?
Who do you think legislates more favorably, and in touch with the constituents, in a place like Drew, Mississippi? The state/local government or some flashy guy who spends most of his time in DC, with a little time in Jackson, MS?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Ah yes, because everyone knows simply moving to another state is an easy thing to do, especially for poor people!
n/a incisorcist 2017-05-26
Right, it's better that poor people just rely on YOU to think on their behalf.
Fuck you, cocksucker.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Lol? Are you illiterate?
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Well, if that happened, you could have single-payer healthcare and co-ed bathrooms and all the affirmative action you can handle. You wouldn't have to deal with the half-assed compromises that you get when you federalize policy. Heck, enslave white people up there in New Hampshire for all I care. Make that Girls girl your hereditary monarch. It doesn't affect me.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
And what about all the people stuck in shitty red states without the ability to leave?
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
Christ, you act like red states are fucking Soviet satellite countries. Stop blaming your failures on where you grew up, man the fuck up and take responsibility for yourself.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
There are a lot of red states that are starting to border on 3rd world dude.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
Did you seriously just post a fucking op ed as proof of anything? That in addition to you not understanding what a 3rd world country is tells me that all you'd be good for is posting bussy, if not I have no reason to put up with your white nonsense anymore.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you retarded? It's an op ed citing research you mongoloid.
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
That's not research you dumb fuck, there's no real statistical or significant value/numbers going on in that system, it's based entirely on the ideals of those who use it. That's why the article is, again, an OP ED, and you're a retard.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
That literally is research, sorry about your learning disability.
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
Show me the statistical analysis they used or shut the fuck up.
Maybe you do have a point about red states if you grew up in one and are this much of a fucking ingrate.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You realize I can show you federal court rulings finding that state blatantly tried to suppress black voters, right?
Does that sound like a real democracy to you?
But here's the actual report/paper:
https://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
There's nothing in the link you posted about statistical analysis, it's all theories, forecasts and predictions. Thanks for shutting down your own argument for me.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
This is hilarious, you're a mediocre troll.
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
What does that make you, then?
n/a Aelinsaar 2017-05-26
You're such an angry little girl!
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
Post gussy to salvage your honor
n/a Aelinsaar 2017-05-26
I actually have no idea what any of that means.
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
Doesn't surprise me that you don't know what honor is
n/a Aelinsaar 2017-05-26
No, it's the "Cb2" and "Post gussy" parts I didn't understand.
n/a Aelinsaar 2017-05-26
Whistles
Still there sweetheart?
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
I thought you people LOVED immigration. Open the borders.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Leaving isn't always an option, for most people, for many reasons.
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Not an answer. Are you positing some sort of Berlin Wall around the South and Midwest?
n/a new-years-grieve 2017-05-26
If people from Mexico can do it, surely people living in a first world country can manage.
n/a 64m3r 2017-05-26
What, is there a wall along state borders or something?
n/a incisorcist 2017-05-26
That means keeping it small enough to be firmly under the control of the people. We can end it should we need to kind of thing. That's what conservativism has ALWAYS been about. Are really really this fucking dense?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Yeah, this is hilarious.
By "the people" do you mean the corporations that pillage the country as they're deregulated?
n/a incisorcist 2017-05-26
I didn't say I agreed with the sentiment, you fucking simpleton. I am simply explaining the meaning, because you're either a mouth breathing retard (speaking of drowning things in bathtubs), or a disingenuous retard (again; bathtime).
Mr. Radical dude who would save our country- I think you ought to make a grand statement. Set yourself on fire 🔥 in front of the White House.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I have no interest in saving this country, I'm a small state rights democrat now, fuck everyone else. If middle America wants a 3rd world country, I say we let them have it.
n/a incisorcist 2017-05-26
Still, I think you ought to injure yourself in some show of defiance.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Defiance of what?
n/a incisorcist 2017-05-26
It's not about the what or the why; it's the crippling, lifelong consequences of your injuries that matter. Don't think- act.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Well that doesn't seem very rational.
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-26
If you want rational, don't do any fucking thing related to politics.
n/a carthoris26 2017-05-26
"The people" means individual states you dingus. Someone who clearly hates the overwhelming majority (by area) of the country should be all for that kind of thing, since won't the idiot conservatives crash and burn if left to their own devices? Socialist Utopia in New England and California, dystopian corporate hellhole in between.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Just to be clear here - Donald Trump made me a state rights democrat, I don't give a shit about the federal government anymore, if middle America wants a 3rd world corporate dictatorship then let them have it, that's their choice.
I'm simply pointing out the GOP is blatantly trying to dismantle the federal government or weaken it to such an extent it won't be able to function correctly.
n/a carthoris26 2017-05-26
You have party dogma shoved so far up your ass you can't even imagine a person can be educated and informed who genuinely believes that the role of the federal government shouldn't be so oppressive. It's not your role, or anyone else's, to tell someone what their best interests are - the whole reason we vote is to express those interests. The mental gymnastics you're going through to justify writing off half the country as brainwashed idiots by using the other side's brainwashing is Olympian.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you just making stuff up, dude? I said the exact opposite of that, I said the reasons are all over the place. I don't even know where you got this at.
Well this is just cringe. Facts aren't subjective dude, they aren't based on feelings - if you're a poor rural person that votes for "small government" you are absolutely voting to harm yourself.
And again - you're heavily confused, values and desires do not = facts.
How someone feels isn't relevant to the reality of things.
Again - facts are not subjective, no matter how hard you kick, no matter how hard you cry or how loud you scream - facts are not subjective.
Not only are these people voting to harm themselves, they're voting to harm other people. When these people send crazies into government, crazies that want to gut science, education and every social program we have - those people are wrong, they're objectively wrong.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
You realize that corporations get their "power" from government, right? That a corporation is a legal entity empowered by the government, right?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Corporations do NOT get their power from government, if the government vanished tomorrow these massive companies aren't going to "vanish."
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Then please, explain to me what a corporation is.
By the way, corporation ≠ company.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I mean, you could define them as cartels even - let's say the government vanished tomorrow, what's to stop them from forming a cartel and operating exactly as they do now?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Didn't answer my question. Way to go!
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
You didn't ask a real question dude, it was stupid. You seem to think the only reason a cartel/business has power is the government - that makes no sense.
Let's say the government vanished, a corporation could still declare themselves a "single entity." There's nothing there to stop them.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
You're not willing to actually examine what you're arguing for. There's an important point in there but you're just regurgitating other peoples talking points.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
There was no point, the argument a corporation only exists because of a government is just weird, it makes no sense dude.
Call it what you want - a cartel, corporation - whatever. Their power isn't given to them by the government, they'd exist with or without a government because there's money to be made.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
So private property rights are enforced by the government? Police don't protect the capital? There aren't codified tax structures and liability that keep individuals from being responsible personally?
And what about the power to write legislation? Corporations are taken seriously when it comes to writing legislation and regulations regarding their particular industries. That means, that corporations can write laws that make it very very difficult to compete with them which means that any possible company they will never compete with them has to jump over a bar that is raised so high intentionally to keep them out of the marketplace. This is how regulations create monopolies that fuck every body. By using the power given to them by the government.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Lol? A corporation can enforce private property in the absence of a government. What's to stop these mega corps from forming their own merc armies?
As for taxes, there is no government in your scenario, so again, what's to stop the corporations from doing whatever they want?
Holy shit, think about this for a second - in this no government scenario, whats to stop these mega corps from forming a cartel and snuffing out any and all competition?
The idea that monopolies only exist in the presence of regulations is bat-shit insane dude. Corporations could do literally everything on your list without the government, in your world of no government there's nothing there to stop them - they could form mega cartels, they could snuff out any competition, take over entire states at will.
Your argument seems to be resting on a seriously question foundation.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
Dig in.
Also, its pretty fucking expensive to wage war when you can't just raid the coffers of your population.
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Wonderful Socratic Tai Chi, but I think you're wasting your time w/ this person. They seem to get all their ideas about political economy from 1980s cyberpunk novels.
n/a shamwu 2017-05-26
A walking ancap stereotype getting upvotes in /r/drama. I never thought I'd see the day.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Cool, then find me one that the market created.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/natural_monopoly.asp
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Ah yes, Utilities. Definitely an area without regulations.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Lol... Did you even read it? Do you seriously not see how it'd be hard to compete when it comes to utilities, it'd be a cluster fuck, it'd be stupid.
There are serious flaws in your worldview, the free market is not always best - the free market is not infallible.
The government can create a monopoly but a government can also prevent a monopoly.
The government passed laws to stop this for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
The railroads are actually a decent example of this:
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/corporate-monopolies/development_rrmon.html
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2ct58s/average_internet_speed_in_eu_by_country/cjiu0rm/
Romania has the fastest internet in the EU because of black markets and decentralization.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
This isn't refuting my argument, I just gave you multiple examples of monopolies coming into place without the government helping them really - in fact, the government was the only entity able to stop them.
I'm really not sure as to why you linked this.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
What makes you think all of your examples would have held onto their monopolies for long if they hadn't been broken up?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
This is a pretty stupid argument dude. You're asking for examples of monopolies that formed up without the government - and now you're trying to hand-wave them away by claiming they might have broken up in the future.
Come on.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
History makes a pretty strong case for this.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Where does history make a strong case for this?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Standard Oil never reached monopoly status–at best it was 92% of the market, even though Rockefeller was buying up every possible competitor. Because of this, people started essentially building super shitty refineries and businesses, and Rockefeller would buy them. Standard began eating itself alive because of this and started losing market shares, and by the time they were actually broken up they had less than 60% of the market.
All of this, of course, came about at a time where consumer fuel prices were brought down from $0.35/gallon to about $0.07/gallon due to the efficiency of their processes, while also putting the entire whale oil industry out of business (checkmate environmentalists.)
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you out of your god damn mind? 92% IS a monopoly. The government literally had to break them up.
Did you actually just try this shit?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Huh, today I learned that 92% actually means 100% and that a monopoly actually means there are more than 1 companies.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Dude, you have no idea what a monopoly is.
http://www.economicshelp.org/microessays/markets/monopoly/
A "pure monopoly" is what you're thinking about, over 90% of a market share would be considered a monopoly.
Better yet, I'll just link the government directly.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Logical consistency, where 92% means 100% and where "mono" means "two or more."
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2
What does this say?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
And in this particular case could you tell me what was bad about them having a near monopoly?
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Are you asking me why a monopoly is bad?
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
I stated what Standard was able to achieve, I want to know what's naturally bad about a monopoly.
n/a crbiker 2017-05-26
Crickets
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Actually they do. If you think about it for half a second, corporations are 100% imaginary entities created by law. We all just pretend they exist because doing so makes the economy and the legal system work if we do.
If the government vanished tomorrow, so would corporations.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
This argument is seriously fucking retarded dude.
With no government, why wouldn't they just keep operating and declare themselves a single entity, who is going to stop them?
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Who is "them"? Corporations don't real without a legal system that pretends they do.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Let's say there's no government, I'm in charge of a large business, I turn that business into a cartel, what's the difference between that and a mega corp?
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Why would people listen to you? Why wouldn't the employees instead for some sort of anarcho-syndicalist co-op? Lefties seem to think that those are awesome.
What is your point? A cartel is by definition illegal and cannot use the machinery of the state to enforce its contractual agreements or property rights. Which is why when Don Corleone has a falling-out with someone, he has them shot instead of bringing a lawsuit.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Because that isn't how humans work, it's never how humans have worked - why didn't they do this for the hundreds of years they were basically slaves?
Ok, and in your scenario - there's no government, there's nobody to stop them really, why wouldn't they just snuff everyone out?
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Okay, so the organization falls apart instead of becoming a workers' collective. I'm still not seeing how these defunct legal fictions manage to rule the world?
What money? A series of bookkeeping entries on bank servers somewhere? You've already destroyed the legal system -- and with it, enforceable property rights? Do you think there's some vault full of gold somewhere a la Scrooge MacDuck?
There might be some useful physical capital laying around (forklifts, buildings, machines, computers, etc.), but how the imaginary corporate entity is supposed to wrest that from the hands of the flesh-and-blood natural persons who are looting the joint?
Easy: The mafia organization doesn't scale. Those infamous "five families" were all tiny organizations. They couldn't rely on the legal system, so they had to rely on blood ties and longtime personal loyalty. And you can't scale that up to multinational-corporation size. Even the Colombian cartels of the 1980s were smaller than a mid-sized regional company. Even with the family ties and personal loyalties, those groups had crippling principal-agent problems when they tried to expand geographically -- watch any movie about the Mob in Vegas and you'll see what I mean.
I mean, maybe in your government-collapse scenario, Bill Gates manages to rally his family and lifelong friends (along with some ambitious young up-and-comers who aren't afraid to use violence in place of contract law) into a "Microsoft Cartel" . . . but it's going to be a tiny gang in the Pacific Northwest. It's not going to be able to control a regional office on the East Coast, let alone a factory off in China.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Jesus I can't do this anymore, every single time I think anarcho-capitalists aren't retarded someone like you comes along and just makes these same, absurd arguments that make no actual sense.
To be clear here - you understand that currency can exist with no government, if the government vanished tomorrow there would be some currency system still. So I'm not sure what argument you think you're making here.
Property rights would still be enforceable, there's nothing stopping them from having their own standing armies to protect their property.
See above.
This is just drivel, you can absolutely scale a cartel up - like this is just nuts man, it's literally nuts. The idea that a massive corporation can't scale up and use their monopoly to crush competition is rooted in some anarcho capitalist fantasy world.
And again - your entire argument seems to hinge on the delusion that there won't be any currency system in place in the event of no government.
That's just makes 0 rational sense.
n/a skeetsurfing1984 2017-05-26
Where did I say I was an anarcho-capitalist? I'm not. I was an economist for several years and now I'm a corporate lawyer. It's possible that I might know something about the intersection of law and economics.
Alternatively, the teenager who just finished Snow Crash is probably right.
As the saying goes, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand.
n/a Teresa_May 2017-05-26
I can't wait till America is as great as the Russian Federation.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Yeah I was just saying the other day I miss the Chinese caliber smog cities and lighting rivers on fire.
Back in my day a businessman could dump a tiny bit of toxic waste in the poors water supply and everyone looked the other day - but today with this political correctness and tyranny of big government you can't do that anymore.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-05-26
Don't tell anyone but we actually all believe in Global Warming and are lying about it because we want to Flood the Coasts and drown all the people like you.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I don't live on the coast.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-05-26
By people like you I mean people who can't swim.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
I'm a pretty strong swimmer.
n/a Imgur_Lurker 2017-05-26
By people who can't swim I mean the Blacks.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
Well, I'm white.
n/a jubbergun 2017-05-26
Yet another compelling reason for Mayocide.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-26
If anyone could mayocide us they would have done it by now, us whites are just too good at fighting other people.
n/a ZeitgeistNow 2017-05-26
That's been painfully obvious throughout your incessant bitching and moaning
n/a khanfusion 2017-05-26
So long as we're seriousposting and shit, bear in mind that "destroy their own jobs" is actually "either have part ownership in or receive kickbacks from whomever ends up with government resources after the fire sale."
And yeah, super cliche, but look at Russia. That shit happened like 15 years ago.
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-05-26
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Choozadoodle 2017-05-26
Ohhhh so you're a Pence guy
n/a Danthon 2017-05-26
Fuckin webby lul
n/a freet0 2017-05-26
why on earth would you do this on tinder?
if this is a liberal trait they're going to go extinct darwinian style by perpetually cockblocking themselves
n/a ShootingAnElephant 2017-05-26
Webby is a bit... err, special.
n/a PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2017-05-26
The woman of my dreams.
n/a hoseja 2017-05-26
I don't understand how are people enthusiastically supporting the reptilian cunt just because she's good at being a reptilian cunt.
n/a cultish_alibi 2017-05-26
Exactly. I can understand why people might have reluctantly voted for her. But you can't trust the people that show up at rallies with any kind of enthusiasm, waving banners and shit.
Like, wtf is wrong with you? Don't you have porn to jerk off to?
n/a jubbergun 2017-05-26
If you want to get in some tramp's pants there are a lot of things you shouldn't do, and talking politics is one of them. She's a Berniebot so she almost a guaranteed lay, and this guy fucks up what should be a slam dunk because he can't stop himself from being your typical preachy /r/politics style "better than you" idiot democrat. It's no wonder republicans are out-breeding these people.
n/a Eifert 2017-05-26
> Taking webby this seriously
n/a meatpuppet79 2017-05-26
Most people go on tinder to have sloppy semi anonymous casual sex, right? Have I been doing it wrong???
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-26
Well you can't have sex with socialists, they're literally retarded so it's always rape.
n/a OneMoreBadger 2017-05-26
Our neolib friend seems pretty special too tho in this case
n/a heavenlytoaster 2017-05-26
Well yeah, that's the difference between autism and being retarded. It's wrong to have sex with retards, while autists you just want to avoid like the plague, mostly for your own benefit.
n/a AUT2M 2017-05-26
Man this sucks. This girl is perfectly willing to have a discussion about her political beliefs - and how rare is that - and then he goes and starts being condescending to her, lame.
n/a MG87 2017-05-26
...Thats not what Tinder is for damnit
n/a Chin_Up_Chick 2017-05-26
You dont go on tinder to be enlightened about politics? Wtf?
n/a i-ride-dragons 2017-05-26
Friendly reminder: They're both imperialists so who cares.
n/a MrAlphonzo 2017-05-26
Fuck you isolationist.
Annex Canada 2020.
M A N I F E S T D E S T I N Y 2 . 0
n/a TheGreatGod42 2017-05-26
n/a serialflamingo 2017-05-26
Why are Hillary supporters such mansplaining chauvinists? :'(
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-26
Oh, weeby
n/a Chin_Up_Chick 2017-05-26
I thought the democratic primary ended a year ago.
n/a neutralvoter 2017-05-26
Lol, this is not the face or posture of a man who can get things done:
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/08/150814_POL_SandersBlackLivesMatter.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2.jpg
n/a artosduhlord 2017-05-26
This album has been around longer than /r/neoliberal
n/a 90231232453151353311 2017-05-26
DAE,, BErnie should Be president of the world????!1