Political Posts

[Parsad]

2 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

The thing I find curious about the Epstein debate is that I think anything involving Epstein is almost completely orthogonal to being a good leader.

 

Like, would you rather have a leader that is upstanding morally but has such poor leadership that the country's standard of living plummets to Venezuela levels, or a completely repugnant pedophile who is able to usher in a golden age?
 

It's clear to me that the latter is orders of magnitude better than the former, and the huge positive difference in outcomes for almost anyone in the country should make the latter a clear choice.

 

So, I find it curious that people seem to believe that the Epstein stuff should be the thing that changes everything. 

 

Of course, Trump is also clearly an awful leader who is much more likely to result in Venezuelan-like outcomes than a golden age. But that's what should be the focus of debate--the long term consequences of his policies. Pretty well everyone already knows Trump's a liar with repugnant morals, so why should piling on more repugnancy matter?

 

Richard, you might be correct if you are certain that Trump is the one ushering in the golden age.  What if Trump is simply ushering in a mediocre age...then wouldn't the repugnant relationship mean something?  Anything?

 

Now I'm going to get criticized for this, but what if Hitler was the one ushering in the golden age?  Would his behavior be excusable for the wealth his citizens would inherit?  I'm guessing no.  Cheers!

[RichardGibbons]

56 minutes ago, Parsad said:

 

Richard, you might be correct if you are certain that Trump is the one ushering in the golden age.  What if Trump is simply ushering in a mediocre age...then wouldn't the repugnant relationship mean something?  Anything?

 

Now I'm going to get criticized for this, but what if Hitler was the one ushering in the golden age?  Would his behavior be excusable for the wealth his citizens would inherit?  I'm guessing no.  Cheers!

 

I agree that Trump isn't likely to be someone ushering in a golden age--that was what my last paragraph was about.  It's much more likely that his long-term results will be bad for both Americans and the world.

I think Hitler isn't a great counter-example because I think it's hard to justify murdering six million plus people and several tens of millions on the battlefield for wealth.

 

At some point, the ends don't justify the means. If the means is, say, a handful of people's lives ruined for hundreds of millions to prosper, then that's a good deal (and a trade-off that federal politicians are evaluating frequently, whether they realize it or not.) When the means is literally killing tens of millions, then I don't think you can justify it unless you're helping a whole pile of people. Say, trillions of people, which isn't actually possible right now.

 

It's also worth noting that I don't believe in the idea that it's completely fine to murder "others" to help my tribe prosper. I'm much more into the idea that we should be helping everyone prosper, or at least not actively screwing people just because they are others. (And I think that's actually the correct long-term strategy for prosperity if one recognizes that humanity isn't at all zero-sum--it's postive-sum.)

[Parsad]

13 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

 

I agree that Trump isn't likely to be someone ushering in a golden age--that was what my last paragraph was about.  It's much more likely that his long-term results will be bad for both Americans and the world.

I think Hitler isn't a great counter-example because I think it's hard to justify murdering six million plus people and several tens of millions on the battlefield for wealth.

 

At some point, the ends don't justify the means. If the means is, say, a handful of people's lives ruined for hundreds of millions to prosper, then that's a good deal (and a trade-off that federal politicians are evaluating frequently, whether they realize it or not.) When the means is literally killing tens of millions, then I don't think you can justify it unless you're helping a whole pile of people. Say, trillions of people, which isn't actually possible right now.

 

It's also worth noting that I don't believe in the idea that it's completely fine to murder "others" to help my tribe prosper. I'm much more into the idea that we should be helping everyone prosper, or at least not actively screwing people just because they are others. (And I think that's actually the correct long-term strategy for prosperity if one recognizes that humanity isn't at all zero-sum--it's postive-sum.)

 

 "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."

      - John F. Kennedy

 

Cheers!

 

[RichardGibbons]

Yeah, but if you actually believe that is the right position to take, then you have to be an extremist Libertarian. Like, taxes certainly diminish the property rights of almost everyone, let alone one man. 

 

It's hard to think of things governments do that don't diminish the rights of someone. 

 

Hmm, maybe stuff that's 100% empty virtue signalling like "Farmer's Month" might not diminish anyone's rights.

[Parsad]

38 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said:

Yeah, but if you actually believe that is the right position to take, then you have to be an extremist Libertarian. Like, taxes certainly diminish the property rights of almost everyone, let alone one man. 

 

It's hard to think of things governments do that don't diminish the rights of someone. 

 

Hmm, maybe stuff that's 100% empty virtue signalling like "Farmer's Month" might not diminish anyone's rights.

 

Taxes in and of themselves don't diminish anyone's rights if there are services available to everyone that are paid by them...education, universal healthcare, pharmacare, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.  Where government oversteps is in policies or programs that aren't for everyone. 

 

For example, DEI itself is not wrong...but when it precludes other groups is where it oversteps its bounds.  Because of that, people incorrectly include all diversity programs under the DEI stigma currently running rampant...the pendulum swung too far one way and it now swings too far the other.

 

Inequal tax policies for the rich where they pay too much on their last marginal dollar isn't fair...inequal tax policies on how many rich people/large shareholders/owners evade taxation due to massive deferred capital gains or low capital gains is also not fair...these are infringements on the rights of other groups that do not benefit from that tax advantage.  There has to be a rebalancing.  

 

Now low corporate tax rates don't infringe on anyone's rights.  This should be something all parties should support including the left wing extremists.  The rebalancing should occur so that intergenerational wealth is not an aspiration...certainly not a right!

 

And where government policy infringes on the rights of any individual, should be a policy the government never passes into law.  Cheers!

[RichardGibbons]

Yeah, philosophically speaking, I disagree in that I think property rights should be a right.  Like, I think people ought to have the right to own whatever they create without others taking it away from them by force. 

 

And, while I agree with you that unequal programs like DEI are a problem, I don't think that is the full extent of the problem, and rights can be infringed even if everyone is treated the same. Like, one could mandate a free-use society where nobody "owns" their own body, and others can do whatever they want to your body, including murdering it. Everyone would be treated the same, but I think that is still a violation of people's rights.  So, I think equal treatment by government is an insufficient criteria.

 

However, that's purely from an abstract point of view.  In practice, I think there are actually very few real absolute rights, and creating a functional society is actually an exercise of figuring out roughly what people's rights are, and when it's OK to violate those rights.  (e.g. pretty well everyone thinks it's OK to violate a murderer's right to freedom of movement by locking them up.)

 

Philosophically, I think societies ought to attempt to minimize the vagaries of the genetic lottery for people when they are children or incapable adults, but not for capable adults. But again, in practice, I think society functions better if there are mechanisms to reduce envy.  So, I'm fine with a degree of overriding rights to do that. As with everything, the question is what degree is sensible.

 

I actually think our positions aren't that far apart. It's just that in my head, I structure things as "these are the theoretical rights, and we have to decide how far the government can go in violating them", while in your head it's more like "rights are absolute, but those absolute rights are much more limited than the broad theoretical rights that Richard sees."

 

The funny thing is that I think at the core, mostly good government isn't about this stuff at all. Rather, it's about examining the natural experiments that have happened throughout human history that have resulted in different outcomes for societies, and implementing the successful policies and not the unsuccessful ones.  (And rights spring out of that in the sense that societies with good outcomes generally are the ones where people have rights.)

[Sweet]

8 hours ago, LC said:

 

It's where it originates. It's the reason the "mistakes" are mostly people of a certain color. It's the reason  MAGA is willing to, again, burn their Constitutional rights at the alter of "illegal immigration". 

 

And it is gestapo-like. If ICE operated with warrants, due process, "innocent until proven guilty"...then it would be acceptable as a reasonable process. But that is not what is happening - it's masked agents abducting people off the streets without cause or accountability. Gestapo-like.

 

I don’t get this kind of response.  Does anyone believe that ‘due process’ has worked to curtail and remove the millions of illegal immigrants?

 

It’s precisely because we are a soft touch that everyone is coming over.  In the UK we have millions of illegal immigrants, put in hotels, fed, given some money while they are ‘processed’.

 

My view is you enter a country illegally you don’t get a process you get shown the door.  If that means ripping you off the street without a warrant fine.

 

For anyone who is a citizen the government should be saying carry ID.

 

Reminder I’m not American.

[73 Reds]

13 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Well as I said here - the WSJ's has quite literally bet the house here that its legit or most certainly they went above and beyond to verify its legitimacy....its a paper that generates I dunno perhaps $150m of net income p/a.....and the cost of being wrong here is hundreds of millions.

 

I guess what we should also clear up....as I find this always with MAGA....is they vehemently deny that XYZ accusation could be real about Trump....so strong as to suggest that if XYZ we're true it would obviously be disqualifying .....then when it gets proven to be real.....MAGA says who cares, it's a nothing burger.........the irony is they spent a huge amount of energy to deny its veracity indicating it was a something burger.

 

So tell me @cubsfan & @73 Reds....for posterity and for when truth comes out....because I think its impossible for the truth not to come out now >

 

(1) if turned out Donald was  lying about the nature, closeness and frequency of his contact and relationship with Jeffrey Epstein most especially past his 2003 paedophilia conviction. Is that problem for you?

 

Something burger or Nothing burger?

 

&

 

(2) when it becomes clear that the reason the Epstein files havent been released to public in full, as per Trump/Bondi's campaign promises, is that your favourite President is all over those files in a way that is deeply disturbing (no crimes) but again showing a deeper, more entwined & long standing relationship between the two men that stretches far past his 2003 conviction for paedophilia and the contents of which contradict numerous statements Trump has made regarding how well he knew Epstein and how he cut off what little contact he had with him post his 2003 paedophilia conviction.

 

Something burger or Nothing burger?

Maybe I wasn't clear.  Only one party knows for certain whether the letter is legit.  Trump could care less what anyone may insinuate of his escapades with Epstein.  The same insinuations apply to Bill Gates and Bill Clinton.  He's happy to be put in the same class with those two.  Trump would not be suing if he knew that he could be proven wrong.  He'd have far more to lose than whatever there is to gain.   

[73 Reds]

5 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Taxes in and of themselves don't diminish anyone's rights if there are services available to everyone that are paid by them...education, universal healthcare, pharmacare, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.  Where government oversteps is in policies or programs that aren't for everyone. 

 

For example, DEI itself is not wrong...but when it precludes other groups is where it oversteps its bounds.  Because of that, people incorrectly include all diversity programs under the DEI stigma currently running rampant...the pendulum swung too far one way and it now swings too far the other.

 

Inequal tax policies for the rich where they pay too much on their last marginal dollar isn't fair...inequal tax policies on how many rich people/large shareholders/owners evade taxation due to massive deferred capital gains or low capital gains is also not fair...these are infringements on the rights of other groups that do not benefit from that tax advantage.  There has to be a rebalancing.  

 

Now low corporate tax rates don't infringe on anyone's rights.  This should be something all parties should support including the left wing extremists.  The rebalancing should occur so that intergenerational wealth is not an aspiration...certainly not a right!

 

And where government policy infringes on the rights of any individual, should be a policy the government never passes into law.  Cheers!

Sanjeev, diversity, equity and inclusion in and of themselves are all fine.  But they should not be legally mandated or forced on one group at the expense of another.  That is the issue, not whether DEI is right to wrong.    As for corporate taxes, most small businesses are "corporations" of one form or another and may be subject to corporate taxes.  Small businesses are often comprised of one, or a small group of individuals.  Generalizing about corporate tax policy affects mostly individuals by definition, not just big business.  

[LC]

@Sweet

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please

[cubsfan]

6 minutes ago, LC said:

@Sweet

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please

 

Ah yes, let's demonize the great men and women of law enforcement that keep our public safe. You should throw rocks at them, doxx them and their families, maybe even shoot at a few of them. They are doing the job that Congress requires them to do.  But don't change the laws, like a civilized country - encourage others to perpetuate violence on them - because you don't get your way.

 

They are mothers and fathers that deserve our respect and support.

 

 

[Sweet]

22 minutes ago, LC said:

@Sweet

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please

 

 

I don’t think you understand LC.

 

We might very well get the actual kind of fascism that you wrongly think we already have should the immigration issue in Europe not be fixed.

 

And people like you will be partly to blame, because you think asking for papers and throwing people out of the country who aren’t supposed to be here is a extreme.  
 

Yet you don’t seem to understand that there are a bunch of ultra far-right loons, actual fascists, and actual extremists, who would do far worse if they could, will use the anti-immigration sentiment to get power.

 

Edited July 21, 2025 by Sweet

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

diversity, equity and inclusion in and of themselves are all fine

Why is it fine?

 

I’m older enough to remember when the UK was homogenous and we had none of this.

 

Diversity in the UK has mean division.

 

Note it’s not equality it’s equity.

 

And inclusion, why should we seek to include cultures and values at odds with ours?

[whiskybravo]

11 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Why is it fine?

 

I’m older enough to remember when the UK was homogenous and we had none of this.

 

Diversity in the UK has mean division.

 

Note it’s not equality it’s equity.

 

And inclusion, why should we seek to include cultures and values at odds with ours?

A couple of years ago my wife and I were in London and after a day out and about we settled in to watch the telly.  Much to our delight it was the last night of Proms.  You have much to preserve in British culture!  

[cubsfan]

2 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

A couple of years ago my wife and I were in London and after a day out and about we settled in to watch the telly.  Much to our delight it was the last night of Proms.  You have much to preserve in British culture!  

 

Bingo - a country has a right to preserve it's culture and heritage, otherwise there is little point in national pride or being a country.

[LC]

45 minutes ago, Sweet said:

 

 

I don’t think you understand LC.

 

We might very well get the actual kind of fascism that you wrongly think we already have should the immigration issue in Europe not be fixed.

 

And people like you will be partly to blame, because you think asking for papers and throwing people out of the country who aren’t supposed to be here is a extreme.  
 

Yet you don’t seem to understand that there are a bunch of ultra far-right loons, actual fascists, and actual extremists, who would do far worse if they could, will use the anti-immigration sentiment to get power.

 

 

Not sure how I can be partly to blame for electing leaders in a country/continent that I do not live nor vote in. 

 

I live in the States where the far right already holds too much political influence and is trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans. 

 

If you think the solution to preventing fascism is to implement fascist policies, I don't know what else there is to say. Good luck with that.

[Gregmal]

https://nypost.com/2025/07/05/opinion/how-americas-experts-burned-their-last-shreds-of-credibility/

 

Saw this and couldn't help but think it isn't just the experts, but many all around, including those here. 

 

Particularly here, how pre Iran bombing it was "headed for 2003s WMDs", whereas post bombing we warp speeded to "didn't destroy anything" and "their bomb making capabilities actually accelerated" LMFAO. Also had that "Iran/Israel ceasefire is fake" TDS showing for a bit too. Good times. 

 

Anyway, its also telling, per the exchange between @73 Reds and @changegonnacome...I mean, these "Experts" whom over the last decade have something like an 85% hit rate in terms of being wrong about pretty much anything Trump related, keep churning out new flavor of the month "news" stories. And in an odd respect, change wants to know if and when the 15% success rate plays out, will @73 Reds or @cubsfan eat a can of crow; the more relevant and obvious question should really be, how many of these stories do you folks whom always fall for it(the TAFFI crowd) need to gulp down, before maybe you cease swallowing them hook, line, and sinker?

 

Have a nice day.

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

He'd have far more to lose than whatever there is to gain.

 

We shall see......what seems inevitable here is that Trump has two choices.....let the drip drip drip of Epstein leaks carry on for the next three years which seems unsustainable to me....the hardcore MAGA's wont stand for it.......or release the files in their entirety only redacting the details of the VICTIMS.

 

 

[73 Reds]

54 minutes ago, Sweet said:

Why is it fine?

 

I’m older enough to remember when the UK was homogenous and we had none of this.

 

Diversity in the UK has mean division.

 

Note it’s not equality it’s equity.

 

And inclusion, why should we seek to include cultures and values at odds with ours?

What I meant is that there is nothing wrong with each (diversity, equity, inclusion), as a stand alone concept when you take politics out of the equation.

[whiskybravo]

21 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

We shall see......what seems inevitable here is that Trump has two choices.....let the drip drip drip of Epstein leaks carry on for the next three years which seems unsustainable to me....the hardcore MAGA's wont stand for it.......or release the files in their entirety only redacting the details of the VICTIMS.

 

 

No effect on the base.

 

“According to the Financial Times, a recent CNN survey found 88% of GOP voters still approve of Trump’s overall performance, despite the flap.”

 

[changegonnacome]

12 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

No effect on the base

 

I didn't say the base - I said hardcore MAGA these are the QAnon people, the folks who stormed the capital....they are a small part of the movement in numbers.....but they are responsible for perhaps 80% of the noise in the digital MAGA ecosystem....they can't stop, wont stop re: Epstein files....and why should they......Trump + his orbit promised them transparency....what they've gotten so far is very suspicious backtracking and attempts at re-direction away from the Epstein files.....when Pam Bondi only a few short weeks ago was indicating the Epstein files we're on a fastrack to be released...and now they aren't....in fact now the Epstein files are hoax created by Comey & Biden....a hoax they strangely never used against their political enemies........whats changed, who instigated the change and why?.......QAnon people will not let such questions go unanswered without a fight.

[whiskybravo]

41 minutes ago, LC said:

 

Not sure how I can be partly to blame for electing leaders in a country/continent that I do not live nor vote in. 

 

I live in the States where the far right already holds too much political influence and is trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans. 

 

If you think the solution to preventing fascism is to implement fascist policies, I don't know what else there is to say. Good luck with that.

You are experiencing post traumatic embitterment disorder. No really it’s a thing.  But remember politics is cyclical.  If the Dems can develop a platform that appeals to the electorate, they will have success.  
 

Sweet wasn’t blaming you personally for Britain’s problems.  I think you knew that he meant people like you, ie. those supportive of illegal immigration or supportive of an interminable process which effectively means never/rarely deporting anyone.

[dealraker]

Just think, if and when all these glorious benefits of Trump-ism stick?   Ole dealraker will get the same share as our dominant Red Cap COBF bunch who spend certainly half their daylight hours conjuring up glorious presentations.

 

It's sort of like Munger's sit on your hands model...or something like that.   LOL, being silly of course.

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, LC said:

 

Not sure how I can be partly to blame for electing leaders in a country/continent that I do not live nor vote in. 

 

I live in the States where the far right already holds too much political influence and is trampling on the Constitutional rights of Americans. 

 

If you think the solution to preventing fascism is to implement fascist policies, I don't know what else there is to say. Good luck with that.

I didn’t say you, I said people like you.

 

And part of the issue is you don’t even know what the far-right is.

 

To modern liberals the far-right is mainstream conservative thinking 40 years ago.

[Sweet]

31 minutes ago, whiskybravo said:

You are experiencing post traumatic embitterment disorder. No really it’s a thing.  But remember politics is cyclical.  If the Dems can develop a platform that appeals to the electorate, they will have success.  
 

Sweet wasn’t blaming you personally for Britain’s problems.  I think you knew that he meant people like you, ie. those supportive of illegal immigration or supportive of an interminable process which effectively means never/rarely deporting anyone.

Exactly