Ontopic Political Poo Flinging

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the vast majority of time it absolutely must move slow. There's power-hungry fools in power that would love to quickly sell a 'this is how we can help all these people who *require* our help.'

Yes I agree. I was think along the lines of power being in the hands of the people instead of the few the people vote for. Without that important change what I said would obviously fail.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
I don't think they spent as much time and energy on this as we're giving them credit for.

For all the talk about how they "infiltrated" facebook and social media, i think it was less than a couple hundred bucks in FB advertising. What else did they do? I think they're wet behind the social media campaign just like our guys were. They just happen to exploit (a little) an avenue we missed.

I think they fuck with us where they can but since hillz lost for some weird reason (heavy sarcasm intended) it's ZOMG russia.
It is known that Russia used bots.
 
Perhaps an attention diversion?

Get the American people talking about their own politics and they'll stay out of ours? Make the ADDmericans focus on their President and hate their counterparts simply for supporting something they oppose, create turmoil and hatred among them so they lose focus on the global politics and instead create a social civil war. We can go about doing our thing and they'll be too distracted to really care.
I like it.

A good plan should have many paths to success
 
If there's no sense of community then it wouldn't get fixed through donations. If you want more tax money without hurting the average person then tax the extremely rich. If everyone had real equal political power the rich would not be able to be so rich. It will never get solved without redistribution of wealth.
And you begin to dive into a socialist government.

The beauty of the USA is that we're all (supposedly) given the same opportunity to live the life we want to live. Obviously those born into money have the advantage, and there's still some racial and gender disadvantages, but there's really no Hierarchical advantages. No one will be president simply because they we born the son of a president unless the people feel that they are best suited for the job.

I have to admit though that the country was born in a time when people actually cared about paying attention. Over the last 100 years, people have gone from voting based on political topics and who is most qualified to I'm a Democrat. Sure there was partisan politics at play in the early years, but people voted along party lines because they issues along those party lines mattered to them. Now people don't even care and they vote party line because they're too lazy to do the research.
 
power being in the hands of the people
stick with me here . . .

there's your community.

Growing up, we all knew our neighbors and everything about them. The whole fam. the Mom, Dad, all their kids. As a community we all pulled together on our block, at our schools, in our towns.

It seems like we're getting too segmented. That instead of community, we've farmed out that job to the gov't so we have more time to work for a living, or play in our small circle.

The sense of "Community" has been "bought" from us with the idea that someone else can do it better.

:/
 
More institutions?
Lol.
Get ready for a shock.
There are almost NO publicly funded mental health institutions in this country.

In order to restore mental health treatment back to 1980s levels, it would take trillions of dollars.
We don't have it.

Not a shock. I'm aware there are so few. That's why I asked if you thought more would be better. We could have the money, but I don't necessarily think more institutions is the best idea. I think a lot f jas to do with people not being able to take their medicen or choosing not to.
 
I don't think they spent as much time and energy on this as we're giving them credit for.

For all the talk about how they "infiltrated" facebook and social media, i think it was less than a couple hundred bucks in FB advertising. What else did they do? I think they're wet behind the social media campaign just like our guys were. They just happen to exploit (a little) an avenue we missed.

I think they fuck with us where they can but since hillz lost for some weird reason (heavy sarcasm intended) it's ZOMG russia.
Depends where you draw the line of influence I guess. The ads and Facebook trolls is probably self-funding past a certain point if you do it right. However, sending high level figures from Russia to meet with the Trump kids and others is going to cost something, even if it is those people not being able to work on anything else during that time.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
It is known that Russia used bots.
I don't doubt that.

K-Sf5.jpg
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: nukes
Not a shock. I'm aware there are so few. That's why I asked if you thought more would be better. We could have the money, but I don't necessarily think more institutions is the best idea. I think a lot f jas to do with people not being able to take their medicen or choosing not to.
So do we continue to spend money on housing people who refuse to help themselves? Or do re-allocate that money to help those that need it and want it?
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: nukes
Depends where you draw the line of influence I guess. The ads and Facebook trolls is probably self-funding past a certain point if you do it right. However, sending high level figures from Russia to meet with the Trump kids and others is going to cost something, even if it is those people not being able to work on anything else during that time.

The russian adoption atty? :iono: Shit like this this was going on on both sides.

and airfare, personal income, & meetings is kittens play cash wise.
 
And you begin to dive into a socialist government.

The beauty of the USA is that we're all (supposedly) given the same opportunity to live the life we want to live. Obviously those born into money have the advantage, and there's still some racial and gender disadvantages, but there's really no Hierarchical advantages. No one will be president simply because they we born the son of a president unless the people feel that they are best suited for the job.

I have to admit though that the country was born in a time when people actually cared about paying attention. Over the last 100 years, people have gone from voting based on political topics and who is most qualified to I'm a Democrat. Sure there was partisan politics at play in the early years, but people voted along party lines because they issues along those party lines mattered to them. Now people don't even care and they vote party line because they're too lazy to do the research.

I'm game for more democratic socialism. That's exactly what I want. I want people to vote on issues. I don't want people to vote for politicians, who lie every chance they get, to vote for us. Only the richest people will ever have control the way it is now. You think they care about the average person or more importantly people at the bottom? They don't.
 
stick with me here . . .

there's your community.

Growing up, we all knew our neighbors and everything about them. The whole fam. the Mom, Dad, all their kids. As a community we all pulled together on our block, at our schools, in our towns.

It seems like we're getting too segmented. That instead of community, we've farmed out that job to the gov't so we have more time to work for a living, or play in our small circle.

The sense of "Community" has been "bought" from us with the idea that someone else can do it better.

:/
That's because we pay for people (the government) to make the decisions without geting any approval for the decisions they make. It would be much more efficient to centralized aid if the people making the decisions actually cared.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
That's because we pay for people (the government) to make the decisions without geting any approval for the decisions they make.
Kind of. We elect them - based on how they tell us they'll make decisions. We just don't all meet each night for several hours to decide what every decision should be.
It would be much more efficient to centralized aid if the people making the decisions actually cared.

Mostly where I was going was - if we'd leave more money and responsibility with individual citizens we'd end up actually taking care of each other out of our own need, instead of seeing that we need it then rolling our eyes when we see the people charged with doing it explain really really well why
-it can't be done just yet
-it's taking longer than needed
-what we didn't anticipate was . . .
-they need more meetings

all while collecting their comfy checks.
 
I'm game for more democratic socialism. That's exactly what I want. I want people to vote on issues. I don't want people to vote for politicians, who lie every chance they get, to vote for us. Only the richest people will ever have control the way it is now. You think they care about the average person or more importantly people at the bottom? They don't.
See, I'm not a fan of democratic socialism. As long as you have lobbyists and people trying to take money away fro everyone else, there will be corruption. If we could vote on the budget and where our tax dollars go instead of a voting for a person in a political party to do the bidding for us, I think we'd be much better off.

But a lot of the problems we have come down to one simple issue. Over-consumption. The vast majority of people spend their earnings in ways that leaves virtually nothing left to give back. Without going into a tirade about my life, that's one reason my wife and I are going the minimalist route. We'll be in a much better place to give back without feeling strained and stressed about our own lives. We won't have to spend our lives working 40-50 hrs a week to pay our bills. Our plan is that in 10 years, 50% of our income will be free money. Our debts and student loans will be paid off, our house will be paid off and we'll have no car loans. We'd literally be able to work part time and volunteer part time and still be able to donate money and live a "comfortable yet simple" life.

If people learned to focus on living and appreciating what they have, they'd end up spending far less money on trivial things. they'd end up not needing to live paycheck to paycheck making $100k / year. They'd be able to give back and donate, and their taxes would be able to go down. But that's a tough lesson to learn in a country where people are captivated with the latest shiny object.
 
So do we continue to spend money on housing people who refuse to help themselves? Or do re-allocate that money to help those that need it and want it?

It's not about what I think would fix the problem. I'm saying give the power to decide what to do to everyone instead of a handful of elected officials.

But to answer your question, In a better world everyone would have at least basic necessities regardless of their willingness to help themselves.
 
Kind of. We elect them - based on how they tell us they'll make decisions. We just don't all meet each night for several hours to decide what every decision should be.

Mostly where I was going was - if we'd leave more money and responsibility with individual citizens we'd end up actually taking care of each other out of our own need, instead of seeing that we need it then rolling our eyes when we see the people charged with doing it explain really really well why
-it can't be done just yet
-it's taking longer than needed
-what we didn't anticipate was . . .
-they need more meetings

all while collecting their comfy checks.
A now $28B overbudget train in California comes to mind...
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Ledboots and Amstel
Kind of. We elect them - based on how they tell us they'll make decisions. We just don't all meet each night for several hours to decide what every decision should be.

Mostly where I was going was - if we'd leave more money and responsibility with individual citizens we'd end up actually taking care of each other out of our own need, instead of seeing that we need it then rolling our eyes when we see the people charged with doing it explain really really well why
-it can't be done just yet
-it's taking longer than needed
-what we didn't anticipate was . . .
-they need more meetings

all while collecting their comfy checks.

Not kind of. You pretty much said the same thing I did with a different wording.

I disagree that it would be better with less tax. Most of the money that could fix it without making life harder for almost everyone is in the pockets of very few people. I don't trust them to care more about people then filling their pockets. I guess you do.
 
Last edited:
  • Gravy
Reactions: Amstel
See, I'm not a fan of democratic socialism. As long as you have lobbyists and people trying to take money away fro everyone else, there will be corruption. If we could vote on the budget and where our tax dollars go instead of a voting for a person in a political party to do the bidding for us, I think we'd be much better off.

But a lot of the problems we have come down to one simple issue. Over-consumption. The vast majority of people spend their earnings in ways that leaves virtually nothing left to give back. Without going into a tirade about my life, that's one reason my wife and I are going the minimalist route. We'll be in a much better place to give back without feeling strained and stressed about our own lives. We won't have to spend our lives working 40-50 hrs a week to pay our bills. Our plan is that in 10 years, 50% of our income will be free money. Our debts and student loans will be paid off, our house will be paid off and we'll have no car loans. We'd literally be able to work part time and volunteer part time and still be able to donate money and live a "comfortable yet simple" life.

If people learned to focus on living and appreciating what they have, they'd end up spending far less money on trivial things. they'd end up not needing to live paycheck to paycheck making $100k / year. They'd be able to give back and donate, and their taxes would be able to go down. But that's a tough lesson to learn in a country where people are captivated with the latest shiny object.
I'm totally down with what you're saying. I just don't think enough people will ever be willing to do it.

The idea though is to make it were people can't make more than a certain amount of money. That way people will do jobs they care about and not what can make them the most money at the expense of others.
 
Most of the money that could fix it without making life harder for almost everyone is in the pockets of very few people. I don't trust them to care more about people then fliling their pockets.

the 'rich' can't have a cadillac unless they give someone else their money in exchange for it. They can't have a nicer home unless they give someone else money in an exchange to build and maintain it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.