"We live in a post-factual world."

[DonFerrari]

BMaker11 said:

DonFerrari said:

1. The problem with "Trump lies" is that he was pretty much a Democrat his whole life and sang nothing but their praises. But as soon as a black guy won, he latched on to the birther movement and then morphed into someone who hates Democrats. He didn't just lie, he did complete 180s. From "the economy does better under Democrats" and "Bill Clinton was a great president" and "at minimum, Hillary will be known as a great senator" to "Democrats ruin the economy" and "NAFTA was terrible and Bill Clinton is a rapist" and "Hillary hasn't done anything for 30 years". That's a lot different than "I was under sniper fire in Bosnia". 

That is a big lie, and democrats are now to be liers, so I ain't even surprised, and yes it's baffling that republicans don't seem to be bothered with he lying about his past and democrats are complaining like what he is saying now is truth, it's very confunsing, but people will only take problem with what affects their side.

2. I'll concede on that gender fluidity point. As I said, gender dysphoria is a thing, but people who think gender isn't a binary construct are nuts. 

Agreed.

3. I guess I'm an anarchocapitalist then. Why are all those things ok to use tax dollar for, but extending it to a college education isn't? It literally follows the same principle. Using tax dollars for a public good. You mention how education and infrastructure would be better handled by a private organization. Why not privatize the police? Our departments would be "better" then, right? And you don't need to be old to have socialism be a trigger word. The disdain for socialism was pushed by McCarthy and it's pervasive to this day. You've got 20 year old conservatives who hate it because their grandparents told their parents, who told them, about how terrible socialism is. 

I didn't even said they are ok or not, just said what is the normal thinking. The best way is usually to have the government take the less from the economy and people and let them freely choose. Anarchocapitalism believes in private police, but most classic liberal authors would defend that the government does have the monopoly of violence and that to live in a societ and have safety you do have to relinquish some freedom. And part of the private defense (not police) is no gun restriction, and that is a right or classic liberal fight. Nope, no parent of mine told me socialism is terrible, reality does that.

4. Today I learned Cuba, China, Venezuela, Laos, Cambodia, and half of Africa were industrialized, western civilizations. FYI, Sweden follows the Nordic Model, which is a mix of capitalism and socialism, which is what most people who want "socialism" in the US advocate for. And has universal healthcare. And a I think Finland, another Nordic Model country, actually offers free college not just to its citizens, but to international students as well (but you still have to cover your own living expenses). Also, another FYI, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Ireland, the UK, all rank higher than the US in economic freedom, with Lithuania and Denmark barely behind. All countries with advanced, industrialized economies; and all have the "socialism" that you say is bad. In fact, I think you specifically tried to undermine my point by mentioning Cuba, China, Venezuela, and Laos, which are all communist. You picked a bunch of shitty nations that didn't fit the description in any sort of way, then latched onto the "socialist communist" style of thinking, which I specifically called out, and in conflating the two economic systems, you now say "see, these countries are crap. Socialism = bad". 

Yes they have industrial parks and are western in most part. I know Sweden. And the problem with left wing is that they try very hard to say Sweden and other rich places are socialists and pretend those I cited are inexistent and never talk about it. Sweden isn't even a mix. They have more of a social welfare state with free market and high social intervention (and if you look at their culture and current problems they are being fucked with all that is happening, mainly the immigration and PC speech).

Yes, Finland even want to grant a universal salary independant of your care for finding a job or not. While Switzerland just denied that pledge recently. I now quite well that all those countries rank higher on the rank (and funny enough Singapore is quite strict on social intervertion by the government).

Nope, most socialist and even communist would deny any of them are comunists, because they have indeed government, and comunism needs to happen without any government. Socialism is the government intervening on the economical and social parts of the society and having the means of production. So the places I cited are socialists (or if you want to call them communists no problem, because they are the closest you'll get on the communism) but the others you try to say are socialist, aren't. If you want to read in portuguese there are some essays showing quite clear why this misconcept exist (and it's actualy to try and lure people to think socialism is good).

Cuba and Venezuela were in a quite better position before their revolution and socialistic stand. Don't trust your teacher too much on what he classifies socialist or not. USA is so shitted on this part of education that over there you have the balls to call "liberals" the party that wants to intervene the most on society and take out your liberties, that doesn't even make sense. So much that in Brazil and other places we have to say classical liberals when talking about right liberals because the term was highjacked by the left.

Lastly, the reason that healthcare is so expensive isn't because of government interference. It's because it's a profit driven industry (when it shouldn't be). Couple that with the fact that everyone is susceptible to getting sick (i.e. health is not a luxury item like a car; it's something that affects everyone), yet not everyone can afford health insurance; when a poor person has that $200,000 surgery that they can't pay for or gets meds daily meds prescribed to them that they can't afford, the hospitals are still going to get their money, one way or another. So, that drives up the premium costs for those who do have insurance, which then, in turn, makes it even more unaffordable to less fortunate people. The government is only starting to intervene, now, because healthcare costs have run amuck. These are facts. 

Sorry, but any field where you put money needs to be profitable, profit is the only sane way to make progress. The lack of profit drove URSS down. So the day you remove profit from medicine you'll see the evolution drop. And sorry to burst your bubble, but in the grand scheme of things the "free" only means it will be more expensive, may not show to you on the medical bills, but will show one way or another. Because the great problem of "free" is that it inflates demand to insane levels  because tadã "you don't have to pay for it". More hospitals, more health care companies, less protection from FDA is what would drive the prices down, not the government demanding that you make a plan (and limiting the offers) that indeed drives up the price of the plan because it artifically inflates the demand and warrant the customer to the company, making it really easy to overcharge.

I don't think at any point I've "denied economics". You, on the other hand, apparently, refuse to "accept economics" for models that work and benefit everyone in the society that such models are used. 

On the democrats way of lying, go look who founded the KKK, who was pro-slavery and a lot of other really bad things. The democrats want power, bigger state and more control over your life

I never knew you represent the whole left or me specifically pointing you as not knowing economics, although you haven't show any knowledge of economic, just the usual pledge to "humanitarism" that denies what is feasible and insist on "please think about the poor".

 

Slimebeast said:

vivster said:

If Merkel is Hitler then who are the people that are politically right of her? Are you calling the AFD Super Hitler?

AFD are just decent center-politicans and nothing like the blood thirsty and racist Hitler.

Merkel is much like the führer because she is arrogant and looks down on her own people, she doesn't work for the best interest of Germans, and she facilitates a foreign invasion of the motherland, she ignores all the transgressions made against Germans, and she has a totalitarian attitude towards free speech and towards other free nations of Europe.

Well the left wing in Brazil still having the monopoly of speech in most parts tries to put Hitler to the "extreme right" when if you look most of his points aligns with the left and socialism... for christ sakes the part even is named "social nationalism" because that is what Nazi means. And Fascism comes from the fish's school "fascis" in latim, and that is colletivism with all in the state nothing out of the state, and considering the right liberals are basically all about individualim and free market without governement intervention is quite obtuse to say that to go for the extreme of individualism and freedom means coletivism intervention.

It's even funnier that they are proud to accept criminals like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Ming, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Hugo Chavez and others with pride but deny their cousings Musolini and Hitler that drank from the same water but turned a little on other direction basically because of conflicts of who would dominate the world.