Democratic Presidential Debate

[mfckrz]

It’s an attempt to save capitalism and keep the rabble from breaking down billionaires’ gates. People are increasingly being squeezed: underpaid and generally involuntarily underemployed. These conditions can’t continue forever. Businesses refuse to pay higher wages, and landlords refuse to accept lower rent, so people are thinking of alternatives.

UBI means effectively subsidizing businesses for the employment they're unwilling to create.

[perpetuus]

I'm open to considering UBI but what irritates me is how a lot of people act like this is some revolutionary new idea when Sanders or Yang or anyone else touts it, despite it or similar versions having been around for decades. Irony is that it was an economic libertarian who was one of the earliest cheerleaders for the idea, yet these days most libertarians scoff at such suggestions and it's the left democrats who have instead become the loudest in favor.

I'm also concerned that some proponents want to add UBI on top of existing welfare programs, rather than offering it as a gradual replacement to those programs. They are either willfully ignoring the numbers or stupid. If this happens, there will be a lot of tax increases, and not just for the wealthy. That's fine, I just wish the candidates in favor of UBI would admit they're going to have to raise taxes across the board to fund UBI. Even UBI without other welfare programs will result in mass tax hikes.

[mfckrz]

I'm also concerned that some proponents want to add UBI on top of existing welfare programs, rather than offering it as a gradual replacement to those programs.

Which is why UBI won't happen. Those programs aren't going anywhere, and even with highly aggressive taxation there'd be nowhere near enough revenue to monetarily sustain a UBI on top of them.

[Raver]

UBI seems good in theory, but in practice I remain skeptical of it. The main reason Yang proposes UBI is because he fears automation will eventually take over a chunk of jobs and many will end up on the streets. If we don't use UBI to deal with that then an alternative solution is required to deal with automation, but we can't do nothing.

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

[Ave]

UBI seems good in theory, but in practice I remain skeptical of it. The main reason Yang proposes UBI is because he fears automation will eventually take over a chunk of jobs and many will end up on the streets. If we don't use UBI to deal with that then an alternative solution is required to deal with automation, but we can't do nothing.

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

I don't think automation will hit jobs as hard as people think it will.

I think human creativity will just find ways to create other sectors of the economy which robots have a harder time participating in, for example now you have people being paid to play games professionally (which promotes the sale of those games to a greater public since the gamers who get paid to play often have charismatic personalities which people become attached to). Could you imagine that happening 50 years ago? The fact is, if robots replace the usually boring, often dangerous jobs people have, it will give us free time to do other things. And those things can become lucrative, and create economic opportunity. I can't imagine what those things are gonna be, not anymore than people 50 years ago could have imagined the rise of professional gamers. I do think humans do stuff, they don't just sit around idly (not most people anyways) so if you're doing something and it interests others you can always find a way to create economic activity.

[Kill4Me]

Turns out that Mush For Brains Harris is not even African-American but comes from an affluent Jamaican-Indian heritage (what a phony!):

Any notion that California Senator Kamala Harris does not know much about, or underplays her Jamaican heritage was dispelled on a recent visit to South Florida, home to over 100,000 Jamaicans. In Miami for a fund-raiser in support of Senator Bill Nelson, she and sister Maya rubbed shoulders and posed for photos with a number of prominent Jamaican Americans, including Mayor of the City of Miramar Wayne Messam and City of Miramar Commissioner Winston Barnes among others.

In a Facebook post after the event, Barnes effused:

‘…..very special lady and as Jamaican as they come…when I asked her where her dad was from, she says St Anns Bay, so I ask, what you know about St Anns Bay..the response?’ “How you mean man? I know there growing up.”

Reflections of a Jamaican Father

By

Donald J. Harris

As a child growing up in Jamaica, I often heard it said, by my parents and family friends: “memba whe yu cum fram”. To this day, I continue to retain the deep social awareness and strong sense of identity which that grassroots Jamaican philosophy fed in me. As a father, I naturally sought to develop the same sensibility in my two daughters. Born and bred in America, Kamala was the first in line to have it planted. Maya came two years later and had the advantage of an older sibling as mentor. It is for them to say truthfully now, not me, what if anything of value they carried from that early experience into adulthood. My one big regret is that they did not come to know very well the two most influential women in my life: “Miss Chrishy” and “Miss Iris” (as everybody called them). This is, in many ways, a story about these women and the heritage they gave us.

https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/...ican-heritage/

This seeming lack of knowledge about the connection between her Indian and Jamaican heritage provides additional ammunition for some Jamaicans who are of the view that Ms. Harris tends to downplay her Jamaican heritage when it suits her, crediting her Tamil Indian mother with the most significant influence on her life and outlook and rarely talks about her father’s influence. Her father Donald, hardly ever gets credit except when mentioned alongside her mother, but rarely as an individual.

https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/...tity-politics/

[mfckrz]

Turns out that Mush For Brains Harris is not even African-American

Neither was Obama, but people went full retard for him anyway.

[perpetuus]

I don't think automation will hit jobs as hard as people think it will.

I think human creativity will just find ways to create other sectors of the economy which robots have a harder time participating in, for example now you have people being paid to play games professionally (which promotes the sale of those games to a greater public since the gamers who get paid to play often have charismatic personalities which people become attached to). Could you imagine that happening 50 years ago? The fact is, if robots replace the usually boring, often dangerous jobs people have, it will give us free time to do other things. And those things can become lucrative, and create economic opportunity. I can't imagine what those things are gonna be, not anymore than people 50 years ago could have imagined the rise of professional gamers. I do think humans do stuff, they don't just sit around idly (not most people anyways) so if you're doing something and it interests others you can always find a way to create economic activity.

Yeah people get all kinds of bent out of shape at the thought of truck driving and mining becoming obsolete. I realize it will suck in the short term, but these are dangerous jobs and besides, who wouldn’t rather jockey a PC and shoot the shit whilst filming “let’s play” videos than jockey a truck pulling flammable liquid up a steep mountain road with no guard rails?

Automation is no different than inventions like the cotton gin and horse pulled plows. It’s generally the shittiest jobs that are going obsolete. It’s led to a better quality of life overall. Innovations reducing human physical workload allowed ancient institutions like slavery to be phased out in Europe and North America

[mfckrz]

I don't think automation will hit jobs as hard as people think it will.

Between Moravec's Paradox and the Full Employment Theorem, you're not wrong.



But we also live in a time of decreasing innovation due to declining intelligence, technocratic overregulation, and debt-strapped opportunity costs, so…

[Raver]

Then why don't you oppose intermixing between different native populations inside the same country?

See comment above; why don't you oppose homogenization between different native populations inside the same country?

I am not sure what you are referring to specifically tbh. Different native populations in European, Asian and African nations is minimal to unheard of as they're mostly homogeneous. Most native people in Italy are Italians, most native people in Japan are Japanese and most native people in Egypt are Egyptian, minus a few exceptions, etc...

A variety of different native populations are more prominent among nations that were founded by immigration like former European colonies like the US and Canada. These nations have mostly had a variety of Europeans from different nations immigrating to them at the 19th and 20th century making the countries more diverse.

[xerx]

I am not sure what you are referring to specifically tbh. Different native populations in European, Asian and African nations is minimal to unheard of as they're mostly homogeneous. Most native people in Italy are Italians, most native people in Japan are Japanese and most native people in Egypt are Egyptian, minus a few exceptions, etc...

A variety of different native populations are more prominent among nations that were founded by immigration like former European colonies like the US and Canada. These nations have mostly had a variety of Europeans from different nations immigrating to them at the 19th and 20th century making the countries more diverse.

As I was referring to earlier, the nation-state is only 200-300 years old. It's a patchwork of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (through diplomacy or conquest) and forced to adopt a culture fabricated by powerful bureaucracies. These tribes or subpopulations have different genetics because they come from separate towns or regions. The cultural unity between Munich and Hanover is a very recent invention and would seem absurd to someone from the Middle Ages. Given regional dynamics, it's even likely that a Sicilian has more in common genetically with a Libyan refugee than with someone from Turin.

If culture is downstream from genes, and if maintaining culture is so important, are you in favour of preserving these subpopulations' genetic characteristics in order to prevent their ethnocide?

[Raver]

As I was referring to earlier, the nation-state is only 200-300 years old. It's a patchwork of different tribes that were arbitrarily stitched together (through diplomacy or conquest) and forced to adopt a culture fabricated by powerful bureaucracies. These tribes or subpopulations have different genetics because they come from separate towns or regions. The cultural unity between Munich and Hanover is a very recent invention and would seem absurd to someone from the Middle Ages. Given regional dynamics, it's even likely that a Sicilian has more in common genetically with a Libyan refugee than with someone from Turin.

If culture is downstream from genes, and if maintaining culture is so important, are you in favour of preserving these subpopulations' genetic characteristics in order to prevent their ethnocide?

This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.

[Singu]

This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.

What makes of people who are mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity? Do they somehow get along with everyone of the "pure" race? Or do they not get along with any of them?

And if the "pure" race and ethnicities have the right to preserve their own race, then shouldn't mixed-race also have the right to preserve theirs? Does that mean that people SHOULD mix races?

So this whole thing seems to implicitly or explicitly ranks the "pure" race as higher and "mixed" race as lower and inferior and somehow not worth preserving. It's simply rank racism, no matter how you put it.

[Raver]

What makes of people who are mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity? Do they somehow get along with everyone of the "pure" race? Or do they not get along with any of them?

And if the "pure" race and ethnicities have the right to preserve their own race, then shouldn't mixed-race also have the right to preserve theirs? Does that mean that people SHOULD mix races?

So this whole thing seems to implicitly or explicitly ranks the "pure" race as higher and "mixed" race as lower and inferior and somehow not worth preserving. It's simply rank racism, no matter how you put it.

It seems like you haven't been reading my posts fully or are misunderstanding them and putting words in my mouth. Anyways, I think people can do whatever they want for relationships whether that is stick to their own race/ethnicity or be with a partner of a different race/ethnicity.

The same goes for countries as well, if the public votes to be nationalist and secure their borders and ethnicity then that is the route they should go and there is nothing wrong with that. The same goes for a country that votes to be globalist and become multicultural with eventual mixed relationships then that is fine too.

Btw, I am mixed race - half Italian/half Mexican so it should be obvious by now that I am not doing this to promote my lack of pure race lol. Rather, I think there should be countries that are nationalist and preserve their ethnicity and countries that are globalist and embrace multiculturalism.

Right now, every 1st world nation minus Japan and South Korea are enforcing the multicultural diversity dogma upon their nation. You would think that a mixed race person like myself would be fine with that, but no. I find it appalling that it is being forced upon these nations without any debate and people just have to accept it mindlessly or fear derision

Instead, people should have an open debate whether their country should go that path or not. I see nothing wrong with countries and people sticking with their own ethnicity for nationality and relationships. Just like there is nothing wrong with people from different countries and/or ethnicities/race mixing.

[xerx]

This is a false equivalence. Tribes with very minor differences within nations not the same thing as minor differences between neighboring nations, moderate differences between nations and neighboring nations from different continents and and major differences between distant nations at different continents.

I understand that nations and continents are not perfect in capturing ethnicity. Asia is extremely diverse as a continent: West Asians, South Asians and East Asians have little in common. West Asians and South Asians have more in common genetically with Europeans than East Asians who have more in common with Native Americans. Southern Italians have more in common with Greeks than with Northern Italians that have more in common with Northern Europeans and so on.

The idea of Italy being united centuries ago would of been seen as ludicrous back then. My point is not that nations are these perfect expressions of ethnicity and genetics because they are clearly not. However, nationalism is all we have now in the gap stop between globalism. For that reason we should defend it. And I am not even saying we should strive for ethno nationalist states everywhere. I advocate for nationalism in Europe, Africa and Asia.

However, outside of those continents I don't think it makes any sense like in the Americas and Oceania. Multiculturalism and globalism does not need to be spread worldwide like a grand experiment, but it can be implemented in some areas of the world where it makes sense and nationalism can be retained where it makes sense.

The boat has sailed hundreds of years ago on preserving ethnicities within tribes with nationalism, but nationalism has not sailed yet so preserving it where it makes sense and not where it makes sense is the best option IMO. Race and ethnicities can be both social constructs and biological constructs simultaneously. There can be an arbitrary aspect that has no value, but also a genetic aspect that has value. They are not mutually exclusive.

Anyways to answer your question, I am in favor of preserving nationalism in certain regions (Europe, Asia, Africa) because it gives the best chance for all ethnicities to preserve their genetic characteristics regardless of the extent of it. In the Americas and Oceania, nationalism makes far less sense and it doesn't need to be preserved.

However, I am coming to terms with the fact that nationalism in Europe is a pipe dream thanks to the EU making borders worthless. So for that reason I advocate for nationalism wherever possible like some nations have already begun to do and have had success so far: Italy, Poland, Hungary, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, etc... Since globalism and open borders has become the new standard for 1st world nations to strive for the most part in the 21st century.

So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?

[Raver]

So who gets to decide what % genetic difference is considered minor -- is it you?? And why shouldn't some tiny hamlet in France preserve its genetic independence from the rest of French society?

Nobody can really make such arbitrary judgements at an individual level. All that can be done in this day and age is allow countries the choice to become nationalist or globalist/multicultural depending on their goals and outlook. So basically the choices are open borders/mass immigration, controlled immigration or closed borders.

Then whatever happens within those nations will be off the hands of the government. However, all multiculturalism will do is result in either balkanization or race mixture or both. Nationalism offers an alternative option for nations that choose to go a route that is opposed to open borders/mass immigration. Opting for either controlled immigration or closed borders.

[Raver]

I'd say that the fear of Europe becoming Muslim is the fever dream of xenophobic individuals. To put that into context, some 70% of Europe identifies as Christian and even they haven't been able to reverse the separation of church and state. If he means that the Muslim population will overtake Europe's White population through breeding, this is also quite ridiculous and flies in the face of the mathematics of demographic change.

But his other argument is something any reasonable person might advocate: that immigrants and refugees should be given access to education in order to return and rebuild their homelands. This is, in fact, the *only* permanent solution to illegal immigration from the third world. It's the right-wing that normally doesn't want to help others or pay for shit; migrant crises are the predictable result of that attitude.

So we're on agreement on his argument of helping third world refugees to rebuild their homelands via education. As for his other argument, I am assuming that as long as we allow mass immigration from Muslims and Africans to occur into Europe at the current rate they are entering with their high birth rates that are above replacement level with current European native birth rates that are below replacement level then I think he makes a strong argument. Sure, current economic immigrants will eventually have lower birth rates that are roughly at the level of birth rates of European natives once they get established into their European country of choice after multiple generations have passed.

However, for that to occur, we'd eventually have to stop mass immigration because the first generation of economic immigrants into Europe will have high birth rates and eventually lower through several generations. So I don't think he's wrong in saying that Muslims and Africans will take over Europe as the majority making European natives a minority because he's probably assuming that mass immigration won't ever stop. Of course, we don't know what is going to happen in the future because if the mass immigration did stop eventually and became controlled immigration or even closed borders then I'd agree with you that their birth rates will eventually lower to the level of native Europeans.

[xerx]

Source: https://www.pewforum.org/2017/11/29/...im-population/

I didn't catch these.

Even the high scenario of 14% isn't something catastrophic. 10-15% is the amount of Christians in Egypt.

[Raver]

The only way to handle it is to stop messing with global south politics, stop exploiting people, and acting as if this is happening in a vacuum. The same governments that profit off conflicts such as the one in Syria in a myriad of ways are the ones turning against the refugees they themselves have created. Europe has created the West African countries that send immigrants today. There is no moral ground for not taking in people fleeing from these countries, not on a humanitarian level, and not on a historical level. Western countries need to step up to the plate, quit whining, and take a serious look at how complicit they are.

Europe profited from colonialism that in the long run created migration movements. Former settler colonies like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and NZ stole land, murdered indigenous people, and brought people in. So no citizen in Europe and the former settler colonies gets to cry about immigrants and ethnic diversity. It's laughable and pathetic.

I agree with most of what you're saying. The first part of your argument is correct, but I do think a distinction should be made between Syrian refugees and economic migrants from West Africa even if as you say those economic migrants were caused by European colonization in the past. Your other argument is pretty much why I believe multiculturalism is fine in the former European colonies of US, Canada, Australia and NZ because Europeans conquered the natives in those nations. However, I guess my logic is that two wrongs don't make a right. I know that keeping former European colonies European is ridiculous since they were all stolen from natives, but that doesn't mean we can allow Europe to stop being ethnically European even if it's only being done via mass immigration.

[Kill4Me]

“Poop for Brains” Harris closed up shop and joins the quitter ranks of her fellow IEE 9w1 Beta Boy O’Rourke, different subtype, different stack. Poor Beta Boy had to drop out because he ran out of sympathy cards to play. At least Beta bitch doesn’t go down in history as the dumbest candidate in primary race history for trying to pin racism on Obama’s Vice President like Poop for Brains did…Sorta like how every time a bell rings an angel gets its wings, every time an American flushes a toilet the backwater flows into Kamala Harris’ head in the form of an idea. Hence the name, Kamala… “Poop for Brains”…Harris.

[Kill4Me]

Can I fckin' call it or what...I said this guy Booker is the biggest troll in debate history.

Bullseye:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-cory-b...nd-beauty.html

[Kill4Me]

Poll after poll shows Biden is the only one electable against Trump like I been saying even before these polls were made. the Biden would have already coasted to the nomination but for all these retards staying in the election, and the hunter biden thing did not help. He also had a few stupid faux pas's going into New Hampshire. Stupid minor shit. Shitbum Bernie shit of all shits is obviously unelectable in general election unless there is a great depression of sorts. The black vote spoke in South Carolina and said GTFO you Fidel Castro loving Commie shitbum. Good thing human bobblehead Steyer dropped out should have never been there in the first place, bobbling his head around on the debate stage like a pencil-necked nerd. fckin guy thinks he's running for president of the world...its just a nomination for chrissake who gives a fuck. buttigieg looks like the guy from mad magazine (by the way I came up with the mad magazine compairson before before Trump did)...buttigieg has displayed no anger whatsoever and his apologizing and self-hate for being gay has isolated him from the LGBT. botox faced Warren and her college debate star bullshit is nothing more than a dnc wind-up doll. Bloomberg is a fckin' weakling. He's by far the worst debater I ever saw, choke artist spends 7 million dollars a day and now has air time tonight to address the nation about Coronavirus...what a joke. who gives a fuck how good you can sound in an ad or tv spot how about when motherfuckers are throwing boulders at your head, does he fight or freeze up like a little bitch. he stood there silent likes a little bitch. Funny watching warren tear him a new butthole, some Jerry Springer shit!

[Alonzo]

Poll after poll shows Biden is the only one electable against Trump like I been saying even before these polls were made. the Biden would have already coasted to the nomination but for all these retards staying in the election, and the hunter biden thing did not help. He also had a few stupid faux pas's going into New Hampshire. Stupid minor shit. Shitbum Bernie shit of all shits is obviously unelectable in general election unless there is a great depression of sorts. The black vote spoke in South Carolina and said GTFO you Fidel Castro loving Commie shitbum.

Delusion. Biden is the only candidate sundowning worse than Trump; he's one minute away from telling every other candidate to get off of his lawn. His "few stupid faux pas" are not "minor shit," because they illustrate a troubling pattern of cognitive decline--that's fairly obvious to any idiot. Furthermore, his only notable accomplishment, one that he Carnival barks at every given chance, is that Obama's neo-liberal ass chose him--THAT, in large part, is how he eked out a victory in SC. Black voters in SC are among the oldest and most moderate/conservative in the electorate; it's not surprising that they'd overwhelmingly side with Biden, so calm the fuck down.

Furthermore, the polls show that Trump loses to ALL of the Democratic nominees in the general election. He loses badly to both Biden AND Sanders. And as far as the Dem primary is concerned, there is overwhelming support for Sanders, even among black voters and POC overall. Not to mention, in the month of February alone, Sanders raised $46 million dollars because he has a swell of grassroots appeal while the Biden campaign is financially and structurally on life support. Nobody in their right mind should back Biden over Sanders. If you're going to weigh in, you should at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...eral_election/

[Kill4Me]

motherfuckers should be blowing up constructive posts on my shit because I'm the only one that predicted Biden's nomination and this entire election has played out under the conditions I laid out. Looks like I come out right on this one like I did calling Trump victory when everybody was like oh no oh no never will happen....three steps the fck behind me as usual. I convey actual knowledge, I can read a motherfucker like nobody before or since even over a television monitor. Rest is playing checkers, I play chess , not just when it comes to typology and all the member types (see my list) but also political elections, political forecasting and many other fckin things. Reason I'm so good at it pertains to my superior knowledge at assigning members their accurate and correct typological label. I did not put togethers the only structurally/conceptually/logically valid breakdown for every type wing and stack and crack the VI templates for all socionics types and subtypes for nothing! What did I tell about Biden, he knows how to get things done, to get results, now he spent fuckin shit money on this campaign and he's currently holding a strong lead and proclaiming himself as the candidate who knows how to get results. I knew his fckin gameplan before he did. best part is hehehe trump can keep exploiting the rift between bernie supporters and the DNC centrist candidate, like I said from day one and I"ll get the post later to show it, exploit the rift divide and conquer bring over them Bernie supporters and professional pussy/bitch squad (aka Antifa) who think the DNC conspired against their candidate BOOM Trump got another four years!!! bwahahaha

[Kill4Me]

Hell I tell this forum...THE HELL I TELL YOU> BIDEN WOUDL COAST TO THE NOMINATION. What's happening right now? Biden is coasting to the nomination. Killed it. Michigan. Killed it. Missouri. Killed it. Carolina. Killed it. Mississippi. Nostradamus ain't got shit on me. I'm KING KONG of typology.

I told you Trump would win. He won. Everybody said oh no way can't happen. I told you Biden would win. I told you Bidenz would coast to the nominations. Hunter Biden shit broke it, he lost in Ohio lost in New Hampshirez everybody said oh no way can't happen biden can never coast to the nomination see K4M you ain't right about all of your enneagram and socionic types. GUESS what, time to pay the piper hehehe, collection time. That's all my knowledge from running putting togehter developing the ONLY VALID BREAKDOWN for every type, wing and stack. 2500+ exemplars and cracked the VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. You think somebody who did all that would not be able to tell you which of these bum politicians would coast to the nominationz.

the ONLY VALID BREAKDOWN for every type wing and stack

https://stackemup.livejournal.com/

VI TEMPLATES for every socionics type and subtype

https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/

I PUT THAT shit together. Just like I did for the member lists. I knew Trump would win. I knew Biden would win.

[Alonzo]

Hell I tell this forum...THE HELL I TELL YOU> BIDEN WOUDL COAST TO THE NOMINATION. What's happening right now? Biden is coasting to the nomination. Killed it. Michigan. Killed it. Missouri. Killed it. Carolina. Killed it. Mississippi. Nostradamus ain't got shit on me. I'm KING KONG of typology.

I told you Trump would win. He won. Everybody said oh no way can't happen. I told you Biden would win. I told you Bidenz would coast to the nominations. Hunter Biden shit broke it, he lost in Ohio lost in New Hampshirez everybody said oh no way can't happen biden can never coast to the nomination see K4M you ain't right about all of your enneagram and socionic types. GUESS what, time to pay the piper hehehe, collection time. That's all my knowledge from running putting togehter developing the ONLY VALID BREAKDOWN for every type, wing and stack. 2500+ exemplars and cracked the VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. You think somebody who did all that would not be able to tell you which of these bum politicians would coast to the nominationz.

the ONLY VALID BREAKDOWN for every type wing and stack

https://stackemup.livejournal.com/

VI TEMPLATES for every socionics type and subtype

https://www.pinterest.com/socionics/

I PUT THAT shit together. Just like I did for the member lists. I knew Trump would win. I knew Biden would win.

Are you the result of a syphilitic pregnancy? Steady diet of paint chips? Raised and then abandoned by feral hogs?

Seriously, you're a parody of parody of a parody. What kind of grifter, low cunning, sociopathic motherfucker tries to conflate a lucky guess with his piss poor typing method?

Biden will go untouched to the nomination if all they can manufacture on him is a blemish or two on his Civil Rights Voting Record.


A Trump-Biden faceoff will be preferable....two guys that actually have gotten things done and know how to get things done...

This whole time you've said Biden would "coast" to the election based on the premise that he had "gotten things done" but that premise was always faulty af. First off, after months of terrible debate performances, Biden plummeted in the polls, so much so that the week before the SC primary, Biden and Sanders were within 5 percentage points of each other--THAT's how little faith the voters in SC had for him, a state Biden had long set up shop in and therefore should've been handily destroying the competition. He was even competing with Steyer, FFS, someone who bought his way into the election at the last minute.

Biden had no significant campaign infrastructure and, financially, was on death's door. On his own, he was flailing and would've tapped out had it not been for 1.) Bloomberg's corporate shilling ass jumping in and taking some of the heat off of his back by being an inert punching bag, 2.) Jim Clyburn's endorsement, where 47% of black voters admitted he was a crucial factor in their decision to back Biden, 3.) the $100,000,000+ worth of almost entirely positive national coverage he received in the 72 hours following his win in SC, and 4.) all of this, in significant part predicated on the Washington establishment's blinding fear of a Bernie Sanders presidency. Biden is nothing but a swiss cheese headed puppet coasting off of deep seated cynicism and fear of the American public; he barely got anything "done" on his own accord, and so you're technically still a no nothing hack.

Biden has lied consistently about his role in civil rights and being arrested in apartheid South Africa; his winning streak doesn't cancel out how disoriented and confused he is. During his acceptance speech on Super Tuesday, he confused his sister for his wife. And in the middle of a catastrophic pandemic, caused by the sheer fucking STUPIDITY, greed and irresponsibility of the moron you try to emulate like a cucked, testes cupping bitch, Biden is still not supporting Medicare4All, something Dem voters overwhelmingly want AND Americans overall desperately need, now more than ever. Your support of him and Trump is why I sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, hope you and that Tang colored cunt come down with a juicy, lung scarring case of COVID-19--you want to champion an incompetent, prison grade, low IQ psychopath responsible for the eventual deaths of thousands/maybe millions, you deserve that at the very least.

[Asenath]

(...) his winning streak doesn't cancel out how disoriented and confused he is. During his acceptance speech on Super Tuesday, he confused his sister for his wife.

Honestly, I'm just having a hard time seeing how this debate between him and Trump wouldn't become a train wreck, seeing these gaffes he will be an incredibly easy target to ridicule.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/s...s-b010c8e6b45c

Then again, many people at this point don't give a shit about his actual capabilities or autonomy, if he isn't Trump, it will be good enough for them. Especially now, with Obama's support:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ampaign-178115

[Kill4Me]

Make sure everybody on this thread kisses the ring as we can chalk this thread up to another k4m victory. I told EVERYBODY. Again, I called it. I TOLD EVERYBODY BIDEN WOULD GO UNTOUCHED TO THE NOMINATION if that's all they could manufacture. I told everybody Kamala "poop for brains" harris' racist accusations would never stick. None of you called it. You were all doing airy posts about speculative theoretical shit rather than throwing your hat into the ring with a prediction. Remember that high confidence correlates with a forthrightness when it comes to predicting outcomes. You don't think I put together the only valid breakdown for every type, wing and stack using 3000+ exemplars for nothing do you.

Just admit that I'M SHARPER AND MORE INTELLIGENT at this stuff. That's okay. My read on these things is lightning years sharper.

Learn from me, even though such sharp instincts as mine can't be taught.

even when Bernie got lucky in New Hampshire I was holdin' strong that Biden takes it down.

I said not only would he win the nomination but that a bidenz-trump faceoff would be preferable and finally the dumbass masses figured that out in the end.

ALL IN:

Remember, I was the only one on the forum posting at the time of the last election who called Trump's victory.

Biden will go untouched to the nomination if all they can manufacture on him is a blemish or two on his Civil Rights Voting Record. Only Kamala "Poop For Brains" Harris would be the party puppet to manufacture a racist accusation against Biden (it's an IEE thing...think the paranoiac from the black panther thread)...if Kamala actually had a brain to think with she would know how fckin futile that is. Biden only served as Obama's VP for Eight Years. Obviously Obama (especially Michelle) vetted the piss out of Biden's Civil Rights Record prior to bringing him on as a VP...Kamala "Poop for Brains" shows that you don't need a high IQ to get elected to the Senate. I wanted to puke at her pathetic attempt at manipulation.

A Trump-Biden faceoff will be preferable....two guys that actually have gotten things done and know how to get things done...don't just hang their hat on having opinions like commie crackpot Bernie or manufacturing racist accusations like "Poop for Brains" Kamala. Obama's VP for crissake, give me a break.

LOOK I EVEN defined the angle that would come to decide Biden over Bernie. Dementia Joe communicates proven results. Commie Bernie is an idealist crackpot who can't get shit done.

I'll give that second debate to Biden. Biden is the only one on the stage that communicated proven results...that he can get things done. Garbage things. Just about all of what he did deserved to be undone. Not all, most. Trump needs to find a better insult on Biden. "Sleepy Joe" is terrible...there's nothing Sleepy about Biden.

Last night's biggest loser was Bernie. Commie Bernie communicated zero proven results. Bernie, "How you going to get this done?" "Well, 10000 people will stand up and demand it!" What a fckin retard. He does all this ranting and raving about corporations and special interest groups. No proven results. That bum can't get anything done. He's a crazy idealist and last night's biggest loser.

I TOLD YOU WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

I TOLD YOU WHO WOULD WIN.

I TOLD YOU HOW IT WOULD GO DOWN.

I TOLD YOU RACISM WOULDN'T STICK.

I TOLD YOU......I TOLD YOU.....I TOLD YOU.....

[andreasdevig]

UBI seems good in theory, but in practice I remain skeptical of it. The main reason Yang proposes UBI is because he fears automation will eventually take over a chunk of jobs and many will end up on the streets. If we don't use UBI to deal with that then an alternative solution is required to deal with automation, but we can't do nothing.

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

What about raising the minimum wage? Wouldn't that keep businesses from exploiting immigrants for cheap labor?

I like what Richard Wolff is suggesting here (starting at 5:50)..



He's saying that, instead of, say, firing half the workers, you give everybody half the day off. So everybody is now working half day (and the robots do the other half of the work). Nobody gets fired, and everybody still makes the same amount of money they always did.

[Raver]

What about raising the minimum wage? Wouldn't that keep businesses from exploiting immigrants for cheap labor?

The way I see it, there many different ways to skin a cat. Possible solutions to a looming automation crisis are: UBI, minimum wage increase and other ideas that have not been proposed yet.

I think increasing minimum wage does the opposite. It incentivizes companies to illegaly hire cheap illegal labor over expensive legal labor. The solution is keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, period.

I like what Richard Wolff is suggesting here (starting at 5:50)..



He's saying that, instead of, say, firing half the workers, you give everybody half the day off. So everybody is now working half day (and the robots do the other half of the work). Nobody gets fired, and everybody still makes the same amount of money they always did.

Ideally, I would like this to happen. Unfortunately, in practice corporations will try to save as much as possible expense wise so laws will have to be put in place to enforce it, unless he was entailing that.

[andreasdevig]

I think increasing minimum wage does the opposite. It incentivizes companies to illegaly hire cheap illegal labor over expensive legal labor. The solution is keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, period.

Good point. Though in my opinion, keeping aliens out, "sending the jobs back to America," etc.. These things are kind of band-aid solutions. If the immigrants would rather come to America and get paid really shitty wages, than to stay where they came from.. then it's probably not gonna help to keep them out, as they're probably even worse off where they came from. I think our concerns must be global, with countries working together, to improve everyone's lives, globally. This would help everybody, and then the immigrants wouldn't need to flock here either (if that's what they're doing, and if that's something that concerns people).

]Ideally, I would like this to happen. Unfortunately, in practice corporations will try to save as much as possible expense wise so laws will have to be put in place to enforce it, unless he was entailing that.

Yeah. I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Perhaps there does need to be laws to enforce it. Maybe a compromise could be reached so that the CEOs and what not could save some amount of money.

[xerx]

The fact that the vast majority of 1st world countries let in mass immigration instead of controlled immigration for cheap labor that automation will eventually replace is incredibly short sighted and makes zero sense in the long run. So controlled immigration is needed sooner rather than later because of looming automation.

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

[Raver]

Good point. Though in my opinion, keeping aliens out, "sending the jobs back to America," etc.. These things are kind of band-aid solutions. If the immigrants would rather come to America and get paid really shitty wages, than to stay where they came from.. then it's probably not gonna help to keep them out, as they're probably even worse off where they came from. I think our concerns must be global, with countries working together, to improve everyone's lives, globally. This would help everybody, and then the immigrants wouldn't need to flock here either (if that's what they're doing, and if that's something that concerns people).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. My views tend to favor controlled immigration as opposed to open borders immigration. I agree with you that we should be helping people in the countries they're in so they have better lives in their home nation as opposed to encouraging them to migrate.

Yeah. I'm not sure how it would be implemented. Perhaps there does need to be laws to enforce it. Maybe a compromise could be reached so that the CEOs and what not could save some amount of money.

Yes, a system would have to be devised to make it work. I am not sure how, but his idea to solve automation seems interesting at least in theory.

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

All mass immigration does is delay the inevitable. It is a short term band-aid fix to a long term problem. It helps keep the economy going and corporations producing for now, but eventually automation will rear its ugly head.

When that happens, there will be intense competition between the natives and immigrants for the sparse amount of jobs untouched by automation. From a long term standpoint, mass immigration will only worsen the upcoming automation crisis.

[Grendel]

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

Edo Japan did pretty well.

[xerx]

All mass immigration does is delay the inevitable. It is a short term band-aid fix to a long term problem. It helps keep the economy going and corporations producing for now, but eventually automation will rear its ugly head.

When that happens, there will be intense competition between the natives and immigrants for the sparse amount of jobs untouched by automation. From a long term standpoint, mass immigration will only worsen the upcoming automation crisis.

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

That said, it's probably fair to make the case that a certain class of very low-skilled individuals are going to lose their jobs because of low-skilled immigration. Very few of these people are going to learn to code and I think that we can all agree on the need to find them some help.

Edo Japan did pretty well.

Edo Japan was an agrarian society that would have eventually been subjugated by more technologically advanced countries. These were technologically more advanced because they were more open.

[Grendel]

Edo Japan was an agrarian society that would have eventually been subjugated by more technologically advanced countries. These were technologically more advanced because they were more open.

Ohhhh, wait. Are we saying the Europeans actually industrialized on their own merit, and that makes the results of their exploits a bit less atrocious if it led to progress later on? Or was all of it done on the back of le slave with loot from le colonized, making it invalid, and so the deflowering of Edo Japan, and any other cultural usurpation by association, is without any silver lining and still an atrocity to be avoided anywhere? Pick one, only one.


Of course you overtly shitpost about wanting to destroy the US so none of this advice is probably in good faith anyway.

[mfckrz]

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

Real incomes (insofar as what one can purchase with their earnings) have been flat for 40 years. More women entered the workforce because they had to—impossible now for most to reasonably rear a family on one income.

Expanding the labor supply has been great for business, not so much for the economy.

[Raver]

If we take this line of reasoning, then even regular population growth is bad and doomed to wreck the economy. It's the same argument made against women entering the workforce: that they're taking jobs away from men. In fact, a bigger workforce means that more people spend their earnings, which creates more demand and more jobs.

An overlooked fact of women entering the workforce is that doubling labor supply means that wage value was halved. Over time, you needed two incomes to be able to afford a mortgage and bills when one used to be sufficient. I am all for women's rights and freedom to work, but our salaries having half the value they used to have has been devastating to families. Also, a good portion of women (not all of course) resent being forced to work a career to raise a family and would of preferred to be stay at home mom's.

The price we pay for this is women being forced to work a career and raise a family or have your standard of living cut in half. Mass immigration is similar in this regard. We became so fixated in chasing meaningless statistics like GDP growth that we didn't realize how it impacted our quality of life and salaries not growing enough relative to ever increasing living costs.

That said, it's probably fair to make the case that a certain class of very low-skilled individuals are going to lose their jobs because of low-skilled immigration. Very few of these people are going to learn to code and I think that we can all agree on the need to find them some help.

Very low skilled individuals may lose their jobs to immigration and automation and end up on the streets. While high skilled working class and middle class individuals with careers find their standard of living slowly decrease as salaries cannot keep up to rising costs of living due to inflation. All mass immigration is doing is fueling an ever increasing wage gap difference as wealthy people fill their coffers and reap the benefits and everyday citizens pay the price.

[mfckrz]

If you stopped immigration, they'll just ship the jobs overseas or automate faster.

Okay, so embrace automation and we don't need immigration.

[xerx]

Okay, so embrace automation and we don't need immigration.

What makes you think I don't?? I want to see all dirty and backbreaking work become automated everywhere.