The Empire Strikes Back

More
06 Jun 2019 00:32 - 06 Jun 2019 01:46 #339307 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic The Empire Strikes Back
I tend to view the Jedi in the fiction as being sort of 'Jiedushi' in historical China, ie legate.... official representatives with command over regional military forces and government in representation of the central administration. So I tend to view them as lateral to State Governors but more in an oversight 'Governor-General' type of role to 'represent the monarch of a sovereign state in the governing of an independent realm'. A type of part time yet powerful role.

I think it was this mechanism which Palpatine used to instill military command.... being a less Governer and more General shift by replacing the Jedi with Imperial commanders, and using the war time powers to erode the independence of those realms until it no longer existed, and could instead exist to serve Palpatine directly as Empire. He'd already engineered events to ensure the Imperial forces were big enough to achieve complete dominance once able to be in position under the guise of the trade wars.

So to shunt that over to national politics, me I view the abuse of groupthink to construct weaponised narratives for political aims is in effect fascism. A twisted form of group identity, one type being nationalism. The Nazi's used fascism under the mechanisms of socialism to channel individual wealth (work) into the hands of politically aligned industrial and political factions working under a socialist State with a fascist group identity and cause. The distinction is subtle, but its more anti-capitalist then capitalist IMO. Communism was socialism purely about the State, while Nazism was socialism purely about the fascist identity. These are both all about being against an enemy, a groupthink insular narrative. So in Hitlers Germany the Jews and foreigners etc represented the enemy to that model, and the actualization of the narrative became required to keep its momentum locally which led Hitler to push outwards which conveniently created new enemies, until it reaches a tipping point of there being too many enemies and enough to turn the tide and snuff it out in the only language it understood. The entire set of identity paradigms constructed around being a victim work on fear, which of course leads to anger, hatred and suffering.

Trump doesn't really set off those sort of alarm bells for me, but he does make some decisions I disagree with at times. He is nationalistic, so its easy to draw comparisons... but nationalism is not a bad thing necessarily. The reality is the world is full of countries who put their own interests above other nations and no single country can afford to bend over and take it up the tail pipe for moral idealism, if it wants to survive in the long run. The trade wars now don't really match the trade wars back there, as the distances are so much shorter and the concepts of regions and realms has less meaning on a planet then it does across galaxies.

And IMO these things are growing pains of an evolving system going through an era of nation states, on its way to a globalized ecozone... an Empire of Humans. If it is the reality then the quicker we get on board and deal with the damage its doing the quicker we can move forward to a more refined and efficient system of progress. Once we reach that juvenile state of deeper self awareness we can really start to unwind the inherent anthropocentrism which might be the root of all the silly identity politics and egoism that is holding us back in that era of nation states. At the end of the day I think it winds down to how government authority is being used to dictate the rights of individuals within that governments area of responsibility - an Empires governments views itself as responsible for setting the rules, while a democracies government views itself as being responsible for letting the people set the rules... ie the authorities being served by the people, versus serving the people. The confusing thing is they all claim to be serving the people - so its less about what they say and more about what they do, and its that element of surprise which is the main avenue of the cheat and liar to achieve short term success, eg Palpatine. It's just Palpatine was in a universe at a time when his big move was in an environment which gave him top level control with no enemy, well almost no enemy ;)

Cue the regional governor generals with the skills and connections!!! The 節度 :side:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%AF%80
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BA%A6

Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 06 Jun 2019 01:46 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ZealotX, Uzima Moto

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 15:08 #339323 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back

Uzima Moto wrote: American Imperialists are behind Trump..

Just like the Globalists were behind Hillary..

The Wolf and the Fox, and you're the hen..

Trump has swamp creatures just like Obama did..

People really aren't seeing the game of Hierarchy here.. which is why I like Anarchism.

America is an economic empire first. Politically and militarily centralized power controls and maintains that empire.. it is entirely OPPOSITE of what was intended by the Constitution..

However, the current Zeitgeist, and its current disruption, was at least two decades in the making.. first by putting the different identy groups further in their corners.. Now Black America is the face of the democratic party, backed by LBGT and (Feminaziism) lol.. While "white nationalism" was grouped with anti-globalism, the militia and men's clubs, and the Christian right in the GOP.. causing the more "liberal" repubs like the Bushes (who have their own messed up history) to forsake them (along with the anti-globalism they hate)..

The powers that be underestimated America's laziness lol they should've made it seem like he was going to win so people would be actually scared into voting like was planned.. but now they're stuck lol and the fake left and phony right are destroying each other in the process of this attempted role reversal..

The left was never meant to be the radicalized population to kick off civil unrest. The right was ready for all out civil war..


I believe you're correct in general. The globalist/corporate agenda that Hillary represented is why I made a protest vote for the Green party candidate, Jill Stein. I hoped enough people could so the same to send a message to DNC that they're heading in the wrong direction. At the same time though I didn't want Trump to win and I'm pragmatic enough to support the lesser of 2 evils. I simply didn't in this case because I knew republicans would win Ohio. I hit the streets before when I was idealistic and it it was Bush Jr. I worked with Acorn to get the vote out in my community and ultimately it didn't seem to matter.

For people who don't vote... I understand. For people like myself who do vote I understand that too. To a certain extent it always seems like both sides are really just 2 sides of the same bad coin in the pocket of corporations representing mainly the interests of the wealthy top 2%. But voting is the only way to have any affect of the system as well.

I wouldn't say Black America is now the face of the Democratic party. Yes, they are now somewhat trying to appeal to the black vote but they actually haven't really pitched an agenda outside of progressives like Warren, Cortez, and Sanders. The black vote was taken for granted as Democrats were always the lesser of 2 evils, generally speaking, for most black voters. And at least Democrats weren't using schemes and machinations to take away black votes or delegitimize them. Now that they don't have Obama they still want the kind of turnout that helped Obama win.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 15:21 - 06 Jun 2019 15:21 #339324 by Kyrin Wyldstar

ZealotX wrote: And yes... as I've been saying... its only thanks to the Judicial branch that the GOP doesn't seem to have absolute power. .


This is simply not true. Democrats control the House. I'm not sure where this turned into a bash Trump thread or a just make up anything you want and put it out there thread. Its quickly devolving into a thread I'm losing interest in though.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 06 Jun 2019 15:21 by Kyrin Wyldstar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 15:37 - 06 Jun 2019 15:39 #339326 by Kyrin Wyldstar

ZealotX wrote:
So it is possible that Trump's base will never leave him because he and his cronies have been scoring points for the MAGA agenda which was created by people like Bannon and Gorka.



I think you and I are just on two different pages and never the two shall meet when it comes to politics lol. This has gone from a discussion of empires and republics to something completely different. Let me just say that I support getting rid of affirmative action, or at least reforming it greatly because of its unfair practices. I also think deregulation is badly needed to a great degree. I think Social Security should be gotten rid of and privatized. I want the ability to handle my own money instead of big brother govt doing it for me. And social welfare programs need gutted and redone. Inducing drug testing for anyone on it to begin with. I also think we need to enforce our immigration laws and deport all the illegals and criminalize sanctuary cities. Obama care is the worst thing for this nation to ever come down the pike as well. It forces people to pay a penalty if they don't have insurance and has skyrocketed costs for others. More big brother bullcrap and claims that new plans dont include preexisting conditions is just not true.

None of these issues are easy nor will they be easily fixed. But the direction we have been going with them over the past few years is the wrong way and I for one am glad we have a man that has finally stood up as our president and said, that is enough!

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 06 Jun 2019 15:39 by Kyrin Wyldstar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 16:10 - 06 Jun 2019 16:13 #339327 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back

Adder wrote: I tend to view the Jedi in the fiction as being sort of 'Jiedushi' in historical China, ie legate.... official representatives with command over regional military forces and government in representation of the central administration. So I tend to view them as lateral to State Governors but more in an oversight 'Governor-General' type of role to 'represent the monarch of a sovereign state in the governing of an independent realm'. A type of part time yet powerful role.

I think it was this mechanism which Palpatine used to instill military command.... being a less Governer and more General shift by replacing the Jedi with Imperial commanders, and using the war time powers to erode the independence of those realms until it no longer existed, and could instead exist to serve Palpatine directly as Empire. He'd already engineered events to ensure the Imperial forces were big enough to achieve complete dominance once able to be in position under the guise of the trade wars.

So to shunt that over to national politics, me I view the abuse of groupthink to construct weaponised narratives for political aims is in effect fascism. A twisted form of group identity, one type being nationalism. The Nazi's used fascism under the mechanisms of socialism to channel individual wealth (work) into the hands of politically aligned industrial and political factions working under a socialist State with a fascist group identity and cause. The distinction is subtle, but its more anti-capitalist then capitalist IMO. Communism was socialism purely about the State, while Nazism was socialism purely about the fascist identity. These are both all about being against an enemy, a groupthink insular narrative. So in Hitlers Germany the Jews and foreigners etc represented the enemy to that model, and the actualization of the narrative became required to keep its momentum locally which led Hitler to push outwards which conveniently created new enemies, until it reaches a tipping point of there being too many enemies and enough to turn the tide and snuff it out in the only language it understood. The entire set of identity paradigms constructed around being a victim work on fear, which of course leads to anger, hatred and suffering.

Trump doesn't really set off those sort of alarm bells for me, but he does make some decisions I disagree with at times. He is nationalistic, so its easy to draw comparisons... but nationalism is not a bad thing necessarily. The reality is the world is full of countries who put their own interests above other nations and no single country can afford to bend over and take it up the tail pipe for moral idealism, if it wants to survive in the long run. The trade wars now don't really match the trade wars back there, as the distances are so much shorter and the concepts of regions and realms has less meaning on a planet then it does across galaxies.

And IMO these things are growing pains of an evolving system going through an era of nation states, on its way to a globalized ecozone... an Empire of Humans. If it is the reality then the quicker we get on board and deal with the damage its doing the quicker we can move forward to a more refined and efficient system of progress. Once we reach that juvenile state of deeper self awareness we can really start to unwind the inherent anthropocentrism which might be the root of all the silly identity politics and egoism that is holding us back in that era of nation states. At the end of the day I think it winds down to how government authority is being used to dictate the rights of individuals within that governments area of responsibility - an Empires governments views itself as responsible for setting the rules, while a democracies government views itself as being responsible for letting the people set the rules... ie the authorities being served by the people, versus serving the people. The confusing thing is they all claim to be serving the people - so its less about what they say and more about what they do, and its that element of surprise which is the main avenue of the cheat and liar to achieve short term success, eg Palpatine. It's just Palpatine was in a universe at a time when his big move was in an environment which gave him top level control with no enemy, well almost no enemy ;)

Cue the regional governor generals with the skills and connections!!! The 節度 :side:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%AF%80
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BA%A6


I have to applaud your well thought out and well laid out synopsis. My hat is officially tipped to you, sir.

Have you seen the movie "The Last Samurai"? (or the anime Rurouni Kenshin?) Also naturally "Seven Samurai" is also relevant to the Jedi in this way.

I bring this up because there is a mirroring of the government turning on the traditional samurai and replacing them with military officers with guns and technology. Jedi were treated as aged artifacts of a different time. Luke is kind of like Katsushiro to Obi wan's Kambei.

It seemed like many of the planets in the Galactic Senate had monarchs. Samurai were like knights in that the original Japanese term "saburau" referred to 'those who serve in close attendance to the nobility'. There are a lot of artistic references to the Tokugawa shogunate (or Edo period) because that was really the time when much of the role of samurai changed, becoming courtiers, bureaucrats, and administrators rather than warriors. I would say we kind of see this in Star Wars in how Jedi were sent for negotiations and how a lot of them were scholars. The samurai gradually lost their military function in exchange for more European style soldiers or "troopers" if you will. This is prior to the empire and the more fascist regime of Palpatine's empire. But to me, it's part of my argument that, this conversion... away from the Jedi and their "semi-independence" (just like many other parts of government are semi-independent) with their morals and honor codes, creates a state in which the void left by honorable men in power or sharing power (as the Jedi council did) erodes the fabric of the Republic, paving the way for the "empire" to be fully realized.

When you replace knights with soldiers... and there's no "round table" for knights to agree or disagree but rather just a machine that follows orders (which is not totally true of the US military establishment but depends on Executive selection)... it sets the stage for an authoritarian to simply command the military without allowing too much power among individual knights or samurai to avoid things like the Kyujo incident or the Satsuma rebellion.

Saigō's rebellion was the last and most serious of a series of armed uprisings against the new government of the Empire of Japan, the predecessor state to modern Japan.


This actually reminds me of the attempted arrest of Palpatine

The officers killed Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace (Kyūjō). They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they ultimately committed suicide. As a result, the communiqué of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned.


and order 66 replaced seppuku. But getting the Jedi out of the way was a necessary step in assuming absolute power. I believe that knights and samurai were basically done away with in order for the state to have more direct control of the military and perhaps there were benefits to the people in doing so but I'm not sure those benefits outweighed what was lost. Instead of having a military check and balance the US says "arm yourselves so you can have your own militia" as if such a thing could ever counter the might of the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc. etc. And in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution I don't think they foresaw the kind of technology the government would have, paid for by tax payers, but which tax payers themselves could not afford. So just like with the Galactic Republic and the Troopers it commissioned... who could really stop them?
Last edit: 06 Jun 2019 16:13 by ZealotX.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 19:49 #339337 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: And yes... as I've been saying... its only thanks to the Judicial branch that the GOP doesn't seem to have absolute power. .


This is simply not true. Democrats control the House. I'm not sure where this turned into a bash Trump thread or a just make up anything you want and put it out there thread. Its quickly devolving into a thread I'm losing interest in though.


Did I say "Trump"? Or did I say "GOP"?

Because if the two are the same then I feel like you're making my point for me. And the only reason why Democrats now control the House is because of a referendum on the current administration.

So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist. And I'm not going to ask you or put you in a position in which you would need to defend yourself against being racist. I do believe that the MAGA agenda is rooted in racism, but I'm going to leave room for people to agree with parts of it without being racist themselves. If you would like to stop here, having involved your own personal political beliefs which are relevant to this thread, you may do so without any penalty from me. If you would like to continue I'll do my best to shield you personally but I will continue to relate the key political positions and policies of the MAGA agenda to racism.

This isn't to say that there aren't any inequities or room for improvement in the current system as it relates to domestic policy or that all of these domestic policies only target minorities as there are obviously more whites on welfare than there are blacks. But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well. Meanwhile, more and more of the jobs are being outsourced or taken over by computers and robots, websites and mergers. By becoming more efficient we make more money for people who are already rich while taking away jobs. And sometimes the people in the cross-hairs of this turn on each other instead of working together.

So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups? And does your position account for the reasons that place people (in general) as well as minorities (specifically) in a position to have to use these resources. In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?

Because I would support reforming certain programs as well so that they are helping people get off the programs without putting them in a worse position. Kicking people off these programs would not only add to homelessness and poverty which breeds crime, but would also unfairly harm innocent children who have no control over what their parents do. But this might require spending more money, not less, on these programs. And if people can get jobs but the jobs they can get cannot cover the expenses for their family then they have no incentive to take those jobs. So if you do not increase minimum wages and things like that you're making welfare programs the obvious choice for basic survival. Want more people to work? Provide free child care. Create public childcare facilities and hire welfare recipients to watch and kids without penalty to their benefits. Sound unfair? Well it would be if it didn't often take 2 jobs in this economy in order to achieve a decent standard of living. Single mothers are therefore impacted the most and many of them aren't receiving adequate child support. And raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good. Ontario Canada (which already has free healthcare and free college education) will be offering free child care from 2 and a half to kindergarten, year round, for free. You would think these other countries are broke from all these programs but they make up for it in other ways. The UK pays for 15 hrs/wk for child care ages 3 and 4. I was paying a sitter $15/hr to watch my kids after school only 2 days a week. That was $90/wk. These costs add up to the point where people get trapped.

You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.

And when the poor get money from the government should the government decide how they can spend it? Doesn't that restrict their freedom beyond what the government was created to do? I understand a lot of these things are reactions to corruption. But corruption happens everywhere and in every class of society. We have regulations on industries as a result of finding corrupt practices. Remember the whole Enron scandal? What about predatory lending? Why do we need to deregulate the rich but either add regulations to the poor or cut them off completely? And... do you really trust your private insurance company with your health? You do realize, don't you, that they don't actually want to pay for anything. Whether or not they have to depends on competition in the market and regulations. And even with both of those, before Obamacare, a lot of people were dying because of insurance companies not paying out. Any reason to deny a claim they would deny it.

If you want to say the cost (of saving lives) is too high, I'm not unsympathetic. However, the cost would be much lower if the insurance companies (and their overhead) were removed from the equation. But nobody wanted to go that far and so we have universal healthcare lite. We're still involving insurance companies who want to make a profit on top of what the hospitals and drug companies are making. And those insurance companies have every reason to jack up prices more than they need to in order to make the legislation unpopular. Why? Because they're making less profits because they have to pay out much more than they did before... you know... when they were allowed to let people die.

Obamacare was a step in the right direction but everyone knew it was just a step. These systems are far too big to turn on a dime and people were afraid the government couldn't handle it. And there's good reason to believe that. At least initially. The next logical step would be a government option that would force other insurers to be more competitive. Some insurers have a virtual monopoly in their current markets. Erasing those boundaries will help but that's only now a consideration because initially the fear was that too many insurance companies wouldn't be able to compete so it was a measure to protect them. Once the price tag of protecting them became clearer people started caring less about them which brings us closer to our current situation. Do you protect insurance companies or patients? Do you protect drug companies giving kick backs to doctors? Or patients?

It is the corruption in these systems that cost us extra money and private insurance has millions of dollars to spend just on lobbying the government because they can afford to do so with all the money they get from people paying into the system. On the other hand, Medicare is extremely popular and that is why a lot of people want Medicare for All. But taking something away just because it costs money is a little ridiculous. Hospitals cost more money than a sick person who needs it can afford. Do you know what it costs to spend the night at a hospital? On average around $10,000 for 5 days. Having a baby, on average, costs around $8,000. This is only made possible by many people paying into the system when they don't need the services. And young healthy people weren't needing the services so they weren't buying insurance. If the only pool of people paying into the system are high risk for actually needing services then its going to be expensive.

So the problem with Obamacare was how do you get young people to pay. Either way, the money has to come from somewhere. And with unregulated private institutions there will be times when they'd rather file chapter 11 than to actually pay out. No pre-existing conditions was a rule they made exactly so they wouldn't have to pay. And you could die. They rewarded employees for letting people die. On the other hand, the more people are paying the less each person would have to pay. So if you could simply raise taxes by a small income based percentage then the financial impact would be spread out while being less of a burden on the rich while shouldering more of the burden. This wasn't something private insurance companies were doing better. They simply weren't paying the more expensive bills and were deciding who should live and die based on what it would cost to save them. Compared to that I'll take any system. And that's why, with all its flaws, Republicans cannot simply get rid of Obamacare. And they don't have a better idea that doesn't involve killing people or expanding the universal healthcare system. And that's why Trump said "who knew healthcare was so complicated"?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
06 Jun 2019 20:26 #339339 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back
It is by a slim margin that poor people in this country are able to survive as it is. Higher costs of living, inflation, overdraft fees, higher interest rates for lower credit scores... There are a lot of hidden gotchas and catch 22's that don't really offer a way out of the economic position people of different walks of life find themselves in. What if you add in costs of childcare, taking care of sick family members, sending money to family members in need or in jail.

Do people always spend their money wisely? No. Absolutely not. But I'll also be the last person take someone's right to buy stupid stuff because that stupid stuff is what helps them cope with poverty and with other issues that weigh on their psyche. A lot of people don't do drugs for recreation. They're in pain. Maybe they started with painkillers and a doctor's note but got addicted to them and the street alternatives are less expensive. There are a thousand ways to lose your money while, if you have a surplus of money there are a thousand ways to use that money to gain more. That's our system. And it simply works best for those who already have vs the have nots.

Social programs started as reactions to the inherent hardships of society. I mean, I'm lucky I had homeowners insurance when the tornado took my roof off. What if I didn't? What kind of hole would I be in right now? What if I suddenly lost my job? How much of a hole would I be in if I couldn't replace it quickly enough?

As much as I would love for it to be different, the last two years have taught me how much racial bias still exists in country and how much we're teaching it to our children. If the kid who says "white people are better" grows up to be in charge of hiring for a company then it is unlikely he will choose to hire black people for any job other than menial work. If the kid who said "go back to the plantation" grows up to be a mortgage loan officer then maybe black people don't get that loan because he finds some excuse not to approve them. If the girls on the soccer team who said something racist grows up to be the insurance agent who determines whose procedures get paid for then may black people don't get those procedures. The reality is that whites do not have to worry about not getting hired based on these biases. If anything they're more likely to be hired by people holding these biases. This is why Affirmative Action is necessary. If you think it's not necessary then you do not know the white people who have these biased views and who would discriminate happily without hesitation, simply based on the color of my skin.

And what they don't realize, when they don't hire us or when they don't promote us because they think we're not capable or they don't trust us because they think too many of us are criminals, they're actually adding to an environment that makes it harder for black people to survive without turning to criminality and actually increasing the likelihood that more will be criminals. It's still not necessarily fair. People can still discriminate. They simply risk being found out and risk legal liability. And if there is an incentive then at least the incentive competes with the bias. How do we make it fair without a carrot or stick? The honor system? That's not good enough. I could have been born white and you could have been born black. Why should that make any difference? And if it does then it's wrong and there should be some kind of remedy. Because what if you lived in Jamaica with its 0.2% white population and no one would hire you?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Maria

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Jun 2019 17:32 - 07 Jun 2019 17:39 #339382 by Kyrin Wyldstar

ZealotX wrote: Did I say "Trump"? Or did I say "GOP"?


Yes and the house is controlled by the DNC. I fail to see the relevance of the distinction?




ZealotX wrote: So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist.


Once again I must ask, how have you inferred that the MAGA agenda is racist from my comments or that it is even inherently racist by any means? And you say you will not judge me but it seems you are by making this very statement. You are calling the MAGA agenda racist and my support of it infers that I am racist as a result. I find this incredibly troubling and problematic.




ZealotX wrote: But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well.


That’s not what I said nor is it what I believe. But I do believe that those that do have that capability should be held accountable to be doing everything possible in accomplishing this.




ZealotX wrote: So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups?


Disenfranchising?? What are you even talking about here? Your focus is so far off the mark here Im not sure how to respond. As has been stated many times here, none of these problems are easy to fix nor are there any perfect solutions. However one of the biggest stumbling blocks is this idea of disenfranchising, like these programs are a right and not a privilege. They need to stop being treated like they are an implied right. That is MY and YOUR money they are using because the Govt has decreed it to be so.





ZealotX wrote: In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?



I could care less about the racist agenda. I care about the American agenda of betterment. If the racists want betterment and that betterment is in line with America’s betterment then who cares if their agenda is met at the same time. None of the things I cited above that I believe in as political goals are racist. However if the racist agenda happens to be in line with those things then so what. Im not here to deny racists valid political agendas just because they have a fucked up worldview in other areas.





ZealotX wrote: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good.


People make this mistake all the time. Minimum wage jobs and living wage jobs are not synonymous. The minimum wage standard was not meant to be a living wage so much as a means to break sweatshop labor standards. Now that is not to say that adjustments may not need to be made here. Many states have increased their minimum wage and there is legislation proposed to now tie it to the consumer price index so it adjusts as inflation adjusts. However taking this too far would actually be detrimental to the work force in the end because it would force small businesses to hire less, and would shut many out of the workforce.





ZealotX wrote: You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.


Freedom of the individual but not freedom of the business is what you are advocating here. It’s inconsistent. Many businesses do regular drug testing on an ongoing rate. The airline industry is one of the largest that does this. So does the military, a Govt organization! You have the freedom to join the military or not and you have the freedom to be an airplane mechanic or not – just like you have the freedom to be on welfare or not. But if you choose to do those things you must comply with the requirements of that job. If you are on welfare well I see no difference. In fact it’s even worse for them because now they are using MY money to live and I absolutely want that money used for positive things and not on drugs. So no, they don’t get the same freedoms as the rest of us that are making our own way. Not fair you say? Well tough, life’s not fair is it. If I’m taking care of them I want some assurances it’s being used correctly. If I see a homeless man on the street begging for money, he does not get money from me. I will put him to work for pay or I will go get him a big mac and a job app from McDonalds. He gets what he needs not what he wants to go buy booze and I assure that by my actions.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
Last edit: 07 Jun 2019 17:39 by Kyrin Wyldstar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Jun 2019 21:39 #339410 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Yes and the house is controlled by the DNC. I fail to see the relevance of the distinction?


You made it a point of contention that Trump did not have control over republicans in congress. In this separate instance I was making reference to the power that the GOP had and you responded as if I said Trump. So either they are separate and Trump doesn't have substantial influence over them or they are the interchangeable which would mean Trump DOES have substantial influence over them. It was a small point. Not a big deal.

ZealotX wrote: So it seems I was correct about what the MAGA agenda is. However, I'm not assuming that you're in favor of the MAGA agenda because you're racist.

Once again I must ask, how have you inferred that the MAGA agenda is racist from my comments or that it is even inherently racist by any means? And you say you will not judge me but it seems you are by making this very statement. You are calling the MAGA agenda racist and my support of it infers that I am racist as a result. I find this incredibly troubling and problematic.


You may be skimming, which is perfectly fine, but I did say I'm not assuming that you are racist. I clearly laid out parallel tracks for being in favor of the MAGA agenda. You may like certain aspects of it and not be racist while others, as I made clear, love the same aspects because they're racist. I inferred the MAGA agenda is racist, not because of your comments but due to the connection between the original MAGA of the Reagan administration and the Southern Strategy. This also exposes the detestable genius of the GOP strategy of using dog whistles that even their own voters cannot hear. If you're racist you hear the racism and agree with it. If you're not racist you don't hear the racism and agree with it based on more conservative values. At the same time racists may or may not truly have conservative values but are reacting to the fear and anger surrounding their own socio-economic survival.

And yes, I am absolutely calling the MAGA agenda racist. However, unless you invented the MAGA agenda (or coauthored or cosponsored) then I'm not calling you racist at all. Please try to understand. There was a time when racists could be open and honest and publicly say what they wanted to happen to black people. When that time ended it's not like they stopped being racists and its not like they gave up on any political aspirations. They didn't stop being sheriffs or business owners. They never stopped being racists or making decisions based on their racial biases. So when racists put forth policy positions they're not going to call them "racist policies" just like Palpatine would never announce "hey we're now an empire" until he could successfully get away with it. So no one is going to say "my policy is racist". It's simply going to benefit who is was designed to benefit and hurt who it was designed to hurt. They put all kinds of lipstick on that pig and sell it like it's miss Piggy. It comes with a more intelligent argument because it has to. It has to have an excuse/justification in order to pass as legislation or even executive order. You saw what happened with the Muslim ban. You can't call it a muslim ban! Once they changed it somewhat and stopped calling it what it is then it was able to pass through the courts. Am I making sense?

You don't put someone like Jeff Sessions on the case if you don't have a racist agenda. If you invite 10 racists to a birthday party and there are 12 people there it is more likely that a couple of non-racists are at a racist birthday party. I mean... come on. Trump didn't ask to see Bush's birth certificate, just Obama's.

Not every republican is racist but many of them benefit from gerrymandering strategies which the court, not me, said were targeting black people with laser like precision. And it's very easy to see MAGA supporters on youtube and other venues who are CLEARLY racist and not really hiding how they feel or what they think about black people. Racist supporters don't necessarily make the thing racist. However, racist authors absolutely DO. And when all this is framed with the context of white nationalism and you got republican congressmen, like Steve King, talking about

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”


So no, this is not made up, manufactured, me just playing the race card, or anything else you'd like to think. They are making their positions more obvious and less covert because they believe their man is in the white house. And you may not think he's on their side but he's not going to tell the world that he is and they understand that. Trump takes great pains to point out that that he has black supporters "look at my African American over here. Look at him" but meanwhile says to Michael Cohen that black people are too stupid to vote for him. And yes... racists tend to think they know what's best for black people.

ZealotX wrote: But from my perspective it seems like a lot of people just don't care what happens to people on public assistance or their families. If they can't "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" then oh well.

That’s not what I said nor is it what I believe. But I do believe that those that do have that capability should be held accountable to be doing everything possible in accomplishing this.


I don't make personal attacks, Kyrin. I'm well aware how to do it though. If I were talking about you I would reference your name. If I say a lot of people I'm literally talking about "a lot of people". Including you in that group would be an indirect personal attack. Again... I'm not making any assumptions about you personally. You have the benefit of my doubt. Therefore, I feel no reason and have zero motive to attack you. Besides, I'm very much against personal attacks on this forum. A lot of people simply do not care what happens to people. They (not you) want to enforce immigration more strictly and even cross the legal line over into kicking out asylum seekers (which is legal) without really asking why these people are coming. They (not you) want to separate families as a TACTIC to make people scared to come here. But according to reporting some of the people coming are saying "food wont grow here" and they are literally dying from starvation which is the same thing that happened to a number of white immigrants. Between food shortage, a bad economy, and terrible gang violence, it almost doesn't matter what you do to these people. As long as they can survive it's better to come here and even live in a cage, than to stay.

(cont'd)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
07 Jun 2019 22:20 #339419 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic The Empire Strikes Back

ZealotX wrote: So let me ask you, but feel free to decline to answer, how would you reboot welfare and other social programs in the US without disenfranchising minority groups?

Disenfranchising?? What are you even talking about here? Your focus is so far off the mark here Im not sure how to respond. As has been stated many times here, none of these problems are easy to fix nor are there any perfect solutions. However one of the biggest stumbling blocks is this idea of disenfranchising, like these programs are a right and not a privilege. They need to stop being treated like they are an implied right. That is MY and YOUR money they are using because the Govt has decreed it to be so.


um...

right = a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

If a person is given these benefits can we not assume that they met the legal qualifications and are entitled to public assistance? You can call it a privilege if you want but who gets to have that privilege? And... how do you know the people using these programs are treating them as a right beyond their legal entitlement? I get it. Because many poor people are on drugs a lot of people (which could include yourself) believe they are misusing public funds.

Here's what's interesting:
OBAMA cut food stamps by $8.7 Billion

Do you know what's in the 2014 Farm Bill?

www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap#2014

You cannot buy wine, beer, liquor, cigarrettes or tobacco with SNAP benefits. It's already the law and Obama did that.

ZealotX wrote: In other words, it is clear that racists want the same thing you do so how do you propose something that doesn't accomplish their agenda while still being in the best interest of the entire country, including minorities? Isn't it possible, that if racists want the same thing that you do, and we don't know which is like you and which is like them, then how do we know that the people selected to do what you want isn't really like them (racist) doing more what they want instead of what you want?

I could care less about the racist agenda. I care about the American agenda of betterment. If the racists want betterment and that betterment is in line with America’s betterment then who cares if their agenda is met at the same time. None of the things I cited above that I believe in as political goals are racist. However if the racist agenda happens to be in line with those things then so what. Im not here to deny racists valid political agendas just because they have a fucked up worldview in other areas.


The reason you should care is because a racist is not going to create, implement, or enforce legislation like you would. So if you let them do it they're going to use it to screw over black people. Any power you give them that might possibly have a negative effect on black people, they will make sure that it does. If they pass a law that says kittens must be saved from trees they'll find a way to exclude black cats. ...because they're racist. They don't have valid political agendas. Racism is their agenda. Law and Order is a perfect example. Trump brags about being able to shoot someone and get away with it. Of course not, but rich people get away with a lot because they can just pay their way out of situations. Whites also sell drugs just as much if not more than black people. Yet, white cops have been documented saying that they go after minority communities. And the prosecution of crack vs cocaine has pretty much admitted to have been racist. So the point is, I don't agree with crack either but when racist people are the ones making the laws and policies and handling enforcement it tends to become a weapon against whoever they see as their enemies.

ZealotX wrote: raise the minimum wage to a living wage. If you do that plus provide free child care that will go very far in getting people off welfare for good.

People make this mistake all the time. Minimum wage jobs and living wage jobs are not synonymous. The minimum wage standard was not meant to be a living wage so much as a means to break sweatshop labor standards. Now that is not to say that adjustments may not need to be made here. Many states have increased their minimum wage and there is legislation proposed to now tie it to the consumer price index so it adjusts as inflation adjusts. However taking this too far would actually be detrimental to the work force in the end because it would force small businesses to hire less, and would shut many out of the workforce.


I didn't say they were. If they were you couldn't raise one to be in line with the other. So you're correcting a mistake I didn't make. The argument about hiring less people is illogical and is an argument pundits make who are supported by rich people. The fact is that if you cannot do 1 job for a living wage then you have to work 2 or get public assistance. Walmart has been criticized numerous times for having their workers on public assistance. The fact is that companies don't care about workers. They care about regulations; especially ones that require them to pay hefty fines. If a person works 2 jobs then that's another job that can't be filled by someone else. All they're doing is trying to shift the burden to other companies. And if those workers work 1 job and take public assistance then workers are paying for that instead of the companies refusing to raise wages. And because the companies lobby congress they get away with these arguments about how hard its going to be for them (to be fair). Boo hoo. They make enough profits to pay more. When their CEOs are making millions of dollars a year they can afford to pay more. They just don't want to.




ZealotX wrote: You also stated that you didn't want "big brother" doing things for you and you would rather privatize social security. But it's curious because then you said that people on welfare should be forced to undergo drug testing. So I'm confused. Where is the line that big brother shouldn't cross? Should poor people not have the same rights as you and I? I did undergo a mandatory drug test when I started officially but I don't have to keep taking tests in order to get my pay check. However, I feel like company policies really shouldn't extend to whatever you do outside of business hours. You know... freedom and all.

Freedom of the individual but not freedom of the business is what you are advocating here. It’s inconsistent. Many businesses do regular drug testing on an ongoing rate. The airline industry is one of the largest that does this. So does the military, a Govt organization! You have the freedom to join the military or not and you have the freedom to be an airplane mechanic or not – just like you have the freedom to be on welfare or not. But if you choose to do those things you must comply with the requirements of that job. If you are on welfare well I see no difference. In fact it’s even worse for them because now they are using MY money to live and I absolutely want that money used for positive things and not on drugs. So no, they don’t get the same freedoms as the rest of us that are making our own way. Not fair you say? Well tough, life’s not fair is it. If I’m taking care of them I want some assurances it’s being used correctly. If I see a homeless man on the street begging for money, he does not get money from me. I will put him to work for pay or I will go get him a big mac and a job app from McDonalds. He gets what he needs not what he wants to go buy booze and I assure that by my actions.


It's not inconsistent. Companies should have the right to require workers to abide by their rules while they're on the clock. When I go home I should be free because I'm employed not ENSLAVED. You must see the difference. And no, it's not really a choice if every company does it. Can I simply choose to NOT work? If that's a choice I'm free to make then you should be fine with me living off your tax dollars. But if I can't and there are consequences to simply not having a slave master then I have no choice but live under those conditions. And people buy products from my company. Their money becomes the company's money just like your money becomes the government's money. So who gets to decide what to do with that money? If the company's money becomes my money then I get to decide what to do with it. If the government is giving me money for specific purposes then that's what it should be used for. Fortunately, thanks to Obama, this is already the case. You already have assurances so what else are you looking to change in your desire to gut the system?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: KobosBrick