AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Who would you vote for?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Bernie Sanders

  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The police are under no legal obligation to protect and serve, and are not held accountable. Indeed, none of the things you list somehow exist ONLY because of the government.
Do you really think that privatized police would work better? Look at privatized prisons. Privatizing things like this only makes it worse and more dangerous for those that they see as targets.
 
Does this implicit agreement extend to any other things? By what basis does this implicit agreement stem? Indeed, what are the terms of this contract, and is there any escape clause? Why is someone bound to this by virtue of being born?

I think this is a fact of life for everyone in every country. You can try and change things, which a lot if people do or try to do, whether it is through social change or joining the local guerilla group and everything in between. Seriously, there are people all over in every country who do not agree with the terms on which being part of that country is based on. In some countries the situations are more extreme than others. I think you could even considered referendums as a way countries negotiate these contracts.

Just some thoughts typed out on my shit phone so maybe not super articulate or detailed, but this certainly is interesting to mull over.
 
Does this implicit agreement extend to any other things? By what basis does this implicit agreement stem? Indeed, what are the terms of this contract, and is there any escape clause? Why is someone bound to this by virtue of being born?

Unless you move to a virgin island or a cabin in the middle of the forest and are completely autonomous (i.e.: make your own candles, hunt your food, etc) your conveniences of living in a civilized society aka the community you were born into, have a cost that you should pay for like everyone else. So you have to do your part, carry your weight, and help upkeep it. If you don't like it you can move to the forest or to Liberland, I heard they are giving out citizenships (there is nothing there though so you might want to consider the forest option first, at least you can hunt actual food there)
 
Ok, but I did not elect them. I did not even consent to the election. They are not representing me, because I did not send them nor grant them consent to represent me. It doesn't 'feel like' coercion, it IS coercion. The sheer fact that you concede that changing things can't happen unless there is 'popular support' is an issue. You're basically conceding that we actually exist in a tyranny of a majority, that somehow the majority can dictate what is right and wrong. Yet it shouldn't matter. The collective has no greater rights than the individual, and their imposition ON the individual is tyranny, plain and simple.

It seems like libertarians and anarchists in the US are caught in an unresolvable bind. They regard their individual liberty as being compromised by the mandates of the community/society/nation, many of which they regard as illegitimate, yet they continue to live here! I would be interested in hearing a general libertarian theory of how to exist in society without having their liberties compromised. I don't understand it, and I would like to.

Concerning representation, I live in an area where my political views are never represented by the types of politicians that are elected here. I know that my vote for president will be meaningless due to the undemocratic nature of the electoral college. I choose to remain here my own reasons, and I accept that the prevailing political views around here represent the popular will. How can it be otherwise in a democracy where you have differences in political beliefs? How could I reasonably expect society to accommodate itself to me? The only way that could happen is if everyone was of a single mind on all matters of importance. That would be creepy, to put it mildly.

I have to go to an appointment, and will be back in a bit, but maybe you could answer that question for me.
 
I'll be abstaining from voting for this election. Would have voted Sanders, but he's clearly no longer a viable candidate. Can't bring myself to choose between a fearmongering, hatemongering bigot, and the career politician that is Hillary "swindling the people while selling them" Clinton.

Gonna choose to have some faith that with the way our government is set up, the damage either of them could do will be mitigated, or at least reversible.
 
  • Hugs
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
Do you really think that privatized police would work better? Look at privatized prisons. Privatizing things like this only makes it worse and more dangerous for those that they see as targets.

Privatized prisons don't really count, because they're really not private at all. They may be 'privately owned,' but they exist only as part of the State-run legal system, and all that entails. This is akin to saying privatization is bad because government contractors are bad. But government contractors are acting as agents of the state, still.

I absolutely think privatized police would work better, because we already have them, we call them security companies and they generally have a much higher quality of service, and accountability, because their profit motive is in service to the customer. In many ways, police are the same now. It's just that the citizens aren't the customers, the state is, and the state's interests are actually implicitly opposed to that of the citizenry.

I think this is a fact of life for everyone in every country. You can try and change things, which a lot if people do or try to do, whether it is through social change or joining the local guerilla group and everything in between. Seriously, there are people all over in every country who do not agree with the terms on which being part of that country is based on. In some countries the situations are more extreme than others. I think you could even considered referendums as a way countries negotiate these contracts.

Just some thoughts typed out on my shit phone so maybe not super articulate or detailed, but this certainly is interesting to mull over.

I mean, I'm talking more about principles first, to establish a baseline, vs practicalities. I live pragmatically, as I must, but that doesn't meant that establishing principled baselines isn't important.

Unless you move to a virgin island or a cabin in the middle of the forest and are completely autonomous (i.e.: make your own candles, hunt your food, etc) your conveniences of living in a civilized society aka the community you were born into, have a cost that you should pay for like everyone else. So you have to do your part, carry your weight, and help upkeep it. If you don't like it you can move to the forest or to Liberland, I heard they are giving out citizenships (there is nothing there though)

Yeah, no, this is not an argument. You're connecting 'society' with 'the government' and that is not at all accurate. You're argument would be equally applicable to saying if you don't like ANYTHING, you have no right to say so because you implicitly agreed by virtue of being born here and living here. This argument could literally be used to justify all manner of heinous things, to wit, slavery. A person born into slavery is on the hook, and cannot expect to be let free because it's the implicit contract of the society they were born into. It's 'cost we pay for civilized society.'

Like how cutting the hearts out of prisoners was a cost we paid to keep the sun up.

If you don't like it, you can leave.

It seems like libertarians and anarchists in the US are caught in an unresolvable bind. They regard their individual liberty as being compromised by the mandates of the community/society/nation, many of which they regard as illegitimate, yet they continue to live here! I would be interested in hearing a general libertarian theory of how to exist in society without having their liberties compromised. I don't understand it, and I would like to.

Nominally, I'd argue its better here than elsewhere, but that does not mean here is not a problem. However, your error is that you attribute the compromise due to the mandates of 'community/society/nation.' This is wrong. It's due to the state, which is not synonymous with community, society, or nation. Society can exist in as much as it is voluntary. Though I don't agree with all of it, Practical Anarchy is a good start in many ways.

Incidentally, revoking your citizenship actually costs money too. So even if there was a place to go, they're holding me for ransom anyway.

Concerning representation, I live in an area where my political views are never represented by the types of politicians that are elected here. I know that my vote for president will be meaningless due to the undemocratic nature of the electoral college. I choose to remain here my own reasons, and I accept that the prevailing political views around here represent the popular will. How can it be otherwise in a democracy where you have differences in political beliefs? How could I reasonably expect society to accommodate itself to me? The only way that could happen is if everyone was of a single mind on all matters of importance. That would be creepy, to put it mildly.

It isn't about society accommodating itself to you, it's about your rights as an individual mattering. Democracy is no justification for tyranny. Something does not become morally or ethically sound because 51% of the population voted for it. The 'popular will' carries no more moral weight than it does physical weight.

What I personally find stupid and ridiculous is the idea that all taxation is theft. As a citizen you are part of a community and since we live in democracies we are all reaponsible for the upkeep of our cities. How else is everything going to run if we dont at least contribute a fraction of what we make to make our cities safe and clean and livable? There is also the issue of doing our best to make sure people who are down on their luck or incapable of working wont go hungry. And inb4 private companies building private roads: that would make access to services unpredictable and exclusive to those who can afford them.

You're begging the question here. WHY are we all responsible for the upkeep of cities? You're also making a consequential argument. Even if you could prove that taxes are necessary for all the things you list, that wouldn't be an argument for them being moral or ethical, or not. It would simply be a statement if they are or are not necessary. Morality is not based upon necessity, though.

The claim that private roads would make access to service unpredictable or 'exclusive to those who could afford them' is also somewhat silly. It's a claim without any support. Why is this so? Why is private service unpredictable? Are you trying to tell me that private companies are less predictable, less reliable than state agents? The government, with its sprawling bureaucracy and notable waste, fraud, and abuse? The state is inherently inefficient because there is no pressure not to be and in fact actually there are pressures TO be inefficient, compared to private enterprises that are punished for inefficiency in the market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeronicaChaos
Morality is not based upon necessity, though.
Morality is subjective. So arguments based on morality aren't really going to go anywhere.
 
Morality is subjective. So arguments based on morality aren't really going to go anywhere.

If morality is subjective, it's not morality, it's merely opinion. I strongly, vehemently disagree with any implication that morality is subjective. On the contract, I think the only morality that can exist has to be objective.
 
No one has answered this question for me, yet. @supermila @Lunella Can someone please explain to me the bird thing here. Like do you really think something evil was happening here, like training a bird to land on the podium? Or was it just a coincidence that reminded you of other communist leaders?

ETA: This is not to be argumentative. I'm just truly curious what you thought was going on here and why you think this is evidence he's a communist.

I will try my best to explain this to everyone, I know my "hunches" are not scientific and sadly I cannot prove anything, it is simply a pattern that I am able to detect because I lived through it for 14 years. I heard Chavez speak from anything between one to six hours every sunday in Aló Presidente, his TV show. I heard them because he would tell what he was planning to do and so many things of our day to day life depended on it. During the show he would always subtly hint at things and at first people brushed it off as a random comments or extravagant behavior, but we would see that idea materialize months later. We learned to interpret these signs because a seemingly innocent comment he said during one of his speeches could mean that we wouldn't be able to buy dollars tomorrow. Or he would nationalize the internet company and put us all behind a proxy, he could close a TV station, or close the border with Colombia so nobody could leave by land. You see, our whole lives depended on his "whims" it weren't really whims, mind you, there was a strategy behind everything he did because he was nothing but a proxy for Fidel. Chavez was the Castro regime taking over Venezuela, not a homegrown phenomenon. We had to develop such a fine sense of smell with him that during the last years of his presidency I was able to tell on the first 10 minutes of any speech whether he was going to say something important or just ramble for 6 hours straight. There was a cadence, an intonation, a look, etc. So I am extremely sensible to these things, to their strategies. You might not understand why I am telling you about Bernie Sanders, how he is not a social democrat, but a straight up communist, but I will make an effort to explain myself as best I can.

No communist ever wins an election by declaring himself a communist. Taking the country by arms is harder, and even then it isn't convenient to say you are a communist until you have a firm grip on the country. Most people can't fathom this but Fidel Castro denied being a communist until 1961. He gave the coup d'etat to Batista in 1959 and pretended to be a democrat, a humanitarian that was fighting against an unjust system. At the time in the US there were long debates on whether Fidel Castro was or wasn't a communist. Some people thought he was, naturally, but had no way to prove it. Others called them conspiracy theorists. Even so, they managed to get the Congress to start an investigation on Fidel Castro's ties to communism. It wasn't until 1961, three years after gaining power that he declared himself a marxist-leninist. Here are both videos of him, first saying "We are not communists, I want to be very clear. Not communists" and the second one calling himself a marxist-leninist 3 years later (skip to 0:30 to see Fidel)



It wasn't only Fidel Castro who duped their country into communism by creating a cult of personality and telling them what they wanted to hear only long enough to take all power for himself. Chavez did the exact same thing. This is a video from 1998, Chavez was only a candidate back then, and people liked him because he was an outsider fighting against the establishment. He was interviewed several times and asked directly if he was a communist or a socialist, and he would deny it all. Keep in mind in 1998 socialism had a really bad rep, it isn't like it is right now, so he couldn't say outright that he was a socialist. I will post one of the videos. You won't understand cause it is in spanish but before reading my translation I want you to observe his body language, his demeanor, his outfit. He is wearing a suit!



Interviewer: if you are elected President, would you raise or lower taxes?
Chavez: some would have to be lowered, here we have a tax rate that is very inflationary, the sales tax, maybe we would have to lower that. We are thinking of halving it. But we would have to create other taxes for social welfare for example: building hospitals, schools,
Interviewer: will you let the currency exchange rates be free or are you planning on controlling them?
Chavez: That is such a variable issue that I think the answer might change depending on the circumstances the country is going through. If I was President today I would be okay with what the Government is doing currently. But we will have to see.
Interviewer: when it comes to the industry... will you privatize or nationalize sectors? Keep it short and simple please.
Chavez: when it comes to privatization we are completely on board with most sectors being kept in private hands such as hotels, tourism, gambling, etc. But what we do not agree with is privatizing PDVSA because it is one of the biggest oil companies in the World, and that has to be in the hands of the State, which doesn't mean PDVSA won't accept international investments.
Interviewer: banks: private hands or in the hands of the State?
Chavez: we agree banks should be in the hands of the private sector
Interviewer: national debt, will you pay it or will you slam the door on the international lenders?
Chavez: [laughs] no, no, I think you have to get along with everybody, we want to re-negotiate the payment terms so that we don't spend half our national budget on paying for the debt, but of course we will pay.

Interviewer: let me confess that I am a bit surprised. I was under the impression, from what I have read, that you are a leftist man, a socialist, and now from what you are telling me I am not so sure. Do you consider yourself a leftist man? Would you say you are a socialist if you had to use an ideological tag? How do you define yourself, Hugo?
Chavez: that is a very interesting question. You probably have read one of the many things that people have wrote about me, Jaime. No. I am NOT a socialist. I believe this world, the world of today, and especially in Latin America, we need to make a leap forward, we need to go beyond socialism and beyond wild capitalism, as Pope Jean Paul II calls it, I believe in a humanist project, a project that integrates things, that is capable of looking at globalization from Venezuela. And if I had to explain my political tag I would say I am a bolivarian. This is an original tag, a Venezuelan tag.

Even before the interviewer asked him if he was a socialist directly and he denied it, anyone watching that interview thinks Chavez is a moderate. He is so well spoken, there is so much balance to his words. Nobody would have thought this guy was a communist. And it took him almost 6 years to reveal himself as a communist, and he did it only when he had the country firmly in his grip. Once he had everything he needed to become a dictator the first mask was off. He now called himself a socialist, but he was supposedly a democrat. It took about 10 years more for the world to finally see that he was a dictator from the very first day. And it was only after he died that people began to see the food rationing and started to call him a Communist, almost 18 years late.

So... where I am trying to get at? That if there is a communist candidate you will never hear that from the communist's lips. He will swear up and down he is a democrat, a moderate, a social democrat at best. He will never ever say what his plans are for the country because the truth is nobody wants communism and he would lose. He doesn't want to lose, he would want to win. So he has to do everything in his power to convince people he is innocent and a good choice. Only then, when he has access to power can he start dismantling the democracy that gave him a chance to get there. And then it will be too late.

When I see Bernie Sanders speak, and when I see the tactics the guy has used I have the same feeling I have now when I see Chavez in retrospect. I would swear he is working closely with Castro who was probably funding his campaign and offering him the manual on how to give a soft coup d'etat using democracy. I cannot prove any of this, but I know it in my heart. I have no way to know if the birds were trained or not but if I had to gamble 1000 bucks I would put them all on the "trained birds" side. Do you think the 2 white doves that flew into Castro's podium in 1960 was also a coincidence? What are the odds really? And training birds is quite easy, they do it in theme parks, there are hundreds of videos on Youtube. It isn't even that hard.

Many people will not believe any of this and I don't blame them, I have no proof. I don't really care, Bernie is gone and is no longer a threat, he never was. But I know what I know and that is enough for me.
 
Last edited:
If morality is subjective, it's not morality, it's merely opinion. I strongly, vehemently disagree with any implication that morality is subjective. On the contract, I think the only morality that can exist has to be objective.
So who is deciding what is moral and immoral? You? Christians? Morals aren't universal. For example some say that abortion is morally wrong, other say it is not.
 
Is there a demand for them? Than yes. By the nature of the market, too, they'd be done not merely acceptably, they'd be done to a much higher standard.
The market? You mean private companies? Wouldn't the market encourage these companies to cater to the group, and not the individual? What makes you think that the behavior we see in government would not be present in these companies? Do you think a market left to its own devices would be corruption free?
Indeed, what are the terms of this contract, and is there any escape clause? Why is someone bound to this by virtue of being born?
I don't seriously encourage this; only pointing out a fact. You are NOT bound by virtue of being born. You are only bound as long as you remain a living member of society. If you are unable to travel to a place more suited to individuality, you can always seek out a nice tall cliff. There is your escape clause. Take a flying leap right off it.
Incidentally, revoking your citizenship actually costs money too. So even if there was a place to go, they're holding me for ransom anyway.
Violent theft, slavery, and now you are being held for ransom too.
I strongly, vehemently disagree with any implication that morality is subjective. On the contract, I think the only morality that can exist has to be objective.
In other words, your morality.

I'll be abstaining from voting for this election. Would have voted Sanders, but he's clearly no longer a viable candidate. Can't bring myself to choose between a fearmongering, hatemongering bigot, and the career politician that is Hillary "swindling the people while selling them" Clinton.

Gonna choose to have some faith that with the way our government is set up, the damage either of them could do will be mitigated, or at least reversible.
I understand this feeling. Want to sit it out I don't blame you one bit. But at least consider voting a 3rd party candidate. And if you don't, I can understand that too.
 
Intuition is a valuable human tool. It gives us an advantage over other critters, but remember it's a gambling game. Bernie shows none of the traits history has shown about communist dictators. He's been an independent politician longer than most of us have been alive...and has never given a hint that he's anything other than what he seems. He may gesture a lot during speeches, but flamboyance is not a Bernie trait...for that you'd have to look at Donald Trump. Bernie is consistent from one interview, speech or talk to another. Trump spews vitriol directly out of his ass, and the content changes like the wind.

I really suggest re-checking your Intuition Meter. The authoritarian monster is behind a different bush.
 
Many people will not believe any of this and I don't blame them, I have no proof. I don't really care, Bernie is gone and is no longer a threat, he never was. But I know what I know and that is enough for me.
I have learned a lot reading what you have shared. But are you only good for pointing out potential communists? Can you see the other side?

Ok, temporarily exclude Bernie the commie. Forget Hillary the crook. What about Trump?

He might turn out to be the greatest potus ever.
He might just turn out to be a bumbling ineffective one.
But what do you think is the worst case scenario?
 
I have learned a lot reading what you have shared. But are you only good for pointing out potential communists? Can you see the other side?

Ok, temporarily exclude Bernie the commie. Forget Hillary the crook. What about Trump?

He might turn out to be the greatest potus ever.
He might just turn out to be a bumbling ineffective one.
But what do you think is the worst case scenario?

Here is the thing and I will get pooped into oblivion but I really really don't care: straight up right-wing dictators such as Franco (Spain) or Pinochet (Chile) are never a real threat to the common man. They prosecute communists which is perfectly fine by me, and leave everyone else alone. They allow people to conduct their lives with minimal restrictions. They let their citizens engage in commerce, have companies, travel abroad, exchange currencies, and do everything that we do in a normal democracy except voting... and being communists. This is the reason everyone was free to leave Spain during Franco yet nobody did. The quality of life was incredibly high and Spain thrived under him. You have to watch movies from that time to see just how incredibly well Spain was back then. The same thing happened with Pinochet, sure, he killed a lot of communists, threw them out of a helicopter and that wasn't nice, but the people who didn't involve themselves in leftist politics led prosperous lives and none of them left Chile even when they could leave, there was no restrictions at all, nobody forcing them to stay. When a communist dictator grabs power though the story is quite different. They expropriate everyone's companies, forbid them from exchanging currency, kill the industry and leave everyone without food, medicine, and everything else, and after imposing rations they have to close all the borders so people cannot escape. They close down all media except the ones they control, even if you are with the regime and don't involve yourself with right-wing politics, you will still lead a pathetic life, barely surviving under one of these regimes. So even if Trump was, indeed, a right-wing porto-dictator, the risk isn't the same as a communist dictator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoTxBob
I kind of want a thread about Libertarian ideas and Socialist ideas, and our ideas of ideal societies, because I think things like that are interesting.

There's a city in India, called Auroville, and it's got some pretty cool or maybe at least interesting ideas. Their website says "Auroville wants to be a universal town where men and women of all countries are able to live in peace and progressive harmony above all creeds, all politics and all nationalities. The purpose of Auroville is to realise human unity." People from all around the world live there. There is no currency, the government is a committee of 7 residents who have been voted in (I'm not sure about all the details of the government though), and people work only for their own personal enrichment and the good of the community. It honestly sort of represents some aspects of libertarian ideas and socialist ideas, though. No currency, so no taxation, no bailouts, etc, and everyone works only for trade of goods or for their enrichment. It's pretty much the coolest cult ever. :haha: I don't know if I would ever want to live there, but anyone can visit, so maybe I'd go see what it's about. It's pretty interesting that they manage to have a small society against all the "rules" that we generally think of when we think about the formation of a society. I think it's at least interesting as a social experiment. I don't know if it's ideal, but it's a nice idea. We'll see what the future holds for them, they've only been around since '88.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ms_Diane
Here is the thing and I will get pooped into oblivion but I really really don't care: straight up right-wing dictators such as Franco (Spain) or Pinochet (Chile) are never a real threat to the common man. They prosecute communists which is perfectly fine by me, and leave everyone else alone. They allow people to conduct their lives with minimal restrictions. They let their citizens engage in commerce, have companies, travel abroad, exchange currencies, and do everything that we do in a normal democracy except voting... and being communists. This is the reason everyone was free to leave Spain during Franco yet nobody did. The quality of life was incredibly high and Spain thrived under him. You have to watch movies from that time to see just how incredibly well Spain was back then. The same thing happened with Pinochet, sure, he killed a lot of communists, threw them out of a helicopter and that wasn't nice, but the people who didn't involve themselves in leftist politics led prosperous lives and none of them left Chile even when they could leave, there was no restrictions at all, nobody forcing them to stay. When a communist dictator grabs power though the story is quite different. They expropriate everyone's companies, forbid them from exchanging currency, kill the industry and leave everyone without food, medicine, and everything else, and after imposing rations they have to close all the borders so people cannot escape. They close down all media except the ones they control, even if you are with the regime and don't involve yourself with right-wing politics, you will still lead a pathetic life, barely surviving under one of these regimes. So even if Trump was, indeed, a right-wing porto-dictator, the risk isn't the same as a communist dictator.
So you think the worst case scenario (excluding communist fears) might be that he would turn out to be a right wing dictator?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ms_Diane
@supermila This is a legitimate question, not trolling or anything, what do you say about the comparison that is occasionally drawn between what Donald Trump is currently doing and Hitler's rise to power?
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: justjoinedtopost
So you think the worst case scenario (excluding communist fears) might be that he would turn out to be a right wing dictator?

No, I don't believe he will, but that is what you seemed to imply. So I was addressing your fear.
 
@supermila This is a legitimate question, not trolling or anything, what do you say about the comparison that is occasionally drawn between what Donald Trump is currently doing and Hitler's rise to power?

I believe it is ridiculous. Every time I ask one of you why you think he is like Hitler all you say is: "are you kidding meeeeee?"



Once someone tells me in what manner you believe he is like Hitler I might give it a thought.
 
I believe it is ridiculous. Every time I ask one of you why you think he is like Hitler all you say is: "are you kidding meeeeee?"



Once someone tells me in what manner you believe he is like Hitler I might give it a thought.

Has no one given you a straight answer? I mean there are plenty of comparisons I've heard so I find it hard to believe that everytime you've asked someone they've danced around answering and threw out an "are you kidding me?" or w/e.

  • Both have used fear of an other to rise to power (Mexican's are stealing your jobs! The jews have destroyed our economy!)
  • Both proposed mass deportations
  • Both thought the minority scapegoat should wear special IDs
  • Promised to make X country great again
 
So who is deciding what is moral and immoral? You? Christians? Morals aren't universal. For example some say that abortion is morally wrong, other say it is not.

Rational inquiry. Morals HAVE to be universal, or they are merely preference, else are you trying to tell me that murder, theft, rape, and the like are not actually WRONG universally?

The market? You mean private companies? Wouldn't the market encourage these companies to cater to the group, and not the individual? What makes you think that the behavior we see in government would not be present in these companies? Do you think a market left to its own devices would be corruption free?

Companies cater to who is paying them, why would they cater to 'the group?' The behavior of the government won't be found it companies because the government is not subject to market pressures. It is, in essence, a monopoly backed up by force. Humans would be corrupt, but the market incentives to root out corruption would be greater, and the rewards lesser for engaging in it.

I don't seriously encourage this; only pointing out a fact. You are NOT bound by virtue of being born. You are only bound as long as you remain a living member of society. If you are unable to travel to a place more suited to individuality, you can always seek out a nice tall cliff. There is your escape clause. Take a flying leap right off it.

As I've pointed out, though, in another thread, 'society' doesn't exist. It's merely a term we use to describe an abstract concept, not a real thing. I like, though, that your argument is actually yes, you're bound by virtue of being born, UNTIL you die. That's legit what you just said.

Violent theft, slavery, and now you are being held for ransom too.

I never used the slavery term directly to refer to it, but hey, if you wanna throw it in there, sure. If the shoe fits.

In other words, your morality.

No, in other words, morality that can be rationally established and argued.
 
I believe it is ridiculous. Every time I ask one of you why you think he is like Hitler all you say is: "are you kidding meeeeee?"


Once someone tells me in what manner you believe he is like Hitler I might give it a thought.
No, much more like Mussolini. He's even used quotes from Il Duce.
 
Rational inquiry. Morals HAVE to be universal, or they are merely preference, else are you trying to tell me that murder, theft, rape, and the like are not actually WRONG universally?
You didn't really answer my question as to who is going to set these standards.

Yes, generally most people find murder, theft, and rape morally reprehensible BUT two of those aren't always found morally wrong in all situations. Stealing to feed your children, murdering your abuser, etc. Morals clearly aren't black or white.

Also, do morals only apply to those 3 things? Is premarital sex morally wrong? Littering? Prostitution? Spanking your children? Abortion? All of these have people that say yes and people that say no. So who is right? Who is the great moral compass that we should all follow?
 
I mean, I'm talking more about principles first, to establish a baseline, vs practicalities. I live pragmatically, as I must, but that doesn't meant that establishing principled baselines isn't important.

So, I was gonna say: you are never gonna have a country where everyone agrees on the principles on which their society is based. Not everyone is a gonna agree on all that stuff. It's too much stuff and there's too many people. I think that maybe the one baseline that everyone needs to accept or agree to accept, is that there has to be a way make decisions.

But maybe the point for Libertarians is that they don't even want those decisions to be part of society. Like, everyone makes decisions for themselves.

So then, I am like, but that's fucking anarchy. And now I am confused again about the difference between Libertarians and Anarchists. But maybe they are same zebra different stripe.


In truth, I see only two reasons to argue over baseline principles: first, it is fun; second, oppression. Do you really feel like you are being oppressed by being a Libertarian living in America? If so, then carry on.
 
No one has answered this question for me, yet. @supermila @Lunella Can someone please explain to me the bird thing here. Like do you really think something evil was happening here, like training a bird to land on the podium? Or was it just a coincidence that reminded you of other communist leaders?
No I knew he was communist earlier when I listened to him talk on some tv show.
The dove stuff I learned about on this forum cause I did not follow what Bernie did afterwards. I sort of tried not to think about Bernie I was scared of him hoping he - the problem - will go away....( and it did lol)
I was so scared... I find his voice extremely creepy btw and hypnotic - psychopath style.sort of aaaaahhhh grrrrrrr....if u get my meaning.Scary.As fir his looks he looks pleasant enough sort of fatherly like many of these destructive leaders.

Communists often use symbols in their stuff in order to snow people.
Doves are one of the favorites.
All these symbols and lies and tricks they use are similar.
knowing already that Bernie is communist did not surprise me when I read that he did same stuff to ppl I knew others did like Fidel. Observing a communist is sort of snoozefest if u already saw the show.
U kinda know what will happen on stage, with the ppl and with the country...if they ever given the power what they truly like is destruction and suffering.And they also rationalize later that the suffering is actually good.
Of course they will sell it as : love and peace at beginning.In case u might have doubts any doubts after listening to mambo jambo peace stuff an innocent dove or some other symbol will show up. Is just snowing.
Then again is also really creepy and mind blowing how same stuff over and over creeps up in these people actions. Is almost like if this evil thing is some kind of one brain that all of them tune into. Or possibly cause these birds can be easily trained.i don't know why really but dont need to see the tricks to know a trickster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoTxBob and Mila_
Once someone tells me in what manner you believe he is like Hitler I might give it a thought.
He is a human being. We are all born with a capacity for evil. Me, you, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, Stalin, take your pick...
Here is the thing and I will get pooped into oblivion but I really really don't care: straight up right-wing dictators such as Franco (Spain) or Pinochet (Chile) are never a real threat to the common man.
Ok, so the common man is safe. What do you envision life would be like under a Trump dictatorship for the uncommon man? (again, I would really love to hear your thoughts just on Trump, without comparisons to greater evils; only if you are comfortable, willing, and able of course)

edit: I understand you don't think this will happen. Just a little thought experiment is all
 
Last edited:
I believe it is ridiculous. Every time I ask one of you why you think he is like Hitler all you say is: "are you kidding meeeeee?"



Once someone tells me in what manner you believe he is like Hitler I might give it a thought.


I don't necessarily agree that he's a direct parallel with Hitler. I wouldn't make the statement that he's exactly like Hitler, because a statement like that shouldn't be made in light. However, I understand where people are coming from when they compare the two.

In Hitler's rise to power, he set up the idea that Jews were inherently bad, and some people think that Donald Trump's rhetoric about Muslims and Mexicans is similar. He's said that he doesn't care about the innocents killed in the process of stopping Islamic extremists, and said he would "take out their families" which to a lot of people, sounds like the genocide of innocent people. He is in favor of opening up libel laws so that he can sue media outlets who parody him or make comments about him that he doesn't like. He frequently associates with neo nazis, retweeting very clearly neo nazi accounts on twitter. He has essentially asked his followers to view him as a savior to a crisis, and that he is the only solution, much like Hitler saw himself as a savior for the German people. Germans felt disrespected by the rest of the world, with a country they felt was tattered apart, and he played off of that, and gave them a common enemy in Jewish people. Trump has said in so many words that we are not commanding respect from the rest of the world in the US, and has given us a common enemy in Muslims and Mexicans.

These are just a few examples. You said that nobody had ever said anything other than "are you kidding meeeee?" so, I hope this answer sort of showed why some people are making the comparison whether you agree with it or not.

I can't call him a modern day Hitler, because he hasn't been in a position of power in order to do the horrible things that Hitler did. I don't know if he would, but his authoritarian streak is concerning to me. But I hope that since you have a gut feeling about Bernie Sanders and communism, and it's not down to a science or anything, that similarly, you would humor the idea that some people have a really negative gut feeling about Donald Trump in parallel to authoritarians like Hitler.
 
Last edited:
Except it wasn't a dove that landed on Bernie's lectern. It was some random, tiny bird, that as far as I know, no one has even identified as far as species. Bernie's voice is hypnotic? Serious? I often had wished he had had a BETTER voice. Great speakers are rare. For that I'd say JFK, Bill Clinton, Obama. And even they...none were scary. Some said Reagan was a great speaker. I won't argue...not my style I guess...B actor, but even he...was not scary. Trump is the scary one...although he may not have the charisma of the earlier speakers...he has a genius to rabble rouse.
 
I have heard a lot of people compare Trump to a dictator, but this quote from a Somali cab driver, when asked what the thinks of Trump, kind of closed that debate for me:

"Well, actually, I quite like him but I do not think he likes me....In Africa, someone like Trump would not bother with election. He would take power with a gun and have Hillary Clinton thrown out of a helicopter… like Mobutu.”

From this article, which is not much of an article, except this quote is golden!
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...lot-of-americans-seem-curiously-a6794021.html
 
Has no one given you a straight answer? I mean there are plenty of comparisons I've heard so I find it hard to believe that everytime you've asked someone they've danced around answering and threw out an "are you kidding me?" or w/e.

  • Both have used fear of an other to rise to power (Mexican's are stealing your jobs! The jews have destroyed our economy!)
  • Both proposed mass deportations
  • Both thought the minority scapegoat should wear special IDs
  • Promised to make X country great again

Nobody had given me a straight answer before. And I could address each one of those points, I might do it if you still want to read the rebuttals, but I think it is much more productive to understand the differences in nature between someone like Trump and a supremacist, because it will be useful for any future comparison.

Hitler and Trump are fundamentally different and a nazi would never support Trump. The plan Trump has is building a wall in the Mexican border to keep the US on one side and South America on the other. He wants to use this wall to protect the border and keep illegal immigration out. He also wants to use America's military predominantly for defense. A nazi would see this as a weakling's idea. Nazis did not want to hide Germany behind a wall and keep jews and other mongrels out like a bunch of cowards. They wanted to conquer Europe and take care of the mongrel problem for good! Because for a supremacist races have an order. There are superior races and inferior races. And the role of superior races is to conquer and dominate inferior ones, exterminate the ones they don't like. Furthermore, Hitler's problem was with mongrels, not with other "clean" races. So while he had no beef with blacks (they couldn't muddle the white race because they looked nothing like whites), he hated slavs for being whites mixed with asians who would muddle the aryans. He planned to exterminate all slavs too, not just jews and gypsies, he just didn't accomplish it in time.

Someone like Hitler would like someone like Bush way better. Bush was a perfect example of the American elite. He used the military to engage in wars of aggression against other countries and avenged the US from 9/11. This is much more in tune with a nazi's sentiments than Trump will ever be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.