General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 108

I didn't think she was a progressive hero but I was hoping she wouldn't support a corporatist, given how hypocritical that would be in comparison to Warren's constant verbal attack on Wall Street. I'm not surprised though because of the very reason you mentioned--she's a democrat. Most importantly I wanted to point out just what you're limited to getting when you vote for a democrat.

 

Our foreign policy is notoriously murderous or we support those who are as well. Technologies that enhance those capabilities are bound up in research and development. You can isolate them if you'd like from the "non-threatening" technologies, but it ignores how, more often than not, they began as methods of plunder and/oppression.

 

Like I've said, sure, you're limited to what you're getting when you vote democrat. But I'd still personally rather vote democrat and get one in office than vote green and get a republican.

 

Has anyone seen that video of how Google is manipulating search results in Hillary's favor?

How come House of Cards is predicting everything that's happening in our election? Ha

 

Didn't notice... I'm more of a Bing man myself.

 

I know you're kidding and it still upsets me.

 

The logic goes both ways. I don't know where the logic came in that Gary Johnson might steal away Sanders supporters when in actuality Johnson is a republican alternative running with a republican running mate and because of that most likely will be stealing away republican voters from Trump.

Where you live determines if you can even vote for the candidate that you want. In swing states, green party and libertarian candidates have next to no shot. However, I live in Arizona. Voting for any democrat won't stop Trump here, however, voting for a libertarian with a republican running mate might. Green Party voters will have success only in states where Sanders did extremely well AND Stein can pick up some media attention. That second part is crucial.

If you want to use your vote in a strategic way you need to research your state and figure out which way it leans.

Because that's what this election is boiling down to now. Not voting for who you think is the best person for the job, but instead how to use your vote to block someone else from winning.

 

There's no evidence that Google is manipulating searches to help Hillary Clinton

Also, I tested just for shits and giggles (in an incognito window), and even with Trump, nothing bad comes up for donald trump: 'cri', 'frau' 'sca'

 

I don't know what's worse, the support for Trump or the amount of people out there going out their way to drag Hillary down because she won. Frankly, they're about equal for me.

 

The thing they don't get is Google search adapt based on history as well as location.

 

I feel like the people making these videos probably fully understand this, they just also understand many people don't

 

Very true.

 

If it makes you feel any better I would go out of my way to drag Hillary down whether she won or lost.

 

I know, right? People should only criticize corrupt and immoral war criminal racists when it comes up organically in conversation. People who go out of their way to mention facts supporting the larger fact that Clinton is a piece of shit human being are just the worst. Stick to the script, guys.

Good to know that virulently opposing evil is the same as blissfully supporting evil to you. No moral dichotomy there at all.

 

I'm not isolating them from the "non-threatening", I'm more pointing out that all of that R&D is classified as "defense" even though a lot of the tech developed ends up being used for other purposes. We classified a lot of shit under NASA spending back and the day and a lot of that ended up being put towards defense and "plunder and oppression" even though that's not what they were developed for originally. It doesn't matter how you shift the spending, it's how it's used. The policy needs to change more than the spending itself does. I'd loooove to take half of defense spending and shift it into NASA's budget, because the advances we got from them were far more useful IMO than the ones we've gotten since we put it all into the defense budget.

Regardless, that still doesn't make defense spending the same thing as prison spending.

 

Actually I think some polls in Arizona had Clinton ahead a while back. I don't think that's thecase right now, but Trump being Trump and being the overt racist he's being actually probably puts a few red states in play. Utah, NC, Georgia, Arizona seem like the ones with the best possibility.

 

I never said they were the same, David. That is a fiction you developed somewhere in this argument. I said that one could justify mass incarceration along the same lines as the logic you had on offer; that is, both represent oppressive institutions, from which economic benefits are derived. The comparison holds so long as those technologies remain a part of an apparatus whose aim is, at bottom, imperial. The argument, from your perspective, then, is that this should be ignored because it would be harmful to the economy, it is likely that it wouldn't be split off into non-military sectors of development and we have to be realistic and that, despite the technologies being developed for military usage, it is important that they keep being funded. I fundamentally disagree with this point of view. As I said, the economy should not hinge on an apparatus that murders people. There is an argument to be had as to how to detach and reorganize the development of technologies in a way that is beneficial to humanity, but it seems we cannot get to that point at that moment. So, I guess we'll keep talking about the comparison I made.

 

Spending on military technology does not "represent oppressive institutions" any more than spending on NASA technology doess. And it certainly isn't comparable to federal prison spending, which quite literally removes people from the economy at the cost of the taxpayer--a cost that all studies seem to point to is greater than if we paid for their education instead, or even just let them live "on welfare". Literally not even in the same universe as military spending.

 

Since we were discussing Israel earlier:

"Israel’s need to sell its goods in foreign markets highlights the strategic importance of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls on international consumers to boycott Israeli products, particularly those produced in the Occupied Territories.

The illegal production of food, metal resources, and manufactured goods in the occupied West Bank is a tremendously productive and profitable arm of the Israeli economy. But it does nothing to benefit Palestinians. Instead, it reproduces the conditions of their destitution.

Opposing Israeli settlements in the West Bank isn’t about calling for reconciliation or coexistence, and it certainly isn’t just about ensuring the conditions for a two-state solution, as Shapiro seemed to suggest.

Settlement is an economic project, premised on the seizure of Palestinian resources and the exploitation of Palestinian labor.

Demanding an end to Israeli occupation is about demanding an end to the oppression of Palestine."

The Settlement Industry | Jacobin

 

Lol. Okay, David. Looks like we're done here.

 

literally not the same universe

damn

that military tech spending is paying off i guess...

 

Nurses union head, backing Sanders, resists call for party unity

“But there’s a whole lot of reasons for Bernie to stay in there,'' she said, "because I don’t know how he gets his issues addressed if he doesn’t.”

For her part, DeMoro said she and millions of similarly impassioned Sanders supporters are not ready to endorse Hillary Clinton.

“'I’m not Trump' is not a campaign that inspires people,’’ she said.

 

Guess we can pretend they're one in the same for the convenience of supporting an argument...but then that'd just be bullshit. There's enough bullshit to go around already from the right wingers, no need to have the far left start flinging it too.

 

i was joking

because you said literally different universes

literally

which

well

 

You're literally taking my incorrectly common use of literally too literal.

Or something.