General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 69

Also - Clinton's stance on social issues like gay marriage and lgbt protection doesn't convince me of any deep ideological gap between her and US conservatives either despite the gulf there given that these positions have been taken only once the context of the political climate has deemed them acceptable.

 

@Dave Dykstra, pretty much what @Wharf Rat said. The projects are entirely different. As Frank Wilderson said, they're trying to save the world as we know it; we're trying to destroy this world.

 

Cool thanks guys. I'll mention that to him, I'm sure his head will explode lol. Just thought it was interesting to see his take, since it is hard to find people that actually support Hillary.

 

fuck peter thiel lol gawker transgresses all the time but what his views endorse (libertarianism! trump! women voting ruined the country! our biggest problem is PC!) is equally as bad, if not worse. billionaires being able to litigate outlets they dont like into oblivion is a fucking horrifying thought.

 

Who are you (in AP terms) if you don't mind my asking

 

I'd like to know who you were.

 

I was "Sakarazu"

same question for you actually?

this is 100% true but seeing as i can't do anything about it im going to take what little enjoyment i can from watching gawker get royally screwed

 

also, "libertarians" supporting trump is laughable and shows how fucking bankrupt they actually are lol

 

Decided to look into his political views, found this gem. Needless to say the title is click bait. Peter Thiel, Believe It Or Not, Is A Marxist

 

its kind of shitty because their network does a lot of good writing and actual journalism, and then does horrible, hare-braned inane bullshit like out geithner's brother or post this stupid sex tape. i think a slightly altered governing philosophy would produce an outlet with similar instincts but the good sense to not post fucking useless garbage about some rando's sexuality when they aren't actively lobbying for anti-gay measures.

 

To be fair almost everything about libertarians is laughable

 

say it with me: fuck peter thiel Conservative Facebook Investor Funded Anti-ACORN Videographer

 

In today's world yes. Way back in the more simple times there was nothing wrong with it.

 

I'm still waiting for that Libertarian Utopian Island he was going to build.

 

If only there could be an outcome where both Theil and Gawker lose.

 

i think gawker is going to lose the lawsuit still but the damages will be (correctly) dramatically reduced in appeals, and that will ensure its survival but likely change their approach to these kinds of things in the future.

sadly, i am at a loss as to how to prevent billionaire scumbags from abusing their wealth.

 

I'd recommend you read Camus' "The Rebel" or some speeches by Vaclav Havel....
Or just visit some Eastern Europe countries and talk to people who lived through this life, you're longing for

 

the soviet union did not at any point match the kinds of theoretical socialism being advocated for in this thread, and even if it did, the interference of western and capitalist powers in the way that union formed and existed through it's history kind of distorts any potentially meaningful comparison

 

I recommend you try to actually understand what I'm actually advocating for before accusing me of supporting the USSR, thanks much

 

http://gawker.com/this-is-why-billionaire-peter-thiel-wants-to-end-gawker-1778734026

 

Let me hop in here and make sure this doesn't go where it did before, when I was making a similar argument. The kind of socialism being talked about in this thread would be a global revolution. It would need the world to crumble to a point, that almost no one has anything and sparks said revolution. Once you get to the point, you can destroy the idea of capitalism in every nation. You basically have to join the revolution or be jailed/die. As people have kids, they will grow up without having any idea what capital even is. There will be no concern for trying to attain capital wealth. You would probably get to a point where you have no border lines, you just share the worlds resources. When we have these arguments, we have to understand that the point being made is not to make the US a socialist country overnight. Like they have said many times, it would be a slow process. To get to this type of socialism, it needs to be untouched by capitalism.

 

This Trump press conference makes me so so angry.

This guy might be the next president.

 

What?^^
Are you serious?
Would there be hospitals? Or science?
What if there's a mentally ill person going around town killing people and there's no police?
Or a person who thinks that having more than everybody else would be kinda awesome? (Pretty likely looking at the history of humanity)
Would this be some kind of democracy or total anarchy?
People are born dumb, lazy and deeply egoistical, some die like this... there's no way a society would survive in this system longer than a few month...
So you they are waiting for that / working towards that rather than supporting people who want to reform capitalism towards a more just system??

Edit: Wait, did I get that right, people who want to have more than other people, would be killed in this theory?

 

"Five, 10 years from now — different party. You’re going to have a worker’s party," Trump said in the May 17 interview. "A party of people that haven’t had a real wage increase in 18 years, that are angry."

Trump reiterated that cutting Social Security would be a "big mistake" for the GOP, remarking that "[c]utting it the wrong way is a big mistake, and even cutting it [at all]."

Reactionaries/fascists always borrow from the left in order to make their case on their terms. The interesting this is, this is something so direct that it cuts through the sort of gymnastics Hillary engages in. His ideology, obviously, is right-wing, but only when there is a collapse of ideological and political legitimacy do you see the sort of populism that has no ideological center, aside from the core of restoration, that is a mash-up of different ideas. It is signaling something, and I would expect that it is the material collapse of both liberal and conservative ideologies as they have played out in the post-war era.


Read more: Trump: GOP will become 'worker's party' under me
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 

I am not the expert on this, and not saying I support it. Just wanted to speak in plain terms as far as I understand it. The socialism thread would be a good place to ask the experts, if you are interested.