General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 156

Fucking Clinton. By the way, yesterday, she joined Elizabeth Warren to give a speech about how hard they are going to fight for American workers and against corporate influences to prevent trade deals like TPP.

Democratic Party Platform Committee Undermines Clinton On TPP

 

Obama is still the defacto leader of the Democratic Party. They aren't going to come out against his trade deal.

 

not sure why this would be surprising, unless you are shocked by how low the percentage is. Regardless of your personal feelings towards him, it's smart business.

 

Ben Carson took a break from his campaign just to go on a book tour.

 

Exactly. Trump is still a businessman, who still has his businesses interests at heart. That won't change if he takes an oath of office.

 

Liberal hypocrite Mark Zuckerberg building a wall to keep out undesirables.

Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg outrages locals over Hawaiian wall plan

 

Typical liberal hypocrisy. Not surprising at all.

And honestly, that wall is a fucking eyesore, he couldn't have built a nice stone or brick wall?

 

Building a wall that you pay for yourself to keep people off your private property is totally the same thing as claiming you're going to build a wall across the whole US border and make mexico pay for it /s

 

Not trying to pick a fight or come off as hostile, but is Zuckerberg that different from other celebs and rich folk? Most have fences / walls around their property and he's, I believe, almost always been notoriously suspicious of people / wants his privacy. I mean, he covers his MacBook camera and audio plug, a wall around his property doesn't surprise me at all.

 

I think the criticism comes from the fact that liberal celebs will often bemoan us common folk over issues like gun rights and immigration reform from their gated communities surrounded by armed security. "Security for me but not thee" so to speak.

Not trying to start an argument either, but it's hard to argue with the sentiment no?

 

I believe the person you quoted was being facetious.

Unless he has been publicly opposed to private property (he hasn't), there's nothing hypocritical about him putting up a standard-height fence/wall around his properties' borders.

 

I personally think that, to have a political opinion, you must reduce yourself to living in squalor to humble yourself and insulate yourself from claims of hypocrisy.

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to private property. But don't the walls in both cases serve the same purpose? To keep out undesirables? Why is it when the citizens of Southern Arizona our border towns across Texas support walls to keep people out of their communities who they feel aren't entitled to be there aren't are written off as racist xenophobes? I mean it must be nice to have billions of dollars for state of the art security, armed guards, and big walls, but the lower income communities of border towns can't afford that kind of protection on their own and ask their state and local governments to do that for them.

I am certainly not suggesting that Mark Zuckerberg is not allowed an opinion. I just always find it a tad amusing to see rich liberals denying poorer communities the same security that they themselves enjoy. The inclination to build a wall around your house and build a wall in front of your community comes from the exact same mentality, keep people out who you don't want to be there.

 

Yea, I don't give a crap if he builds a wall on his property.

 

Believe it or not, some people are. I'm fairly moderate and I would prefer more restrictions on appropriations of land: whether it be property taxes that are progressive when successively purchased under affiliated entities, or something else.

There are collectivists who are much more extreme in that regard.

No. One is to maintain one's right to privacy and solitude. The other is to separate ethnic groups (effectively) and address an economic problem (supposedly). The former is implied in the sovereignty of individuals expressed in the constitution. The latter is just a ludicrous idea that is completely unfeasible and based solely on ethnic fears.

Because they are proposing national restriction that insulate hundreds of millions of people from hundreds of millions of other people, many of whom are in need of work, refuge, or otherwise.

Those persons are fine to concerned and are therefore entitled to protect their private property. But, unless their actual property borders the border, that precludes barring entry into the country.

I agree. I'm assuming you are implying Zuckerberg's support for gun control, but I also assume he doesn't endorse actually disarming citizens, poor or otherwise. The analogy, in this case, would be advocacy for background checks of persons applying for fences around their property to make sure that they don't have proclivities that would insinuate they would be using the fence to kill people (silly).

 

do you think houses shouldnt have walls or doors?

 

Of course I think houses should have walls and doors, I don't know where you would get the idea that I think otherwise.

 

well theyre there to "keep out people you dont want to be there" too, so i imagine if you thought he was a hypocrite for building a wall on his own property you'd also think he was a hypocrite for having walls on his house.

 

That's interesting, any good reading on these points of view you can direct me to?

I view immigration policy as a way to provide security and far distribution of resources among the citizens. I am positive there are many racist people who believe it's important to keep dark-skinned people out of their communities, but I am not one of them, and I favor immigration reform.

I don't see it as insulation but a controlled population integration.

I wasn't really talking about a specific person or position with that comment. But on the gun control part, there are many rich liberals who are against armed guards at schools but send their kids to private schools that provide that very protection. How is that not hypocritical and elitist?

 

Well, there is also the small matter of protecting him and his family from the elements of nature but this doesn't seem like the beginnings of a serious discussion anyways so whatever.

 

I'm against private property, I'm a socialist

 

a person building a wall on their own property is not the same as the government building a wall over thousands of miles, acting like it is is ridiculous and undeserving of a serious conversation to begin with

 

I mean, he is a piece of shit for building that wall. It just isn't hypocritical. He exploits people and their data to make money. What does one expect? The people of the community should have every recourse to get it taken down.

 

i had no idea that being against private property was a thing. i mean, i'm against it in terms of ruining the ecosystem and wildlife just for more obnoxious, abandoned office buildings and condos when there are so many already built/abandoned spaces that companies could already use and just refurbish / clean up, but in terms of people owning land to live on i have no issue with that.

and if they want to build a wall on their property? go right ahead.

i say this as someone who will likely always rent an apartment not as someone who owns billions of acres of land.

 

Property is theft