Mr. Unelectable Won Another Huge Endorsement

a reply to: Ahabstar

And this is why I say that the end goal of Progressives is Feudalism because it is the only way for their grandiose schemes to work.

What do you mean by "Progressive?"
My instinct to say "No, the end goal of Progressives is Utopia", but perhaps I am mistaken about just who you are referring to.

A basic income is the result of a society that has failed to become Utopian due to clinging to a Capitalistic model that is no longer sustainable.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

By your own figures he's not even close to the top 1% by income or net worth. There's no maybe about it. You can't say that about Trump or Hillary.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Well, first thing, that logical fallacy does not apply to my response because you provided no "compelling evidence" to support your claim. Furthermore, I said nothing that generalized an entire group--what I did do is note that the ideological beliefs that are proclaimed by the party mentioned (Republicans...who do, as a group, have an official ideology) would not mesh with the major ideologies promoted by 'The Burn.' That's all my point was--the ideologies don't match, therefore if someone switches sides, they either did not adhere to the Republican ideology in their heart, and therefore were not actual Repulicans proper.

That's not a logical fallacy, but it's quite amusing that you would try to discredit my comment in that manner.

While I did switch the "democrat" and "socialist" aspects, the point I was making is still valid--made even more so by calling himself a "Democratic Socialist," as that puts the emphasis on Socialist instead of Democrat, even further distancing the two ideologies.

Bernie is Bipartisan.

Maybe on a few small issues, but overall, he is not. But either way, this discussion is kind of unnecessary at this point of the thread.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Utopia is a grandiose scheme. Human nature doesn't allow for total equality. If under perfection everyone had a longbow for hunting, someone would have to have a recurve bow to point of developing it themselves.

And while they might be convinced to make one for everybody by peer pressure or threat of becoming cast out, that momentary difference ended the utopia because someone was better than everyone else for that moment in time.

During that timeframe the old seven deadly sins would be effect, envy and pride chief among them. Again, human nature. Because bartering is still an economy and many of the hunters would be willing to trade things for that better bow.

A basic income is the only thing that makes sense as we move forward. I guess it'll take another decade of suffering before people get a clue.

a reply to: Ahabstar

As you say, it is indeed a grandiose scheme, but so was landing on the moon. Even if it is ultimately unattainable, I believe simply pursuing it will make us better as a species.

I think we differ on what we view as "Utopian", however.

Feel The Bern! I am doing everything I can to get this man elected. And the news just gets better and better every day. I haven't been this politically motivated since I was 18.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I indeed did not present "compelling" evidence, in truth I have simply seen many people stating on YouTube comments and similar that their Republican friends/family/neighbors are switching sides to vote for Bernie. A few have said the same of Democrats for Trump. None, of course, for Hillary. I have, however, chosen to believe this, as I consider it logical. Even switching my viewpoint to a stance that differs from Bernie's fairly significantly, he is still the optimum candidate as he is the only one who will actually endeavor to get the big money and corporations out. That is paramount.

That's not a logical fallacy, but it's quite amusing that you would try to discredit my comment in that manner.

if someone went from claiming republican ideology to supporting Sanders, they either (a) weren't really republicans and didn't hold republican ideology close to their heart, or (b) are supporting him in voice alone but probably won't cast a vote for him.

Seems pretty generalising to me, but at this point it is mostly semantics.

The Republicans that have switched sides to vote for Bernie will probably disagree with you that they were not "real" Republicans to begin with. If I wanted to, I could likely posit that your original argument was a strawman to begin with, as I was not talking about their ideology. You do not have to believe Republican ideology to be a Republican, you simply have to be registered as one. Those are the people I was talking about. What they truly believed is ultimately unknowable and ultimately irrelevant. They were Republicans. They switched. Fact.

Maybe on a few small issues

You are saying that corruption in politics is a "small" issue?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

We might indeed disagree on utopia.

For me there has to be a basic level of sustainability but not necessarily growth of the society. But there is a level of communism needed in order achieve sustainability by shared resources and production that precludes bartering. Housing, food and raw/stock materials are shared commodities. Think of the communal effort of barn raising among the Amish as housing, a deer hunting or fishing camp for food or a flour mill for that matter. A sawmill for lumber in which lumberjacks bring in the logs to be milled for the benefit of the community in which the bowyer takes lumber for bow making, carpenters do the same for furniture making and so on.

Jewelry might be made as a commodity for outside trade for other needed materials or food stock that can't be grown for whatever reason. Or maybe it is rocking chairs because the carpenter in the next village doesn't know how to steam bend lumber.

But to ramp this scale up to a national or global level means that either everyone can have an iPad or no one can. Because an iPad is either a tool or a luxury depending on the standards of the community. Again human nature starts kicking in. But in either case there is a level of stagnation (no iPad) or a limited resource (iPad) or forgoing of other avenues to afford the iPad for all. A different example but it is kinda like the recurve bow in a more primative society.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Basic food, Basic shelter, healthcare, basic communications, basic clothes and basic transportation need to be universal, everything else is a luxury, and that's what working should be for. Get rid of college and degrees. Make education to do a job part of the job. If corporations want specialists, they should pick from their pool of workers a gogetter and pay for them to be apprenticed to learn those skills.

Laboratories and libraries should be public access, with schools and programs that teach sciences to those who are interested.

We don't need everyone working 40+ hours plus a week, it's simply unnecessary these days and becoming more unnecessary everyday. We keep trying to force old methodologies to work when the truth is we don't have the infrastructure to support those old ways. If people had the basic necessities supplied, but needed to work to get apps beyond basic communications, to get luxury foods (basic nutritional foods is what would be provided free), a luxury vehicle, a bed better than a basic mattress, television, luxury clothes, video games, jewelry, etc, believe me people would still work.

Difference they'd be working for things they want, not need. As such, you'd have a world of part timers, and a few that really need ALL the toys still working full time. We'd have the proper size work force, and remove debt from unnecessary schooling in the process. People interesting in advancing science, or trying to find the next big luxury could work part time and still afford to pursue the advancement of society.

a reply to: Puppylove

Some good points made as to basic structure levels.

But in order to pay for the necessities would require a tax base and a determination of how to utilize a labor pool for those necessities. Which could be government and government jobs. Maybe a program of compulsory labor for age groups of say 18-25 for home building and so forth. Age of majority (26 in that example) reaps the benefits of those examples. Which is how Social Security works for those retired. If you are injured or otherwise unable to work in that timeframe is how SSI disability insurance works. The difference being the age range of course. Which is like socialism 101 for America and actually goes back to the rules of the Jamestown Colony of If you don't work, you don't eat. But if you can't work, then you will be provided for.

Many people like the idea of the Off The Grid lifestyle (myself included) which focuses on living off the land and existing based on self-determination. Actually my ideal condition would be 5-7 log cabins and a main lodge house for workshops (wood and metal), kitchen area and a computer lab for entertainment purposes. So primative with communal modern conveniences on about 100-150 acres of land mostly woods of 70% or so.

It is a nice idea but if everyone in the country followed suit then there would a huge loss to the tax base for national sustainability. We the Off The Grid Movement would be forced into a higher sustainability for the nation. Forced labor by the government is Feudalism at best, Slavery at worst...Either of which is contrary to the American form of government.

As to why that 10-25 year old group (of serfs) get no or limited choice in their service is to meet the base requirements. If the government officials (elected or appointed) continue to receive the perks they have now, you end up with a Soviet style of communism rather quickly. At least as far as that age group is concerned. And if that body picks winners and losers among corporations competing for contracts...well cronyism a la Haliburton or Diane Feinstein's husband's high speed rail deal becomes the norm.

Everyone refers to 1984 while forgetting that Animal Farm gave a better lesson.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Did you read down to the part where I determine one's "one-percenthood" from net worth and not just income (because income can be deceptive as to wealth of an individual). If you did, you'd realize that it's possible that Bernie Sanders has over $700,000 in total net worth, and to me, that's a one-percenter if you go by the amount one has to make as annual income to be in the top one percent.

Of course, as I already acknowledged, I know the difference between net worth and annual income, but like I noted, there's a flaw in judging someone by income alone.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Your whole argument is based on some YouTube videos consisting of hearsay that someone's (probably a Bern feeler) family or friends switched their political ideology to support Sanders.

As for the reality behind his claim, remember that Obama claimed to become (and still claims to be) the most transparent administration ever. Bush made claims that never became a reality as well. So did (the first) Clinton...and (the first) Bush.

All I can say is that if you're pinning all of your hopes on claims and indications made in a campaign, I think that you're setting yourself up for disappointment. I hope not, as I do agree that getting big money and corporations out of the election process and government altogether is a foundational necessity in fixing our country, I don't see it happening any time soon...but I hope it will. I certainly don't see it happening with big-money Trump or any other Republican candidates, save for maybe Rand Paul, but he's not even in the next televised debate, so that's a non-issue.

As for corruption in politics being a small issue--no, but there are so many big issues that need tackled and fixed that they all have become small in comparison to the amount of problems our government has.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Did you read the part where I said by net worth and by income? If so, you'd realize I've done my homework, and 700K is FAR from 1% range. It's not even in the top 10%

Please inform yourself.

Thnx!

Net Worth Percentile Rank : A net worth of $700,000.00 for ages 18 to 100 ranks at the 86.55%

700K Net Worth

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Well, your source says one thing, and my multiple sources in this comment that I made yesterday give a completely different picture. I'm well informed, but thanks for the suggestion.

You may have done your homework, but plenty of people fail when their homework is graded, so posting one link that supports your claim doesn't make it a reality--as I said earlier, I wasn't comparing net worth to annual income, and as you can see in my link to which I probably pointlessly provided you, even just his senator salary alone makes him a seven-percenter based on total household income.

But in case you are unwilling to click the link to my post, I'll quote myself:

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
So, I concede that MAYBE he's not a "one-percenter," but from my point of view, he hardly has anything to complain about or use as leverage when it comes to pretending that he's not a wealthy man. See, I look at net worth, not income, as an indicator as to how wealthy someone is, even if that's not the formula for determining what a standard one-percenter is.

Also, it doesn't matter about comparing his worth to the other one-percenters, it matters about comparing his worth to the average American...the American who, as a fifty-percenter, has an annual income of $52,000. Note that this is annual HOUSEHOLD income. Under that formula, if Donald Trump only paid himself $52,000 this year, but has a net worth of $4,000,000,000, he'd be considered a fifty-percenter, hence why I don't use the annual-income indicator.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: IAMTAT

NH Poll: Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in every major voting bloc

www.cbsnews.com...

If Hillary actually starts seeing Sanders as an genuine threat...it's time for him to double up on his personal security.

But, but...b-b-but...guns are bad, Mmm-kay?!

Bernie doesn't want your guns.

a reply to: amicktd

I never said he did, I was simply mocking the standard democrat cliché for entertainment effect because we were talking about a democrat protecting himself with guns from another democrat who hypothetically would try to take him out...most likely with a gun.

That is all.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: amicktd

I never said he did, I was simply mocking the standard democrat cliché for entertainment effect because we were talking about a democrat protecting himself with guns from another democrat who hypothetically would try to take him out...most likely with a gun.

That is all.

Fair enough