What's your least popular political opinion?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

We should practice theocracy so everyone can be governed by their own kind. It makes no sense to me how we all try to rule over everyone else. I say let the atheists rule the atheists, the christians rule the christians, the muslims rule the muslims, etc.

Ummm…theocracies…much like every other form of government…are inherently unsustainable…

Every form of government being bandied about here…has already been tried…and the only common denominator…is they all failed…miserably…

Until you accept that humans…whether in groups or individually…are territorial…lactating mammals…just another animal species inhabiting the rock…then all talk of hypotheticals is moot…


History and the present are rife with human predation upon human…frankly…that’s who we are…not some idyllic…enlightened race of do-gooders…whose only emotional state is kumbaya…


Come to terms with exactly what and who you are…find your balance within that construct…and be content with that…






YouSir

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The American economy would be in a better position had Trump been re-elected.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

What's your least popular political opinion? The Politicians are in it for the people.

Everywhere you look at every level of social-economic status, every gender and every race.
Some will always take advantage to circumnavigate the spirit of life.


For example there are no poor leaders in any Political Causes or heads of charities -
Donations roll into charities or for a cause and the main advertised recipients will get very little of the pie.
But the leaders seem to have acquired some fortuitous wealth along the way.

Basically most people will complain they are victims when really they are part of the problem by taking what they shouldn't just because they could.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

Compulsory bathing.

My least popular political opinion? I don't trust any politicians or their propaganda spreaders...That opinion is really unpopular with politicians.

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

We should practice theocracy so everyone can be governed by their own kind. It makes no sense to me how we all try to rule over everyone else. I say let the atheists rule the atheists, the christians rule the christians, the muslims rule the muslims, etc.

Ummm…theocracies…much like every other form of government…are inherently unsustainable…

Every form of government being bandied about here…has already been tried…and the only common denominator…is they all failed…miserably…

Until you accept that humans…whether in groups or individually…are territorial…lactating mammals…just another animal species inhabiting the rock…then all talk of hypotheticals is moot…


History and the present are rife with human predation upon human…frankly…that’s who we are…not some idyllic…enlightened race of do-gooders…whose only emotional state is kumbaya…


Come to terms with exactly what and who you are…find your balance within that construct…and be content with that…

YouSir

That itself is a fairly stable, self-regulating form of government, albeit in a Mad Max kind of way. The problems creep in when one person realizes they have more power than a few others and can take their stuff.

I believe all drugs should be legal and sold like alcohol. It would clear out the prisons. Not only that, just like alcohol it should be regulated to cut down on overdose deaths.

a reply to: M5xaz

So you agree renting out farm land, commercial space, industrial space, using freehold homes as a means of profit is justifiable, because, hard work?

Isn't it interesting how every economist disagrees with you.
Stakeholder real estate simply means you own the land you work on it, you live on it, and if you profit from it then it should be for employment or personal wealth such as raising a family or renting out some land while you live on it, not just own the land and rent it out while you live or work somewhere else robbing others in your society of financial and economic independence.

Real freedom isn't granted or upheld by politics, it is inherent.
Any and all political systems are designed to take away your freedoms in exchange for security.

Dichotomies suck.

Politicians should be paid the dole for the portion of the year that they are sitting in parliament and live in Tasmania on streets that are at least 2/3 housing commission.

Second jobs are encouraged and profiting from your political position is ten years in jail, no parole. Trial by referendum.

a reply to: SentientBunnySuit

The US Government and governments around the world are subservient to the billionaire class. Left vs Right is an illusion. People LOVE being part of a team or a tribe, and people will clamber over their own family to feel like they BELONG to a group that accepts them. The division was designed to keep us at odds with each other, because we're all way more alike than we choose to accept, and when we're fighting each other, we do nothing to make systemic changes that give more power to the people.

Life doesn't change much, no matter who sits at the head of the pretend table. They're all actors. Billionaires will continue to strip wealth from all classes of people.

There is a fine line separating the middle and upper classes from the lower class. There is a universe separating the upper class from the billionaire class.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: M5xaz

So you agree renting out farm land, commercial space, industrial space, using freehold homes as a means of profit is justifiable, because, hard work?

Isn't it interesting how every economist disagrees with you.
Stakeholder real estate simply means you own the land you work on it, you live on it, and if you profit from it then it should be for employment or personal wealth such as raising a family or renting out some land while you live on it, not just own the land and rent it out while you live or work somewhere else robbing others in your society of financial and economic independence.

No serious economist agrees with you.
Check Venezuela.

Your post embody the politics of envy and jealousy.

When I rent anything, I don't fell robbed because I don't think like a child and I am smart enough to understand the counterparty has to work to buy and maintain the asset in the first place.

Renting out farm land or any other asset is entirely justifiable
No one is robbing you
No one is forcing you to enter into any contractual relationship

This is just plain rabid envy with total lack of understanding that any asset anyone owns is only because you needed to work to acquire it and maintain it.

a reply to: YouSir

Like free speech, I defended Kathy Griffin.

I've also defended Snowden and Assange.

That both sides aren't really the same. One side is openly for and working towards the destruction of America.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Two sides, one is dishonestly honest, while the other is honestly dishonest...

As a Canadian mine is: Trump did a pretty good job for your country and had it not been for the pandemic, he would have won in a landslide for his second term. He accomplished good things with your economy until March of 2020 despite the absolute circus act that was your politics for 5 years. Well longer than that but that's something else altogether.

a reply to: M5xaz

It's a fabricated market for profit only. The incentive isn't for personal and societal growth, it's just for pure profit.

Are you being difficult on purpose? I gave two perfectly fine examples of well known economic giants that agree with me, Keynes and Smith, Hell even Friedman admits no one takes better care of property than the person who works and is directly affiliated with it.

You're in a state of denial, I'm not talking about siezing the means of production and land, I'm bringing up a real moral political and economic question that involves robbing others of financial equality for pure profit sake.

Raising the voting age to the age they have discovered that the brain matures and if that means you need to be older to join the military......that will be fine too.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
I also agree that voting should be as hard as anything we do in the U.S.

Personally, I think that the parties should be abolished and congress replaced with the citizenry itself. The need for representatives comes from an era when messages, news and even the tally of votes, traveled at the speed of horses and pigeons. In the age of near instant communication, you could easily tally the vote of every legal citizen. The same rules that apply to congress would apply to the vote of the citizenry, as far as majorities. Also the executive branch would still have it's veto and the judiciary can still weigh on the constitutionality and legality of the laws.

It would reduce the power of lobbyists overnight, being far more expensive and difficult to buy off the majority of the citizens. It would probably make passing laws more difficult, which may not be a bad thing, that would tamp down the rampant overreach of the federal government and force the state and local governments to deal with more of the workload itself.

At the same time, being a cynic, I unfortunately realize that, the powerful will still find a way to game even that system. Though if we were a more ethical, intelligent and wise a species collectively, it probably would serve us well.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: M5xaz

It's a fabricated market for profit only. The incentive isn't for personal and societal growth, it's just for pure profit.

Are you being difficult on purpose? I gave two perfectly fine examples of well known economic giants that agree with me, Keynes and Smith, Hell even Friedman admits no one takes better care of property than the person who works and is directly affiliated with it.

You're in a state of denial, I'm not talking about siezing the means of production and land, I'm bringing up a real moral political and economic question that involves robbing others of financial equality for pure profit sake.

Projection issues.

You're the one in a state of denial.
No one takes better care of a property that the one who OWNS it, none of this BS about "affiliated with it"

When people do not own a property they simply don't care for it: US social housing is exhibit A

And you are the one being ignorant:
- 2008 was caused by NINJA loans, loaning money to people with no income, no jobs, no assets
- rob·ber·y /ˈräb(ə)rē/ noun the action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by force or threat of force.

When you screw up YOUR financial future , that is YOUR own fault, starting with refusing to acknowledge YOUR own bad financial decisions. No one "robbed" you. Instead, bottle up your jealously and envy, work two jobs sometimes three like my son did and became owner in this market of a house at 22.

No. There is no such thing as a "right" of it being easy to being economically successful. It always has been hard, is hard, and always will be.
But then some people are lazy and prefer leftist platitudes where Daaddyyy and Mommmy big government will do all the hard work for you.

Grow up.
Seriously

The main reason for housing price appreciation in Canada is IMMIGRATION, something leftists like you support without being able to understand that if Canada import 400 000 migrants like Canada did over the last 2 years, this WILL cause increasing demand for housing and cause prices to skyrocket

Which is EXACTLY what happenned

Conversely, if politicians had kept to representing CANADIANS as opposed to foreigners and kept immigration very low, like Japan, given dropping Canadian fertility rates, there would have been NO housing boom, and perhaps, like Japan ( outside Tokyo) a slight drop.

But keep right on swallowing leftist economic ignorance, envy and jealousy

Give my regards to your trailer park....




QED