|
|
Post by Tolbert Benson on Jul 29, 2016 23:12:18 GMT
I dont know if Bernie had any real chance to win the presidency, who knows if things are or are not rigged and to what degrees and how things would have played out purely, but I do not know if half of America would have voted for Bernie; and if it would be between Hillary, Bernie, and Trump, then that would only increase the chance of Trump winning, which you can potentially see why there is the desire for 2 party system, because imagine like 5 actual potential candidates or more, how much that would split the votes and electoral, it would mean the 'majority' would be smaller and smaller percentages; instead this way, smaller and smaller percentages pool together to form relatively 2 distinct ones. So, if there was very little chance of Bernie winning (and, from my complete ignorance, it seemed that way, and I also cannot say I am knowledgeable about how the future would have played out if Bernie actually won) it was likely the right thing for him to team up with a seemingly good chance to win, so that some of his ideas might be implemented. Though yeah, I do not know how America would have voted if it was between Bernie and Trump, debates would have been interesting. Hillary is the status quo, with promises for the status quo to improve for those who desire it to, and many people are comfortable with the status quo and such promises. One of the thing that is often overlooked, is the power of congress, but that is the whole, money in politics thing, and she touched upon that and who knows if anything will be done about it. There was little chance of bernie winning due to the very corruption in the political system that Hillary herself is a part of, not directly responsible for, but a member of the group that carries out such acts of corruption. Yes he couldn't have maintained his image and backed anyone other than Hillary. Hillary says "she will give good jobs to people who want good jobs". Why should I believe her? If the political system was not corrupt, what do you think the chance of Bernie winning might have been? |
|
|
|
Post by Elewcive Duddie on Jul 29, 2016 23:30:49 GMT
There was little chance of bernie winning due to the very corruption in the political system that Hillary herself is a part of, not directly responsible for, but a member of the group that carries out such acts of corruption. Yes he couldn't have maintained his image and backed anyone other than Hillary. Hillary says "she will give good jobs to people who want good jobs". Why should I believe her? I saw some humanity in her, in her speaking. Even that her mind was full of so many aspects of functioning world and peopledom, (and I know.. speech, but still (there was a sense of knowledge and realness in what she spoke of, even though there was an awkwardness in some of her delivery, some of what she said must be true, how she has helped those in need, though yes I know it could be an easy theatrical tool); one of the big kickers though for me, is the fact that if I were a multi multi millionaire, I would probably rather spend any 4 years laying on a tropical island beach than in the oval office; Trump is in that same boat; is there really not such thing as having enough money; or you think at that point, it might be the desire for legacy, pride, and belief that it will impress those around, like feeling as if those in high places would have to depend on her and treat her nice, if they want favors? Or simply, because the elites need individuals who share their desires in high places, to look out for them, and Hillary is that, sure anyone can throw bones to the poor, but certainly that is not what is most valuable about life, commerce and politics; the stable and secure world of wealth and family and impressive achievement, of luxury and commissioning of art and science, of being big and medium and massive players in the great game of life; that is the real world; everything else is a distasteful distraction; who cares if 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 10 people need a job, whats the difference; surely enough food and clean water exists for them to eat, sleep and be entertained for a life; now quit the buzzing, the world has always been perfect as long as one has their health and such does not last for ever; how much time must I waste caring for each one in need, what can be done to make it so I or noone ever has to care for anyone other than oneself again (is that not the goal of progression and freedom)? Lay on a beach for 4 years, may just be an exaggerated reactive desire due to current and past less than ideal circumstances; would likely get very boring after some time. The real fun is playing an active role in creation. Many, maybe most, individuals understand that they need to work a lifetime and hope to be able to retire. Some individuals are able to retire earlier than others. Some individuals do not need to work. Many individuals compete to retire as soon as possible. Some work is easier than others, some work more rewarding (in multiple ways). On one level then it is seen, the world is a 'competition' of various types of labors and freedoms; labors and freedoms depend on various resources. How many individuals would opt for the bare minimum for the bare minimum. Thats no way to create an ever more glorious civilization; that is not the triumphant spirit which has developed every great and interesting facet of potential human experience. If you were able to not worry about working, you certainly had enough money to live more than comfortably for the rest of your life, would you take that opportunity, wouldnt everyone; so of course everyone cannot have that opportunity, but many dream of that opportunity, and many fight for that opportunity; and many despair that that opportunity is potentially ever out of reach. That an honest life of honest work is so unattractive, so difficult to obtain, and well if everyone who wanted a good job could just get a good job, then that would be communistic socialism. All this to respond, health alone is not a mark of perfection, as there can be a most healthy slave. |
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 30, 2016 0:05:05 GMT
Please tell me that "Rise" was not written for Hillary. Stupid politics, always messing everything up. ;___;
|
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jul 30, 2016 0:41:12 GMT
Please tell me that "Rise" was not written for Hillary. Stupid politics, always messing everything up. ;___; It was written for the Rio Olympics <3 Hopefully that makes you feel better haha |
|
|
|
Post by Caylus Ark on Jul 30, 2016 0:47:15 GMT
I saw some humanity in her, in her speaking. Even that her mind was full of so many aspects of functioning world and peopledom, (and I know.. speech, but still (there was a sense of knowledge and realness in what she spoke of, even though there was an awkwardness in some of her delivery, some of what she said must be true, how she has helped those in need, though yes I know it could be an easy theatrical tool); one of the big kickers though for me, is the fact that if I were a multi multi millionaire, I would probably rather spend any 4 years laying on a tropical island beach than in the oval office; Trump is in that same boat; is there really not such thing as having enough money; or you think at that point, it might be the desire for legacy, pride, and belief that it will impress those around, like feeling as if those in high places would have to depend on her and treat her nice, if they want favors? Or simply, because the elites need individuals who share their desires in high places, to look out for them, and Hillary is that, sure anyone can throw bones to the poor, but certainly that is not what is most valuable about life, commerce and politics; the stable and secure world of wealth and family and impressive achievement, of luxury and commissioning of art and science, of being big and medium and massive players in the great game of life; that is the real world; everything else is a distasteful distraction; who cares if 1,000 or 1,000,000 or 10 people need a job, whats the difference; surely enough food and clean water exists for them to eat, sleep and be entertained for a life; now quit the buzzing, the world has always been perfect as long as one has their health and such does not last for ever; how much time must I waste caring for each one in need, what can be done to make it so I or noone ever has to care for anyone other than oneself again (is that not the goal of progression and freedom)? Lay on a beach for 4 years, may just be an exaggerated reactive desire due to current and past less than ideal circumstances; would likely get very boring after some time. The real fun is playing an active role in creation. Many, maybe most, individuals understand that they need to work a lifetime and hope to be able to retire. Some individuals are able to retire earlier than others. Some individuals do not need to work. Many individuals compete to retire as soon as possible. Some work is easier than others, some work more rewarding (in multiple ways). On one level then it is seen, the world is a 'competition' of various types of labors and freedoms; labors and freedoms depend on various resources. How many individuals would opt for the bare minimum for the bare minimum. Thats no way to create an ever more glorious civilization; that is not the triumphant spirit which has developed every great and interesting facet of potential human experience. If you were able to not worry about working, you certainly had enough money to live more than comfortably for the rest of your life, would you take that opportunity, wouldnt everyone; so of course everyone cannot have that opportunity, but many dream of that opportunity, and many fight for that opportunity; and many despair that that opportunity is potentially ever out of reach. That an honest life of honest work is so unattractive, so difficult to obtain, and well if everyone who wanted a good job could just get a good job, then that would be communistic socialism. All this to respond, health alone is not a mark of perfection, as there can be a most healthy slave. I disagree with a few of your premises. First of all, I don't think that most people aim to retire as soon as possible or work as little as possible. A lot of people are bored when they are unemployed. They just want a job that pays relatively decent money for the amount of work put in. The middle class is disappearing, if you haven't noticed. The rich get richer, and the amount of people able to get by in the middle class are quickly dropping to lower and lower rungs of the middle class, and the way things are going the middle class is simply being replaced with a bigger lower (impoverished) class. This is a trend called the polarization of wealth. Please answer how it is communistic socialism for people to be able to work jobs that pay decent wages so that they can get by in the middle class. If you do your research on this you will see that the income gap between the rich and everybody else is absolutely staggering. There's no excuse for this. Pointing out that fact is not saying that people should be paid to do nothing. No, it's saying people want to be paid a living salary for their work. It's really that simple. I seriously don't think people want to just "not work". People want to be able to get a job that allows them and their family to pay rent, get their kid through school, eat, and not be drowning in debt just to be a person. Those jobs are getting very scarce. |
|
|
|
Post by ben on Jul 30, 2016 0:48:53 GMT
Please tell me that "Rise" was not written for Hillary. Stupid politics, always messing everything up. ;___; It was written for the Rio Olympics <3 Hopefully that makes you feel better haha It does actually, thank you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Buck Neuhaus on Jul 30, 2016 3:00:32 GMT
Lay on a beach for 4 years, may just be an exaggerated reactive desire due to current and past less than ideal circumstances; would likely get very boring after some time. The real fun is playing an active role in creation. Many, maybe most, individuals understand that they need to work a lifetime and hope to be able to retire. Some individuals are able to retire earlier than others. Some individuals do not need to work. Many individuals compete to retire as soon as possible. Some work is easier than others, some work more rewarding (in multiple ways). On one level then it is seen, the world is a 'competition' of various types of labors and freedoms; labors and freedoms depend on various resources. How many individuals would opt for the bare minimum for the bare minimum. Thats no way to create an ever more glorious civilization; that is not the triumphant spirit which has developed every great and interesting facet of potential human experience. If you were able to not worry about working, you certainly had enough money to live more than comfortably for the rest of your life, would you take that opportunity, wouldnt everyone; so of course everyone cannot have that opportunity, but many dream of that opportunity, and many fight for that opportunity; and many despair that that opportunity is potentially ever out of reach. That an honest life of honest work is so unattractive, so difficult to obtain, and well if everyone who wanted a good job could just get a good job, then that would be communistic socialism. All this to respond, health alone is not a mark of perfection, as there can be a most healthy slave. I disagree with a few of your premises. First of all, I don't think that most people aim to retire as soon as possible or work as little as possible. A lot of people are bored when they are unemployed. They just want a job that pays relatively decent money for the amount of work put in. The middle class is disappearing, if you haven't noticed. The rich get richer, and the amount of people able to get by in the middle class are quickly dropping to lower and lower rungs of the middle class, and the way things are going the middle class is simply being replaced with a bigger lower (impoverished) class. This is a trend called the polarization of wealth. Please answer how it is communistic socialism for people to be able to work jobs that pay decent wages so that they can get by in the middle class. If you do your research on this you will see that the income gap between the rich and everybody else is absolutely staggering. There's no excuse for this. Pointing out that fact is not saying that people should be paid to do nothing. No, it's saying people want to be paid a living salary for their work. It's really that simple. I seriously don't think people want to just "not work". People want to be able to get a job that allows them and their family to pay rent, get their kid through school, eat, and not be drowning in debt just to be a person. Those jobs are getting very scarce.
I disagree with a few of your premises. First of all, I don't think that most people aim to retire as soon as possible or work as little as possible. A lot of people are bored when they are unemployed. They just want a job that pays relatively decent money for the amount of work put in.
I dont know if I said most people, perhaps I should say, an amount of people desire to make as much money as possible.
I am not speaking about most people, I suppose. Most people are fine. I suppose we are speaking about what is not fine with the world.
Why are there any problems, are there any? What are the largest?
You do not think if most people were given the option of winning the lottery they would not choose that option?
If most people do not desire to work as little as possible, why are there any problems? I suppose the problems, are the type of work? Maybe the consolation?
There are types of work many people would not want to and/or be able to do.
"The middle class is disappearing, if you haven't noticed. The rich get richer, and the amount of people able to get by in the middle class are quickly dropping to lower and lower rungs of the middle class, and the way things are going the middle class is simply being replaced with a bigger lower (impoverished) class. This is a trend called the polarization of wealth. "
How can this or why should this be solved? Isn't this just the natural results of free market supply and demand?
What is wrong with the way things are? There is plenty of food, water, homes, clothes and electric, power; why do we need to care about how big the middle class is? And why do we need to care about the middle class at all, if there exists a class worse off than the middle class? What kind of discrimination is that.
"Please answer how it is communistic socialism for people to be able to work jobs that pay decent wages so that they can get by in the middle class. If you do your research on this you will see that the income gap between the rich and everybody else is absolutely staggering. There's no excuse for this. Pointing out that fact is not saying that people should be paid to do nothing. No, it's saying people want to be paid a living salary for their work. It's really that simple. "
Because people do not decide what jobs are needed, God/nature/hidden hand of the market decides; if there is no demand for an individuals labor, that individual is unfit to survive.
The quality of life the rich get to experience is more important than the quality of life the poor do not. The cost of attention, resource, energy, to raise all the lowly to a humane level of life, is much greater than the benefit that those well off get to currently experience, without having to consider how to do such.
"I seriously don't think people want to just "not work". People want to be able to get a job that allows them and their family to pay rent, get their kid through school, eat, and not be drowning in debt just to be a person. "
I agree, to a degree. But you are also neglecting how difficult life is, how difficult work is, how physically and mentally demanding, and how after years straight with little break, the thought of winning the lottery may sound nice.
Pretty much you are suggesting, a system in which individuals do not have to kill themselves to live.
(part of the difficulty is the complexity of the individual and their desires)
|
|
