Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Venezuela: Hyperinflation/Two Day Work Week/Ends Beer Production/Maduro Recall" video.
-
1
-
1
-
"its a great idea, but collecting more money for the gov won't help it go away. Spreading around wealth from others wont help.
Nothing bernie will do will help. If he gets close to change id bet he dies quick.
If you want people to live better maybe let them live and not tax them to death. The gov isnt responsible for taking care of people like that. No one is owed health care or schooling. A fair wage maybe, but still it shouldnt be gov mandated."
if Bernie cannot help the country...than who the fuck can? Trump is just as slimy as Hilary (though his policies are alot less slimy -- i'm just talking ethics here)...does he take the same position now, as he did two months ago? nope. gotta compete against 'liberal Hilary" now. and Trump wanted just as much of a redistribution as what you suspect of Bernie. he's basically paying people to support him. remove the Mexicans and redistribute the jobs (ie the cashflow) to ordinary Americans...yeah, and what if most of those Mexicans were being paid under the table, and being paid less than what an "ordinary American" will be willing to work for? and how many of these people will America need? sounds equally absurd as the "lining up for rations" socialism idea that people kinda just presume will happen, in a country like America (doubtful -- highly doubtful).
the system is fucked. fiscal-conservatism > libertarianism, in terms of running a nation. i still call myself a libertarian, but that's not a position i'd support in my government, because ther effects would be one of two, either 1: environmental destruction, which is shown to be the case in attempts at agorist societies, or 2: crony capitalism still thrives and people have a lovely personal opinion that means nothing to said cronies.
libertarianism is a fine personal belief system.
1
-
i am not making arguments. i am making statements. there's a difference. i'm not arguing with you; how could i be, we're mostly in agreement. except in one area, it seems, but perhaps not, how can i know you from Adam? -- you need government. so the point (for the massive population, which entails having a fucking government, unless you'd prefer anarchy. trust me, you probably don't. because people stronger than you will opt for you to cater to them) is to have a sustainable, minimal (of course) government that the people (as they already do) take part in, and aim to regulate with all the functions of a people whom control THEIR representatives should -- with regulations ON GOVERNMENT powers, and not on the people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"From mindlessly disagreeing to everything to switching sides depending on what you assume side im taking."
you're assuming as well. this is what happens when you take a rhetorical stance as opposed to a purely logical one. now we're sort of playing a game. all i said at first was: money out of politics is a good idea, and only Bernie was supporting that idea; not Trump or Hilary.
"How about calling us a democracy than citing the constitution which states we are a republic. "
that's silly. i've responded with more from the constitution than you have. i didn't call anything a democracy. i just said that i assumed you would make this declination of logical forbearance, thinking that i'm saying that we're a democracy, when really we have a representative republic, which representative needs to be voted in, which is a purely democratic concept -- and not just a Greek one, as you can plainly see.
"or at least pick a side/perspective. "
oh i have. on a personal ideological level i am libertarian, but as for political agency and for the terms of a political body, i am fiscal-conservative on economic policy and liberal/individualist on social policy -- and a constitutionalist -- not a liberal-constitutionalist, no no, i like the constitution the way it is now, and i don't want to repeal anything -- with the exception of getting money out of politics (it's clearly polluted our system) being amended into the writ, i'm good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
your claim that anarchism (the anti-state) works better than socialism, follows the insistence that you would want to break up the parties, which concludes that you think "anarchy works and is an answer/solution", ie, the only solution, as evidenced by you wanting to "break the illusion" of a two party system, and your claim that anarchy would work "better than socialism". so no, not no, but yes, yes, Cynical Bastard, that's exactly right.
you embossed carbuncle.
1
-
1
-
yeah, excuse me for being realistic about the prospects of the country, instead of opting for fantasy, like yourself. i told you: ain't no one rolling up on the white house lawn with any degree of weaponry to "take the country back" from it's 'government of theft', as you'd call it...so you simply bitch, basically, and DO NOTHING -- people like you -- and except everyone else to 'wake up' for your sake, so you can, what? finally take some action against the government? i don't see you doing anything about it. and the constitution is the only reason you aren't reading German right now. the only credit, is where credit is due. it's a better constitution than any other nation. i do not ascribe to the notion that government is the enemy, automatically, because anarchism is = an enemy to a free nation, because in anarchy the wolf with the sharpest teeth survives. but what the fuck WOULD YOU KNOW, you've never lived in anarchy before, HAVE YOU? so you don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Whats you brilliant plan? To keep voting for candidates who are 90% the same as the others? "
i don't vote. assumption number 10.
"You literally advocated voting for a socialist as a means to improve our current government which is already to big"
no, i didn't. i explained a position. i didn't advocate for his candidacy. i am as yet completely decided that he doesn't have a chance of winning, and that that should be obvious; and i don't like Trump or Hilary at all. for clear reasons.
"You bitch about the system we have than babble about how we need it to do anything and we have to have it."
actually, all i ever advocated was that a complete reversion to classical liberalism is unrealistic, because of the population -- you need to enact legislation slowly to set the precedent first -- hence my remarks about rolling up on Washington. you can't do what you want to do, but you can advocate for it...just expect realistic people to come with facts. sorry. but if you read what i said, you'd see that i never advocated for bigger government, and you'll see that i mention that i am a libertarian at heart, and want small government too, but that it's just not possible -- oh yeah, and your plan...
"if you paid attention i advocated a small government kept in check by people who are paying attention. A actual representative government. Back to the republic we were meant to be. This is only the 4th time ive said as much."
that's not a plan. that's your advocacy. not a plan. i advocate the same thing...but i don't do it so blindly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
no, he can't. no president can't act of his own accord and expect to not be harangued for it. and when it comes to Vermont, Bernie doesn't control all of policy, of course, only that which is in Vermont -- and Vermont, a rural state, is in natural competition for jobs and resources, like any other state, and thus younger people move to more urban states to get "a leg up", as it were, up the social ladder, in more urban areas, which will cost more, ultimately to live in, but which also ultimately pays more. that's my understanding of that fundamental hitch for you. other than that, the mere idea that "Bernie is governor, thus all problems arisen in the state relate to his decisions, personally", is fallacious, at best -- you need better rationale than 'correlation = causation', if you're gonna try and make an ethical case against him.
1
-
yeah, and that all might be very well true. but this is a single state, and you're comparing it's values and it's results to the potential results and values on a national level. you can't really say for sure that what ends up working for Vermont, won't work for the rest of the nation, especially since, if the rest of the nation does go under a big change in policy the rest of the states will adjust to said change, and they (the people of said state) will have to make up their own workforce/student body according to that adjustment, so yes, people might be moving out of Vermont to get better jobs, but if every state was a 'Vermont state', then obviously this problem of people leaving, would be avoided, as people leaving their state, then, would be a moot endeavor. they'd probably opt to stay to build up the economy in their state of current residence, because to move wouldn't accomplish a greater incentive for their self-interest -- ie the interest remains at home...and after all, isn't that what states want? less of their people to move to other states or other countries entirely, because they can make economic opportunities at home?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1