Would anyone be able to tell if it was actually dementia?
Good point. Could just be tertiary syphilis.
I had a friend when I was younger named Will, but we called him anything but Will. My favorite name for him was syphwillis.
Could just be the late stage syphilis
Republican legislation is now pushing a bill to change the name from Sioux City to Sioux Falls to cover Trump's blunder.
They were fine with Regan they are fine with dumb shit Trump.
Its not about choosing the best guy for the job its about hurting the democrats.
The official campaign for the Republican candidate for U.S. President campaigned on the slogan "Make Liberals Cry Again."
The GOP didn't have a policy platform in 2020, but at least their candidate had that slogan, and the Republican masses were cheering and hollering over it at every Trump really.
Everyone on the campaign was okay with that. Everyone in the Republican party was okay with that. Everyone on the Republican National Committee was okay with that.
Tells you absolutely everything you need to know about the current Republican party.
They hid Reagan's dementia, but I agree they will be fine with Trump.
I guess it's easy to confuse the two when you're a moron ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Americans vote nursing home candidates instead of presidential candidates
I don't think the average American wants politicians this old, they are being chosen by their political parties as having the highest chance of winning because we have a broken voting system that encourages fewer candidates per party so that they don't steal votes from each other.
That is why we need ranked choice voting, so that more candidates can run without competing and we could vote for people we actually like instead of voting against candidates we don't like.
Not to mention the need to level the playing field in terms of campaign financing which currently makes it more likely for more established politicians to have collected funding from private organizations, superpacs, and corporate lobbying.
This means that the politicians who are in the pockets of the capitalist elites are more likely to win and to enact the will of these corporations.
Those corpos aren't capitalist. They want government intervention (to save them when their little investing adventures fail)
Capitalism is the driving force of almost everything that's wrong in America. [1]
I agree that bailing out a corporation is not very capitalist, but that is not the primary goal of corporate lobbying. I believe it is mostly about keeping their industry legal, unregulated, low-taxed, etc.
Yes, and forming government-mantained monopolies, which kinda goes against capitalist principles
If you were a corporation, becoming a monopoly would be your wet dream. As a company becomes richer and more powerful, it gains more influence over politics. It's a feedback loop that gives them more and more power until they are monopoly. It's not the government that drives this, it's the corporations driving the government.
That's why the government should have cracked down on them before they bought their whole market instead of helping them become monopolies
What are they, if not capitalist?
It seems obvious that in a capitalist system those with capital will benefit if they use that capital to gain political power. Regulatory capture is just good business, right? It's the same reason capitalist enterprises will just buy up competition - they don't want competition, they want profit. It's a lot easier to win the game if you can cripple your opponents.
Until we make and are are able to enforce stronger laws protecting us little people, corporations will tend to wield power to keep squeezing us, because it's (unfortunately) perfectly legal (though obviously, at least IMHO, perfectly immoral).
Oligarchic maybe?
I can also make up a definition and claim communism is when Starbucks
Oligarchic fits, and isn't mutually exclusive with being a capitalist. IMHO it seems like that's an inevitable outcome in capitalist economies if safeguards aren't instituted. Also I certainly don't think oligarchies are restricted to capitalist economies, either. It just seems like it would be the natural goal of amassing capital: rig the system in your favor.
Also I don't want you making up definitions, I just assumed you had another one in mind when trying to define what most modern corporations aren't.
Is oligarchy with a superficial capitalist facade accurate enough to you?
Facade isn't accurate IMHO. Capitalist Oligarchy is fine though. Maybe a subtle distinction, but I think it's important.
Government intervention to block competition is against the basis of capitalism, a facade is accurate enough
Government intervention in the economy doesn't mean it's not Capitalism IMHO: I see that as an unnecessarily restrictive definition. I think of capitalism in more broad terms as being for-profit private ownership of trade/industry.
I can agree that there's some theoretical upper limit at which Crony Capitalism turns into an outright Corporate State, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and hopefully we can avoid it (as much as we seem to be headed that way, unfortunately).
Capitalism is literally defined by free markets, which means little to no government intervention, and specially not the government helping certain corpos crush their competitors
What you have in your country is a whole different thing
So my point from the start is that it seems inevitable that capitalists would levy their economic power to gain political power. The laissez-faire ideal sounds good (for those with capital, anyway), but without institutional protections against it, those with the most money would be dumb not to levy that money so they can rig the system.
So we're quibbling over different thresholds at which government intervention means it's no longer "Pure Capitalism", but from my perspective Regulatory Capture is kind of inevitable, without protections against that happening. So that's why I think it's just part of Modern Capitalism in most places, and an "Oligarchy with a Capitalist Facade" is just a different life-stage of Capitalism. I'm all in favor of the institutional controls against corporate takeover/influence of governmental bodies. Corporate lobbying is a cancer, because it's drowning out the public's voice in politics.
Totally, privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The American "capitalist" way.
Wait, I almost forget socialize the massive environmental damages, drinking water sources destroyed, harmful chemicals spread everywhere, people harmed, CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the atmosphere, and all the other damaging effects of our business we didn't pay for.
Don't Google who dried up the Aral Sea
? Don't see what that has to do with this. Are you saying because Stalin and the USSR did something stupid to the aral sea in the 1940's it's fine for companies in America to cause massive environmental damages, hurt tons of people, and then keep all the profits they made over decades, declare bankruptcy, and pass the buck of the cleanup on to the American tax payers? Or make horribly risky investments, extract tons of bonuses, high executive compensation, and stock sales, then get bailed out by the US government and US taxpayers because their flimsy scheme had come crumbling down?
I wasn't trying to make an argument for communism or something if that's what you're getting at, fuck that genocidal maniac Stalin, just that private companies in America often pass on their losses to the American people while they keep all the profits. Often by hiding the costs in things like co2 emissions that we'll all collectively have to pay for later. If they want profits that's fine, but they should be held responsible for the losses too. And if American taxpayer money and public investment helped a company make profits, some of that should be returned to the taxpayers too. We need effective regulations and laws to make sure these thing happen.
The first time we go seven days without a Trump story will be glorious.
I miss a world that isn't in continuous crisis.
You're around 4000 years too late.
ok, then I miss being uninformed.
That'll be months after his death and not a moment sooner.
It was pretty quiet for a while there. At least he wasn't making the headlines each day. Potentially another year of having to hear about this buffoon won't be good for my mental health.
Man I mix shit like that up constantly I'm barely over 30.
do you constantly accuse others of having dementia? the hypocrisy is the issue here
The hypocrisy, sure.
But also the, "If you were traveling there to give a fucking speech, you'd make sure you got it right" factor too.
I hate Trump because of his terrible politics, his horrible personality, and all of his criminal activities, including leading a failed insurrection.
We have enough bad things to say about him without making a big deal out of nothing.
We even have a lot of shit we can point at if we want to question his mental state, like how he said that windmills were killing whales, and his huge recent revelation that the word "us" was spelled U-S, which he thought he was the first person to realize.
Yes, Republicans would be all over Biden if he made this mistake, but these are the same morons who decided that vaccines were bad during a pandemic, but that it made sense to go blind eating horse dewormer that didn't actually fight the disease.
So Sioux me..
Ahem. I'll see myself out.
I wouldnât normally think itâs a big deal to mix up two similar-sounding citiesâ once I got on a flight to Greenville and the flight attendant got on the speaker and said âwelcome to flight [xxx] to Greensboro,â causing momentary panicâ but this is part of a pattern. He recently has said he beat Obama in an election, that Jeb Bush was president, that Biden could get us into World War II, and several more. Taken in isolation any of these things could be dismissed as a slip of the tongue but taken all together, it does suggest the guy might be losing his grip.
I'm from the Midwest and I had to Google which was which.
Yes, but you weren't in one of them.
He should have someone write it down at the back of his guitar like the pros.
If he were president still, he could've just used his Magic Sharpie on a map and moved the cities to make himself correct.
Like he did with that hurricane he redirected.
Wow, I remember that being a big thing back then, and now it seems so trivial...
Fun fact: falsely altering data from the national meteorological agency like that is ALSO a felony that carries a maximum penalty of actual prison time. Would have been a hilarious way to finally cage that bastard IMO!
This sounds like a Phoenix Wright plot.
I'd play that for sure đ
It wasnât highly significant but itâs a worthy illustration of what a vain dumbass he is.
Sioux City, Iowa, where he was. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where he said he was.
Don't know if Trump has dementia. I certainly know he's stupid as shit!
Lock him up!
Some of the things he's said in the past year, when he's not in front of a crowd, might indicate early stages of dementia. Time will tell.
Itâs not dementia. Itâs just being an idiot and not caring to learn because thatâs not his message and he knows it doesnât matter.
ÂżPorque no los dos?
Por qué * =]
That's not the meme, though
https://digitalcultures.net/memes/porque-no-los-dos/
Would anyone be able to tell if it was actually dementia?
Good point. Could just be tertiary syphilis.
I had a friend when I was younger named Will, but we called him anything but Will. My favorite name for him was syphwillis.
Could just be the late stage syphilis
Republican legislation is now pushing a bill to change the name from Sioux City to Sioux Falls to cover Trump's blunder.
They were fine with Regan they are fine with dumb shit Trump.
Its not about choosing the best guy for the job its about hurting the democrats.
The official campaign for the Republican candidate for U.S. President campaigned on the slogan "Make Liberals Cry Again."
The GOP didn't have a policy platform in 2020, but at least their candidate had that slogan, and the Republican masses were cheering and hollering over it at every Trump really.
Everyone on the campaign was okay with that. Everyone in the Republican party was okay with that. Everyone on the Republican National Committee was okay with that.
Tells you absolutely everything you need to know about the current Republican party.
They hid Reagan's dementia, but I agree they will be fine with Trump.
I guess it's easy to confuse the two when you're a moron ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
Americans vote nursing home candidates instead of presidential candidates
I don't think the average American wants politicians this old, they are being chosen by their political parties as having the highest chance of winning because we have a broken voting system that encourages fewer candidates per party so that they don't steal votes from each other.
That is why we need ranked choice voting, so that more candidates can run without competing and we could vote for people we actually like instead of voting against candidates we don't like.
Not to mention the need to level the playing field in terms of campaign financing which currently makes it more likely for more established politicians to have collected funding from private organizations, superpacs, and corporate lobbying.
This means that the politicians who are in the pockets of the capitalist elites are more likely to win and to enact the will of these corporations.
Those corpos aren't capitalist. They want government intervention (to save them when their little investing adventures fail)
Capitalism is the driving force of almost everything that's wrong in America. [1]
I agree that bailing out a corporation is not very capitalist, but that is not the primary goal of corporate lobbying. I believe it is mostly about keeping their industry legal, unregulated, low-taxed, etc.
Yes, and forming government-mantained monopolies, which kinda goes against capitalist principles
If you were a corporation, becoming a monopoly would be your wet dream. As a company becomes richer and more powerful, it gains more influence over politics. It's a feedback loop that gives them more and more power until they are monopoly. It's not the government that drives this, it's the corporations driving the government.
That's why the government should have cracked down on them before they bought their whole market instead of helping them become monopolies
What are they, if not capitalist?
It seems obvious that in a capitalist system those with capital will benefit if they use that capital to gain political power. Regulatory capture is just good business, right? It's the same reason capitalist enterprises will just buy up competition - they don't want competition, they want profit. It's a lot easier to win the game if you can cripple your opponents.
Until we make and are are able to enforce stronger laws protecting us little people, corporations will tend to wield power to keep squeezing us, because it's (unfortunately) perfectly legal (though obviously, at least IMHO, perfectly immoral).
Oligarchic maybe?
I can also make up a definition and claim communism is when Starbucks
Oligarchic fits, and isn't mutually exclusive with being a capitalist. IMHO it seems like that's an inevitable outcome in capitalist economies if safeguards aren't instituted. Also I certainly don't think oligarchies are restricted to capitalist economies, either. It just seems like it would be the natural goal of amassing capital: rig the system in your favor.
Also I don't want you making up definitions, I just assumed you had another one in mind when trying to define what most modern corporations aren't.
Is oligarchy with a superficial capitalist facade accurate enough to you?
Facade isn't accurate IMHO. Capitalist Oligarchy is fine though. Maybe a subtle distinction, but I think it's important.
Government intervention to block competition is against the basis of capitalism, a facade is accurate enough
Government intervention in the economy doesn't mean it's not Capitalism IMHO: I see that as an unnecessarily restrictive definition. I think of capitalism in more broad terms as being for-profit private ownership of trade/industry.
I can agree that there's some theoretical upper limit at which Crony Capitalism turns into an outright Corporate State, but I don't think we're quite there yet, and hopefully we can avoid it (as much as we seem to be headed that way, unfortunately).
Capitalism is literally defined by free markets, which means little to no government intervention, and specially not the government helping certain corpos crush their competitors
What you have in your country is a whole different thing
So my point from the start is that it seems inevitable that capitalists would levy their economic power to gain political power. The laissez-faire ideal sounds good (for those with capital, anyway), but without institutional protections against it, those with the most money would be dumb not to levy that money so they can rig the system.
So we're quibbling over different thresholds at which government intervention means it's no longer "Pure Capitalism", but from my perspective Regulatory Capture is kind of inevitable, without protections against that happening. So that's why I think it's just part of Modern Capitalism in most places, and an "Oligarchy with a Capitalist Facade" is just a different life-stage of Capitalism. I'm all in favor of the institutional controls against corporate takeover/influence of governmental bodies. Corporate lobbying is a cancer, because it's drowning out the public's voice in politics.
Interesting stance from someone that thinks socialism is when the government does stuff
When did I say "socialism is when gubmint"?
Totally, privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The American "capitalist" way.
Wait, I almost forget socialize the massive environmental damages, drinking water sources destroyed, harmful chemicals spread everywhere, people harmed, CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the atmosphere, and all the other damaging effects of our business we didn't pay for.
Don't Google who dried up the Aral Sea
? Don't see what that has to do with this. Are you saying because Stalin and the USSR did something stupid to the aral sea in the 1940's it's fine for companies in America to cause massive environmental damages, hurt tons of people, and then keep all the profits they made over decades, declare bankruptcy, and pass the buck of the cleanup on to the American tax payers? Or make horribly risky investments, extract tons of bonuses, high executive compensation, and stock sales, then get bailed out by the US government and US taxpayers because their flimsy scheme had come crumbling down?
I wasn't trying to make an argument for communism or something if that's what you're getting at, fuck that genocidal maniac Stalin, just that private companies in America often pass on their losses to the American people while they keep all the profits. Often by hiding the costs in things like co2 emissions that we'll all collectively have to pay for later. If they want profits that's fine, but they should be held responsible for the losses too. And if American taxpayer money and public investment helped a company make profits, some of that should be returned to the taxpayers too. We need effective regulations and laws to make sure these thing happen.
The first time we go seven days without a Trump story will be glorious.
I miss a world that isn't in continuous crisis.
You're around 4000 years too late.
ok, then I miss being uninformed.
That'll be months after his death and not a moment sooner.
It was pretty quiet for a while there. At least he wasn't making the headlines each day. Potentially another year of having to hear about this buffoon won't be good for my mental health.
Man I mix shit like that up constantly I'm barely over 30.
do you constantly accuse others of having dementia? the hypocrisy is the issue here
The hypocrisy, sure.
But also the, "If you were traveling there to give a fucking speech, you'd make sure you got it right" factor too.
I hate Trump because of his terrible politics, his horrible personality, and all of his criminal activities, including leading a failed insurrection.
We have enough bad things to say about him without making a big deal out of nothing.
We even have a lot of shit we can point at if we want to question his mental state, like how he said that windmills were killing whales, and his huge recent revelation that the word "us" was spelled U-S, which he thought he was the first person to realize.
Yes, Republicans would be all over Biden if he made this mistake, but these are the same morons who decided that vaccines were bad during a pandemic, but that it made sense to go blind eating horse dewormer that didn't actually fight the disease.
So Sioux me..
Ahem. I'll see myself out.
I wouldnât normally think itâs a big deal to mix up two similar-sounding citiesâ once I got on a flight to Greenville and the flight attendant got on the speaker and said âwelcome to flight [xxx] to Greensboro,â causing momentary panicâ but this is part of a pattern. He recently has said he beat Obama in an election, that Jeb Bush was president, that Biden could get us into World War II, and several more. Taken in isolation any of these things could be dismissed as a slip of the tongue but taken all together, it does suggest the guy might be losing his grip.
I'm from the Midwest and I had to Google which was which.
Yes, but you weren't in one of them.
He should have someone write it down at the back of his guitar like the pros.
If he were president still, he could've just used his Magic Sharpie on a map and moved the cities to make himself correct.
Like he did with that hurricane he redirected.
Wow, I remember that being a big thing back then, and now it seems so trivial...
Fun fact: falsely altering data from the national meteorological agency like that is ALSO a felony that carries a maximum penalty of actual prison time. Would have been a hilarious way to finally cage that bastard IMO!
This sounds like a Phoenix Wright plot.
I'd play that for sure đ
It wasnât highly significant but itâs a worthy illustration of what a vain dumbass he is.
Sioux City, Iowa, where he was. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where he said he was.
I wonder if he even knew which state he was in
Bobby: Idjit.