US Election November 5th

[mudman]

Citation or it didn't happen.
Also, as already pointed out to you - you are deliberately insulting. If all you have is insults - that signals a lack of relevant material and evidence.
Counter argument - "Inevitably", each of the EU Member Nations act only their own interests and "Inevitably" there would not be a 100% agreement for a full Federation program - ergo, it wouldn't happen (see later).

Your proposed argument is also completely jam packed with Fallacious Arguments.




LOL. Outlandish and absurd imaginary future. I'm not sure whether you ever took on board (which wouldn't be unusual behaviour for you) that the UK, while it was still an EU Member had something called a "VETO". Ergo, if you were absolutely serious about not "allowing some obscure Orwelian government" to have control of all UK domestic legislation, then your best and only true tactic would be to remain as a Member and to exercise your VETO.





I completely disagree with this absurd premise and have solid foundation to do so: Any move toward a Federation of Europe would come from debate and discussion and negotiation amongst the Member States - and the legal requirement while drafting any such (absurd and outlandish imaginary future) would be to include a get-out clause for those Member States not wishing to go for Full Federation. All it would take during these negotiations would be to apply the time alloted for those discussions to make sure the get-out clause was in your favour. Full Federation would be not be in accordance with International Law if it sought to force or strong-arm Member States into a new agreement which included Federation of Europe.

This is the reason and evidence that confirms your claim of "inevitably, blah, blah, blah..." is a false narrative that exists only in some peoples imagination. It was probably placed into people's imagination as a known lie, alongside all of the other known lies, during the Brexit debates. I will leave it open for you to confirm that is where you got this absurd imaginary future from and I will definitely stop short of calling people gullible for swallowing the lies. I hold this value quite dearly (not for an unlimited amount of time, though...):
Contempt for the Con Man; Compassion for the Conned.



Probably. In a word, racism. In all of its guises.




Just because you don't understand something - that doesn't make it bad.
Also, aggressive and insulting.

In actual fact, the "Open Borders" which you complain about here was a very positive thing - not just for movement of People, but also for Goods and Services. Probably the biggest negative to the UK Economy due to Brexit is the loss of Open Border. For anyone in favour of Capitalism and Market Economies, an Open Border is highly desirable.

If your beef is with immigration due to Open Border, then history shows that you are barking up the wrong tree. For very strong reasons. First is the fact that the UK did not sign up to Schengen. UK used its VETO. UK therefore retained full control of immigration whilst still inside the EU. Perhaps this is another of your notions picked up from the Con Man Again - Compassion for the Conned. (Not for unlimited time, though).
Second is that some "immigrants" (I'm guessing exactly the ones that you are against) could be sent back to the EU, but only while the UK remained a member of the EU. This is different from deportation, etc, and was an entirely EU construct - which the UK had a strong hand in negotiating in the first place, LOL.
Third, now that we are out of EU, it is explicitly obvious that the situation with immigration has been exacerbated, on many fronts. Amongst these drawbacks is that EU workers were made to feel unwelcome in the UK. The more outward and open stance that Brexit has emboldened racists to more outwardly behave, is part and parcel of the way in which Brexit was broached by a thinly-veiled racist agenda. Those EU workers, even though in most cases were "welcome to legally remain" voted with their feet. This has had a strong negative effect on the overall UK Economy. Also exacerbated is that EU workers no longer wanted to apply for UK job vacancies that the UK workforce could not fill. Which means the UK has been forced to reach out wider afield to obtain workers to fill vacancies. Tens of thousands of job vacancies still exist that can't be filled, years after Brexit.

This has only been a round and significant negative to the UK, with zero up sides.


No doubt you will claim (without evidence) that this is all the fault of "the left", when in fact nobody on "the left" has EVER voted to make their society worse off. The clue is in the name: "the left". Brexit meant that the UK voted to place economic sanctions on the UK.



Oh, how so? From a purely racist viewpoint, you are quite correct. From pretty much all other viewpoints, you are probably not correct.

For instance, the threat of mass deportations - are you aware how much of a negative impact that would have on the US Economy?

Go on, have a guess... Or better still, do some searching.

The sad truth is that USA has voted in large part to mass deportations, because they have been Conned into believing (not difficult in the case of the Deep South and Confederate followers...) that the cost of living crisis has been brought about solely by the influx of "undocumented migrants". Nothing could be further from the truth, if we are to use facts and evidence to substantiate our views. Instead of accepting a lie (because you are predisposed to find that lie appealling) from an egotist standing at a lectern backed up by another egotist controlling the social media narrative, backed up by another egotist foreign antagonist leader...




No he doesn't. That is a Con. He wants to put himself first above all else, then he wants to put his friends and allies above the rest, and he cares not one jot about the common US Citizen.




You misunderstand and appear to believe a lie about deliberate harm. That was not an agenda item. There is not really an ability to "negotiate" with EU to get better terms than are prescribed in the Articles which outline the method of extricating a State from EU membership. The UK is just another Third State. Nothing more, nothing less. The UK did not hold any cards, unlike the Con that was perpetrated by the very people who brought you the Brexit Con.



Again, I don't know where you are getting this Con from, but the UK certainly still has no cards with which to negotiate with the EU on any market segment. The UK is a Third Country now.



PS - here is an example study that illustrates in detail the negative impact to the US Economy from any mass deportations of undocumented migrants. All of this negative impact would, of course, be passed on solely to the Common US Citizen, making their cost of living worse, not better.

Significant damage to US Economy

The VETO (why did you shout that word?) is limited. It cannot be used on everything.
You got that basic thing wrong so I wonder how much the rest stacks up.

 

[Lons]

First of all, policy promises are not about paying the electorate, they are supposed to be about promising to run things effectively for the benefit of all of us.

That really is bullsh*t Jacob. The result of the last UK election rather highlights that as does the US result..
Trade unions and strikers paid off, promised no tax rises that will affect the "working person" and all sorts of other cr*p. If you think the vast majority of ordinary people bother to research and don't just read the headlines and vote for what seems best for their own personal circumstance then I'd suggest you're naive.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Lons, you just don't understand - when Tories win it's because too many people vote out of self interest, when Labour win it's because the voters are only thinking of the Country.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Well if you can't see it I doubt you would understand any answers!
First of all, policy promises are not about paying the electorate, they are supposed to be about promising to run things effectively for the benefit of all of us.

I’m sure you see the falicy between the stated intent and the actual truth…

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Stripping the assets from the rich and distributing may give some short term relief but will not ultimately achieve anything as you need to have continual source of equivalent funding but you've just removed it and now will have to impoverish the next layer of 'rich' to continue the distribution of your largesse. Wealth inequality will decrease but eventually you have a society where everyone earns the same, has the same and any ambition is ruthlessly cut down by imposition of aggressive taxation.
So, why would anyone want socialism?

OMG what a load of old twaddle. Pretty much every single statement in there is fallacious and unfounded. Everything you wrote is basically a straw man fallacy

Nobody is arguing to "strip assets" from the wealthy. The entire notion of "reducing wealth inequality" inside a Capitalist Economy is definitely not to eradicate wealth and bring everyone onto the same level. That is definitely a straw man interpretation. The notion is to ensure wealth isn't all concentrated more and more towards the top 0.1% like we are currently witnessing. In order to do that wealth does need to be taxed slightly more, but to interpret that as trying to tax them back to middle class income is so a wide a misinterpretation as to be absurd.

The current status quo CANNOT continue.

The current status quo is that those with wealth need do nothing at all for that wealth to continue to accumulate. As an accident of birth, that wealth perpetuates and crystalises into the hands of the very few at an unabated rate.

The premise is simply to take those "gains from Capital Investment" more along the same lines as "gains from employment".

An honest question, if I may:

Is it fair and equitable that the money that people work for is taxed at a greater rate than the money that people do nothing for?

All that is required is to slow that accumulation of wealth at the top tier. Nobody proposes to eradicate the accumulation of wealth. Far from it. Just to slow it down by distributing the GDP into a more equitable per-capita distribution. And no, I don't mean everybody earn THE SAME, just that wealth accumulation isn't stripping the rest of the country of money, which is the current status quo. (Median income: Real Terms drop of 8% since 2010).

The restore a Real Terms Median Income growth does not require a top tier Real Terms decline. The Top Tier can still accumulate, but not at the expense of the rest of the Citizenship of the Nation.


Hopefully this has gone some way to restore your understanding of wealth.

PS, Socialism has nothing to do with any of this. Socialism is about the "size of the State" in words that conservatism use - it is about the availability and quality of Public Services such as Roads and Transport, State Health provision, Pensions and Welfare, Refuse collection, Recycling, Water distribution and treatment, Power distribution, availability and cost, Civil Service to set up the State conditions under which Capitalism can thrive and grow, Armed Forces and Police to ensure the security both domestic and international to provide the stability under which Capitalism can thrive and several other Critical National Infrastructure areas. Modern Socialism is about setting then Nation up to serve all of the Nation more than anything else and is an easy bed-fellow with a Global Capitalist Economy.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Labour have said they aim to get 2,000,000 off benefits and back to work. By saying that, of course they're admitting there are 2,000,000 on benefits that shouldn't be.

Hospital waiting lists perhaps?

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

And then once it's been distributed, converted into the goods and services that the poor arguably need and the funds are no more? What then? What will be the next magic money tree.
You might also have noticed that we a getting a bit overcrowded on this planet. Life on this planet is also vulnerable to a whole host of cosmic possibilities that could wipe it out. As the dominant intelligent species, we have a duty to protect the life here by creating other places where it can thrive, space exploration is the only way this can happen.
As some bloke said, 'The poor you will always have'. Taking money from people to give to them will only give them temporary respite, they need opportunity, not largesse.

As above - you don't "take money from the rich" - you still allow the rich to accumulate, but at a reduced rate, which still provides the incentive to accumulate and also prevents real terms reductions of the working poor.

 

[Jacob]

That really is bullsh*t Jacob. The result of the last UK election rather highlights that as does the US result..
Trade unions and strikers paid off, promised no tax rises that will affect the "working person" and all sorts of other cr*p.

Resulted in a low turnout for Starmer, compared to 2017 and 2019 i.e. no particular strong feeling for Neo Labour

If you think the vast majority of ordinary people bother to research and don't just read the headlines and vote for what seems best for their own personal circumstance then I'd suggest you're naive.

They voted for Brexit!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

It can also be argued that a free market allows the distribution of wealth as growth enhances the wealth of all in the chain with higher incomes. Too much deregulation can have a negative effect but so can the stifling policies of the socialist.
Where is the socialist element in our economy? It is mainly deregulated now due to successive governments unless you mean the free handouts to those not working that you seem to think should be rewarded?
There are always alternatives. Some are better than others and some are worse, far worse. It generally needs to be somewhere in the middle.

Your first sentence does not chime with current observable reality. You are presenting a version of "trickle down" which at present is the other way around. The common UK citizen has had their pay and income and wealth reduced over the longer term in order to subsidise the already most wealthy.

 

[Jacob]

Labour have said they aim to get 2,000,000 off benefits and back to work. By saying that, of course they're admitting there are 2,000,000 on benefits that shouldn't be.

Neo Labour not a very sharp bunch - basically continuity-tory but claiming better management skills.
Funny that purging the left from the party did not increase popularity in the slightest. In fact the opposite.
Whereas Corbyn got best turnout for Labour this century in 2017 and best since 2001 in 2019, just pipped by Bliar (before Iraq).

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The VETO (why did you shout that word?) is limited. It cannot be used on everything.
You got that basic thing wrong so I wonder how much the rest stacks up.

The rest stacks up just fine. I used a variety of emphasis (call it "style" if you like) because sometimes selectively deafness or selective memory to certain things are apparent. It was also an emphasis that not only do we no longer hold any sway, but doubly so, because the UK used to be able to Veto and therefore had an even stronger voice during legislative discussion than a number of other EU Member States - denoting that UK could not be pushed into any agreement by any so-incorrectly labelled "Orwellian government".

 

[Jacob]

It can also be argued that a free market allows the distribution of wealth as growth enhances the wealth of all in the chain with higher incomes.

It doesn't though does it! It does the opposite. Wealth accumulates, it does not self distribute.

Where is the socialist element in our economy?

NHS, welfare, education,......etc, plus democracy itself. near 50% of GDP is state spending.

 

[sploo]

Pearl Jam and Nirvana would be obvious candidates? Wasn't Jimi Hendrix also from Seattle?

Green River, Mother Love Bone, Malfunkshun, Tad, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Brad, Screaming Trees, Mad Season; so many great bands from that part of the world.

There is a mild irony that Delaney's a fan; given so many of those bands had/have political messages that appear to be the polar opposite of his own. Still, I do occasionally see people who are disgusted to find out that Rage Against The Machine "became" political; because there's nothing in their early output that would lead you to that conclusion (yes, I'm joking on that last point).

 

[mudman]

OMG what a load of old twaddle. Pretty much every single statement in there is fallacious and unfounded. Everything you wrote is basically a straw man fallacy

Nobody is arguing to "strip assets" from the wealthy. The entire notion of "reducing wealth inequality" inside a Capitalist Economy is definitely not to eradicate wealth and bring everyone onto the same level. That is definitely a straw man interpretation. The notion is to ensure wealth isn't all concentrated more and more towards the top 0.1% like we are currently witnessing. In order to do that wealth does need to be taxed slightly more, but to interpret that as trying to tax them back to middle class income is so a wide a misinterpretation as to be absurd.

The current status quo CANNOT continue.

The current status quo is that those with wealth need do nothing at all for that wealth to continue to accumulate. As an accident of birth, that wealth perpetuates and crystalises into the hands of the very few at an unabated rate.

The premise is simply to take those "gains from Capital Investment" more along the same lines as "gains from employment".

An honest question, if I may:

Is it fair and equitable that the money that people work for is taxed at a greater rate than the money that people do nothing for?

All that is required is to slow that accumulation of wealth at the top tier. Nobody proposes to eradicate the accumulation of wealth. Far from it. Just to slow it down by distributing the GDP into a more equitable per-capita distribution. And no, I don't mean everybody earn THE SAME, just that wealth accumulation isn't stripping the rest of the country of money, which is the current status quo. (Median income: Real Terms drop of 8% since 2010).

The restore a Real Terms Median Income growth does not require a top tier Real Terms decline. The Top Tier can still accumulate, but not at the expense of the rest of the Citizenship of the Nation.


Hopefully this has gone some way to restore your understanding of wealth.

PS, Socialism has nothing to do with any of this. Socialism is about the "size of the State" in words that conservatism use - it is about the availability and quality of Public Services such as Roads and Transport, State Health provision, Pensions and Welfare, Refuse collection, Recycling, Water distribution and treatment, Power distribution, availability and cost, Civil Service to set up the State conditions under which Capitalism can thrive and grow, Armed Forces and Police to ensure the security both domestic and international to provide the stability under which Capitalism can thrive and several other Critical National Infrastructure areas. Modern Socialism is about setting then Nation up to serve all of the Nation more than anything else and is an easy bed-fellow with a Global Capitalist Economy.

What you have missed is that I was replying to a certain Marxist that is so far left that Corbyn would be suspected of Far Right tendencies in comparison. He was arguing for the asset stripping and then once that was done to follow up with punitive taxation. Do you think that would work?

Of course it can continue. One question is do we want it to continue? If the majority want a change then they need to initiate that change. Of course that might not be that simple. The other question is does it matter if it continues? If the 99% can be well off enough to enjoy a comfortable meaningful life, does it need to change or is it just envy of the 1%?

But what you are saying is that you would like to see a fairer distribution of the country's GDP. Yes, that is fine, I would agree with that but be careful how you do it. If you tax too much, people stop trying and then the GDP stops growing and society stagnates. There needs to be a happy medium where wealth creators don't see themselves as cash cows.

Are you saying that the redistribution of wealth is not a socialist principle? I find it hard to believe especially after seeing some of what has been said here.

 

[mudman]

The rest stacks up just fine. I used a variety of emphasis (call it "style" if you like) because sometimes selectively deafness or selective memory to certain things are apparent. It was also an emphasis that not only do we no longer hold any sway, but doubly so, because the UK used to be able to Veto and therefore had an even stronger voice during legislative discussion than a number of other EU Member States - denoting that UK could not be pushed into any agreement by any so-incorrectly labelled "Orwellian government".

We had a veto but it was limited (using a bit if style there for you) and in a lot of things the UK had no chance of influencing outcomes unless we could convince a large majority to vote with us.

 

[Sachakins]

How is "uncontrolled immigration" a statement of fact, when we do have controls on immigration? It might not be at a level you'd like, but "uncontrolled" means no controls, no barriers; a complete open door. It would mean there was no refusal of immigration, and no repatriation - both of which do

Are the net migration targets being met. NO. Why not, cause there are persons circumventing the system and turning up outside of the set controls, hence UNCONTROLLED immigration.
Simples........

 

[mudman]

It doesn't though does it! It does the opposite. Wealth accumulates, it does not self distribute.


NHS, welfare, education,......etc, plus democracy itself. near 50% of GDP is state spending.

It will if allowed but it can also be lost as many gamblers will attest.
I'll give you the NHS and welfare but education is desirable under any system as it enriches society and the state. Democracy socialist? I think the greeks were all sitting down together (if you weren't a woman) long before the term socialism was coined and considering they were a slave owning society, there wasn't much socialism in that principle of democracy.

 

[mudman]

I also meant to add that yes, wealth accumulation maybe should be limited but not at the expense of stifling growth and entrepreneurial talent or driving the wealth makers out of the country.

 

[Spectric]

the latter relies upon a politician actually doing that which they promised - something of a risk I suspect!!

That would be a miracle, do politicians actually do or say anything that is real and believable.

 

[Ed Weber]

Yes the democrats are going to call for violence.
They will call it ‘resistance’ and will instruct their DA’s and AG’s to not charge or arrest rioters. They will re-run the play book from 2016 were Antifa/blm activists, were in effect the foot soldiers of the democratic party. Kamala Harris even encouraging them at the time with ‘bail funding’.
Remember the ‘mostly peaceful protests’?

America is on tbe brink of civil war, with sociopaths like Newsom declaring they will not co-operate with Trumps Whitehouse.
Other democratic states have made the same declaration.
Some might even liken it to an insurrection.

Make no mistake, the only choice the left has is to make the next 4 years as chaotic and unpleasant as possible. There will be constant rioting, violence and disorder,
In order to associate it to Trump.
That’s how they got him out last time.
they caused chaos and then said ‘Aren’t you tired of all the chaos’?
Total sociopathy but effective.

"How they got him out last time"
It's called a 4 year term and it ended with an election, the next president assumed the job. This is how it's supposed to work.
If there is violence, it's up to whatever administration is sitting at the time to deal with it. No need to try and "associate" it to anyone.

Throwing around terms like sociopath, aimed at Governor Newsom is just ridiculous.
I think if you look up the proper definition, it applies more aptly to Trump.

I'll add that any resistance will have a solid footing in fact and law. We have a constitution and don't like it when those in power try to abuse it. No one is above the law.