International Bernie Sanders Spoke Out Against Open Borders in 2015

[Sinister]

I could post the immigration statistics from every single western country proving you dead wrong, but I doubt reality is going to be enough for you to change your mind, because if it were we wouldn't be here would we ?

I have no doubt you could post some statistics from whatever xenophobic news sources you consume on a daily basis. The point is that you made grossly generalized assertions that just arent wholly true. You cant prove that "the left are advocating for open borders" because immigration has gone up. But you'll attempt to use one thing to prove the other. You cant prove that "the left advocates for open borders" just because some politicians don't think wall-ing their Country up is a good policy position. It's already proving pretty stupid for us. And you cant prove that "every single Country on the face of the Earth" espouses cultural assimilation, because that's so absurdly false its comical. For the last 20-30 years there have been more and more US Immigrants (though they're mostly white people who hate that word, so they refer to themselves as the much more sanitary "ex-Pats") moving to Mexico, Central, and South America because of the strength of the US dollar there and the vibe of the life they're able to afford. Many of them never bother learning Spanish, even if they find themselves a nice Latino guy or Latina girl to marry. Colombia is pretty hot for this right now, I personally know a handful of guys who essentially live there. They don't speak Spanish, they dont stop being American, they just be it somewhere else. Thailand is also pretty popular for this and I know a guy getting ready to retire there right this second despite his social media posts endlessly screaming about how Murican he is.

Part of the bullsh*t xenophobes try to perpetuate is that the rest of the World is as irrationally fearful of strangers as you are.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Unfortunately I dont believe there is an actual "center"...but let me explain why because I really appreciate this post and think highly of you based on it. I dont think there is a happy middle between egalitarianism and hierarchical thinking. Perhaps there is a middle between liberalism and conservatism, because either of those can be right or left (Republicans have systemically expelled liberal Republicans over the years).

As an example, while I struggle to find a use for heirarchy except as an interchangeable structure, I do see it as very useful in certain contexts. However what tends to happen is bad actors exploit the system of promotion and next thing you know you have an imbecile above you, who changes the rules to favor themselves and their friends, and to hold onto undeserved power. Seeing this early on, as a kid, in Southern Churches really stuck out to me. The power structure were all familiar with each other, did not tolerate dissent, and would not suffer infiltration of outside perspectives.

Ive always had a personal aversion to this because it seems self-defeating. Even in my profession, I'm a very good Boxing trainer. I greatly dislike when I'm in a room full of garbage trainers even IF they authoritatively defer to me. Why? I cant get any better this way. Now I've experienced bitter trainers who see me and assert that I'm trying to be better than everyone else, or at least pretend I am. But really my goal is to be better than myself, to elevate myself, those around me, and eventually the quality of the Sport. A Coach who ranks higher than me on paper named Billy Briscoe once told me that when Philly was known as the boxing mecca, Coaches would often have communicative sessions after all the boxers went home and would review each other's fighters, offer feedback, and even exchange fighters because some Coaches had a specialty. They put their egos aside for the betterment of the fighters (who were technically beneath them), and the Gym itself (an institution). Because of that Philly was known as a place where some of the highest quality fighters were built. I want to be in an environment like that. I want people around me who are better than me so we can keep pushing to rise above each other. The heirarchy is only temporary.

Now imagine there was one Coach trying to dominate the entire scene and make everyone his subjects, his underlings. Only Coaches who were willing to advance through brown-nosing would go along with that. The better ones would quit. And the Sport suffers. Monopolization is the end result of hierarchical thinking. So is all this "purity" mentality that plagues the right. That's how you end up with frameworks for what really is a "real American" or an immigrant who is good vs an immigrant who is bad. Elon Musk is a good illegal immigrant. That woman with her baby swimming across the Rio Grande is bad. Barron Trump is a good anchor baby, that little Mexican girl with cancer who is a U.S. Citizen is a bad one.

I've always had an instinct to challenge and disrupt heirarchies. Perpetuating hierarchies make me sick, remind me of feudalism a d monarchy and as a red-blooded American I was hardwired against it.

Hey, that’s a great reply and a killer perspective. I appreciate the time you took because you have a great mindset. I think you are operating with well intentioned confirmation bias. I will cite an instance here that will prove you are always going to be fighting an uphill battle in American politics.

There is an infamous clip between Trump and Clinton where she accuses him of cheating in business and he tells her that she could’ve helped change it but her friends and donors use the same loopholes. I’m sure that’s a real gotcha moment whenever some fanatical rightist watches it, but rest assured it is the most honest and openly hostile thing he has ever said. I feel anger just thinking about it. The ultra rich dictate the policy in our country and they certainly are not about challenging the status quo for themselves, just for you and I.

The truth is that we are given the right to disagree, but not the right to opt out. The center I live in is a synthesis and I honestly try to live by the ambiguous. Your thought process would do many well. There’s nothing wrong with belief, but there’s danger in certainty. The world I live in, the body I inhabit, is vastly different than everyone else but yet we must work as a society. That’s why the left/riht debate is asinine in our country. People align because they can’t take responsibility or accountability. Hierarchical structures are often hurt by misplaced trust, some people perceive well-intended people as threats and will choose the more pliable and blunted one. They tend to develop naturally like markets, and like them, should be subject to intense scrutiny. The problem is concentrated power. We don’t hold referendums for every single issue here, we entrust elected officials to make those decisions for us on many of them. To do otherwise would be impractical. When you have concentrated power through money or status, they likely will corrupt the hierarchy to maintain it. No clearer example is out there but China. Imagine walking thousands of miles for a cause to end up with Mao being basically a useless dictatorial hedonist.

People just need to ask why and be invested in the world. It is easy pickings if you can’t develop chains of thought and disparagement.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Well, “acting right” is pretty much the main part of “assimilating.” Doing things like throwing bananas and bags of piss at black soccer players, hating gay people and treating women like garbage is socially acceptable in a lot of countries. Not doing shit like that would be considered “acting right.” So they can assimilate in that aspect.

Well, I think we can agree that throwing bags of piss and bananas at black people is bad. We can say hating gay people and treating other people like garbage is as well.

So, what percentage of immigrants do this? Also, how many citizens themselves do these things (without the specificity of bags of piss and bananas, I suppose, but you could substitue)?

 

[Corona]

Well, I think we can agree that throwing bags of piss and bananas at black people is bad. We can say hating gay people and treating other people like garbage is as well.

So, what percentage of immigrants do this? Also, how many citizens themselves do these things (without the specificity of bags of piss and bananas, I suppose, but you could substitue)?

Not a huge percentage I assume. But I also imagine that’s the kind of stuff people are more so referring to when they talk about assimilating. I doubt many people care what they’re cooking for dinner or what church they’re going to. I lived in Santa Ana and Irvine in Orange County for a bit which is heavily conservative and nobody cared about the Asian or Hispanic population that barely spoke English. People hear about things like how the Muslim population could end up overtaking parts of Europe(how serious or how true that may be is another discussion) and grow concerned. It’s no different than neighborhoods battling gentrification or locals in places like Hawaii not wanting to become primarily a rich white people vacation spot.

 

[Lycandroid]

I have no doubt you could post some statistics from whatever xenophobic news sources you consume on a daily basis. The point is that you made grossly generalized assertions that just arent wholly true. You cant prove that "the left are advocating for open borders" because immigration has gone up. But you'll attempt to use one thing to prove the other. You cant prove that "the left advocates for open borders" just because some politicians don't think wall-ing their Country up is a good policy position. It's already proving pretty stupid for us. And you cant prove that "every single Country on the face of the Earth" espouses cultural assimilation, because that's so absurdly false its comical. For the last 20-30 years there have been more and more US Immigrants (though they're mostly white people who hate that word, so they refer to themselves as the much more sanitary "ex-Pats") moving to Mexico, Central, and South America because of the strength of the US dollar there and the vibe of the life they're able to afford. Many of them never bother learning Spanish, even if they find themselves a nice Latino guy or Latina girl to marry. Colombia is pretty hot for this right now, I personally know a handful of guys who essentially live there. They don't speak Spanish, they dont stop being American, they just be it somewhere else. Thailand is also pretty popular for this and I know a guy getting ready to retire there right this second despite his social media posts endlessly screaming about how Murican he is.

Part of the bullsh*t xenophobes try to perpetuate is that the rest of the World is as irrationally fearful of strangers as you are.

I was going to post government sources because Canada UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany France make all of their numbers public. So I can list them all for you from official government sites, where you can see they all skyrocket in similar time frames. This will take some time but I can do that for you if you wish.

As for your second point, that just speaks to the American ego, I know many Canadians and Europeans who do the same thing and they learn spanish or whatever language and do assimilate. I would feel like an asshole if went to another country and started acting like I am the new king of the castle.

Western immigrants to non western countries is the smallest demographic there is, my previous statement generally refers to the immigration between non western countries so as to prove my point that other cultures expect assimilation.

It has nothing to do with fear, it's about respect and appreciation.

 

[Sinister]

Hey, that’s a great reply and a killer perspective. I appreciate the time you took because you have a great mindset. I think you are operating with well intentioned confirmation bias. I will cite an instance here that will prove you are always going to be fighting an uphill battle in American politics.

There is an infamous clip between Trump and Clinton where she accuses him of cheating in business and he tells her that she could’ve helped change it but her friends and donors use the same loopholes. I’m sure that’s a real gotcha moment whenever some fanatical rightist watches it, but rest assured it is the most honest and openly hostile thing he has ever said. I feel anger just thinking about it. The ultra rich dictate the policy in our country and they certainly are not about challenging the status quo for themselves, just for you and I.

The truth is that we are given the right to disagree, but not the right to opt out. The center I live in is a synthesis and I honestly try to live by the ambiguous. Your thought process would do many well. There’s nothing wrong with belief, but there’s danger in certainty. The world I live in, the body I inhabit, is vastly different than everyone else but yet we must work as a society. That’s why the left/riht debate is asinine in our country. People align because they can’t take responsibility or accountability. Hierarchical structures are often hurt by misplaced trust, some people perceive well-intended people as threats and will choose the more pliable and blunted one. They tend to develop naturally like markets, and like them, should be subject to intense scrutiny. The problem is concentrated power. We don’t hold referendums for every single issue here, we entrust elected officials to make those decisions for us on many of them. To do otherwise would be impractical. When you have concentrated power through money or status, they likely will corrupt the hierarchy to maintain it. No clearer example is out there but China. Imagine walking thousands of miles for a cause to end up with Mao being basically a useless dictatorial hedonist.

People just need to ask why and be invested in the world. It is easy pickings if you can’t develop chains of thought and disparagement.

Oh I dont disagree with any of this. The problem is its built in to our socio-political structure, which is the protection of capital interests. It's the reason the Senate exists, and it's why our Constitution declared an entire demographic of people as not full human beings, which no serious "free" Country should ever tolerate. Actual leftists, egalitarians, through US Hiistory have been assassinated. I've mentioned this in other threads, but for all their remarks about freedom and representation, there was little the Founding Fathers detested more than the idea of direct democracy. They understood that, given the chance, the common folk would happily vote away their wealth, their land, their power and influence. Hence the financial threshold for running for National office. The selection of candidates by the donor class, the "Money Primary" as Lussig put it.

But I still dont believe there is a happy medium between heriarchical thinking and egalitarianism. Between left and right. Some people just want there to be heirarchies, just feel the need to be validated either by the idea that they're better than others, or that they're clearly in the service of those better than them. And that authority given is typically not authority earned.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Not a huge percentage I assume. But I also imagine that’s the kind of stuff people are more so referring to when they talk about assimilating. I doubt many people care what they’re cooking for dinner or what church they’re going to. I lived in Santa Ana and Irvine in Orange County for a bit which is heavily conservative and nobody cared about the Asian or Hispanic population that barely spoke English. People hear about things like how the Muslim population could end up overtaking parts of Europe(how serious or how true that may be is another discussion) and grow concerned. It’s no different than neighborhoods battling gentrification or locals in places like Hawaii not wanting to become primarily a rich white people vacation spot.

While I appreciate that, I fear that’s not the sentiment countrywide, at least from my experience. I have worked/lived abroad the eastern coast up to Lake Erie. Though it’s certainly biased in my current part, I can assure you that they care. I hear racist remarks, direct and subtle, all the time. Tirades at Mexican restaurants ABOUT Mexicans. Skeletons dressed in a poncho and hat hanging from nooses. Believe me, there are many places where anyone who isn’t white isn’t welcome. I’m absolutely not trying to be combative, because I’m sure there are tons of great people all races and classes, but the hatred and fear is certainly there.

And anyway, what’s to be concerned about a Muslim population? I just don’t understand why we say “we don’t care what they eat or speak like” but “we are concerned about their population overtaking the nation”? I’m not sure what to make of that.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Oh I dont disagree with any of this. The problem is its built in to our socio-political structure, which is the protection of capital interests. It's the reason the Senate exists, and it's why our Constitution declared an entire demographic of people as not full human beings, which no serious "free" Country should ever tolerate. Actual leftists, egalitarians, through US Hiistory have been assassinated. I've mentioned this in other threads, but for all their remarks about freedom and representation, there was little the Founding Fathers detested more than the idea of direct democracy. They understood that, given the chance, the common folk would happily vote away their wealth, their land, their power and influence. Hence the financial threshold for running for National office. The selection of candidates by the donor class, the "Money Primary" as Lussig put it.

But I still dont believe there is a happy medium between heriarchical thinking and egalitarianism. Between left and right. Some people just want there to be heirarchies, just feel the need to be validated either by the idea that they're better than others, or that they're clearly in the service of those better than them. And that authority given is typically not authority earned.

I mean, that’s been the contention of human history. I don’t think any political system is perfect, but neither are individual humans. We always are balancing the individual vs the collective. The system is built into society via money. If you consider it, what power cannot be had without it? Even if you gain popularity, you still need the means to propagandize.

It’s not capitalism that is the devil here. Capitalism is actually not a political ideology contrary to what people believe. From my view, unadulterated (if that can be possible), it is the fairest of the systems. At least in theory. But, corporatism is different. There inherent need for profit and production, with those interests served on a board? That’s bad news. It centralizes power and corrupts. But, that’s the world we live in. It’s not capitalism anymore it’s cronyism corps. You ever wonder what happened to IGA, if you don’t already know?

I agree with you but see no ability to change the system as it is. The middle ground, the centrism, is thinking critically and not just following a narrative. I try to synthesize the good parts from both sides and form my opinions. It’s not like we have a third or fourth party. Especially in the age of social media.

 

[Corona]

While I appreciate that, I fear that’s not the sentiment countrywide, at least from my experience. I have worked/lived abroad the eastern coast up to Lake Erie. Though it’s certainly biased in my current part, I can assure you that they care. I hear racist remarks, direct and subtle, all the time. Tirades at Mexican restaurants ABOUT Mexicans. Skeletons dressed in a poncho and hat hanging from nooses. Believe me, there are many places where anyone who isn’t white isn’t welcome. I’m absolutely not trying to be combative, because I’m sure there are tons of great people all races and classes, but the hatred and fear is certainly there.

And anyway, what’s to be concerned about a Muslim population? I just don’t understand why we say “we don’t care what they eat or speak like” but “we are concerned about their population overtaking the nation”? I’m not sure what to make of that.

I’m not doubting the first part of your sentence. There are certainly some racist dumps out there. That’s something that hopefully changes with time.

As for the second, I’ll go back to my gentrification example. I live in north east LA and it’s primarily Hispanic with a heavy Hispanic culture. White people, Asian people, black people(to a lesser extent unfortunately) are welcome to move in and enjoy the local businesses and what not. It becomes a problem with the locals when white people come in and open up a bunch of hipster ass coffee shops, restaurants, bars and what not, it entirely changed the culture of the community. It’s happened in places like eagle rock and highland park. Other neighborhoods see that happening and don’t want it to happen to them. It doesn’t always just become a melting pot of cultures but rather a full on takeover. In some cases I’ll say it’s good because it’s cleansed out some of the gang culture but even then whether it’s good or not depends on who you ask. People can be welcoming of new cultures without wanting it to overtake and erase their current one.

In the north shore in Hawaii they say “keep the country country.”

 

[Mock Artwork]

I’m not doubting the first part of your sentence. There are certainly some racist dumps out there. That’s something that hopefully changes with time.

As for the second, I’ll go back to my gentrification example. I live in north east LA and it’s primarily Hispanic with a heavy Hispanic culture. White people, Asian people, black people(to a lesser extent unfortunately) are welcome to move in and enjoy the local businesses and what not. It becomes a problem with the locals when white people come in and open up a bunch of hipster ass coffee shops, restaurants, bars and what not, it entirely changed the culture of the community. It’s happened in places like eagle rock and highland park. Other neighborhoods see that happening and don’t want it to happen to them. It doesn’t always just become a melting pot of cultures but rather a full on takeover. In some cases I’ll say it’s good because it’s cleansed out some of the gang culture but even then whether it’s good or not depends on who you ask. People can be welcoming of new cultures without wanting it to overtake and erase their current one.

In the north shore in Hawaii they say “keep the country country.”

For sure, for sure. I’m not arguing at all about committing to the standards of the country you are wanting to inhabit. I’m also not saying that everyone is or should get along. It doesn’t mean that the US has to be carved out into ethnic zones or that everyone should just celebrate every culture that’s here, but tolerance is key. I have only been to California a few times, and mostly to Quartzsite which I highly doubt is an accurate sample of the population, but I assume it’s everywhere sprinkled throughout like it is here. I wish we could be like you, but that’s just not reality in a lot of places.

If you want to talk about institutionalized racism, I think that property and mules are due. You’d probably see a lot less swanky coffee shops on daddy and mommy’s money I would suppose. (This is a quasi joke, btw).

 

[Sinister]

I mean, that’s been the contention of human history. I don’t think any political system is perfect, but neither are individual humans. We always are balancing the individual vs the collective. The system is built into society via money. If you consider it, what power cannot be had without it? Even if you gain popularity, you still need the means to propagandize.

It’s not capitalism that is the devil here. Capitalism is actually not a political ideology contrary to what people believe. From my view, unadulterated (if that can be possible), it is the fairest of the systems. At least in theory. But, corporatism is different. There inherent need for profit and production, with those interests served on a board? That’s bad news. It centralizes power and corrupts. But, that’s the world we live in. It’s not capitalism anymore it’s cronyism corps. You ever wonder what happened to IGA, if you don’t already know?

I agree with you but see no ability to change the system as it is. The middle ground, the centrism, is thinking critically and not just following a narrative. I try to synthesize the good parts from both sides and form my opinions. It’s not like we have a third or fourth party. Especially in the age of social media.

I'm not so sure about the fairness of capitalism. Private ownership of the means of production has seemed to lead to every evil every capitalist accused socialism of. And the more checked capitalism becomes, it quickly devolves into corporatism, then fascism, because the pursuit of money results in the accumulation of power. I've never seen a capitalist example where the owner/donor class doesnt seek to financially subjugate the working class, or grow so frustrated that a Government protects it's people from them that they move to seize the Government through bribery and remove all checks on them implementing their ideologies. We are watching that happen in real time, in the one Country meant to be impervious to it, and as you so eloquently stated earlier, Trump himself pointed out that the Democrats are essentially the same. There is no recourse for the people. I dont give the capitalist class the courtesy of suggesting its merely cronyism. That reminds me of the Royalists who still believed in Monarchy after the French Revolution. "Its not that monarchy is bad, France, it's that you had the wrong monarchs."

I would have thought we'd have gotten away from megalomaniacs suggesting that God chose them to rule, but Trump has made that very statement and so have his subjects. Weird times. Good talk, though.

 

[Yehudim]

Biden completely fucked himself and the DNC with his handling of the border. The average American (or Canadian, or Irish, or English, or Aussie) doesn't support unfettered immigration. Especially moderates, the voters you need to win elections.

Had Biden shut that shit down in his 1st or 2nd year, his corpse might still be in the WH. Or at the very least, he would have given Kamala a better chance.

Western leftist parties need to wake the fuck up and listen hard when Bernie speaks. The vast majority of us have no issue with and in fact, fully support, controlled, vetted immigration. What we don't support is hordes of unvetted migrants smashing our labour and housing markets.

Fuck, why can't Bernie be 30 years younger? Is there a young, firebrand Bernie clone out there we can root for?

It’s a problem that has been unaddressed in terms of actually doing something about it for 40 years now.

This is something liberals are missing, and they can go ahead and lament that Americans are right wing extremists because they would vote for Trump over Harris and excuse everything Trump does, but one of the reasons he is accepted is because he is actually doing something. He is actually addressing things that keep getting kicked down the road.

What we’re doing now is just common sense. You’re here illegally, you get deported.

 

[Mock Artwork]

Private ownership of the means of production has seemed to lead to every evil every capitalist accused socialism of. And the more checked capitalism becomes, it quickly devolves into corporatism, then fascism, because the pursuit of money results in the accumulation of power. I've never seen a capitalist example where the owner/donor class doesnt seek to financially subjugate the working class, or grow so frustrated that a Government protects it's people from them that they move to seize the Government through bribery and remove all checks on them implementing their ideologies.

I won't argue with the private ownership of the means of production. You can see the need of this in legal monopolies like power generation where the barrier to entry is too high to produce competitiveness or it's infeasible/uneconomic to do so. Not to buck your assertion, because it's true, but it is most certainly not exclusive to capitalism. Take Communist China mid-20th century, it works the same way there as well. Jung Chang in Wild Swans describes this pretty adequately. Communism has a hard time dealing with both individuality and incentive. Marx even has admitted how his ideas are flawed and that his true vision would require a strong economy to enable. His assertion is that you have to have stable markets to enact a state-less society. I want to note, again, that capitalism is not a political theory, it is a product of trade and specialization. There are very few instances in history where a society has attempted to advert them. Now, you certainly have historic societies that placed merchants at the bottom of the social structure and probably for good reason. Am I fan of laissez faire capitalism and the selfish espouses from those like Ayn Rand? No. But do I think that an equitable capitalist system with a democratic governance is likely the best form we have experienced to date? Probably. What you describe is corporatism.

True capitalism: I own an apple orchard. I want to trade my apples for good from other people who specialize in their crafts/production. It would be inefficient for me to attempt to trade my apples for everything. A market is then created where I can exchange my apples with others for capital, and then use my capital to purchase other goods. Excess is used to fund my well being (risk), for savings or to invest in my community in the good of society.

Corporatism: I own an apple orchard. I want to trade my apples for goods. The market is created. Instead of using the surplus to assist with my community, I use it to step into a new market. Now I am participating in two markets under an umbrella corporation (typically). I then continue to expand and gain market share. Enter monopoly laws, taxes, ect.

Regan convinced part of a generation (and those thereafter) that instead of supporting competition, we should support conglomeration in the form of trickle-down economics. The R's have followed suit ever since. They gaslight you with the stock market (it's doing so well!), but how much of that do you actually see? How much is rigged behind it?

I believe the problem is that you and I haven't ever participated in a fair economy. That's absolutely a problem. The beauty of capitalism is it gives you leverage where political ideologies tend to lack teeth, it's just that it was compromised long before we were born. Think about it, in a diversified, transparent market you would produce more change buying alternatives than picketing outside Target or Walmart. That option isn't totally gone, but it's so damn expensive you won't dare buy outside the big retailers.

My stepfather was a German immigrant. He called the United States goldene straßen. He was in WW2 as a German Navy officer. When the war was over, he bartered oranges with his mother for goods. Economics has to do with the distribution of the finite. Capital markets are a tool, akin to a gun, that can be used for good or ill. It doesn't espouse a ideology, though it absolutely lacks humanity. I like to think of it as meritocracy (in theory, not as it's practiced today) where it doesn't matter who you are, what you look like... we're just interested in what you bring to the table to benefit society, and in turn, you will benefit as well. It's not something to use to subjugate people.

If you haven't read about it already (you seem extremely astute), I would recommend looking up Distributism. Here's a small snippet from Wikipedia:

Distributism views laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, due to their extreme concentration of ownership. Instead, it favours small independent craftsmen and producers; or, if that is not possible, economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organisations, as well as small to medium enterprises and vigorous anti-trust laws to restrain or eliminate overweening economic power

I absolutely recognize where you're coming from. I've spent a lot of time thinking and researching about it, to be honest. If you really want to think about the future, well, it's communism. Sooner or later we will depopulate into more regional communities again, but this time aided (hopefully) by micro-production like 3D printing and AI.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it doesn't require a capitalist system just bad actors.

 

[Sinister]

It’s a problem that has been unaddressed in terms of actually doing something about it for 40 years now.

This is something liberals are missing, and they can go ahead and lament that Americans are right wing extremists because they would vote for Trump over Harris and excuse everything Trump does, but one of the reasons he is accepted is because he is actually doing something. He is actually addressing things that keep getting kicked down the road.

What we’re doing now is just common sense. You’re here illegally, you get deported.

I used to work for a manager of a GNC. To this day I have no idea why the owner placed her in the management position as she was one of the least competent managers I've ever worked for. I remember expressing dismay to one of the owners, who brought up that the manager who hired me, I felt was MUCH better. Her exact words were: "I know you feel like she did a really good job, and she did, bit there were definitely things she could have done that she didn't, things she ignored." From working inside the store, the things she ignored were intelligent decisions, they were small issues that bugged ownership, but that didnt need time and resources wasted on them. Like say, illegal immigration. I have yet to hear anyone give me a first-hand account of illegal immigration harming them. Meanwhile we've handed the keys to tech Bros who want to replace up to 40% of the working class with AI, which is a MUCH bigger threat than brown people.

Eventually the owners did fire that manager after she proved painfully incompetent. But at first their argument was the same as yours. "She's doing things. She's doing things that were previously ignored." Yeah it turned out she was wasting a ton of time on bullsh*t tasks that just made her look good, but soon the staff and ownership realized her leadership was atrocious. That's this administration.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It’s a problem that has been unaddressed in terms of actually doing something about it for 40 years now.

This is something liberals are missing, and they can go ahead and lament that Americans are right wing extremists because they would vote for Trump over Harris and excuse everything Trump does, but one of the reasons he is accepted is because he is actually doing something. He is actually addressing things that keep getting kicked down the road.

What we’re doing now is just common sense. You’re here illegally, you get deported.

The reason it wasn't addressed the way Trump is doing so is because the impulse to deport illegals who are here to work is retarded which is why when we had responsible leaders they just ignored the retarded anti-immigrant populists instead of giving into their nonsensical demands.

We have an economy that is at full employment that hungers for workers and there's a steady supply of them from Central America who come here to work in manual labor positions in core industries like agriculture and construction and indeed economists agree that the surge of immigrants under Biden, largely driven by the US labor market's demand for workers, boosted job growth and output.

Instead under Trump we're seeing a campaign to gut those key industries of their migrant labor at the same time that we're imposing tariffs on imported goods, a one two punch that promises to inflate cost of living. This is voodoo economics which you would happily ridicule if it came from leftists but since its coming from the right you'll shrug your shoulders and look the other way.

Kind of disappointing to see how all those rightists who prided themselves on their understanding of orthodox economics and would readily thumb their nose at idiot leftists folded like a lawn chair in the face of right wing populists. No better example than the Heritage Foundation which for decades railed against tariffs specifically and protectionism more broadly only to 180 in the face of the 2nd Trump term because the party is now completely gutted of its traditional expertise in favor of populist hacks loyal to Trump.

 

[Sinister]

I won't argue with the private ownership of the means of production. You can see the need of this in legal monopolies like power generation where the barrier to entry is too high to produce competitiveness or it's infeasible/uneconomic to do so. Not to buck your assertion, because it's true, but it is most certainly not exclusive to capitalism. Take Communist China mid-20th century, it works the same way there as well. Jung Chang in Wild Swans describes this pretty adequately. Communism has a hard time dealing with both individuality and incentive. Marx even has admitted how his ideas are flawed and that his true vision would require a strong economy to enable. His assertion is that you have to have stable markets to enact a state-less society. I want to note, again, that capitalism is not a political theory, it is a product of trade and specialization. There are very few instances in history where a society has attempted to advert them. Now, you certainly have historic societies that placed merchants at the bottom of the social structure and probably for good reason. Am I fan of laissez faire capitalism and the selfish espouses from those like Ayn Rand? No. But do I think that an equitable capitalist system with a democratic governance is likely the best form we have experienced to date? Probably. What you describe is corporatism.

True capitalism: I own an apple orchard. I want to trade my apples for good from other people who specialize in their crafts/production. It would be inefficient for me to attempt to trade my apples for everything. A market is then created where I can exchange my apples with others for capital, and then use my capital to purchase other goods. Excess is used to fund my well being (risk), for savings or to invest in my community in the good of society.

Corporatism: I own an apple orchard. I want to trade my apples for goods. The market is created. Instead of using the surplus to assist with my community, I use it to step into a new market. Now I am participating in two markets under an umbrella corporation (typically). I then continue to expand and gain market share. Enter monopoly laws, taxes, ect.

Regan convinced part of a generation (and those thereafter) that instead of supporting competition, we should support conglomeration in the form of trickle-down economics. The R's have followed suit ever since. They gaslight you with the stock market (it's doing so well!), but how much of that do you actually see? How much is rigged behind it?

I believe the problem is that you and I haven't ever participated in a fair economy. That's absolutely a problem. The beauty of capitalism is it gives you leverage where political ideologies tend to lack teeth, it's just that it was compromised long before we were born. Think about it, in a diversified, transparent market you would produce more change buying alternatives than picketing outside Target or Walmart. That option isn't totally gone, but it's so damn expensive you won't dare buy outside the big retailers.

My stepfather was a German immigrant. He called the United States goldene straßen. He was in WW2 as a German Navy officer. When the war was over, he bartered oranges with his mother for goods. Economics has to do with the distribution of the finite. Capital markets are a tool, akin to a gun, that can be used for good or ill. It doesn't espouse a ideology, though it absolutely lacks humanity. I like to think of it as meritocracy (in theory, not as it's practiced today) where it doesn't matter who you are, what you look like... we're just interested in what you bring to the table to benefit society, and in turn, you will benefit as well. It's not something to use to subjugate people.

If you haven't read about it already (you seem extremely astute), I would recommend looking up Distributism. Here's a small snippet from Wikipedia:

Distributism views laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, due to their extreme concentration of ownership. Instead, it favours small independent craftsmen and producers; or, if that is not possible, economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organisations, as well as small to medium enterprises and vigorous anti-trust laws to restrain or eliminate overweening economic power

I absolutely recognize where you're coming from. I've spent a lot of time thinking and researching about it, to be honest. If you really want to think about the future, well, it's communism. Sooner or later we will depopulate into more regional communities again, but this time aided (hopefully) by micro-production like 3D printing and AI.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, it doesn't require a capitalist system just bad actors.

For the record I understand that capitalism isnt a political system, however economic systems correlate to the political systems they're employed in. Or vice versa. Also Im not a full-on communist, I do believe that in some sectors private enterprise is faster, better, more efficient. What I'm saying is that capitalism + right wing + Government structured to protect capital interests was always a breeding ground for fascism. I hope you've spent a lot of time reading about early American uprisings, why they happened, and what the people wanted. Also why our History has been re-written worth hogwash "great man" narratives such as Henry Ford "inventing" the 40hr work week and the weekend off when the truth is he detested the idea, and Unions had been pushing for those things since the 1800's.

See my question about "true capitalism" is "why do you own an apple orchard?" Who decided that? Apple orchards grow. Orange groves grow. These things easily outlive us, why are we arbitrarily squabbling over "ownership?" There's almost no way to "own" such things without either violent acts, or threats.pf violence. And I say that as a guy with fruit trees and some vegetable and spice plants in my backyard. Just the good fortune of the house my family moved into. And Ive explained to my Sons that in the event of Zombie Apocalypse, like some of their favorite movies, we would NEED to be armed to protect those resources because there will be armed people who will eventually start to starve while we have growing food. Also explained to them how bartering works being as I've had the misfortune of experiencing Mad Max in the wake of natural disaster. People become communists almost immediately when society deconstructs that way:



However there are always marauders who concentrate power first, then seek resources:



As well as those with compromised morals out of sheer despration:



One thing I've realized as I got older is that while working class people hardly ever think about these kinds of scenarios, wealthy people do all the time. They think often about how they can preserve their wealth for generations to come, regardless of how many lives it costs (usually). How they can assure their children never end up like this kid in the clips from "The Road." Hence the bunkers, and space craft to hopefully get to a whole other planet to be colonized.

I've heard what you're referring to described as "conscious capitalism." And I do find "Distributism" very interesting. But that hardwiring against hierarchical thinking just screams out from the back of my mind. I recently disturbed my FIL with this statement when he wanted to debate with me about housing (he is a conservative Catholic MAGA guy)..."I dont think people's access to shelter should depend primarily on the generosity of people with more money than they have." He was flabbergasted, but offered no counterpoint.

 

[Yehudim]

The reason it wasn't addressed the way Trump is doing so is because the impulse to deport illegals who are here to work is retarded which is why when we had responsible leaders they just ignored the retarded anti-immigrant populists instead of giving into their nonsensical demands.

We have an economy that is at full employment that hungers for workers and there's a steady supply of them from Central America who come here to work in manual labor positions in core industries like agriculture and construction and indeed economists agree that the surge of immigrants under Biden, largely driven by the US labor market's demand for workers, boosted job growth and output.

Instead under Trump we're seeing a campaign to gut those key industries of their migrant labor at the same time that we're imposing tariffs on imported goods, a one two punch that promises to inflate cost of living. This is voodoo economics which you would happily ridicule if it came from leftists but since its coming from the right you'll shrug your shoulders and look the other way.

Kind of disappointing to see how all those rightists who prided themselves on their understanding of orthodox economics and would readily thumb their nose at idiot leftists folded like a lawn chair in the face of right wing populists. No better example than the Heritage Foundation which for decades railed against tariffs specifically and protectionism more broadly only to 180 in the face of the 2nd Trump term because the party is now completely gutted of its traditional expertise in favor of populist hacks loyal to Trump.

So in other words, politicians have not addressed it for 40 years as I said.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So in other words, politicians have not addressed it for 40 years as I said.

Yeah because as I said anti-immigrant populists are morons and you're not supposed to let the inmates run the asylum.

You don't get credit for doing something because your dumbest voters want you to when that something is detrimental and especially when you break the law when doing so.

 

[Yehudim]

Yeah because as I said anti-immigrant populists are morons and you're not supposed to let the inmates run the asylum.

You don't get credit for doing something because your dumbest voters want you to when that something is detrimental and especially when you break the law when doing so.

He doesn't need your credit, he was voted 2x and the American public has generally agreed that if you're here illegally, you should be deported. As usual, missing the point, which is why he have 2x terms of this. I would have preferred 2x terms of Biden over Trump, but here we are.

 

[Islam Imamate]

He doesn't need your credit, he was voted 2x and the American public has generally agreed that if you're here illegally, you should be deported.

Yeah and that's dumb.

As usual, missing the point, which is why he have 2x terms of this.

I understand the point, Trump got popular by running on doing the dumb thing that smart politicians knew you should only run on but not actually follow through on.

We have two Trump terms because the GOP was too cowardly to convict Trump twice, the second time around for the most impeachable offense of the last century by any president, and because Biden's DOJ was either unable or unwilling to follow through to the end the slam dunk case against him.

I would have preferred 2x terms of Biden over Trump, but here we are.

Sure, might as well point out all the stupid and malevolent things Trump does since there's no going back.