🇳🇱
Can anyone suggest a candidate other than Biden or Trump that look fairly moderate and a good choice? I have ruled out all third-party, all alternative democrats, and of course Trump... This leaves me thinking maybe one of the republican candidates are worth voting for but so far every one of those I checked out are pretty horrific too...
Is there even one candidate that is remotely a reasonable and moderate choice?
@freemo There was this "sanders" that sounded halfway reasonable. What happened to him?
@admitsWrongIfProven @LouisIngenthron
our odds are going down
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven @LouisIngenthron
Are squared now? Even?
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Our odds are always going down, on a long enough timescale. That's the nature of entropy. 😛
@LouisIngenthron @freemo And there it is. Acceptance of our demise.
I agree. We shall vanish from this world, on account of our inability to comprehend :-)
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Have you *seen* how humans behave?
No, I think a prerequisite to survival is, y'know, "wanting to survive" and it seems like a majority of our species is ambivalent to that at best.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Well, this "sanders" person seems to try. I cannot claim such, i am complacant in our demise. Supportive, even. It is ok if there are no more humans.
You mean bernie?.. Bernie absolutely tries, and I think he sincerely cares... the only thing he has going against him is he is completely clueless about how to fix it and if he ever had the power to execute it would be horrific for everyone despite the good intentions... sadly good intentions isnt enough, you need competence too.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron And thus, we exist as we do. I guess it would take a lot to improce our lor, and against our wishes, generally.
We could believe that, or not. Let the people in power for once defend their cash cow.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven This is kind of unrelated, but I'm shocked nobody has been able to form a solid labor party in this country. Especially with all the strikes lately, it seems like there's good potential there.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Must be all the nazis. They gain traction in germany too, again. No idea why adults would hop on that, but they do. There goes the neighborhood.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo That's not an unreasonable position to be in.
As for trying, the Crusaders were trying to make the world a better place by spreading the word of Christ; how well did that work out?
Trying is only half the battle. *How* you try is equally as important, and that's where the issues with Sanders arise.
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Ah, I see @freemo beat me to it.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Afaik the dems pushed him out illegally?
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo Not to my knowledge. He just lost the primary, like he always does.
More complicated than that... He won the primaries one year in terms of direct votes.. but despite him winning the "normal" vote the superdelegates override this and he was denied the primary anyway.
Its kind of ironic cause people yell and scream about Trump being elected despite not winning the popular vote when they do this regularly within their own party.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Well, yeah, because a party's inner workings don't have to be democratic. Most regular folks don't participate in them anyway, so it's already skewed towards political insiders. That seems more reasonable to me than nonsense like the electoral college for the actual vote.
There is no legal requirement a party need be democratic, no.. but if they elect not to be they deserve ridicule and a lack of support.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron At least that much is clear. And we can all rest easy: the others don't get the easy life either. We all suffer. Ain't that nice.
I want everyone to have the easiest life possible... the problem is a lot of people dont know how to achieve that and the way they think they can accomplish that often does the opposite.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Yeah, eating the rich might pose some ethical problems to normal folks.
Yup, they would be quite surprised after they destroy the biggest wealth producers in society and trigger massive starvation and death for everyone... good intentions dont get you very far, least of all when you do the exact opposite of whats best for society.
That isnt to say that there arent issues to address with the rich, there are, but if your going to eliminate rich people all together, you might as well just cover yourself in honey and go hug a bear, your chance of coming out of it with something positive to show would be much higher.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron That is about what society is trying, and every bit of not caring i can muster helps my sanity.
I think a lot of people disconnect and stop caring to remain sane... nothing wrong with that.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Nothing wrong with humanity ending, i would say.
I generally love people talking to each other, to create something, to improve themselfs and their surroundings. Creating wealth is an antithesis, an entirely different goal.
you literally just described generating wealth when you said "improve themselfs and their surroundings" and then went on to say its an antithesis... this makes no sense.
Most people confuse "generate wealth" with "aquire money"... these are totally different things with very little related to eachother... You can move wealth around, you can aquire wealth... but unless you provide a utility to the world you arent generating wealth.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron Yeah, the "generating wealth" you talk about is a unicorn.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron What do you *think* people in the position to make rules are doing? Helping others, because ethics?
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven Some of us prefer businesses that produce actual value, like cheeseburgers or houses, instead of just "wealth".
The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Cheese burgers and houses **are** wealth... Based on your wording you are confusing "wealth" (things that have utility and value) and money..
If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around.. you arent generating wealth (or money)... in order to generate wealth you must increase the overall number of things in society with utility... So yes what i said already was in line with what your saying, you just are using wealth in the way of "collecting wealth" which is not the same as "generating wealth".
> The people who actually create those things should be the wealthy in a just society, not the people who were born to it.
Agreed, like the people who sacraficed decades to create the idea, get funding, investing in the building, getting the money to pay people to do the labour, etc... yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron generate wealth... maybe, there is a price. let's see what reality says to that - let's check back in 100 years. Funny, how that is not possible :-)
Weve been generating wealth since the first human existed... its something that started with the cavemen,.. If it didnt we would still be in caves, by definition. The first time someone built a tent they generated wealth, the first time they built a fire pit, the first time they painted on a wall, these were all examples of early wealth generation.
> If you have profit alone, then you just are moving money around
So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, "generating wealth" despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
> yes the owners who risk everything and actually create the wealth are the people who should be wealthy.
The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built. Most businesses aren't owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business, but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible. That mindset of wealth extraction is what's wrong with so much of business today.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo He does agree, and he's not a bad guy. He's just flailing around and trying very hard to improve. It will take a moment, give him time.
@undefined @admitsWrongIfProven @LouisIngenthron
> So then you would agree that most of the stock trading industry is not, by your definition, "generating wealth" despite the fact that they become fabulously wealthy by performing their jobs?
Its a bit more complex than that... Stocks directly allow a company to aquire funding from the public.. If the company is a company that generates wealth (not all companies necceseraly do), and you buying their stock enabled them to have the liquid capital needed to invest in a project that accelerated their growth, and thus their ability to generate wealth... then no, you as an investor in their stock on the market directly helped wealth get generated as a result of your investment.
If you invest in companies that are all vapour ware and dont actually generate wealth themselves, then no you arent generating wealth, even if you get rich doing it...
As with most things, it depends ont he nuance and any pure ideological standpoint is just nonsense.
> The problem is that the guys who come in after the original owner sells are paid even more, usually just to ruin what the original owner built
As with everything it is situational.. if a new owner comes in and tanks the company (or changes it froma wealth generator to non-wealth generator regardless of value)... then yea your right, they are destroying wealth not creating it... However if they enable the company to create more things which add utility to the world, tehn they may be continuing to generate new wealth... again it depends. It is situational
> Most businesses aren't owned by their founders, or even people who care about the long-term health of the business,
Being owned by the founders is completely irrelevant to if they are a wealth-generator.. even caring about the long-term heath is irrelevant to if they are wealth generators now or int he near future.. you can make choices which ensure your company is a wealth generator for 5 years to come but your plan is flawed and then by 10 years it may fail. This failure does not necceseeraly destroy its wealth previously generated thoughm but it may, it depends.
> but rather short-term investors who are only looking to cash out as soon as possible.
Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth, so long as its destruction doesnt destroy the previous utility it created.
A car company that sells cars and makes a profit for a year, then tanks, still generated wealth for a year, then stopped, even if the companies value goes to 0 the amount of utility added to the world is the same (those cars still exist) and thus overall still generated wealth.
@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven
> "Generating a lot of wealth in the short term, knowing the company will be destroyed int he long, still generates wealth"
Sure, it "still generates wealth". Burning cash for heat generates wealth if you're cold, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Why would you look only at wealth in a single point of time? A company that lasts 100 years generates far more wealth than a company that closes after one. By seeking short-term profits over long, the investors are robbing the company of future wealth to pay themselves dividends now. And they enshittify the products and services as a result of their wealth extraction techniques. We see it happening over and over.
Investment is a good thing for business. But publicly-traded companies aren't invested into; They're bet on like ponies in a race, and the incentives that come from that rob all of us in the long run.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @admitsWrongIfProven A fully legalized drug trade would generate wealth and improve the standard of living, even for those with problems.
When compared to Smart Device manufacturers and their corruption of government. A legal drug trade is morally superior.
A drug trade doesnt create wealth usually.. I mean if i sell heroin, heroin itself doesnt really have utility (as it only harms people)... and ultimately leads people to behave in ways that are wealth destroying... so no... that wouldnt generate wealth, it would be one of the main examples of destroying wealth.
@freemo @LouisIngenthron @admitsWrongIfProven You would be creating wealth, job security, infrastructure and capital to reinvest in the community. I don't see the problem with people dying as those people are removed from the community and can no longer be role models. The problem is government funding shadow wars with the proceeds and ruining lives with a system they set up.
It reminds me of a song.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pDuBkUzNaUk
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Hm, seems legit. US not built on democracy sounds right.
Just sad we can't do any better, here. Got a nice constitution, it's just ignored all the time.
@LouisIngenthron @freemo It seems media purveys different storied. I guess we will never know, we were not there.
No no the media isnt far off... they changed the superdelegate rules on him and then stole the primary from him even though he technically won by the way it was traditionally counted it:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/25/politics/democrats-superdelegates-voting-changes/index.html
@LouisIngenthron @freemo Oh, survival of the human race is not an option. Noted.