President Donald Trump

Sure there are idiots who think he’s draining the swamp, but then you have millions of ****ing *******s like campfirewest who know he’s grifting and not only don’t care but LOVE the fact that it “pwns the libs”, regardless of how obviously bad it is for the long term health of the country.

No way the US survives with so many *******s like him espousing that preposterous viewpoint.

.

I was shocked by that response to YOU, of all people.

And he bit my head off (only metaphorically, I'm happy to say) for asking him to cite the page number containing the information I was asking about in an academic paper he linked for me:

I didn’t express that view in that post. See I can also play the game of writing stuff and pretending to not anticipate totally obvious interpretations.

The idea that we live in a democracy is a marketing gimmick.

We live largely under feudalism ruled by money.

There are some isolated instances of democracy where a local politician like AOC or Mandami breaks through or a state politician like Sanders.

But there are like 20+ opportunities for federal legislation that 80+% of the public agrees upon which our government doesn't implement. The people don't want Citizens United. The people don't Congress people to be able to invest in individual stocks. The people want Medicare to be able to negotiate drug prices.

Thank you! Finally someone has mustered the courage to call out Rococo's dumb, bad-faith posting! Been waiting for this moment for years, but never thought it would happen!

/s

I don’t know if you read other people’s posts but the first is a point i have made recently myself.

Capitalism is not feudalism ruled by money. Have you even read Marx.

I don't look at the world through a lens of good vs bad. So nothing is either good or bad.

I see the world through a lens of preferences and cause and effect.

I prefer a world in which we had a unifying leader to rally around. I prefer a world in which people didn't cling to tribal identity.

Trump is the avatar of a world which clings to tribalism and attrition via tribal conflict.

I appear to be the only person here advocating for global cooperation.

The official definition of feudalism orbits around land ownership and a hierarchical relationship between nobility and servants. So yes .... what we have today is not officially feudalism.

But if you replace land ownership with capital, everything else is the same.

We live in a hierarchical society based upon capital. Capital owns the government, courts, media and military and businesses. Survival requires possession of capital or being in the good graces of one of those institutions.

The only difference between someone like Elon Musk today and a feudal land owner of 700 years ago is the land ownership.

Edit: I haven't taken the time to read Marx in depth.

You don't point to any checks and balances which prevent that from occurring either.

You have a knack for taking no firm positions on anything.

I'm curious as to what you envision for the future of human civilization.

All's well that ends [strike]well[/strike].

When I made my original comment that I was pessimistic, I hadn't given any thought whatsoever to whether we were currently at the "top" or how best to define the "top." I certainly wasn't trying to imply anything one way or the other about whether we were currently at the top. That's the truth, whether you believe it or not.

In any case, I'm not offended. As best I can tell, you have a deep conviction that you are highly intelligent (which may be true) and that almost everyone else is dumb. I'm unsurprised that you include me among the 99.99% of people you believe are dumb. It's very reminiscent of how Sklansky viewed the world.

there is a reason people do that

If you actually think we're a democracy, let's review the process by which Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee for POTUS.

An ambitious college law student, she shacked up with the most powerful politician in California. Former head of the state assembly and San Francisco mayor Willie Brown.

Willie introduces Kamala to all of his rich and powerful friends and donors.

Kamala leverage that into local office and a run for state attorney general.

In an election that fellow Democrat Jerry Brown wins the state by 13 points, Kamala wins her statewide election by 1 pt. That's a weak performance by a Democrat in a deep blue state.

She uses her big money institutional advantage to win a senate seat in Califormia in a race with a poorly funded Democrat.

She enters the national political arena. In the 2020 primary, she does so poorly that she doesn't even make it to the Iowa caucus. Despite her lack of political popularity, her closeness with the donor class gets her the nod to VP.

She becomes the POTUS candidate via anointment by a small group of party insiders when Biden drops out.

There is no basis for any populism in her background. In a democracy, the people at large get to choose who they want to represent them.

I fully expect e_d to rake me over the proverbial coals (but then, who around here doesn't)? But accusing you of 'playing games' and making a 'dumb' post is utterly astounding to me.

You bring your knowledge of Marx and I'll bring my understanding of the AMOC.

Think of it like a potluck.

Nah I think plenty of people are or are capable of not being dumb.

When my great grandmother was a child, the only things that flew threw the air were birds. Before she died, she saw a man land on the moon. And the pace of change has only accelerated since that time. I don't know what the future will hold. As I've said before, I could envision a future in which a small number of people with wealth that vastly exceeds the current Elons of the world maintain social control by ensuring the masses have the basics, have plenty of diversions, and have virtually no chance of changing their lot in life. I could imagine a world in which the masses are simultaneously pacified, satisfied, stupefied, and alienated by the rapid pace of change.

I know that you take people's unwillingness to express more certainty about the future as a sign of cowardice. But if we all wrote down what we expected human civilization to look like in 100 years, there is an excellent chance that we would all be wrong. My great grandmother certainly would have been wrong if you had put the question to her when she was a teenager. And for that reason, I think there is an excellent chance that what I wrote above, vague as it is, will turn out to be totally wrong.

Your overall body of work here would suggest otherwise, but you are the world's leading expert on your actual views, so I guess I'll take your word for it.

You can take solace in the fact that he's never referred to you as a 'dumb white rural.'

I live in an urban area as well (San Clemente, California). So e_d can't even accuse ME of being a dumb, white rural.

I ofc know you don't give two figs what folks say or think about you in this forum.

If I worried about what folks around here thought about me I'd be up most nights sobbing in my coffee since most folks around here don't like me at all.

It's pretty bad faith to not just explain what you mean by pessimistic when it takes less words than whining about someone implying you might not be super bright on the internet and tediously explaining how you don't care either way.

Hush up. You're a poster child for "not so bright". Human technological supremacist .... LOL.

I didn't see Roc 'whining' about anything, nor did I think that any of his posts were 'tedious.'

Anyhoo, make it a great day!