The Next President is...

[Negatory]

Random thought experiment to play devils advocate. Try to justify unbridled inheritance under the pretext that all men should be created equal - a decidedly American value. Not so easy, huh? Equality of opportunity, right? Inheritance doesn’t really translate to a meritocracy.

Also, good luck trying to convince Americans that public schools, regulations on drinking water, improvement of soil, and abolition of child labor is bad just because a Marxist said it.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Negatory

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Try to justify unbridled inheritance under the pretext that all men should be created equal - a decidedly American value. Not so easy, huh? Equality of opportunity, right? Inheritance doesn’t really translate to a meritocracy.

interesting devils advocate. So what about the thought that what a person earns through his labor is his, whether that be $1000 or $1B? Each person should be free to spend that money however they see fit, and if that’s inheritance, then so be it. Now, you can argue the recipient of said inheritance didn’t earn it, but why is that anyone’s business besides within the family? Is it fair for me to buy my son a bike while the neighbor kid had to mow lawns all summer to buy his own? Maybe not in a vacuum and the truest sense of the word, but in the real world, I get to decide as the parent what my son must work for and what I provide directly to him without labor required. That’s liberty. 
 

To address equality of opportunity…I think the difference is one person may have a steeper climb, but they can achieve the same mountain top. Nobody is limited by anything other than their own perseverance and capabilities. Everyone absolutely may have different/more or less barriers to achieving a similar goal (e.g. family wealth), but the poor person in this analogy can still go to Harvard like the rich Nantucket kid with a family connection…the poor kid just has a greater challenge to get there (but the opportunity is squarely in existence). 

[El Duderino]

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Also, good luck trying to convince Americans that public schools, regulations on drinking water, improvement of soil, and abolition of child labor is bad just because a Marxist said it.

Because those things are good is all the other stuff they say good by association?
 

The Germans built an impressive road system in the 1930s that inspired our interstate system here in the US. Does that make the rest of their ideology from the time more acceptable?

[Guardian]

Random thought experiment to play devils advocate. Try to justify unbridled inheritance under the pretext that all men should be created equal - a decidedly American value. Not so easy, huh? Equality of opportunity, right? Inheritance doesn’t really translate to a meritocracy.
Also, good luck trying to convince Americans that public schools, regulations on drinking water, improvement of soil, and abolition of child labor is bad just because a Marxist said it.

You have to know what the intent behind created equal is and what it means. It doesn’t have anything to do with wealth inherited.

[Lord Ratner]

4 hours ago, Negatory said:

Random thought experiment to play devils advocate. Try to justify unbridled inheritance under the pretext that all men should be created equal - a decidedly American value. Not so easy, huh? Equality of opportunity, right? Inheritance doesn’t really translate to a meritocracy.

Also, good luck trying to convince Americans that public schools, regulations on drinking water, improvement of soil, and abolition of child labor is bad just because a Marxist said it.

No, that argument has no logical continuity. What about being born with smarter parents? What about being born with genes that will make you taller? Should we force "equity" of height and parental intelligence too, since we have scientifically validated evidence that they provide advantages? It's created with equal rights, not equal surroundings. The founders weren't obtuse.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[brickhistory]

Totally coherent and able to recognize what's happening moments when asked about leaving Afghanistan, about Russian cyberattacks of the week.

 

We can discuss the WH putting together a deal so that Hunter can sell his "art" for $.5M each and it not be seen as buying access later.

And those danged courts striking down the farm loan repayments for everyone, literally, except whites.

I look forward to having the jacovid witnesses come by my place to ask for my vaccination papers...

[Pooter]

Just finished up watching trump's cpac speech/stream of consciousness stand up routine. After not hearing from him for 6 months I almost forgot how incoherent he is. I doubt even the most seasoned qanon nut could follow the speed and frequency of his tangents. 
 

As someone who wants to see the Republican Party put up a serious challenge to the democrats in 2022 and beyond, it is a constant source of frustration that he has been allowed to stay in the picture. Trump is the perfect foil for Democrats because all they have to do to win is point at him and say nothing else.  If Republicans were smart they'd pick the most boring, straightedge candidate possible and position themselves opposite the Democrats' insane policies and social justice initiatives.  Remember, most of the things Democrats are pushing--CRT, reparations, LGBTQIA$?!: initiatives, packing the court, massive federal spending etc.. aren't actually popular. We have a really good opportunity to pick a Nikki Haley or a Ron Desantis and just shut up and point at the dems' lunacy. 
 

But the Republicans aren't smart, and they are even less cohesive in their election strategies. So 2024 will probably just be another referendum on trump when it could be a referendum on the left's batshit ideas. 

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Just finished up watching trump's cpac speech/stream of consciousness stand up routine. After not hearing from him for 6 months I almost forgot how incoherent he is. 

Valid, he has nothing on the master of extemporaneous eloquence that is Joe Biden.  🙄

[pawnman]

6 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Valid, he has nothing on the master of extemporaneous eloquence that is Joe Biden.  🙄

Just because Biden is a bad public speaker doesn't make Trump a good one.  Two things can be true at the same time.

Pooter's right...the GOP will have much better luck with a more sane candidate who is less divisive.

[brabus]

Have to agree with Pooter…between him and Biden/Kamala, I’d hands down vote for Trump, but that doesn’t make him a good choice for the GOP to run in 24. I really hope someone like Desantis, Haley, Crenshaw, etc. are given the nod. Let Trump provide funds and rally his base to support GOP candidates, but for the love of God don’t run him in 24.

[SurelySerious]

They have to move past him to make 2024 viable.

[brabus]

9 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

They have to move past him to make 2024 viable.

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

[M2]

Here's the solution.  He's even got the knife hands thing down...



Bonus points for the fact the Left hates him!

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, brabus said:

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks Trump's positions are "hard right".

[brabus]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks Trump's positions are "hard right".

True, my “hard right” was directed at these old people in the GOP who won’t listen for one sec to somebody who doesn't believe exactly like them (very conservative). Local example: those people are losing their shit that a gay guy is running as a republican. Never mind he has great policy stances and is conservative-minded, but he’s gay, so we not only shouldn’t support him, we should actively oppose him. They literally would rather die on their religious sword and see this guy lose, at the cost of some batshit crazy leftist winning. Not that they want that outcome, but they’re incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. That’s the part of the GOP that needs to “retire;” let the rest of us conservatives who don’t care who you fuck interact with the public. 

[kaputt]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

True, my “hard right” was directed at these old people in the GOP who won’t listen for one sec to somebody who doesn't believe exactly like them (very conservative). Local example: those people are losing their shit that a gay guy is running as a republican. Never mind he has great policy stances and is conservative-minded, but he’s gay, so we not only shouldn’t support him, we should actively oppose him. They literally would rather die on their religious sword and see this guy lose, at the cost of some batshit crazy leftist winning. Not that they want that outcome, but they’re incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. That’s the part of the GOP that needs to “retire;” let the rest of us conservatives who don’t care who you interact with the public. 

The religious right is the albatross around the neck of the conservative movement in this country. Unfortunately it wields considerable power; Trump had to pretend he was praying at almost every event and he even had to reference God, the bible, etc... in his speeches and I think we all know that man is not religious in any way, shape, or form. 

Mixing of religion and politics is never a good combo. The Republicans in this country that continually cave to the religious right and choose social issues as their hill to die on are only hurting the party in the long run and it gives infinite and easy fodder to the left. 

[dream big]

11 hours ago, brabus said:

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

On the surface I agree with your notion that we need to move past Trump in order to regain credibility as a party let alone defeat whichever lunatic the Dems put up (probably Kamala).  While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump. Maybe it’s because he was one of the only politicians that connected with boring, maybe rural, everyday Americans? Many of these hard right folk are decent Americans that just want to be left alone and have someone that will fight for them. Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

[brabus]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

I agree. I think Desantis, Crenshaw, etc. can do that, but with the added benefit of not pissing off the middle. Trump’s problem is he alienates a lot of voters who aren’t fairly conservative, but may actually vote GOP if they see a candidate who’s not raging away on Twitter. I think emotional voting is stupid as shit, but I acknowledge there are a lot of people out there who just can’t stand Trump’s personality/approach towards others and will summarily vote for anyone but him. It’d be disingenuous to say he didn’t play his part in creating the “never trumpers.”

By the way, I voted for him twice…but also strive to be as balanced, informed, and unemotional as possible. That means I have to acknowledge the other groups/sides, even if I don’t agree with them. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by brabus

[hockeydork]

3 hours ago, dream big said:

On the surface I agree with your notion that we need to move past Trump in order to regain credibility as a party let alone defeat whichever lunatic the Dems put up (probably Kamala).  While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump. Maybe it’s because he was one of the only politicians that connected with boring, maybe rural, everyday Americans? Many of these hard right folk are decent Americans that just want to be left alone and have someone that will fight for them. Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

I wouldn't exactly identify a guy who builds and buys glamorous buildings/casinos/pimped out 757s as "connecting with hard working rural Americans". He was just good at telling people what they wanted to hear to get what he wanted (like most politicians). A master salesman, and I say that honestly as a compliment. It is indeed a skill like anything else.

I totally empathize with what you're saying. The problem is the world cahnged. It's like saying I just want to be left alone to run my steam train business....steam trains are obsolete/not coming back. America isn't going to be able to return to its former manufacturing glory, it's a pipe dream no matter who you stick on the ballot. Technological progress is the new hot commodity, and you'll notice that is heavily located on the coasts right now. As human technology progresses and increases in complexity, the standard level of education required is going to keep increasing in order to service/design/implement said technology. Being boring isn't in high demand, and never will be again. Boring people aren't going to figure out how to regrow an eyeball you lost on the 4th of July, or how to extend the range of electric vehicles. That's what people need and want now.

Why do people cling to Trump? Sometimes the past was better than the future. To have been a 707 steam gauge pilot during the jet age for TWA... pretty sweet. But TWA and its 707s ain't coming back. 

Best thing any president could do is get everyone (coasts and middle states) on the same page. Left can stop the hypocrisy of "We should buy everything from China and shrink the military while they grow theirs but wine every time they violate some other democratic country or ethnic groups civil rights". Right needs to get on board with the "Yea maybe we should overhaul our energy infrastructure to create jobs, and maybe people do need higher levels of education now that everyone carries a damn computer in their pockets..."

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2021 by hockeydork

[Negatory]

On 7/9/2021 at 5:29 AM, Lord Ratner said:

No, that argument has no logical continuity. What about being born with smarter parents? What about being born with genes that will make you taller? Should we force "equity" of height and parental intelligence too, since we have scientifically validated evidence that they provide advantages? It's created with equal rights, not equal surroundings. The founders weren't obtuse.

The argument makes sense. Also, I’d like to point out its easier to hit a nerve here on Baseops than ever before, it seems. Here’s your founding fathers takes on inheritance. Spoilers: they didn’t believe in it.

Adams: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

Jefferson: “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.”

More reading bemoaning this point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

And no, to the secondary argument, I NEVER even partially implied that the other things in the list of 10 marxist things were good just because there were some that made sense. But I did point out that lumping together 10 disparate ideas that don’t make sense together was ineffective.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Negatory

[Negatory]

On 7/9/2021 at 3:38 AM, brabus said:

interesting devils advocate. So what about the thought that what a person earns through his labor is his, whether that be $1000 or $1B? Each person should be free to spend that money however they see fit, and if that’s inheritance, then so be it. Now, you can argue the recipient of said inheritance didn’t earn it, but why is that anyone’s business besides within the family? Is it fair for me to buy my son a bike while the neighbor kid had to mow lawns all summer to buy his own? Maybe not in a vacuum and the truest sense of the word, but in the real world, I get to decide as the parent what my son must work for and what I provide directly to him without labor required. That’s liberty. 
 

To address equality of opportunity…I think the difference is one person may have a steeper climb, but they can achieve the same mountain top. Nobody is limited by anything other than their own perseverance and capabilities. Everyone absolutely may have different/more or less barriers to achieving a similar goal (e.g. family wealth), but the poor person in this analogy can still go to Harvard like the rich Nantucket kid with a family connection…the poor kid just has a greater challenge to get there (but the opportunity is squarely in existence). 

This assumes that everyone agrees taxes are inherently fair, and that once money is taxed it is 100% fair and yours. The fact that things like the top marginal tax rate have gone from percents in the 90s to the 20s just since WWII, along with the amount of crying on both sides when taxes change in either direction really makes it hard to believe that anyone really agrees with your premise that the amount of post-tax money you have is inherently fair, just, or ethical. And if people dont agree with that, then they won’t agree with your point that $1B was necessarily obtained in an acceptable way just because it was obtained.

To highlight this, if you make $500 an hour working 80 hours a week with no breaks, it will only take you… 481 years to make $1B. Oh also, this assumes no inflation, because in reality 480 years of inflation would mean you would have only been making $1 an hour to start out. I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

Finally, would you ever enter a poker competition where you get a $10 chip and have to play against the guy with $50k to get to the second round? Because that’s what it’s like for a baby born on the streets who’s trying to get the same opportunities as your Nantucket example.

[Sua Sponte]

[Lord Ratner]

37 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The argument makes sense. Also, I’d like to point out its easier to hit a nerve here on Baseops than ever before, it seems. Here’s your founding fathers takes on inheritance. Spoilers: they didn’t believe in it.

Adams: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

Jefferson: “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.”

More reading bemoaning this point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

And no, to the secondary argument, I NEVER even partially implied that the other things in the list of 10 marxist things were good just because there were some that made sense. But I did point out that lumping together 10 disparate ideas that don’t make sense together was ineffective.

That's not addressing the point. The founders had slaves and decried slavery, so contractions abound. You'll notice there's nothing in the Constitution about forfeiting all property "to the society" after you die. 

 

You asked how it squared with the idea of "created equal," implying a connection, but there is none. I gave examples of other advantages you can be born with. Created equal means created with the same rights and freedoms, from the government, as anyone else. Whether you inherit $10 billion dollars or nothing at all, you have a right to due process, a right to association, free speech, etc. 

 

Our system is immensely successful precisely because the founders didn't incorporate personal opinions of fairness into the government's control. Limited government.

 

You have a right to give your children whatever is yours. You have the same rights and freedoms as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos had to make fortunes. Inherited wealth is not particularly enduring, and most of the billionaires/millionaires in America are self-made. So your argument is an emotional one, not a practical one.

[kaputt]

40 minutes ago, Negatory said:

 

To highlight this, if you make $500 an hour working 80 hours a week with no breaks, it will only take you… 481 years to make $1B. Oh also, this assumes no inflation, because in reality 480 years of inflation would mean you would have only been making $1 an hour to start out. I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

 

Well, we found the Marxist.

[Sua Sponte]

3 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Well, we found the Marxist.

If he was a Marxist, he wouldn’t be talking making a wage.