Jump to content

Womens tears are making politics - and society - more feminine.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

You are manipulating again and providing traffic for me <---

The Bolsheviks initially operated within a democratic framework, as evidenced by the establishment of the Soviet Union's first constitution in 1918, which guaranteed the right to vote for all citizens regardless of gender, nationality, or social status. They also implemented policies aimed at empowering workers, such as the nationalization of land and industry, the introduction of eight-hour workdays, and the establishment of worker control over production.

However, as the Bolsheviks faced opposition and challenges in implementing their socialist ideals, they became increasingly authoritarian. This was partly due to their belief that their vision for a socialist society was necessary for the greater good and had to be imposed on the population, even if it meant restricting individual freedoms.

Does the above statement sound familiar? 

Where are you getting this from?

What their constitution said means nothing. China's constitution also claims it's democratic, dictators lie.

The Soviet Union did have elections, but the candidates had to be members of the official state party. That's not a true democracy and it goes against actual marxism. And this wasn't something they implemented after years of trying communism or socialism, this was what they started with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

You know, I forgot there is a man which posts Soviet songs in the morning here. He is also well know of posting against America, Canada and the UK in the west. Australia is his main nest. 

My suspicion is that he is part of the old guard, a real communist, old KGB guard, here to brainwash the troubled western angry men. 

https://repolitics.com/forums/topic/41991-war-in-ukraine/?do=findComment&comment=1586207

Tankies =/= commies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

The cases you're referring to aren't about people who tried and failed to create communism.

This is the biggest lie you'll find on the left , and of course they HAVE to say that to try to keep the idea of communism and socialism from looking completely morally and practically bereft of value.

Of course it's been tried. It always fails. All the varians of it fail. Once you try to expand the idea beyond a family sized unit it collapses.

Socialism and communism simply don't work because they ignore human nature and pretend that humans will happily live against their nature. But they won't ,not for long.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Socialism and communism simply don't work because they ignore human nature and pretend that humans will happily live against their nature. But they won't ,not for long.

Co-ops are more successful per capita than capitalists corporations. So no, socialism does not go against human nature. People who use this argument think that because humans are selfish, they're incapable of working together for survival unless they're forced to by the government. Which of course is ridiculous because it's what humans have always done. Even Charles Darwin, who is often invoked during these discussions, understood that part of evolution involves groups within a species working together to advance the survival chances of the species.

Edited by Americana Antifa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Co-ops are more successful per capita than capitalists corporations. So no, socialism does not go against human nature.

Well that depends on what you mean by 'co-ops'.  And how big the 'co op' you're talking about is. If you mean like a farmer's co-op or co-op store, no. Sorry, you're dead wrong.  If you mean co-op housing, certainly not. The best you can say about that is it helps keep prices lower but that's because it has less value.  But perhaps you mean something else, 'co-op' is a pretty wide reaching term.

Frankly i think we'll see pretty quick this is another one of your ... ahhh... "less than true" facts :)

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

ven Charles Darwin, who is often invoked during these discussions, understood that part of evolution involves groups within a species working together to advance the survival chances of the species.

Communism isn't about working together.  Even capitalism REQUIRES that people work together.

But communism suggests that their is no such thing as 'hierarchy', and that is simply against human nature entirely. We are definitely pack animals - but like almost all pack animals we are hierarchy based.

This is something the left often pretends doesn't exist, which is why they THINK its possible for the 'communal' model to work on any kind of scale. But it doesn't.

And at the end of the day that's the problem with the left these days - they don't care about facts, they don't care about science, they don't care about human nautre - they care about 'muh feels' and what they perceive as desirable and demand that their vision of utopia is true despite any evidence to the contrary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that depends on what you mean by 'co-ops'.  And how big the 'co op' you're talking about is. If you mean like a farmer's co-op or co-op store, no. Sorry, you're dead wrong.  If you mean co-op housing, certainly not. The best you can say about that is it helps keep prices lower but that's because it has less value.  But perhaps you mean something else, 'co-op' is a pretty wide reaching term.

I mean worker cooperatives.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But communism suggests that their is no such thing as 'hierarchy', and that is simply against human nature entirely. We are definitely pack animals - but like almost all pack animals we are hierarchy based.

Not really. Communists are against having a hierarchy when it comes to social or political power, but I don't think other forms of hierarchy contradict communism. If there's one person who is the best doctor in town and all the other doctors go to that doctor to learn, that's kind of a hierarchy, but I don't think it goes against communism.

But I do agree that without a government, it's impossible to keep social and political hierarchies from popping up. Communism on a large scale would just result in a bunch of feudal states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Well your article tends to disagree with you despite the fact that its trying its best to support your position.  It's full of "can be" and "might be" and "in some cases" and such - and cites no actual research or numbers.

Further it basically admits that from a profitability point of view it's not as effective.

And of course its' comparing apples to oranges - larger corporations to smaller business worker coops.  But - we already know that smaller businesses tend to be more efficient as far as labour goes.  A small 'regular' business is more efficient on average than a larger corporation by far.

So as suspected - a 'less than true' truth.

3 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Not really. Communists are against having a hierarchy when it comes to social or political power, but I don't think other forms of hierarchy contradict communism.

But those two are critical. You cannot have a human society or group without social and political power being involved and humans will always organize that into a hierarchy. It is the nature of every pack or flock animal in existence.

3 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

If there's one person who is the best doctor in town and all the other doctors go to that doctor to learn, that's kind of a hierarchy, but I don't think it goes against communism.

Well that's not really a 'hierarchy'. It would be if that doctor decided who gets to learn and who doesn't and controls the medical services from that perspective.

3 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

But I do agree that without a government, it's impossible to keep social and political hierarchies from popping up. Communism on a large scale would just result in a bunch of feudal states.

A bunch of feudal states or more often one very large state controlled by an elite class. Which we've certainly seen.

And it's a problem with all socialistic or communal models.

Of course the problem with a true hierarchy model such a s a meritocracy or 'pure' capitalist economic model is that it leaves those who don't fit on the hierarchical scale to suffer and fall by the wayside and die.  In nature that has some advantage but as thinking creatures we don't really like that.

So the best models tend to be a meritocracy and free market style hierarchy with a VERY small amount of communal model included to make sure that people aren't just cast aside.

Then  the trick is to create as many successful hierarchy's as possible.  Business ones, sports ones, computer programming ones, basket weaving ones, whatever - as many areas where people can compete and find SOME skill they have that will allow them to be of value. The more there are, the more people are likely to find the ladder that they can do well on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well your article tends to disagree with you despite the fact that its trying its best to support your position.  It's full of "can be" and "might be" and "in some cases" and such - and cites no actual research or numbers.

Dishonest on your part. The article is guessing why co-ops are more effective, probably because whoever wrote it has your kind of thinking, that it goes against human nature. Which is incorrect and only a common view because of capitalist propaganda. They're not saying "they might be successful" as in we've yet to see co-ops that function. All of the data shows that they function well.

https://medium.com/swlh/want-to-change-the-world-a-more-efficient-stable-and-better-startup-model-e6fc58560150

https://www.fastcompany.com/40572926/more-u-s-businesses-are-becoming-worker-co-ops-heres-why

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And of course its' comparing apples to oranges - larger corporations to smaller business worker coops.  But - we already know that smaller businesses tend to be more efficient as far as labour goes.  A small 'regular' business is more efficient on average than a larger corporation by far.

Smaller businesses are also less likely to lose profits and go bankrupt when they're co-ops. Success doesn't just mean infinit growth. The vast majority of new businesses fail pretty quickly. The fact that co-ops are less likely to fail is an argument alone for socialism.

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But those two are critical. You cannot have a human society or group without social and political power being involved and humans will always organize that into a hierarchy. It is the nature of every pack or flock animal in existence.

Well that's why I'm not a communist. Like I said, I think a stateless society would just devolve into a lot of feudal states. Warlords would pop up, they'd have their own police force, they'd make the laws, it would basically just be feudalism. Government is a way to keep that from happening.

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So the best models tend to be a meritocracy and free market style hierarchy with a VERY small amount of communal model included to make sure that people aren't just cast aside.

If there's one thing Donald Trump and Elon Musk have proven, it's that meritocracy can't exist with capitalism. When you have a bourgeoisie, the laws will inevitably be made to favor them. We can reduce how bad this, the social democracies of Europe have done a pretty good job. But as long as we have a bourgeoisie, there will be people like Trump and Musk who are born into wealth, fail at almost everything, but keep getting bailouts and subsidies simply for being part of the upper-class. Meanwhile, people born into poverty have to be careful to not fail even once.

Socialism is much better for meritocracy because it creates a race where we all start closer to the same point. Not completely, there will always be inequality, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as with capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Dishonest on your part. The article is guessing why co-ops are more effective, probably because whoever wrote it has your kind of thinking, that it goes against human nature. Which is incorrect and only a common view because of capitalist propaganda.

Nope.  They're not guessing and they clearly support the coops. It's just what you said was untrue. Sorry.

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

Smaller businesses are also less likely to lose profits and go bankrupt when they're co-ops.

that's because they lumped single owner small businesses  in with that - and they're the most likely to fail period.

Sorry.  I get you want socailism to look like it works but it really doesn't

Now - technically every single public traded company is a co-op - the employees have as much right to own a share of the business as anyone else.  But there's nothing actually more stable about co-ops.  Other than they tend to only exist in a specific segment.

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Well that's why I'm not a communist. Like I said, I think a stateless society would just devolve into a lot of feudal states. Warlords would pop up, they'd have their own police force, they'd make the laws, it would basically just be feudalism. Government is a way to keep that from happening.

Well we can agree on the first part.  However - gov'ts are NOT a way to keep that from happening, govts tend to race towards that end even faster. That's why any attempt at a 'socialistic' or communal society managed by gov't is doomed to failure over time.

 

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

If there's one thing Donald Trump and Elon Musk have proven, it's that meritocracy can't exist with capitalism.

Sure it can. Donald is VERY skilled and so is elon, and they've both risen up. What's the problem.

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

When you have a bourgeoisie, the laws will inevitably be made to favor them. We can reduce how bad this, the social democracies of Europe have done a pretty good job. But as long as we have a bourgeoisie, there will be people like Trump and Musk who are born into wealth, fail at almost everything, but keep getting bailouts and subsidies simply for being part of the upper-class. Meanwhile, people born into poverty have to be careful to not fail even once.

What a load of crap. Trump was SORT of born to wealth but not really. Musk wasn't born to wealth at all - he earned it.

ANd in fact the majority of millionaires and billionares come from low to middle class. Which proves that you are ENTIRELY wrong.

51 minutes ago, Americana Antifa said:

Socialism is much better for meritocracy because it creates a race where we all start closer to the same point. Not completely, there will always be inequality, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad as with capitalism.

Bull.  Socialism seeks to repress anyone above the average. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator, not the highest.  So socialism is death to merit. It actively punishes those who excel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nope.  They're not guessing and they clearly support the coops. It's just what you said was untrue. Sorry.

Not what I said. I said they're guessing why it is that co-ops work better than capitalist corporations. They've already accepted that socialism works better than capitalism, they're spitballing why that is. And again, I think the reason it's hard for them to understand is because they grew up with pro-capitalist propaganda.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

that's because they lumped single owner small businesses  in with that - and they're the most likely to fail period.

Get back here with those goalposts.

If a co-op small business is less likely to fail than a single owner small business, then that means co-ops have a higher success rate.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Now - technically every single public traded company is a co-op - the employees have as much right to own a share of the business as anyone else.  But there's nothing actually more stable about co-ops.  Other than they tend to only exist in a specific segment.

Sure, but often they can't afford to. In most cases, the democracy of a publicly traded company is between people who don't even work in that company. It's fine if companies want to go public, but if they're going to do democracy through stock options, then every employee should get a share for free before they start selling to other rich people.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well we can agree on the first part.  However - gov'ts are NOT a way to keep that from happening, govts tend to race towards that end even faster. That's why any attempt at a 'socialistic' or communal society managed by gov't is doomed to failure over time.

This is literally the system we have now. In a democracy, the people use the government to enforce the rules, which keeps people from becoming warlords. The only difference is that in a socialist country, wealth would be more evenly spread throughout the country, meaning billionaires won't be able to buy and sell politicians. This means the public would have a greater hold over the government.

I'm not one of those people who stupidly says we don't have a democracy, we have an oligarchy, but I do accept that with capitalism, the rich and powerful have much more political power than the general public.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Sure it can. Donald is VERY skilled and so is elon, and they've both risen up. What's the problem.

Absolutely not. Both of them, especially Trump, went bankrupt several times, only to be bailed out. Then when they wanted to try again, they were given subsidies. They also pay less in taxes than the workers.

Trump actually said all of this about Musk. He pointed out that the only reason Musk is still rich is because of government subsidies. The irony is that the same thing applies to Trump. It was a perfect case of pot meet kettle.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What a load of crap. Trump was SORT of born to wealth but not really. Musk wasn't born to wealth at all - he earned it.

Fred Trump was a millionaire. By the time he died, his net worth was around $250 million. So yes, Donald was born into wealth and he inherited millions from his father.

While Elon Musk isn't literally retarded like Trump, his father Errol Musk owned an emerald mine in Africa. So yes, also born into wealth and also only still rich because of subsidies.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ANd in fact the majority of millionaires and billionares come from low to middle class. Which proves that you are ENTIRELY wrong.

Link me any list of the top ten richest people. I guarantee at least half of them will have been people who were born into wealth.

And that's not to say all of them are worthless like Trump. Bill Gates is extremely smart and has contributed plenty to society. But he was also born into wealth, so he had a head start that most people never did. Who knows how many kids could have grown up to be the next Bill Gates, but didn't have his opportunities?

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Bull.  Socialism seeks to repress anyone above the average. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator, not the highest.  So socialism is death to merit. It actively punishes those who excel.

If you know nothing about socialism, sure, that's exactly what it does.

But in the real world, no. Socialism actually creates a more level playing field so that there's a better chance of the cream rising to the top.

This short comic details the issue of classism really well.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Not what I said. I said they're guessing why it is that co-ops work better than capitalist corporations. They've already accepted that socialism works better than capitalism, they're spitballing why that is.

No, that is not supported by the story. that is a severe twist on it.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Get back here with those goalposts.

Ahhh your favorite battlecry when you run into a fact you don't like :)  Predictable.

There's no goalpost moving there - the fact is their data set included a subset that isn't appropriate for comparison. Sorry.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

If a co-op small business is less likely to fail than a single owner small business, then that means co-ops have a higher success rate.

Nope. For that to be true the variable would have to be the co-op - but if ALL multi owner businesses are more successful on average then it says NOTHING about coops - it just says multi owners are more successful.  :) Sorry  but clearly you don't understand how data works.

 

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Sure, but often they can't afford to.

Often they can't afford to start co-ops either.  So there's no difference there.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

This is literally the system we have now. In a democracy, the people use the government to enforce the rules, which keeps people from becoming warlords.

No.  First off the use of gov't isn't exclusive to democracies. In the old feudal system the gov't used the law to prevent warlords. Second, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy. We use the CONSTITUTION to prevent warlords. The gov't is simply the mechanism by which the people vest power, but it is constrained by the constitution which grants people their rights and limits the power of government.

You don't really know much about how governance or countries or any of this works do you.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

 

The only difference is that in a socialist country, wealth would be more evenly spread throughout the country, meaning billionaires won't be able to buy and sell politicians. This means the public would have a greater hold over the government.

Of COURSE they would buy and sell politicians. I would point you to the soviet union, or china, or cuba, or any of the socliastic countries. At the end of the day, someone somewhere still controls the assets. Socialism just pretends that such abuses are 'on behalf of the people' without giving anything back.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

I'm not one of those people who stupidly says we don't have a democracy, we have an oligarchy, but I do accept that with capitalism, the rich and powerful have much more political power than the general public.

It's limited. Its' more true in the US, it's far less true in Canada. Yet we have lots of billionares - elon musk is half canadian.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Absolutely not. Both of them, especially Trump, went bankrupt several times, only to be bailed out. Then when they wanted to try again, they were given subsidies. They also pay less in taxes than the workers.

Everyone who goes bankrupt gets bailed out.  That's how bankruptcy works. What HE proved is he has the skills and ability to rebuild after failure. That's how you learn - you fail, you get better, you rebuild. Do you think tiger woods never lost a game of golf? You don't get to the top without failure.

If it was as you say and he was protected by privledge, he would never have gone bankrupt in the first place.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Trump actually said all of this about Musk. He pointed out that the only reason Musk is still rich is because of government subsidies. The irony is that the same thing applies to Trump. It was a perfect case of pot meet kettle.

Trump lies.  I  LOVE that you're taking him as an authority now :) Does that mean i can start quoting him and you'll just accept it? Or are you only using the quotes you favor?

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Fred Trump was a millionaire. By the time he died, his net worth was around $250 million. So yes, Donald was born into wealth and he inherited millions from his father.

But you said he lost it all - and rebuilt from nothing.  So.. swing and a miss.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

While Elon Musk isn't literally retarded like Trump, his father Errol Musk owned an emerald mine in Africa. So yes, also born into wealth and also only still rich because of subsidies.

Nope - he wasn't that rich. Sorry. Owning a mine doesn't make you a multi millionare.

And in fact - he sold his first video game at the age of 12 and started to amass his money then. So. Swing and a miss again on your part kiddo.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

Link me any list of the top ten richest people. I guarantee at least half of them will have been people who were born into wealth.

We'll you'd be wrong but lets say that's true - that would mean that HALF came from a NON rich family - literally proving that you have a similar chance to become one of the most wealthy as a person who was born into wealth.

If what YOU claimed was true, ALL of them would be from wealthy families :)

You lose again kiddo. You really aren't very good at this.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

And that's not to say all of them are worthless like Trump. Bill Gates is extremely smart and has contributed plenty to society. But he was also born into wealth, so he had a head start that most people never did.

Gates wasn't born into wealth, his family was upper middle class at best. His dad was a lawyer and his mom was a director on a few boards.  That is HARDLY rich.

And he did it all himself. Started the business, raised the money and investors - didn't use any 'family fortune' or the like ,

Sorry kiddo - middle class.

How about jeff bezos - he was born into poverty. HIs parents were teenagers when he was born and still struggling to get through school.

I suppose you'll claim he was rich?

Epic fail.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

If you know nothing about socialism, sure, that's exactly what it does.

Or if your honest about it. Which rules you out.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

But in the real world, no. Socialism actually creates a more level playing field so that there's a better chance of the cream rising to the top.

Nope - it is ONLY able to repress people. That's how it works. it cannot 'give' anything, it must TAKE first and redistribute, which represses growth horribly.

1 hour ago, Americana Antifa said:

This short comic details the issue of classism really well.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate

Nice story - you know 'paula' is jeff bezos right?

Here's a short little skit about socialism and far left thinking:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each person has a unique biology and history regardless of race, gender, or identity group. Trying to quantify victimhood or privilege based solely on superficial variables is a mug’s game, because both privilege and victimhood cross all identity groups. We also all are born with different abilities, have different levels of motivation, different interests, values, environments, and on and on. The only accurate metrics are measuring merit based on skills, knowledge, and mostly output.  Likability is harder because everyone again has a range of likes.  Some people are more popular than others.  Does this depend on whether the audience is your identity in-group? Only somewhat. Popularity is mostly based on virtues like punctuality, conscientiousness, generosity, personal sacrifice, and competence. I’m white but my favourite comedians happen to be black because they’re hilarious. Judging people primarily based on superficial identity groups is stupid, unless the identities are at the extreme, such as rapists or murderers. Credibility in the workplace and among community is built over time based on what people actually do more than on any other factors.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Each person has a unique biology and history regardless of race, gender, or identity group. Trying to quantify victimhood or privilege based solely on superficial variables is a mug’s game, because both privilege and victimhood cross all identity groups. We also all are born with different abilities, have different levels of motivation, different interests, values, environments, and on and on. The only accurate metrics are measuring merit based on skills, knowledge, and mostly output.  Likability is harder because everyone again has a range of likes.  Some people are more popular than others.  Does this depend on whether the audience is your identity in-group? Only somewhat. Popularity is mostly based on virtues like punctuality, conscientiousness, generosity, personal sacrifice, and competence. I’m white but my favourite comedians happen to be black because they’re hilarious. Judging people primarily based on superficial identity groups is stupid, unless the identities are at the extreme, such as rapists or murderers. Credibility in the workplace and among community is built over time based on what people actually do more than on any other factors.  

It is something that often goes unremarked - everyone has their own disadvantages that hold them back, and many get no love at all.  If your fat - that's going to be held against you. If you have langauge or speech issues that severely handicapps your ability to get ahead. If you're disabled or the like, obviously that's potentially far worse than someone's skin colour as far as impediments go.

If you're neurodivergent (autistic, dyslexic, etc) you face severe prejudice and challenges in life even though you might be very smart.

Often people pretend as tho the intersectional issues (race and sex mostly) are the ONLY reason people struggle or are prejudiced against.

But the most important take away from that skit i think is this:  Efforts to fix problems with 'social justice just drag everyone down instead of building anyone up, and then there's a backlash.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2023 at 7:46 PM, CdnFox said:

No, that is not supported by the story. that is a severe twist on it.

Ahhh your favorite battlecry when you run into a fact you don't like :)  Predictable.

There's no goalpost moving there - the fact is their data set included a subset that isn't appropriate for comparison. Sorry.

Nope. For that to be true the variable would have to be the co-op - but if ALL multi owner businesses are more successful on average then it says NOTHING about coops - it just says multi owners are more successful.  :) Sorry  but clearly you don't understand how data works.

 

Often they can't afford to start co-ops either.  So there's no difference there.

No.  First off the use of gov't isn't exclusive to democracies. In the old feudal system the gov't used the law to prevent warlords. Second, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy. We use the CONSTITUTION to prevent warlords. The gov't is simply the mechanism by which the people vest power, but it is constrained by the constitution which grants people their rights and limits the power of government.

You don't really know much about how governance or countries or any of this works do you.

Of COURSE they would buy and sell politicians. I would point you to the soviet union, or china, or cuba, or any of the socliastic countries. At the end of the day, someone somewhere still controls the assets. Socialism just pretends that such abuses are 'on behalf of the people' without giving anything back.

It's limited. Its' more true in the US, it's far less true in Canada. Yet we have lots of billionares - elon musk is half canadian.

Everyone who goes bankrupt gets bailed out.  That's how bankruptcy works. What HE proved is he has the skills and ability to rebuild after failure. That's how you learn - you fail, you get better, you rebuild. Do you think tiger woods never lost a game of golf? You don't get to the top without failure.

If it was as you say and he was protected by privledge, he would never have gone bankrupt in the first place.

Trump lies.  I  LOVE that you're taking him as an authority now :) Does that mean i can start quoting him and you'll just accept it? Or are you only using the quotes you favor?

But you said he lost it all - and rebuilt from nothing.  So.. swing and a miss.

Nope - he wasn't that rich. Sorry. Owning a mine doesn't make you a multi millionare.

And in fact - he sold his first video game at the age of 12 and started to amass his money then. So. Swing and a miss again on your part kiddo.

We'll you'd be wrong but lets say that's true - that would mean that HALF came from a NON rich family - literally proving that you have a similar chance to become one of the most wealthy as a person who was born into wealth.

If what YOU claimed was true, ALL of them would be from wealthy families :)

You lose again kiddo. You really aren't very good at this.

Gates wasn't born into wealth, his family was upper middle class at best. His dad was a lawyer and his mom was a director on a few boards.  That is HARDLY rich.

And he did it all himself. Started the business, raised the money and investors - didn't use any 'family fortune' or the like ,

Sorry kiddo - middle class.

How about jeff bezos - he was born into poverty. HIs parents were teenagers when he was born and still struggling to get through school.

I suppose you'll claim he was rich?

Epic fail.

Or if your honest about it. Which rules you out.

Nope - it is ONLY able to repress people. That's how it works. it cannot 'give' anything, it must TAKE first and redistribute, which represses growth horribly.

Nice story - you know 'paula' is jeff bezos right?

Here's a short little skit about socialism and far left thinking:

 

TL ; DR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Americana Antifa said:

TL ; DR

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA - well there you go :)  If something that would take up half a page is too much for you to get through then i guess an actual book or the like would kill you :) NO wonder you're so misinformed,  if it won't fit into a tik tok it's too much for your brain to cope with :)

Poor little thing :) I hope like hell you're pretty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHA - well there you go :)  If something that would take up half a page is too much for you to get through then i guess an actual book or the like would kill you :) NO wonder you're so misinformed,  if it won't fit into a tik tok it's too much for your brain to cope with :)

Poor little thing :) I hope like hell you're pretty.

Getting triggered, I see. The smilies are out in full force!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...