When looking at the actual policies of the nazis, I don't see how one can reasonably deny their socialist leanings. Are we all agreed on the definition that socialism is control of industry by the state? That's exactly what was going on. All private industry or property was allowed to exist insofar at it was obeying the commands of the state. This certainly isn't capitalism. The only reason they didn't go further was to not scare away the financiers.
Socialism is literally the people owning the means of production, not the state.
@SorcererV1ct0r "The right is to SEEK asylum, not to receive it automatically."
Right, we process the requests, and if they are approved, let them through. If not, then deport them back. But the Trump administration is refusing to do that. We are not processing these people, we are keeping them detained for an indeterminate period, we are tearing children away from families to put into concentration camps, not providing enough bedding, soap, or toothbrushes, startving them, and raping them. What part of this is okay?
@BelleSorciere: To nationalize something is to have the government take control of it--that can mean the people control it, if we're talking about a democracy, but a non-democratic government can also nationalize something, and in that case "the people" would not control it.
If we go by the definition of socialism as "state control of the means of production," then that definition is also very unreliable. There are only two possibilities, which depend on the meaning of the word "control":
1. "Control" means full control of the market--the government does not permit capitalist enterprise without specific authorization. In that case, the only socialist governments would be explicitly communist ones, and North Korea is the only extant example.
2. "Control" means selective control of the market--the government regulates the free market but otherwise lets capitalism proceed. In that case, every government in history would be socialist.
It's worth pointing out that state control of the market doesn't always correlate with leftist politics. Russia is very much not leftist, and the government has a very incestuous relationship with big business. China is highly conservative both socially and fiscally, but the Chinese Communist Party does give preferential treatment to state-owned enterprises (basically, corporations run by the Party) even though it allows others to compete.
I suppose @BelleSorciere's definition of socialism is accurate, but I don't think it quite covers every aspect of socialism. Regulating the free market is part of it, but so is providing social welfare policies like our Social Security and Medicare systems. A country with a generous social safety net would qualify as socialist even if it didn't actually regulate or restrict free enterprise, so "the people control the means of production" wouldn't quite capture every possible kind of socialist system.
I'd say socialism and capitalism are a spectrum, with communism as the extreme end of the former and anarcho-capitalism as the extreme end of the latter. Most governments have some socialistic policies; it's just that the degree of socialism varies. Socialism would just be "the government regulates the free market and/or compensates for the side effects of the free market." Banning cigarettes, taxing cigarettes, funding anti-smoking campaigns, and providing treatment for smokers with lung cancer would all be examples of socialist policies aimed at a free market problem: cigarette companies have a financial incentive to get people addicted to carcinogens.
As @WarChiefZeke mentioned earlier, Epstein's death is being treated as a conspiracy almost as the DEFAULT position rather than the fringe one, despite us having essentially no information about what happened. #EpsteinMurder has been the top trend on Twitter for the entire day. On the right, you have the age-old Clintons as all-power murderers narrative that dates back all the way to at least 1993. On the left, the fingers are being pointed at Bill Barr technically being in charge of this whole thing, and of course thinking it is tied to Trump.
If I was going to be forced at gunpoint to pick ONE of these theories, I guess it would make more sense to choose the later, since one group of these people in actually in charge of the DOJ in 2019 and the other isn't, but I don't think I've ever seen a case where the MAJORITY of people seem to have been convinced instantaneously that something is rotten in Denmark. People are already comparing this to Ruby shooting Oswald, but the key difference there is that everyone SAW that happen, and this scenario is just playing out in everyone's imagination. I don't even think I've seen a single formed theory as to HOW Epstein would have been murdered, just that it is almost certain that he was. On the other hand, it did produce these brilliant tweets:
So what would the hypothetical conspiracy need?? At a bare minimum, someone somewhere would have had to have given the order, either to have Epstein killed or to have someone "get in his ear" like Tom Hagen did with Frank Pantangeli at the end of Godfather 2. So someone would had to have had contacts inside the prison system, and that person would have had to have direct access to Epstein. So if we are going to go down this road, these questions would HAVE to be answered. Who would have given the go-ahead, who inside the prison executed the commands, and who relayed those plans without kicking up undo suspicion ahead of time. And this is where most of these things fall apart.
And your country is known for committing human rights violations, assassinating journalists for being too critical of the state, suppressing LGBT people simply for being LGBT, and not having a true democracy ever since Putin came into power.
Everything you said is contrary to those articles, and I have to seriously question whether you read them if you think otherwise.
I'm aware of my country having problems with liberalization of policies and economy.
You're very free to question whatever you may wish, it's not gonna change facts. I do not and have not the slightest intention to own slaves, censor opinions, shoot minorities, underpay employees, deny requests for help or commit pretty much anything else that is usually deemed as lacking in decency.
I suppose what does put a difference between me and a modern Western liberal is that I also respect others' right to not adhere to liberal values. (And a bit of common sense too. Having a right to something doesn't necessarily guarantee it to you).
Socialism is literally the people owning the means of production, not the state.
*Scratches head* Capitalism is also people owning the means of production, not the state. It's who the benefits of production go to that matters. I frankly do not see much difference between state being charged with management and distributing the benefits among populace, or the workers taking the goods they've just produced as payment. The former actually seems more convenient, even though you do have to wonder if the state won't forget it's just a manager.
Who would have given the go-ahead, who inside the prison executed the commands, and who relayed those plans without kicking up undo suspicion ahead of time. And this is where most of these things fall apart.
A few bribes and/or corrupt officers is all you need.
Would someone please explain to my why you consider your prison system as so cruel, inefficient and in need of reform that you understand that people would rather commit suicide than go to prison?
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
Would someone please explain to my why you consider your prison system as so cruel, inefficient and in need of reform that you understand that people would rather commit suicide than go to prison?
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
In most cases, all of the above. Prison rape is considered by most of the public (very casually) as justified extra-judicial punishment. Getting a job once one gets out can be nearly impossible due to many of them requiring background checks that person can no longer pass, making them a pariah for years if not decades, denying them a decent income, making them MORE likely to commit more crimes (to say nothing of many not being allowed to vote even when their sentence is served). The sentences, especially for drugs, are draconian and in many ways flat-out racist. White-collar crime is essentially ignored, and fairly minor offenses, if repeated enough times, can land you in prison for decades. And it's all wrapped up in a nice bow of many of them being run for PROFIT by non-governmental entities who are contracted out.
Would someone please explain to my why you consider your prison system as so cruel, inefficient and in need of reform that you understand that people would rather commit suicide than go to prison?
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
there's no interest in rehabilitation or reintegration.
Once you are in prison you learn how to be a criminal and come back into prison later - if you are let out at all.
When looking at the actual policies of the nazis, I don't see how one can reasonably deny their socialist leanings. Are we all agreed on the definition that socialism is control of industry by the state? That's exactly what was going on. All private industry or property was allowed to exist insofar at it was obeying the commands of the state. This certainly isn't capitalism. The only reason they didn't go further was to not scare away the financiers.
Socialism is literally the people owning the means of production, not the state.
nobody in America is advocating for pure socialism. Bernie, Warren and others like AOC are interested in Social Democracy. Trump is making up a strawman about socialism = venezuela always = democrats which is a lie lie that suckers far too many gullible people. No one is advocating for Venezuela.
Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which state regulation protects the people's interests, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
As @WarChiefZeke mentioned earlier, Epstein's death is being treated as a conspiracy almost as the DEFAULT position rather than the fringe one, despite us having essentially no information about what happened. #EpsteinMurder has been the top trend on Twitter for the entire day. On the right, you have the age-old Clintons as all-power murderers narrative that dates back all the way to at least 1993. On the left, the fingers are being pointed at Bill Barr technically being in charge of this whole thing, and of course thinking it is tied to Trump.
If I was going to be forced at gunpoint to pick ONE of these theories, I guess it would make more sense to choose the later, since one group of these people in actually in charge of the DOJ in 2019 and the other isn't, but I don't think I've ever seen a case where the MAJORITY of people seem to have been convinced instantaneously that something is rotten in Denmark. People are already comparing this to Ruby shooting Oswald, but the key difference there is that everyone SAW that happen, and this scenario is just playing out in everyone's imagination. I don't even think I've seen a single formed theory as to HOW Epstein would have been murdered, just that it is almost certain that he was. On the other hand, it did produce these brilliant tweets:
So what would the hypothetical conspiracy need?? At a bare minimum, someone somewhere would have had to have given the order, either to have Epstein killed or to have someone "get in his ear" like Tom Hagen did with Frank Pantangeli at the end of Godfather 2. So someone would had to have had contacts inside the prison system, and that person would have had to have direct access to Epstein. So if we are going to go down this road, these questions would HAVE to be answered. Who would have given the go-ahead, who inside the prison executed the commands, and who relayed those plans without kicking up undo suspicion ahead of time. And this is where most of these things fall apart.
Who would have been able to get into his ear? His lawyer(s) who you could probably say is connected.
But once again, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories. He was a coward and a rapist and took the easy way out. He should never have been taken off suicide watch until after his trial, and then if he wanted to hang himself make sure there was enough rope in his cell.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
As a resident of Texas, I'd be very happy.
I expect it to happen, but not until 2024. Demographics alone are against them, but it's going to take time for that.
Unless Trump does something truly, spectacularly bad.
Oh yeah, and the shit is hitting the fan in Texas at the state level for the GOP. Half a dozen retirements, plus the start of a scandal involving the state Speaker of the House.
The data still show that more Americans want to decrease immigration than increase it, with about a third of Americans just favoring current levels of immigration. The last several decades have seen more people steadily becoming friendly to immigration, though, and the opinion of immigration in general is positive ("immigrants are good, but we already have plenty").
Regarding the definition of socialism: I find it incredibly bizarre that socialism is somehow used to refer to Nazism, old-school Marxism, North Korean dictatorship, American Democrats, mainstream European governments, Latin American revolutions, labor unions, Chinese communism, Chinese capitalism, and Chinese fascism all at the same time.
These are wildly different systems, some of which are diametrically opposed to each other--the Soviet Union was famously anti-fascist, the Nazis cracked down on communists, mainstream European governments as well as the U.S. alternately fought against both the Soviets and the Nazis, the North Koreans run a dynastic monarchy on top of a caste system (people who descended from rich folks are now low in status; people whose ancestors were poor or revolutionaries are now high-ranking), and China has transitioned from a full-blown communist state to a highly nationalistic oligarchy (with rather strong support for ethnic supremacy) on a crony capitalist system.
The Nazis literally went to war with Britain and France, and yet some people call all three of them socialist. Germany overhauled its entire government after losing WWII, and yet some people call both governments socialist. If all these things are socialist, the word socialist has no meaning at all.
It's what you get for having a term with such politically charged connotations.
I'd be more concerned about the handful of retirements in multiple Texas districts if I was them. Maybe not in 2020, but if and when Texas goes blue, even the Electoral College won't save the GOP from complete political exile on a national level.
This is completely true, and 100% due to immigration, and is also why I think a political breakup of the U.S is the best idea. The United States will effectively become a one-party state at that time. That isn't democracy, by anyone's measure.
Well not really. GOP just needs to stop leaning completely right and come back towards the centre for a two party system to still be effective. It’s not the voters fault that a political party does not represent them when they go to the polls.
If they can’t do that, a third central party could emerge pushing the GOP out of the picture. This is could include policy makers from both parties that straddle the former line and sell their political party brand as bipartisan.
All this idealistic stuff ignores how hard it is to get a third party up and running in America, and assumes that the one party state will willingly allow a competitor to grow in their midst, instead of stamping down on it with the full force of the cultural/media apparatus that they will be in full control of. It goes against their most basic incentives, and to me expecting any institution to do that is equivalent to magical thinking.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
Well the only way you're going to get rid of it is to eliminate the first-past-the-post voting structure that is disenfranchising more than half the goddamned country.
As long as it exists, the MOST we can have is a 2 party state. Or as you are having nightmares of, a one party state with the other on life support. Literally, given its predominance of people who are superannuated and in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
As @WarChiefZeke mentioned earlier, Epstein's death is being treated as a conspiracy almost as the DEFAULT position rather than the fringe one, despite us having essentially no information about what happened. #EpsteinMurder has been the top trend on Twitter for the entire day. On the right, you have the age-old Clintons as all-power murderers narrative that dates back all the way to at least 1993. On the left, the fingers are being pointed at Bill Barr technically being in charge of this whole thing, and of course thinking it is tied to Trump.
If I was going to be forced at gunpoint to pick ONE of these theories, I guess it would make more sense to choose the later, since one group of these people in actually in charge of the DOJ in 2019 and the other isn't, but I don't think I've ever seen a case where the MAJORITY of people seem to have been convinced instantaneously that something is rotten in Denmark. People are already comparing this to Ruby shooting Oswald, but the key difference there is that everyone SAW that happen, and this scenario is just playing out in everyone's imagination. I don't even think I've seen a single formed theory as to HOW Epstein would have been murdered, just that it is almost certain that he was. On the other hand, it did produce these brilliant tweets:
So what would the hypothetical conspiracy need?? At a bare minimum, someone somewhere would have had to have given the order, either to have Epstein killed or to have someone "get in his ear" like Tom Hagen did with Frank Pantangeli at the end of Godfather 2. So someone would had to have had contacts inside the prison system, and that person would have had to have direct access to Epstein. So if we are going to go down this road, these questions would HAVE to be answered. Who would have given the go-ahead, who inside the prison executed the commands, and who relayed those plans without kicking up undo suspicion ahead of time. And this is where most of these things fall apart.
My main question is: Where's the camera footage? I REFUSE to believe that in FEDERAL PRISON there are not a billion cameras recording the hallways and prison cells. It may not be monitored 24/7, but I expect there to be footage.
Would someone please explain to my why you consider your prison system as so cruel, inefficient and in need of reform that you understand that people would rather commit suicide than go to prison?
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
I don't think the prisons in the US are as bad as they are in less developed nations (supposedly, Mexican prisons are particularly frightening for example). However, from what I've heard over the years living here, a lot of the prisons are understaffed and corrupt, possibly because they're privately ran, rather than run by the government. There's also a lot of black-market crap that goes on and guards often turn a blind-eye to 'inmate justice'. There's also supposedly a prison-heirarchy of sorts where inmates who are child-molesters are persecuted relentlessly. I've even heard rape is a common 'punishment' for those folks during their stay. Epstein would certainly know these things and knowing he'd likely be spending the rest of his life behind bars might have been enough to push him over the edge.
Would someone please explain to my why you consider your prison system as so cruel, inefficient and in need of reform that you understand that people would rather commit suicide than go to prison?
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
I don't think the prisons in the US are as bad as they are in less developed nations (supposedly, Mexican prisons are particularly frightening for example). However, from what I've heard over the years living here, a lot of the prisons are understaffed and corrupt, possibly because they're privately ran, rather than run by the government. There's also a lot of black-market crap that goes on and guards often turn a blind-eye to 'inmate justice'. There's also supposedly a prison-heirarchy of sorts where inmates who are child-molesters are persecuted relentlessly. I've even heard rape is a common 'punishment' for those folks during their stay. Epstein would certainly know these things and knowing he'd likely be spending the rest of his life behind bars might have been enough to push him over the edge.
If we create hell on earth, does that make us demons?
@Arvia: I don't know if it's quite as bad in women's prisons, but between the prison rape epidemic, the lousy conditions, the absolutely unjustifiable practice of solitary confinement, and the completely unregulated and brutal culture in most prisons, men's prisons in the United States are indeed worse than death. I would honestly, and strongly, recommend suicide to anyone who was going to prison for more than 10 years.
Well, it appears you can add someone to the list of people who believe it was a conspiracy. Should have seen this coming. I personally checked, it is from his Twitter account:
I can't believe that prisons are run by private companies for profit, and not by the government. How on earth did that happen?
The United States suffers from a constant desire to cut government spending even if it's a clearly bad idea, and much of that involves subcontracting out work to private companies--even if there's a blatant conflict of interest, as there is in private prisons. Even a lot of government-owned prisons are still largely run by private companies in the sense that the government subcontracts prison services to corporations.
It's all part of an anti-tax bias. Ever since Reagan, the Republican party's official position is that "the government is the problem" (yes, our democratically elected government designed by the Founding Fathers) and that the solution to the problem is to weaken and shrink the government in every dimension except for military spending. Taxes are evil, and therefore everything that's paid with taxpayer money aside from the military has to either be shrunk down (the social safety net), outsourced (prisons and public school cafeterias), or outright destroyed. There have been serious proposals for privatizing Social Security and abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.
When you believe that the unregulated market is better than a democratic government, it makes sense to have prisons owned or operated by for-profit companies.
I fundamentally disagree with the entire concept, but that's the reason behind these sorts of cost-cutting measures and privatization plans.
Well, it appears you can add someone to the list of people who believe it was a conspiracy. Should have seen this coming. I personally checked, it is from his Twitter account:
Trump, guy who acts as president for less than half the United States while demonizing the other 65%, retweeted one of these conspiracies. Maybe it was this guy, maybe a different one. Because of course he did.
And Barr's dad gave Epstein one of his first jobs. And Barr's summary of the mueller report shows that Barr is a lying partisan hack that can't be trusted to be fair with justice.
Well, it appears you can add someone to the list of people who believe it was a conspiracy. Should have seen this coming. I personally checked, it is from his Twitter account:
If I were a general believer in conspiracies this would certainly feed them. One of Trump's standard tactics is, whenever he's done something shady, to accuse others of the same thing.
However, I normally think cock-up is much more likely than conspiracy. Epstein had strong reasons to commit suicide, given the chance of conviction and a lifetime in prison looked so high. There are some comfortable prison places, but with the fallout from the previous Acosta sweetheart deal the chance of getting one of those looked slim. In a typical US prison, Epstein's prospects as a rich child molester would no doubt have seemed extremely grim to him.
There is still a remaining issue as to whether he was deliberately or negligently allowed to commit suicide, though I think that raises some interesting legal questions. Under US federal law suicide is clearly now not a crime (it's not either under any state legal codes, though it remains possible in some states for prosecutions to take place under common law). The government can of course place restrictions on individuals from undertaking non-criminal activity (that's the whole basis of prison). However, while deprivation of liberty is enshrined in statute, I'm not aware of that being the case for suicide prevention - can anyone enlighten me on this point? If there is no statutory backing, it would seem entirely possible to me that a similar sort of case to this in future could see a wealthy individual apply to the court for the right to kill himself ...
Well, then you're wrong, and aren't looking at the actual voting patterns. Thus, most of what you say here is simply off the mark.
Riiiight. 100%. All Immigration. Definitely has nothing to do with socioeconomic changes in the country. Definitely not related to the fact that millennials have a more positive view of socialism than of capitalism - and that they're now the largest voting block in the country, and will become larger still. We definitely dont see voting patterns where Republicans have been losing ground on college educated white voters, winning them by their narrowest margin in recent history in 2016 and losing them entirely in 2018.
I also don't see any distinction whatsoever between a one party state and a two party system that is forced to adopt the policies and messages of the one party state. In function, it's the same thing, and there is no reason to assume the millions of disenfranchised citizens will actually go for it, rather than simply wanting to govern themselves, which is the far more realistic option in my view.
Parties realign all the time. Let's compare two social issues as a demonstration.
Interracial marriage was opposed by conservatives in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s. Younger conservatives were less opposed, and as as they became the largest part of the conservative electorate, the GOP stopped opposing interracial marriage. Currently, the GOP opposes gay marriage - however, a majority of millenial conservatives support gay marriage. As those people become the largest part of the party, you'll see the GOP realign and it wont oppose gay marriage nearly as much.
As microcosm, this is how the GOP is and has always had to realign. The Democrats do it too. For example - Democrats for a long time strongly preferred capitalism to socialism. That's changing. Eventually the party will realign to account for socialism being a bigger plank in the party platform than it was before. It doesnt mean the democrats will necessarily be socialists, but they'll be further along that spectrum than they have been in the past.
I do agree that a third party system is essentially infeasible in our current situation. I also strongly believe that they dont really cure all the ills of a two party system like some like to believe.
I do agree that a third party system is essentially infeasible in our current situation. I also strongly believe that they dont really cure all the ills of a two party system like some like to believe.
The GOP Supreme Court legalized gerrymandering. You think a third party system is not feasible?
How about two parties being not feasible. GOP states will gerrymander and cheat and still retain power despite losing elections. Like even more than they are already doing.
Multiple election systems in the U.S. have apparently been left connected to the Internet, making them vulnerable to hackers. This includes systems in major swing states, and even after election officials were notified, some of the systems remained online long afterwards--partly because some officials just didn't take action, and partly because some of them merely requested that the private corporations that ran those systems took them off line, and assumed that those corporations would do the right thing without direct oversight. Not all of them did.
I can't think of a single aspect of our government that deserves cybersecurity protection more than our election system, or is more endangered by outsourcing it to private companies.
Apparently Epstein was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes and placed with another inmate after he was removed from suicide watch, but the other inmate was moved later and apparently the 30-minute check-in stopped being conducted at some point.
It looks like the guards were short-staffed; both of the two guards in Epstein's unit had been working overtime for days, and the union said it was a long-running problem. I'm guessing Epstein realized he had an opportunity and seized it.
Apparently Epstein was supposed to be checked every 30 minutes and placed with another inmate after he was removed from suicide watch, but the other inmate was moved later and apparently the 30-minute check-in stopped being conducted at some point.
It looks like the guards were short-staffed; both of the two guards in Epstein's unit had been working overtime for days, and the union said it was a long-running problem. I'm guessing Epstein realized he had an opportunity and seized it.
People manage to commit suicide even while in a closed psychiatric unit, being observed and treated for being suicidal.
Maybe controls were insufficient. But no matter what you do, you can't stop them if they really want to do it, except by keeping an eye on them 24/7 and removing everything they could use. That includes bedsheets and clothes. And honestly, what would people say if someone had done that in his case?
People manage to commit suicide even while in a closed psychiatric unit, being observed and treated for being suicidal.
Maybe controls were insufficient. But no matter what you do, you can't stop them if they really want to do it, except by keeping an eye on them 24/7 and removing everything they could use. That includes bedsheets and clothes. And honestly, what would people say if someone had ✔ that in his case?
I think he was a very troubled man. We like to think these people are monsters and thus 'rare' but the truth is they are more common than we'd like to believe. Troubled people with money and/or power WILL hurt others along their path to self-destruction. Poverty, alienation and social-stigma, as well as parents pushing their children to 'succeed' while turning a blind-eye to exploitation (Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky being perfect examples of this) create the victims for these destructive predators. It looks like eyes are finally being opened now so maybe we can at least make this bullshit less common...
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
I really like Fareed Zakaria. His show-starter about tariffs today on CNN was right on. The average American, unfortunately, can't see that saving one job might mean two other people lose theirs. This is the main reason I'm leaning towards 'not' voting for Trump next time around...
The entire idea of imprisoning rich people for crimes is stupid to the core. If they do something wrong, fine them for a fixed sum or a percentage of their wealth, whichever is higher, and put them on a permanent watch they'll have to pay for from their own pocket. If they don't like it or can't afford it, they're free to go to prison. But otherwise don't deny a country one of its more productive members - like many times more productive than all of his victims combined. Morality doesn't drive the economy, money and business do.
Oftentimes they are penalized by civil lawsuits by their victims but that just goes to individuals (not opposed to that by any means). I kind of like your idea, though. How about class-action lawsuits against assholes like this with the proceeds going to mental-health facilities/research? Brilliant!
How about forcing the dickheads who take advantage of illegal immigrants to work in their own factories/fields for a few years? There are so many ways your idea could be poetic justice...
Comments
Socialism is literally the people owning the means of production, not the state.
Right, we process the requests, and if they are approved, let them through. If not, then deport them back. But the Trump administration is refusing to do that. We are not processing these people, we are keeping them detained for an indeterminate period, we are tearing children away from families to put into concentration camps, not providing enough bedding, soap, or toothbrushes, startving them, and raping them. What part of this is okay?
If we go by the definition of socialism as "state control of the means of production," then that definition is also very unreliable. There are only two possibilities, which depend on the meaning of the word "control":
1. "Control" means full control of the market--the government does not permit capitalist enterprise without specific authorization. In that case, the only socialist governments would be explicitly communist ones, and North Korea is the only extant example.
2. "Control" means selective control of the market--the government regulates the free market but otherwise lets capitalism proceed. In that case, every government in history would be socialist.
It's worth pointing out that state control of the market doesn't always correlate with leftist politics. Russia is very much not leftist, and the government has a very incestuous relationship with big business. China is highly conservative both socially and fiscally, but the Chinese Communist Party does give preferential treatment to state-owned enterprises (basically, corporations run by the Party) even though it allows others to compete.
I suppose @BelleSorciere's definition of socialism is accurate, but I don't think it quite covers every aspect of socialism. Regulating the free market is part of it, but so is providing social welfare policies like our Social Security and Medicare systems. A country with a generous social safety net would qualify as socialist even if it didn't actually regulate or restrict free enterprise, so "the people control the means of production" wouldn't quite capture every possible kind of socialist system.
I'd say socialism and capitalism are a spectrum, with communism as the extreme end of the former and anarcho-capitalism as the extreme end of the latter. Most governments have some socialistic policies; it's just that the degree of socialism varies. Socialism would just be "the government regulates the free market and/or compensates for the side effects of the free market." Banning cigarettes, taxing cigarettes, funding anti-smoking campaigns, and providing treatment for smokers with lung cancer would all be examples of socialist policies aimed at a free market problem: cigarette companies have a financial incentive to get people addicted to carcinogens.
If I was going to be forced at gunpoint to pick ONE of these theories, I guess it would make more sense to choose the later, since one group of these people in actually in charge of the DOJ in 2019 and the other isn't, but I don't think I've ever seen a case where the MAJORITY of people seem to have been convinced instantaneously that something is rotten in Denmark. People are already comparing this to Ruby shooting Oswald, but the key difference there is that everyone SAW that happen, and this scenario is just playing out in everyone's imagination. I don't even think I've seen a single formed theory as to HOW Epstein would have been murdered, just that it is almost certain that he was. On the other hand, it did produce these brilliant tweets:
So what would the hypothetical conspiracy need?? At a bare minimum, someone somewhere would have had to have given the order, either to have Epstein killed or to have someone "get in his ear" like Tom Hagen did with Frank Pantangeli at the end of Godfather 2. So someone would had to have had contacts inside the prison system, and that person would have had to have direct access to Epstein. So if we are going to go down this road, these questions would HAVE to be answered. Who would have given the go-ahead, who inside the prison executed the commands, and who relayed those plans without kicking up undo suspicion ahead of time. And this is where most of these things fall apart.
You're very free to question whatever you may wish, it's not gonna change facts. I do not and have not the slightest intention to own slaves, censor opinions, shoot minorities, underpay employees, deny requests for help or commit pretty much anything else that is usually deemed as lacking in decency.
I suppose what does put a difference between me and a modern Western liberal is that I also respect others' right to not adhere to liberal values. (And a bit of common sense too. Having a right to something doesn't necessarily guarantee it to you).
*Scratches head* Capitalism is also people owning the means of production, not the state. It's who the benefits of production go to that matters. I frankly do not see much difference between state being charged with management and distributing the benefits among populace, or the workers taking the goods they've just produced as payment. The former actually seems more convenient, even though you do have to wonder if the state won't forget it's just a manager.
A few bribes and/or corrupt officers is all you need.
I'm not familiar with the American system. Are the conditions in prisons so bad, or is it next to impossible to get reintegrated into society when you get out, or do you mean sentences are too long or in no relation to the committed crime and people see no perspective, or something else entirely?
In most cases, all of the above. Prison rape is considered by most of the public (very casually) as justified extra-judicial punishment. Getting a job once one gets out can be nearly impossible due to many of them requiring background checks that person can no longer pass, making them a pariah for years if not decades, denying them a decent income, making them MORE likely to commit more crimes (to say nothing of many not being allowed to vote even when their sentence is served). The sentences, especially for drugs, are draconian and in many ways flat-out racist. White-collar crime is essentially ignored, and fairly minor offenses, if repeated enough times, can land you in prison for decades. And it's all wrapped up in a nice bow of many of them being run for PROFIT by non-governmental entities who are contracted out.
there's no interest in rehabilitation or reintegration.
Once you are in prison you learn how to be a criminal and come back into prison later - if you are let out at all.
nobody in America is advocating for pure socialism. Bernie, Warren and others like AOC are interested in Social Democracy. Trump is making up a strawman about socialism = venezuela always = democrats which is a lie lie that suckers far too many gullible people. No one is advocating for Venezuela.
Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which state regulation protects the people's interests, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.
Who would have been able to get into his ear? His lawyer(s) who you could probably say is connected.
But once again, I don’t buy into conspiracy theories. He was a coward and a rapist and took the easy way out. He should never have been taken off suicide watch until after his trial, and then if he wanted to hang himself make sure there was enough rope in his cell.
As a resident of Texas, I'd be very happy.
I expect it to happen, but not until 2024. Demographics alone are against them, but it's going to take time for that.
Unless Trump does something truly, spectacularly bad.
Oh yeah, and the shit is hitting the fan in Texas at the state level for the GOP. Half a dozen retirements, plus the start of a scandal involving the state Speaker of the House.
It's what you get for having a term with such politically charged connotations.
Well the only way you're going to get rid of it is to eliminate the first-past-the-post voting structure that is disenfranchising more than half the goddamned country.
As long as it exists, the MOST we can have is a 2 party state. Or as you are having nightmares of, a one party state with the other on life support. Literally, given its predominance of people who are superannuated and in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
My main question is: Where's the camera footage? I REFUSE to believe that in FEDERAL PRISON there are not a billion cameras recording the hallways and prison cells. It may not be monitored 24/7, but I expect there to be footage.
And I love the first tweet.
I don't think the prisons in the US are as bad as they are in less developed nations (supposedly, Mexican prisons are particularly frightening for example). However, from what I've heard over the years living here, a lot of the prisons are understaffed and corrupt, possibly because they're privately ran, rather than run by the government. There's also a lot of black-market crap that goes on and guards often turn a blind-eye to 'inmate justice'. There's also supposedly a prison-heirarchy of sorts where inmates who are child-molesters are persecuted relentlessly. I've even heard rape is a common 'punishment' for those folks during their stay. Epstein would certainly know these things and knowing he'd likely be spending the rest of his life behind bars might have been enough to push him over the edge.
If we create hell on earth, does that make us demons?
I can't believe that prisons are run by private companies for profit, and not by the government. How on earth did that happen?
For the record, it's a full 20% of federal inmates incarcerated in private prisons.
It's all part of an anti-tax bias. Ever since Reagan, the Republican party's official position is that "the government is the problem" (yes, our democratically elected government designed by the Founding Fathers) and that the solution to the problem is to weaken and shrink the government in every dimension except for military spending. Taxes are evil, and therefore everything that's paid with taxpayer money aside from the military has to either be shrunk down (the social safety net), outsourced (prisons and public school cafeterias), or outright destroyed. There have been serious proposals for privatizing Social Security and abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Internal Revenue Service.
When you believe that the unregulated market is better than a democratic government, it makes sense to have prisons owned or operated by for-profit companies.
I fundamentally disagree with the entire concept, but that's the reason behind these sorts of cost-cutting measures and privatization plans.
Trump, guy who acts as president for less than half the United States while demonizing the other 65%, retweeted one of these conspiracies. Maybe it was this guy, maybe a different one. Because of course he did.
And Barr's dad gave Epstein one of his first jobs. And Barr's summary of the mueller report shows that Barr is a lying partisan hack that can't be trusted to be fair with justice.
If I were a general believer in conspiracies this would certainly feed them. One of Trump's standard tactics is, whenever he's done something shady, to accuse others of the same thing.
However, I normally think cock-up is much more likely than conspiracy. Epstein had strong reasons to commit suicide, given the chance of conviction and a lifetime in prison looked so high. There are some comfortable prison places, but with the fallout from the previous Acosta sweetheart deal the chance of getting one of those looked slim. In a typical US prison, Epstein's prospects as a rich child molester would no doubt have seemed extremely grim to him.
There is still a remaining issue as to whether he was deliberately or negligently allowed to commit suicide, though I think that raises some interesting legal questions. Under US federal law suicide is clearly now not a crime (it's not either under any state legal codes, though it remains possible in some states for prosecutions to take place under common law). The government can of course place restrictions on individuals from undertaking non-criminal activity (that's the whole basis of prison). However, while deprivation of liberty is enshrined in statute, I'm not aware of that being the case for suicide prevention - can anyone enlighten me on this point? If there is no statutory backing, it would seem entirely possible to me that a similar sort of case to this in future could see a wealthy individual apply to the court for the right to kill himself ...
Riiiight. 100%. All Immigration. Definitely has nothing to do with socioeconomic changes in the country. Definitely not related to the fact that millennials have a more positive view of socialism than of capitalism - and that they're now the largest voting block in the country, and will become larger still. We definitely dont see voting patterns where Republicans have been losing ground on college educated white voters, winning them by their narrowest margin in recent history in 2016 and losing them entirely in 2018.
Parties realign all the time. Let's compare two social issues as a demonstration.
Interracial marriage was opposed by conservatives in the USA in the 1960s and 1970s. Younger conservatives were less opposed, and as as they became the largest part of the conservative electorate, the GOP stopped opposing interracial marriage. Currently, the GOP opposes gay marriage - however, a majority of millenial conservatives support gay marriage. As those people become the largest part of the party, you'll see the GOP realign and it wont oppose gay marriage nearly as much.
As microcosm, this is how the GOP is and has always had to realign. The Democrats do it too. For example - Democrats for a long time strongly preferred capitalism to socialism. That's changing. Eventually the party will realign to account for socialism being a bigger plank in the party platform than it was before. It doesnt mean the democrats will necessarily be socialists, but they'll be further along that spectrum than they have been in the past.
I do agree that a third party system is essentially infeasible in our current situation. I also strongly believe that they dont really cure all the ills of a two party system like some like to believe.
The GOP Supreme Court legalized gerrymandering. You think a third party system is not feasible?
How about two parties being not feasible. GOP states will gerrymander and cheat and still retain power despite losing elections. Like even more than they are already doing.
I can't think of a single aspect of our government that deserves cybersecurity protection more than our election system, or is more endangered by outsourcing it to private companies.
It looks like the guards were short-staffed; both of the two guards in Epstein's unit had been working overtime for days, and the union said it was a long-running problem. I'm guessing Epstein realized he had an opportunity and seized it.
'Short-staffed', typical...
Maybe controls were insufficient. But no matter what you do, you can't stop them if they really want to do it, except by keeping an eye on them 24/7 and removing everything they could use. That includes bedsheets and clothes. And honestly, what would people say if someone had done that in his case?
I think he was a very troubled man. We like to think these people are monsters and thus 'rare' but the truth is they are more common than we'd like to believe. Troubled people with money and/or power WILL hurt others along their path to self-destruction. Poverty, alienation and social-stigma, as well as parents pushing their children to 'succeed' while turning a blind-eye to exploitation (Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky being perfect examples of this) create the victims for these destructive predators. It looks like eyes are finally being opened now so maybe we can at least make this bullshit less common...
Oftentimes they are penalized by civil lawsuits by their victims but that just goes to individuals (not opposed to that by any means). I kind of like your idea, though. How about class-action lawsuits against assholes like this with the proceeds going to mental-health facilities/research? Brilliant!
How about forcing the dickheads who take advantage of illegal immigrants to work in their own factories/fields for a few years? There are so many ways your idea could be poetic justice...