The government, on the other hand, can take from you what they wish, and enslave you, steal from you and kill you if you refuse to comply. — NOS4A2

True, because the laws are created by the government and law enforcement (from the FBI on down to local police) therefore has to exist. But ask yourself who's creating the laws (to be enforced in the first place), and who makes up the court system that interprets the law?

It's been shown that the government is in bed with private wealth and power, and thus you will see this reflected in the types of laws that get passed, the types of rulings that are handed down (Citizens United, Janus, etc), and the varying severity of punishment and use of force. (Also look at the spreading of news and information, now done mainly through the media.)

All of these factors therefore come into play when discussing power in the country. If you believe the "buck stops" with the President, or with Congress, or with the military and law enforcement, you're missing a bigger picture. Neither the government nor private power can exist without the majority of people, and everyone in business and everyone in government knows this. Your point about violence is simply one piece. There are other structures in place: indoctrination systems (like "education") and propaganda. This is especially true of a relatively free society like ours.

Sweden. Denmark. Germany. I like Canada and Belize a lot, too. Greece is really amazing. Etc.
So there's the answer to your absurd, disingenuous question. Now please go on to highlight the problems of the aforementioned countries and completely miss my point*.
* Hint: asking what country is "better" is a fatuous question, at best. — Xtrix

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me.

Don't forget the big one: do you want to exist somewhere? Well unless your wealthy parents just gifted you a house the moment you became an adult, you have to exist somewhere owned by someone else indefinitely, paying them whatever they demand for the privilege, or else eventually borrow enough money from someone else to buy a place of your own and then spend your whole life paying that back, plus however much else they demand for that privilege. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. One can see this everywhere. In the prices of goods and services, in the rise of debt and credit cards, in the rise of tuition in public (and private) colleges and universities (and thus student loan debt), in rent prices, in mortgages, in car loans, in the limited choices we're given as "consumers," and on and on.

I grew up in Andover, MA. Right next door was Lawrence, an old mill town and much poorer. I could see very clearly what money can buy, from better schools and nicer stores and less police involvement on down. But it's hard to miss even without living with that contrast. I think a large part of it is that people don't like discussing class and money.

So in what respect are Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Canada, Belize and Greece better? They all have their number of problems too. — Nobeernolife

Which is exactly my point. We have our problems, they have theirs. We have our virtues, so do they.

And how is asking which country you find better after call one awful a "fatous question"? Looks like a relevant question to me. — Nobeernolife

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. But who cares anyway if someone did? Why should you get defensive about that? It's as absurd as getting upset if someone "insults" your favorite sports team -- may be annoying, but the more interesting question is why they're doing that. Sometimes there's good reason. If there isn't, and they're just prejudiced, then in my view the proper response is to ignore them, not engage in a pissing contest about what country is "better."

Who called the United States "awful"? I certainly didn't. — Xtrix

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. So why do butt in, and in such rude manner?
You might want to take a walk, take a deep breath, and get all that adrenaline out of your system, rather than banging on the keyboard.

I just checked, and no it was not you. I was commenting on another posters message. — Nobeernolife

Fine. The point stands.

So why do butt in, and in such rude manner? — Nobeernolife

Because it's a public forum. If you want to have private discussions, you can. If you don't want others reading or responding to you, that's the way to go.

As far as being "rude," fine. I get this a lot. I'll agree to try and be better if you (and others) agree to toughen up a little.

Noam Chomsky on the 2020 elections and Bernie Sanders:


"We have a short-term problem: what lever do you push in November of this year? Simple question. What you do is pick the one that's least damaging. OK, after having spent five minutes figuring that out, you now go back to work trying to develop the basis for much more substantial changes to develop popular movements which will be active, engaged on real issues, never stopping or restricting themselves to the quadrennial extravaganza, but working all the time on the ground in communities, in education and in organizing activism to create the larger scale changes that are needed.

These are not alternatives. We shouldn't be trapped by the doctrinal system which identifies "politics" as showing up every couple years to push a button to select one or another candidate picked by the powerful. Yes, that choice makes a difference -- makes a significant difference -- but after making that choice (which again should take you five minutes to figure out), you get back to work.

In fact, it's no secret that the mainstream Democratic establishment are very concerned that Bernie Sanders might gain the nomination, they're doing everything possible to undermine him. Why? I don't think it's because of his policies. The fact of the matter is that his policies are an expansion of the New Deal, which wouldn't surprise Eisenhauer -- our last conservative President. But what really is bothersome is that he's breaking with the condition that the public are supposed to be occasional participants who's role in the political system is to pick one or the other of the dominant class. He's breaking with that."

FiveThirtyEight is now showing "one one" as the most likely to get a majority of pledged delegates, with Bernie shortly behind him, and Biden about half as likely as him, but given that a brokered nomination is unlikely to favor Bernie, I'm feeling sad that it's looking like Biden is probably going to end up with the nomination the way things are currently going.

I think Biden has almost no chance at this point. It's going to end up being Bernie or Bloomberg, which is a disaster. But let's hope Bernie pulls away with the delegates so it doesn't come to the shenanigans.

It looks like Bloomberg’s vast wealth and propaganda is paying off. He has moved up enough to qualify for the next debate and is surging in the polls.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/18/politics/bloomberg-qualifies-democratic-debate-nevada/index.html

Both Bloomberg and Sanders enjoy the support of 22 percent of respondents who are likely to participate in the Democratic primary, according to a Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday. Eighteen percent of likely Democratic primary voters polled said they support Biden, the longtime Democratic frontrunner whose standing has slipped after poor performances in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/18/bloomberr-sanders-biden-top-virginia-primary-115743

FiveThirtyEight has updated their predictions since yesterday, apparently. Bernie and "no one" are now about tied for most likely to get a majority of delegates (39% and 37% respectively), with Biden about a third as likely as either of them (at 12%), and Bloomberg about a fifth as likely (at 8%).

Any idea what the “no one” means? I cannot wrap my head around it.

It means that nobody gets a majority of delegates. Say Bernie gets 40% of them and Biden gets 30% and Bloomberg gets 20% and the last 10% are spread around the remaining candidates; nobody has a majority (>50%) of delegates in that case.

Bloomberg needs to die. He's seriously trying to buy the presidency. At least Trump managed on popularity with republicans, however misplaced.

Hey thanks. Makes sense.

If Bloomberg wasn't in the race, Americans would invent a Bloomberg to be in this race. His running is exemplary of American politics.

I don't know about needing to die, but I don't like him buying his way into this race either.

If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, and he unleashes a “recreational pot for entire country” in first week of office plan... well... If Bernie didn’t already have it, there’s the margin of victory right there. The younger crowd who love him now will DRAG their friends to register and to the polls. When you are 20 or so, you don’t think you need free healthcare, because you’re going to live forever, or tech is gonna turn people into Marvel Avengers, or something lol. But legal weed for all? For real? Fo sho!

Then Diamond Donnie can verbally pound the Bernie Bros and Bern-outs like Lou the bar owner pummeled Tyler Durden in the basement scene from Fight Club, but all he’ll hear is “Hahahahahhaa! You don’t know where I’ve been, Lou!” :sweat:

Can't believe they showed the live murder of Bloomberg by the other candidates on stage like that

Can't believe they showed the live murder of Bloomberg by the other candidates on stage like that — Maw

Oh I can't wait to watch the video with a tub of extra buttery popcorn & a pint or three. :clap: :smirk:

:lol:

Where exactly can one watch these debates besides live TV?