That means almost 60% is white. I’m not saying that this is good or bad. I’m explaining how Democrats lost to Trump. — Noah Te Stroete

And I'm saying that your analysis is myopic since excludes the fact that the Democrats are made up of a diverse coalition of classes, ethnicities, and occupations. Not just liberal art carrying lawyers and university professors.

Lobbying is an important avenue through which the public can petition the government, and it’s far game for any private citizen, group or corporation. — NOS4A2

The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?

There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.

Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.

Obviously you don’t understand what I’m saying because you’re defensive. I was talking about the politicians, not the voters.

The "public"? "Private citizens"? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the word "lobbyist"?

There are around 14,000 lobbyists in Washington. Well over 3 billion dollars gets spent every year on lobbying.

Now look again at the research about which segment of the population ends up getting what they want. Here's a hint: it's no where close to the majority of people.

Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance.

This is funny. Russian pranksters dupe Sanders into believing he is talking with Greta Thunberg. I wonder if this counts as him soliciting help from a foreign national in his campaign. Hopefully it doesn’t come back to bite him.

This is funny. Russian pranksters dupe Sanders into believing he is talking with Greta Thunberg. I wonder if this counts as him soliciting help from a foreign national in his campaign. Hopefully it doesn’t come back to bite him. — NOS4A2

Funny that they’re Russian. Why do the Russians like Trump so much?

Funny that they’re Russian. Why do the Russians like Trump so much?

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else.

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else. — NOS4A2

One could certainly make that argument, but it is strange.

One could certainly make that argument, but it is strange.

One would think they would prefer someone like Bernie. The Hong Kong protesters loved Trump too. It was very interesting hearing them sing the American anthem and waving American flags. Strange world.

Well, Hong Kong makes sense. Trump and Congress made a statement against China.

Why do the Russians like Trump so much? — Noah Te Stroete

He isn't Hillary Clinton.

Putin didn't like Hillary. Putin thought that when there were demonstrations against him in Russia, they were instigated by the Americans and especially by Hillary Clinton, who was the secretary of the State. Putin loathed the idea of Hillary becoming President. Then came along a playboy real estate developer down those escalator stairs and the rest is history, which NOS4A2 think didn't happen at all in any way or form, but is just a hoax conspiracy.

The Hong Kong protesters loved Trump too. It was very interesting hearing them sing the American anthem and waving American flags. Strange world. — NOS4A2

Why? Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold?

That your country has had this crazy idea of being for democracy and freedom where for example my EU stays more silent. What so strange about that?

Yes, people like you and I. It is our first amendment right to petition, to influence the government. It’s one of the most important ways to do so. It worked in the case of slavery, for instance. — NOS4A2

Your views on government are laughable.

Yeah, I don’t know. He’s been harder on them than anyone else. — NOS4A2

Ah, a Trump supporter. That explains the level of understanding about history and politics. Should have known.

Your views on government are laughable.

You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility.

Why? Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold?

That your country has had this crazy idea of being for democracy and freedom where for example my EU stays more silent. What so strange about that?

I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world.

I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world. — NOS4A2

Usually by Americans who believe it is their duty to do so. That the criticism they make actually makes America what it is. Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is.

This is funny. Russian pranksters dupe Sanders into believing he is talking with Greta Thunberg. — NOS4A2

They did the same with this genius Trump persecutor, what is here name, Maxima Waters? Totally hilarious, she is practically having an orgams on hearing that the Russian "Greta" can promise some dirt on Trump.

I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world. — NOS4A2

It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better?

Somehow forgetting that the US has really been a beacon of the Free Wold? — ssu

Ask a Hawaiian or a Cuban or a Fillipino or a Nicaraguan or a Guatemalan or an Iranian or an Iraqi (etcetcetc) historian what kind of beacon the United States has been.

Your views on government are laughable.

You want to give away your own power and give it to the government. That explains your level servility. — NOS4A2

I don't want to give up my power to the government either. Don't be ridiculoius. The difference between you and I, and why I mentioned your position is laughable (which shouldn't be taken personally), is that I'd prefer most of the power be in the hands of an entity we have a little more say in (and all too little) rather than in the hands of private ownership, where we have zero say, unless of course we own the majority (or significant amount) of shares. This is big business in the form of the (fewer and fewer) corporations that dominate banking, agriculture, drugs, energy, entertainment, sports, etc. You know this. These are not small, family-owned, local businesses.

If you're truly in favor of, or at least prefer, the real power lying in the hands of unaccountable corporations, then you're basically in favor of totalitarianism. Think about it. Not exterminating or deliberately starving people, but run in a totalitarian fashion where orders come from the top-down and where the vast majority of workers have no say whatsoever and ultimately answer to a small, removed group of people that own and make the major decisions for the company.

Consequently, I wouldn't be so quick jumping on "Big Government" liberals for their wanting to "give up" power, because you seemingly do as well, if reluctantly -- the difference, again, is that you simply can't see that of two bad choices, private tyranny or government, government is the by any measure the preferable choice. (At least if you care, as is often professed, about democracy -- what the majority of people in the country [the working and middle class] want, what most of them say they want and what most of them vote for. If you don't care about democracy, fine -- then you're in good company with James Madison and John Jay.)

Classic example which makes is totally clear is the title of Noam Chomsky's first political bok from 1967: "The Resonsibility of Intellectuals". Cannot make it more clear what his agenda is. — ssu

And what would that be? The Responsibility of Intellectuals is a very interesting read indeed, if you take the time and make an effort to understand what's being said.

Chomsky is arguing the intellectuals throughout history have usually been on the side of the powerful and of the elite, that those who dissent are usually ostracized and persecuted (despite what we may now learn about them-- favorably-- from history books), and that this continues to the present day. I would include Chomsky himself in with these dissenters. It's no wonder he's not a Fox News or CNN pundit or gets to write for the NY Times, etc.

It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better? — Nobeernolife

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.

Let's try and keep the convo on topic

The only things private ownership has power over is its own property. They cannot force or otherwise coerce the government to do what they wish. They cannot force their employees to work for them. They cannot force you to purchase their products or services.

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.

The only things private ownership has power over is its own property. They cannot force or otherwise coerce the government to do what they wish. They cannot force their employees to work for them. They cannot force you to purchase their products or services. — NOS4A2

Here your use of the word "force" is I think too limited.

(1) Private ownership and private wealth do indeed exert influence and control over the government, as is well documented. If the people of the government who control what laws get written and passed -- the members of the House and Senate -- are beholden to "special interests," then these special interests have power over government. I never said it was complete power and total control.

(2) Not "forcing" employees to work for them. True, and this line is often used to justify the greed and maltreatment of workers that you see all the time. It's used to justify low wages and shortened hours to avoid benefits, etc. People don't "have" to work for these companies, after all. What do they do if they can't find anything else? They have the right to starve, I suppose.

(3) Same for "forcing" us to use their products and services. Sure. So you want high speed internet, and the only company in town is Comcast. No one is putting a gun to your head to buy high speed internet, after all. Or if Wal Mart and Shaws and CVS are the only general store and supermarket and pharmacy near you, you have a choice to drive farther and find something else, etc. etc.

Great logic. Put all the burden, all the responsibility, on the workers and consumers.

You're a good example of how propaganda turns people into apologists for concentrated power. It's terrible apologetics, in my view. All the more so because you're not one of them.

Philosophical and moral arguments were given for the justification of slavery, as well. Believed by slaveowners, yes -- but also by the slaves themselves. That's worth remembering.

Is this your adolescent son talking?

What a juvenile and petty response. If it's truly you I'd be embarrassed, even with the anonymity of the Internet.

Here your use of the word "force" is I think too limited. — Xtrix

Ayn Rand likes to focus on the word "force" too, without taking into account the power of PR and propaganda to dupe and derange the unwitting. (Most people are the unwitting, in this case.)

Another example of a conveniently limited delineation of the notion of force.

I'm sure Rand probably noticed the power of owning the media, but you're right -- she never emphasized that. But this is a huge piece of keeping the public complacent, confused, and apathetic. (There's also a lot of "political hobbyism" going on.) Power is also welded through our schools, of course.

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.