Donald Jr's New Girlfriend Is A First Generation American?? Who Knew...

[Grumblenuts]

The government owning some mailboxes isn't socialism.

Strawman logical fallacy. Mailboxes are resources, not means of production. So far that's been my only point regarding mailboxes. Note though that you concede here that "government" owns USPS mailboxes.

Technically, the USPS is "is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States." It is thus, not private, individual, nor capital in any sense. It is a public, social, government (community) owned and controlled service. It has no mandate to make a profit. Mailboxes are one integral part of that service. They are in no sense "capital." Say it.

 

[j-mac]

There's only ONE important takeaway here.......

And that is that Socialism is in fact a treacherous and dangerous ideology.

Everything else is fluff and bullshit

So how does having a mother from Puerto Rico qualify you to be an expert on socialism??

And how is Kimmers a 1st generation American??

Probably the same sort of thing as Biden saying that 500 million American's have watched what he's done from his basement.....Hmmmm...That's a good trick considering that there aren't that many American's to begin with...Where was your thread about that?

"MUIR: So when you hear the president say this guy's afraid to leave his basement.

BIDEN: Guess what. I have left my basement, and -- but in the meantime 500 million people have watched what I've done out of my basement."

TRANSCRIPT: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris' first joint interview with ABC's David Muir

This was their first joint interview since accepting the Democratic nomination.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The government owning some mailboxes isn't socialism.

Strawman logical fallacy. Mailboxes are resources, not means of production. So far that's been my only point regarding mailboxes. Note though that you concede here that "government" owns USPS mailboxes.

Technically, the USPS is "is an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States federal government responsible for providing postal service in the United States." It is thus, not private, individual, nor capital in any sense. It is a public, social, government (community) owned and controlled service. It has no mandate to make a profit. Mailboxes are one integral part of that service. They are in no sense "capital." Say it.

See, you say that it was a strawman, but then you follow that up by seemingly making precisely the argument that my strawman was dressed to resemble. I get that USPS isn't in any way privately owned and thus not an example of any aspect of our system contributing to its capitalistic nature, though, if you're not implying that it is therefore socialism, I'm not sure what the purpose is of stating this point at all. But yeah, we agree. USPS isn't capitalistic, just like cucumbers aren't computer related.

As far as distinguishing mailboxes to be resources and not means of production, socialists consider agricultural land to be means of production. If you don't plant anything in it, however, it's just dirt. If you don't use a mailbox for profitable reasons, it's just a slot for outgoing correspondence, and if you aren't putting nails in wood, a hammer is just a paper weight affixed to a handle. The other part of that last response was my claim that, when determining what is included among those means of production that are subject to collective ownership, you won't find a socialist that leaves any resources off the list. In terms of categorizing these things as private or public, I don't see where any popular brand of socialism acknowledges any significant difference between resources and means of production.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You might make the argument that our mail system is an example of socialism if they nationalized or eliminated UPS and FedEx, but as it stands with all of the non-governmental participation in the shipping game, the resources used in moving mail are not collectively owned. This is another one of those arguments that, carried to its logical conclusions, seeks to define ANY service that the government provides as socialism, given that taxation and infrastructure are required to distribute anything. ANY form of government is going to necessarily apportion some amount of resources to government/collective ownership, but that doesn't mean that EVERY form of government is socialism.

Again, just a continuation of your original strawman skewering of nothing in evidence, but also wrong on many counts. The UPS, FedEx, and Amazon for that matter, still don't and never will compete with the USPS in terms of its core, constitutionally mandated, public service.

The Post Office has the constitutional authority to designate mail routes. The Post Office is also empowered to construct or designate post offices with the implied authority to carry, deliver, and regulate the mail of the United States as a whole. The Postal Power also includes the power to designate certain materials as non-mailable, and to pass statutes criminalizing abuses of the postal system (such as mail fraud and armed robbery of post offices)

The USPS is collectively owned. UPS, FedEx, and Amazon employees are still not allowed to pick up or deliver to USPS mailboxes, including the one at the end of my driveway. Not my property nor theirs. Public. Everyone's in general. No one's in particular. Not a fungible asset or security. A resource, not capital.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

You might make the argument that our mail system is an example of socialism if they nationalized or eliminated UPS and FedEx, but as it stands with all of the non-governmental participation in the shipping game, the resources used in moving mail are not collectively owned. This is another one of those arguments that, carried to its logical conclusions, seeks to define ANY service that the government provides as socialism, given that taxation and infrastructure are required to distribute anything. ANY form of government is going to necessarily apportion some amount of resources to government/collective ownership, but that doesn't mean that EVERY form of government is socialism.

Again, just a continuation of your original strawman skewering of nothing in evidence, but also wrong on many counts. The UPS, FedEx, and Amazon for that matter, still don't and never will compete with the USPS in terms of its core, constitutionally mandated, public service.

The Post Office has the constitutional authority to designate mail routes. The Post Office is also empowered to construct or designate post offices with the implied authority to carry, deliver, and regulate the mail of the United States as a whole. The Postal Power also includes the power to designate certain materials as non-mailable, and to pass statutes criminalizing abuses of the postal system (such as mail fraud and armed robbery of post offices)

The USPS is collectively owned. UPS, FedEx, and Amazon employees are still not allowed to pick up or deliver to USPS mailboxes, including the one at the end of my driveway. Not my property nor theirs. Public. Everyone's in general. No one's in particular. Not a fungible asset or security. A resource, not capital.

Speaking of skewering strawmen, competing with the USPS to be a core, constitutional agency has nothing to do with whether or not our mail system is socialist, which is all that I was addressing with that statement. I'm simply pointing out that there are private players in the same parcel service game, which means that this isn't an example of an industry that the US has nationalized.

But, again, if you're not trying to make the point that USPS is socialism, why do you keep emphasizing that it's publicly owned? I know it's publicly owned.

 

[22lcidw]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

sure are a lot of first generation conservative Americans trying to take away rights from Americans who have been here for over 200 years....

A lot of people are not getting with the "program". Things should be better.

 

[Grumblenuts]

USPS isn't capitalistic, just like cucumbers aren't computer related.

No. Cucumbers are a commodity. So are computers. You're right. You're not getting this.

If you don't use a mailbox for profitable reasons, it's just a slot for outgoing correspondence

You are not listening. "Use" has nothing to do with ownership.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

I said that many of the things that those who call themselves "capitalists" support are not capitalist. They then disparage those who support those same things for others and call them "socialists" or now "communists".

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

As practiced it's private ownership propped up with social programs. Outside of perhaps some small businesses we do not have an economy of strictly private ownership.

Yes, I know that you said that. You keep repeating it. Which is why I keep telling you that, despite the fact that these same sorts of people call folks who support the things that they, themselves support, socialist, they are still capitalists, which we all are, simply by virtue of operating in an economy of private ownership. Get it? There is NO SET OF BELIEFS that determines whether someone is a capitalist or not. It is entirely determined by whether or not they own the product of their own labor.

We aren't just "capitalists". Outside of perhaps some small businesses there is no one that still strictly owns their own labor. Much of their labor is subsidized by society.

We don't have an economy of STRICTLY private ownership, no. Like you said, the government had temporary control of much of GM. However, government ownership of industries in this nation is EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of all of the US economy is privately owned. Mind you, when I say this, I don't mean privately owned as opposed to being publicly traded. I simply mean that our industries exist separate from our government, and are not owned by the state.

When the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the system keeping you afloat you no longer really fit your description.

Subsidized doesn't describe ownership. It describes support. That said, as to the greater point, Biff Poindexter has shown me where my definition of a capitalist is incorrect, so in general I stand corrected on this point.

Literally every society's taxpayers are responsible for propping up the system of government, which in turn is responsible for, at the absolute least, the police and military protection that offer people the stability to build anything meaningful in the first place without the toughest douche on the block just outright taking their resources from them. You seem to be implying, therefore, that any system of taxation is a negation of private ownership, which would mean that there has never actually been a capitalist system.

In the classroom sense there never has been.

But moving beyond that.........yes, no system is going to work without taxpayer support systems and those that benefit must also contribute to that system.

We currently have a discussion over the post office. A company like Amazon benefits massively by the post office. The post office is even delivering on Sunday now for them.

What does Amazon pay in taxes to support this?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html

I'm not a huge fan of Amazon not having to pay their taxes, either. Admittedly, however, I highly dislike Jeff Bezos, AND I'm completely unaware of what threshold of federal taxation would create a situation where it would be more profitable for him to relocate a significant portion of his distribution warehousing to, say, Mexico. Basically, I'm too biased and not enough informed on the specifics to have any strong opinions on that particular matter.

In which case his profits should be taxed at a very high rate. If you move production to Mexico and still expect US courts to protect your interests the costs to you should be quite high.

That said, you do realize that shipping USPS requires payment per transaction, yes? The fact that they're losing money every year obviously suggests that the over-the-counter cost of shipping any parcel is less than the actual cost, but it's not like Amazon's getting all their shit carried around for free.

They pay less than I do..........not only that, we subsidize shipping from China. Why would we do that?

I don't disagree. I'd love to see disincentives for moving production offshore. F this globalist nonsense, our politicians should be looking after OUR interests. As to subsidizing the shipping from China, admittedly this isn't even something I was aware we're doing. If that's the case, it's yet another bonus for offshoring that I'd love to see scrapped, and it probably exists for the same reason China has had so many insane international trade advantages for the past several decades: Because our politicians, both parties, have been selling out our interests to the CCP at least since the Clintons were in office (and the Republicans of the era were absolutely in on it. GATT was bipartisan).

One can argue it predates Clinton but it is also completely intact today.

 

[pknopp]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

Webster's is very clear about what a capitalist is....aside from the short answer, someone who owns capital....here is the longer definition....

"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit "

But defining a capitalist as simply someone who owns their own labor does make one feel better I assume....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Reminder:

So we have an outbreak of "infectious quoting" goin on here, and mod staff is ASKING you to learn to use the "selective quoting" options in the interim to practice "quote distancing" from each other..

 

[pknopp]

Also.....has anyone addressed yet how is it she doesn't know that Puerto Rico is a part of the US and the people are US citizens?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm simply pointing out that there are private players in the same parcel service game, which means that this isn't an example of an industry that the US has nationalized.

Not the same game. Profit vs mandated community service (not for profit) to all. I must presume you're dragging "industry" and "nationalized" in here simply to distract and dazzle everyone with non sequitur BS.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just to clarify, the USPS was happy to let UPS handle the larger, odd shaped, and heavier "parcels." On the other hand, FedEx (vastly non-union) forced their way into competition with UPS (not the USPS) through the courts, lobbying Congress, and greasing palms like crazy; Fred Smith (along with the Waltons) demonstrating for Bezos exactly how to proceed. UPS and FedEx handle real freight now as well. The USPS remains happily away from that. No mandate for freight service. Buyer beware.

 

[Crepitus]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

Wait, you mean her mom came here and TOOK OUR JOBS???

 

[hjmick]

Kimberly Guilfoyle says she’s a 1st generation American during RNC speech

In her Republican National Convention speech, Kimberly Guilfoyle described herself as a first-generation American, citing her mother's Puerto Rican roots.

www.click2houston.com

"Kimberly Guilfoyle describes herself as a first-generation American, but also notes that her mother is a special education teacher from Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Guilfoyle, a Trump campaign adviser and the girlfriend of Donald Trump Jr., cited her family history on Monday to make the case that she knows how dangerous a socialist agenda would be for the nation."

Is the Trump campaign hoping that their voters are too stupid to know that someone coming to the mainland from Puerto Rico isn't an immigrant?? Are they hoping their voters don't know that residents of Puerto Rico have been US citizens since the early 1900's??

And what does being half Puerto Rican have to do with knowing about socialism?? Does the campaign also hope their voters think Puerto Rico is a socialist country?? On a lighter note, most Trump voters probably had no idea that Kimmers is Puerto Rican to begin with -- since she didn't say shit about it during Hurricane Maria....

Um... If her mother is Puerto Rican, her mother is an American citizen. That would seem to nullify Guilfoyle's claim of being a "first generation American."

Just sayin'...

 

[Grumblenuts]

See, you say that it was a strawman, but then you follow that up by seemingly making precisely the argument that my strawman was dressed to resemble. I get that USPS isn't in any way privately owned and thus not an example of any aspect of our system contributing to its capitalistic nature, though, if you're not implying that it is therefore socialism, I'm not sure what the purpose is of stating this point at all. But yeah, we agree. USPS isn't capitalistic,

Full stop. Yes, the USPS is obviously a socialist construct, as is the U.S. military along with community police and fire houses. No one need argue that point. It's that bleeding obvious. You're the one who's been seemingly arguing that it's not.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

USPS isn't capitalistic, just like cucumbers aren't computer related.

No. Cucumbers are a commodity. So are computers. You're right. You're not getting this.

If you don't use a mailbox for profitable reasons, it's just a slot for outgoing correspondence

You are not listening. "Use" has nothing to do with ownership.

Lol. Way to ignore the point of the comparison.

With the mailboxes, I wasn't talking about ownership. I was talking about whether or not they're a means of production. If you could manage to refrain from whittling down the quote to which you're responding and then treating the fragment as a complete statement, you'd be likely to find that my meaning was actually pretty obvious.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

See, you say that it was a strawman, but then you follow that up by seemingly making precisely the argument that my strawman was dressed to resemble. I get that USPS isn't in any way privately owned and thus not an example of any aspect of our system contributing to its capitalistic nature, though, if you're not implying that it is therefore socialism, I'm not sure what the purpose is of stating this point at all. But yeah, we agree. USPS isn't capitalistic,

Full stop. Yes, the USPS is obviously a socialist construct, as is the U.S. military along with community police and fire houses. No one need argue that point. It's that bleeding obvious. You're the one who's been seemingly arguing that it's not.

Governments of all sorts were taxing their subjects and citizens in return for military protection for literal millennia before socialism had even been dreamed up. Even the USPS itself predates socialism.

Even more important than the technical fact that these concepts predate socialism is that socialism, again, is collective ownership of resources/means of production, whichever you wish (though IMO there's no significant distinction). It's not simply every case where the government implements taxation to pay for a service provided, which is what is implied when you say that our military is socialist. Somehow we've gotten back to square one of the conversation where you and the low-definition arguments from the left AND right redefine socialism to mean everybody having healthcare. Wasn't that just you busting my balls about the distinction between Democratic Socialism and traditional socialism? What happened to all that between two posts ago and now?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

I said that many of the things that those who call themselves "capitalists" support are not capitalist. They then disparage those who support those same things for others and call them "socialists" or now "communists".

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

As practiced it's private ownership propped up with social programs. Outside of perhaps some small businesses we do not have an economy of strictly private ownership.

Yes, I know that you said that. You keep repeating it. Which is why I keep telling you that, despite the fact that these same sorts of people call folks who support the things that they, themselves support, socialist, they are still capitalists, which we all are, simply by virtue of operating in an economy of private ownership. Get it? There is NO SET OF BELIEFS that determines whether someone is a capitalist or not. It is entirely determined by whether or not they own the product of their own labor.

We aren't just "capitalists". Outside of perhaps some small businesses there is no one that still strictly owns their own labor. Much of their labor is subsidized by society.

We don't have an economy of STRICTLY private ownership, no. Like you said, the government had temporary control of much of GM. However, government ownership of industries in this nation is EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of all of the US economy is privately owned. Mind you, when I say this, I don't mean privately owned as opposed to being publicly traded. I simply mean that our industries exist separate from our government, and are not owned by the state.

When the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the system keeping you afloat you no longer really fit your description.

Subsidized doesn't describe ownership. It describes support. That said, as to the greater point, Biff Poindexter has shown me where my definition of a capitalist is incorrect, so in general I stand corrected on this point.

Literally every society's taxpayers are responsible for propping up the system of government, which in turn is responsible for, at the absolute least, the police and military protection that offer people the stability to build anything meaningful in the first place without the toughest douche on the block just outright taking their resources from them. You seem to be implying, therefore, that any system of taxation is a negation of private ownership, which would mean that there has never actually been a capitalist system.

In the classroom sense there never has been.

But moving beyond that.........yes, no system is going to work without taxpayer support systems and those that benefit must also contribute to that system.

We currently have a discussion over the post office. A company like Amazon benefits massively by the post office. The post office is even delivering on Sunday now for them.

What does Amazon pay in taxes to support this?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/why-amazon-paid-no-federal-income-tax.html

I'm not a huge fan of Amazon not having to pay their taxes, either. Admittedly, however, I highly dislike Jeff Bezos, AND I'm completely unaware of what threshold of federal taxation would create a situation where it would be more profitable for him to relocate a significant portion of his distribution warehousing to, say, Mexico. Basically, I'm too biased and not enough informed on the specifics to have any strong opinions on that particular matter.

In which case his profits should be taxed at a very high rate. If you move production to Mexico and still expect US courts to protect your interests the costs to you should be quite high.

That said, you do realize that shipping USPS requires payment per transaction, yes? The fact that they're losing money every year obviously suggests that the over-the-counter cost of shipping any parcel is less than the actual cost, but it's not like Amazon's getting all their shit carried around for free.

They pay less than I do..........not only that, we subsidize shipping from China. Why would we do that?

I don't disagree. I'd love to see disincentives for moving production offshore. F this globalist nonsense, our politicians should be looking after OUR interests. As to subsidizing the shipping from China, admittedly this isn't even something I was aware we're doing. If that's the case, it's yet another bonus for offshoring that I'd love to see scrapped, and it probably exists for the same reason China has had so many insane international trade advantages for the past several decades: Because our politicians, both parties, have been selling out our interests to the CCP at least since the Clintons were in office (and the Republicans of the era were absolutely in on it. GATT was bipartisan).

One can argue it predates Clinton but it is also completely intact today.

It might, but I was born in 82 so politics before I was 10 years old are fairly well outside of my first hand awareness. I do know, however, that it wasn't until the particular GATT agreement that we passed in the mid nineties that the WTO gave China Most Favored Nation status, which was the beginning of them being handed a number of international trade advantages over the other members of the agreement. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the shipping subsidies starting during that era, when we seem to have really gone into high gear selling our economy out to China in particular, but I can't claim to know for certain.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Well that the US is largely Socialist she would be right that Puerto Rico being a part of the US would be also.

When they say REALLY IDIOTIC garbage like this.....is there really any room for discussion ?

Again, unable to dispute. Where in capitalism do we find the government bailing out business? We already have programs that cover a large portion of people's health care. Universal health care would only expand on that.

We already have public education. Expanding that to higher education would only expand on that.

SHould I continue?

Business bailouts aren't socialism. Social safety nets aren't socialism. You could argue that public education is socialistic, but as long as private educators are legally allowed to operate, it's still not socialism. Nationalizing industries is socialism.

When a politician wants to "bail out" the poor it's call socialism. If we can agree that it is not, great.

Business bail outs are NOT capitalism though in any form.

TV pundits call that socialism, just like Rush Limbaugh calls leftists liberals like we're still having the same conversations we were in the '90's. Personally, I'm a firm believer in maintaining the precise definitions of our words and terms. Tools should be kept clean and optimally functional.

That's all well and fine but classroom ideas rarely match up to reality. It wasn't just TV pundits calling Sanders a Socialist for arguing for safety nets for the poor. It was many doing that.

Business bail outs don't negate capitalism. Capitalism is just a derogatory term that Marxists came up with in the 20th century to describe economies of private ownership.

It may not "negate" capitalism but it is NOT capitalism.

Sanders calls HIMSELF a socialist.

Sorry, weren't we supposed to be using exact definitions? He calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Something basically the majority of people are in practice.

Here's the difference between a 'socialist' and a 'democratic socialist'

Democratic socialism is related, but what politicians like Sanders are pushing for is not akin to the authoritarian-style socialism in places like Venezuela.

Now are we to use actual definitions or not?

But yeah, if you're making the point that all sorts of people shit all over the proper usage of that term, I won't disagree. However, I will disagree with you conflating a word's common usage with "reality". The commonly held misconceptions of ignoramuses and simpletons does not reality make.

I say it doesn't negate capitalism because a system that bails out businesses, impoverished individuals, or anything in between can still be called capitalism. It just depends on whether or not their economy is privately owned. In the same way that taxing citizens to provide services doesn't qualify a nation as socialist, it also doesn't disqualify them from being capitalist.

Capitalism is specific about how when a business fails it fails and the vacuum gets filled by others.

You're missing my point. When I say that Sanders calls himself a socialist, I'm not trying to throw shade on his use of the term.

Yes you are as he calls himself a Democratic Socialist.

I'm saying OF COURSE everybody calls him a socialist. Whether he's amended the term or not, he's still largely responsible for creating the situation where most politically aware people in our culture associate Bernie with some version of the word, "socialist".

Which I thought we were supposed to be avoided? A skewing of definitions.

If you really wanna get into it, add to that the fact that a lot of people on the right are dubious about whether or not Sanders is showing all of his ideological cards, given his affinity for the Soviet Union back in the day. Aside from the brand recognition, careless common usage of terms by the people labeling him, and potential ignorance of this new Democratic Socialist movement's comparisons to traditional socialism, you've also got a fair number of people who aren't convinced that dude isn't just a closet Marxist.

Capitalism isn't specific about anything. Again, capitalism is a derogatory term for private market economies, it's not a specific ideology.

Capitalism isn't a derogatory term. What we do in the name of capitalism is. Most who claim to support capitalism do not. They hide behind the term.

I am avoiding a skewing of definitions. Again you're completely missing my point, which is that Sanders own choice of title for his political movement is just as likely the culprit for this particular misuse of the term as any other typical reason.

As long as you are being honest now about what he calls himself. At least he is honest about what he calls himself.

Pointing this out doesn't skew the definition, nor does pointing out that people associate Sanders with various versions and definitions of the term, and if what you got was that I was implying that Sanders is presenting himself as a traditional socialist, then your assumption was incorrect. I hope that clears things up for you. If you can back up from blindly looking to score points and actually try to engage with what I'm saying, it's actually not very hard to understand.

Capitalism is, actually, a derogatory term. Apparently, it was probably the 19th and not 20th century when it was coined and popularized, so I stand corrected, there. When you keep implying that republicans who support various forms of corporate welfare aren't true capitalists, it tells me that you don't actually understand what the difference is between a controlled economy, and an expensive social safety net.

You might should go read up on these terms.

They aren't "true" Capitalists. They support the same kinds of programs Sanders does. The only difference is who benefits.

Being honest -now-? Oh shit, is that what you were getting at? You're trying to make this out like I was LYING about Bernie?

No, I am saying that Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist because that is what he is. Others call themselves Capitalists but are anything but.

And this bit where you keep saying things like "true capitalism" and "in the name of capitalism" continues to tell me that you're not actually familiar with any of this. Capitalism isn't a specific ideology. Seriously, go read up. This is becoming tedious for no good reason.

The only dispute of anything I've said was a complaint that what I said was not the classroom definitions.

The dispute is that you're repeatedly implying that capitalism is some purist system where everyone succeeds or fails PURELY on their own merit, and a person ceases to be a capitalist if they believe in any form of government assistance.

That's incorrect. Capitalism is simply an economy of private ownership. A capitalist is simply someone who owns their own labor, which is technically any individual who lives or operates in a capitalist economy.

Webster's is very clear about what a capitalist is....aside from the short answer, someone who owns capital....here is the longer definition....

"a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit "

But defining a capitalist as simply someone who owns their own labor does make one feel better I assume....

Nah. Whatever dictionary Google uses for its top result on a definition search specifies "wealthy", but Merriam Webster does not.

Definition of CAPITALIST

a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : plutocrat; a person who favors capitalism… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

The thing is, capitalism, unlike socialism, isn't a title that someone gave to a specific political/economic vision. It's one that started as a derogatory generalization, and is still just a blanket term for private economies. "Capitalist" emerged from that, which means there's bound to be a plethora of politically charged definitions that specify that a capitalist has to be rich, and then lists "plutocrat" as the top synonym.

When I describe what a capitalist is, I'm simply trying to remove the negative hyperbole from the equation and paint a realistic vision of an individual who manipulates economic leverage for personal gain in an economic system of voluntary contracts, which is literally everybody with a job. You're right, though, even Merriam-Webster's much looser definition of capitalist doesn't include what I've said, so I stand corrected. Everybody living or operating in a capitalist system might be the thing that capitalist WOULD mean if the folks coining the term weren't trying to paint an intentionally unflattering picture, but that is not technically the definition.

Perhaps, in failing to abide by these politically charged definitions, I'm committing the same sort of term skewering that I'm here attempting to mitigate, but I don't believe that to be the case. Socialism is actually the technical term for a specific relationship between society and economy, where capitalism is, again, a blanket term for private economies coined by people opposed to private economies.

Basically, acknowledging the nuances that make Chinese culture unique helps to preserve a culture that, political controversies and problems with specific regimes aside, has made massive mathematical, scientific and cultural contributions that have improved life for all of humanity throughout the ages. Acknowledging that "chink" refers specifically to Chinese people and not Southeast Asians in general, is not likely to preserve anything of value.

So basically it is whatever you can make it up to be at any given moment? cool...

This is what MLK said about capitalism......before you guys started claiming he was a conservative republican....

View attachment 379657

I predict when republicans get desperate enough due to their policies continuing to fail and being unpopular -- they will pivot to using the same critiques MLK was using 60 years ago....

Lol, despite explaining where I was coming from, I actually admitted in that post that I stand corrected on the definition of a capitalist. But nah, if it's more satisfying to ignore that bit and tell yourself that you just owned someone who wouldn't admit to being wrong, have at it, friend. Some people really need a win, I won't shit on your parade.

By today's standards, MLK WAS a conservative, though that's an arguable point. As far as King being a Republican, I'm sorry sir, but that's just a fact.

MLK: A riot is the language of the unheard.

Yeah. I love MLK for what he did for racial relations going forward from the Civil Rights era, but he said a lot of shit that I don't agree with, too. Luckily, unlike a modern progressive, I don't need a historical figure to be the perfect image of my personal moral ideals in order to be grateful for the accomplishments that they made, or to respect the ways in which they were great.

Anyway, regardless of his views on socialism and the occasional statement contradicting the principles of the nonviolent protest that he ultimately exemplified, you haven't effectively disputed anything I said. He was still arguably conservative by today's standards given morals largely governed by the traditional Christian values of the era. Let's be real, on non racial social issues, even the leftists of that era openly held views on homosexuality and transsexualism (remember when it wasn't bigotry to call it that?) that would make anyone in 2020 an unemployable alt right Nazi menace. And again, as far as MLK being a republican, that's not an opinion.