Republican debate

[Distriimuir]

Bernie seems the most rational choice at the moment. But Americans see the word socialist and freak out, so he doesn't stand a chance. What we need is a rehaul of the whole system. I think a technocracy with a highly educated parliament( required phd's in a wide range of fields) would be the most efficient government. Or just straight up free anarchy, but that dream of mine will never be met till the end of days lol.

Americans are right to hate socialism as this is the system which has been proven to do tremendous damage to the people.

Your idea of technocracy with a highly educated parliament is wishful thinking based on nothing. You can as well wish that everybody were you, rich, healthy and high. In other words, keep your dreams to yourself, .politics. is art of making change in reality as we share it not in reality as you dream it.

I did not make technocracy up, it's a form of governing that is in theory possible, just hasn't been implemented anywhere yet. I get your hate of socialism, but Norway seems to be doing well for itself. And you did exactly what most Americans have done, hear that one word about Bernie and react negatively( he's actually a democrat, they just like to demonize the people that us in our early 30's would vote for)

[Rass]

I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.

How much and what odds?

Never said anything about odds. Just a bet

So a default 1:1? Not very good odds as I can get 13:2 after a quick google, so I'll pass

I'm sure you can. But to do that you have to pay money to place a bet.

So I'll make you that bet at 13:2 I'll only bet a dollar but to make the bet you first have to sign up and send me $20 enrollment fee

[Piotr]

Would it really be so bad to divide things a bit more equal?
Right now the corporations seem to dictate .politics. through lobby. I don't think that's the healthiest system either. However, looking at China, I can understand it is hard to get a proper system. Humans are humans after all.

Yes, it always was and always will be bad to 'divide things equal' as humans are humans after all and therefore humans whom we select to 'divide things equal' will exploit the opportunity. It only takes one to steal a billion dollars. It only takes one to steal 10 billions, there is no limit in theory. As observed by Donald Trump, they will bribe politicians to change rules of the game as it is being played. It is called 'lobbying' and was described in details by Ayn Rand in her best selling book Atlas Shrugged, which I recommend as it provides interesting point of view which not a lot of people had a chance to share.

People want it fair, if I made it I sell it, not the ones who 'divide things equal'. 'Dividing things equal' leads to mass thievery in reality.

The system which is healthier than democracy is nomocracy, the rule of unchangeable law. You have to remove power to change the rules of the game from the participants of the game to cure the current system.

[Piotr]

(...) technocracy (...), it's a form of governing that is in theory possible

I call a lie on this claim*. Technocracy is not possible, as proven by theory.

* this means if you repeat it here without providing scientific proof you will be banned for 10 days, because I know that scientific proof** confirming your claim as false exists. Am I clear?

** To make it easier for you, my proof assumes that the participants of technocracy have free will. Disprove free will and my current proof is invalid.

EDIT:

The same as the guy who said 2+3=4, his theory was also wrong.

Theory that Technocracy can work in practice when the participants are human is wrong as proven by real life experiments in the past. Many failed experiments in which the participants did not behave as described by the failed theories, this proving the theory wrong. Theory which does not describe reality is WRONG. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Technocracy and communism work in theory when the participants have no free will and no self preservation instinct. This is what scientific theory says. In other words, 2+3=4 works in theory, when 3 is 2. For people like me and Donald Trump, practical people, this is insulting because 2 is not 3. I do not want to be insulted on my own property, so I warn people that they will have to leave if they never learn. I hope this is fair enough?


In political discussions on this forum, in which I am present, we are going to have a serious debate which moves the body of science forward, with or without you. 10-days ban warning is real, as proven by past experiments

[Piotr]

I'll put money on it that trump doesn't get elected.

How much and what odds?

Never said anything about odds. Just a bet

So a default 1:1? Not very good odds as I can get 13:2 after a quick google, so I'll pass

I'm sure you can. But to do that you have to pay money to place a bet.

So I'll make you that bet at 13:2 I'll only bet a dollar but to make the bet you first have to sign up and send me $20 enrollment fee

I never traded with you before so I would like to use middle man

In all seriousness though, I can see this guy winning. He is a winner type. He strikes me as a person who would not sit to play a game without knowing that he is going to win it. He will be running against Hillary Clinton.

If she was running against an inanimate object, I would bet on her opponent (not because I do not like what she represents, but because I see her as unelectable in US similar way as Ed Miliband was unelectable in recent UK parliamentary elections). Anyone will win agains Hillary - I would not be surprised to learn that Hillary is Democratic nominee because 'everybody loves Trump' as he claims, and he just made it so. He has a lot of friends, I understand?

I just thought that perhaps political betting may be a better use of my political knowledge, precognition powers and my time in general - than banning greenhorns in political discussions

[Kaylesh]

Would it really be so bad to divide things a bit more equal?
Right now the corporations seem to dictate .politics. through lobby. I don't think that's the healthiest system either. However, looking at China, I can understand it is hard to get a proper system. Humans are humans after all.

Yes, it always was and always will be bad to 'divide things equal' as humans are humans after all and therefore humans whom we select to 'divide things equal' will exploit the opportunity. It only takes one to steal a billion dollars. It only takes one to steal 10 billions, there is no limit in theory. As observed by Donald Trump, they will bribe politicians to change rules of the game as it is being played. It is called 'lobbying' and was described in details by Ayn Rand in her best selling book Atlas Shrugged, which I recommend as it provides interesting point of view which not a lot of people had a chance to share.

People want it fair, if I made it I sell it, not the ones who 'divide things equal'. 'Dividing things equal' leads to mass thievery in reality.

The system which is healthier than democracy is nomocracy, the rule of unchangeable law. You have to remove power to change the rules of the game from the participants of the game to cure the current system.

I agree that the communist way, the way you describe socialism, where the state (aka a dictatorial elite group), divides, is too much, and will always fail. Humans are humans and power corrupts, thus causing the system to collapse into what was beautifully described by George Orwell: "all animals are equal, yet some are more equal than others".
Yet, within a system where each controls sale, and production, still the wealthy could be asked to contribute for those who aren't as fortunate.
In the case of the USA, I think of the veterans, who fought for their country, yet get set aside like used paper towels afterwards.
(Yeah, I know asked is to kind a word, but I just don't know a proper one).

[Piotr]

I agree that the communist way, the way you describe socialism, where the state (aka a dictatorial elite group), divides, is too much, and will always fail. Humans are humans and power corrupts, thus causing the system to collapse into what was beautifully described by George Orwell: "all animals are equal, yet some are more equal than others".

Socialism is the very same mechanism but applied to only part of free market, not the whole of it as in communism.

Yet, within a system where each controls sale, and production, still the wealthy could be asked to contribute for those who aren't as fortunate.
(Yeah, I know asked is to kind a word, but I just don't know a proper one).

I hope you do not believe that wealth is sourced from 'fortune and good luck'. In reality wealth is made by the makers.
(The word is 'extortion' )

And man, the makers they do share Try this google search: 'voluntary charity numbers'.

In the case of the USA, I think of the veterans, who fought for their country, yet get set aside like used paper towels afterwards.

Agreements must be kept. Whatever was agreed with the veterans, must be delivered.

[Piotr]

I get your hate of socialism, but Norway seems to be doing well for itself.

No you do not get my hate of socialism, you can not even start comprehending it.*



Norway is doing well in comparison to what? Free market Norway or even more socialist Sweden? Use Norway or any other non-sustainable northern country propped by 'hooray we strip the lands of iron wood fish and what not and we have 4 million people to sustain so it will take 300 years to run out so we use these failed states as an example forever.' Not on this forum.

If you want to use scientifically valid examples, use territories which are mostly the same and only differ at what you want to study. Take German speaking lands of central Europe divided by WWII, take Korean speaking lands of Far East Asia divided by current Korean war and compare what happens when you move away from free market on a mass scale.


* My hate for socialism is so huge, that it trumps everything else When you think about my hate for socialism, think about the biggest hate ever because when you hate something you may as well hate it big. I want socialism destroyed and removed absolutely and totally, with the use of science and logic so that there is nothing left of this big lie. My hate for socialism is so big, that it eats up all the hate reserves I have and I have to love everything else by default. I love my guests, I love my customers, my business partners, I'm a nice person. But when you are tickling my hate for socialism, negative things can happen

[Piotr]

Having said that , I watched a couple more youtube videos with Trump and I learned a bit more about the guy. He has lots of master skills in his brain, his capability to speak without prompters and have the best one-liners is easy to understand now when I take 12 years of Apprentice into consideration.

EDIT: I just bought one of his books, he is a cunning, clever man, I respect him. I can see myself doing business with him, not like with some other candidates who seem to believe that 2+3=4

[Piotr]

Looks like other people noticed early too: http://dilbert.com

I can say honestly that I had Theory of Master Persuader after I watched less than hour of video footage with Trump. I somehow managed to miss his brand completely, and did not know it exists prior to Trump's presidential 2016 run. He really is very good at making people agree with him, as proven by the amount of wealth he amassed and by his approval pools.

I discussed "the matter of Trump", in terms of "I do not necessarily agree with the man, but here's why he will be the next POTUS" with my friend Feminist and she responded with something along the lines of "OMG, they will kill him".

What Trump is saying, including his proposal to "ban all Muslim people who openly advocate themselves as Muslim" is something which is not as outrageous as many people would say. I think so far he is in line with the combination of Common Law of property + http://ultimatelaw.org if you treat USA territory as property of the people. I think the other Theory of Lucky Hitler, which Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has, is not confirmed yet.

[Kaylesh]

I feel a lot about Trump, but I will try to take this moment and use reason instead.

You state Trump would act in accordance with Ultimate Law. Pretty much all he does (what I've heard of) violates this law, however.
Banning of people based on a faith, is not something these people would wish for themselves. Unless they have engaged in actions others would not wish upon themselves, or conspire to do so, this punishment cannot be enacted.
I know plenty of Muslims who would define as not violating the law. They allow me to eat my pork, smoke, let their women walk around without a "leash" or veil.

So, the error he makes, is failure to discriminate. The world doesn't fit in neat tables anymore.

That leads me to a second problem, which is more speculative.
I have read an analysis on the new democracies somewhere, while I fail to recollect the source. The bottom line was that "we" in the west continue to dictate the terms of "civilization" to the world. This is referred to in the article as "neo-colonialism". This tendency is the seed of all anti-western sentiment in the world, according to said article.
It sounds logical, since we still supplant our values, formed in our history as "right", over the values and history of for example the African tribes.

Continuing on this premise: Trump is the ultimate Old White Man. Used to getting what he wants, using his resources/power.
Having Trump as face of the western world will likely increase the hate, as he's already proven quite capable of fanning the flames, instead of building bridges.

Conclusion: we would do well with leaders who lead with logic, act in accordance to ultimate law, rather than acting in accordance to fear, populism, their gut or their wallet.

I FEEL Trump is guilty of following those four before anything else, presiding like Berlusconi in Italy. Making sure the path of their friends stays paved. (Note, this is me violating my own statement. Rich guy fobia I'm still working on).

Bottom line, I fear for the state of the USA & the world if Trump takes office, yet I agree with you, Piotr. Trump could even pull off having Sarah Palin as running mate..
On the other hand, even in the USA he represents a minority, which could limit the amount of momentum he can gain to (fairly) win the elections. (He does have enough friends to pull a Bush Jr. or random African president though. Go to court until you get it your way).

[Piotr]

You state Trump would act in accordance with Ultimate Law. Pretty much all he does (what I've heard of) violates this law, however.
Banning of people based on a faith, is not something these people would wish for themselves. Unless they have engaged in actions others would not wish upon themselves, or conspire to do so, this punishment cannot be enacted.

Property laws are important here. The people outside of the USA territory (territory = property) who are not USA citizens do not have any right to be on the property of USA in the first place, therefore banning them from being on the property which does not belong to them is not punishment as far as my understanding of Ultimate Law goes. Ultimate Law is rather simple, really. What makes things complicated is misunderstanding about the definitions: what is property? What is a right?

[Rass]

That is not true. If you have proper documentition (passport) and not on some list you are allowed to pass our borders freely.

[Piotr]

That is not true. If you have proper documentition (passport) and not on some list you are allowed to pass our borders freely.

I'm discussing http://ultimatelaw.org not US constitution. In the future, maybe it is gonna be the same, but it is not yet.

[Kaylesh]

Didn't Trump also want to enforce this banning for US citizens with ties to said nations?
Also, it would make the state "own" the country, over individual properties in said country.
Banning an individual who owns a piece of your country seems to be setting the state above the individual.
And with the state deciding who they view as unwanted, a slope towards a dictatorial state threatens.
"You speak against me, I don't want you around." becomes: "I want your land, so I'll invent charges to disown you."
Plenty of examples of that happening in history.
If the state is acting in accordance to ultimate law and ascends petty human behavior, this power could be trusted upon them, but until that time, power like that should be wielded carefully.