You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Democrats Seem To Be Operating From A One Issue Plan.
I also said that Trump is the lesser evil between Trump and Hilary around the time of the elections and was.....well, "glad" would be a tall word here to describe how I felt when I saw that he won.
Felt like I dodged having my knee being pierced by a serrated arrow only to have it being pierced by a non-serrated one.
Regarding good intentions, I heard that the road to hell is paved with them, so I take everything that implies that anyone or anything has or had the best intentions with a grain of salt.
That being said, Bernie Sanders was Americas guy. Not the steemit sanders, the other one. Heard a lot of good things about him and can't see why they would promote Hilary over hi......oh yeah, that woman thing.
He would have likely won.
Yet it would be a bad thing. He is a moron.
He promises all kinds of FREE THINGS which is why he would win.
The government cannot give you free anything.
Someone pays.
The government does not produce anything but laws, waste, and wars.
So to pay for these "Free" promises they have two mechanisms:
So this "FREE" stuff you end up getting FORCED to pay for via taxes or debt. It is worse though because, when they do it this way you pay for it even if it is not something you needed.
Socialism does not work. Unless your goal is to make life worse in the long run for people and collapse the country. It is really good at that.
EDIT: The top three wealthiest people in the U.S. are Socialists. Combined they are worth close to a quarter of a trillion dollars. They are all known for screwing people over. ;) They are Democrats too. They support forced redistribution of citizens income, and assets because they have positioned themselves to likely be the recipients of that redistribution. Socialism leads to ultimate forms of monopoly. Government forced monopoly.
People thought that being paid for voting on content would never be a thing, yet here we are.
There is a possibility that Bernie really would have ended up being a terrible president. But I think that the odds of him not being as questionable as either Trump or Hilary would have been fairly good.
Regarding money and finances, they are man made concepts, so it can take manmade power to shift the importance of those around in the favor of many.
He wouldn't have been as bad as Hillary. He wouldn't have been as good as Trump.
Trump actually understands economics and reality.
Bernie lives in fantasy land and make believe and fails to actually pay attention to history. His ideas he was pushing have lead to the ruination of every country they have been implemented in. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Those places all seem GREAT for a short period of time until their stupid policies drain any money they saved.
"Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money"
Many people in Venezuela can tell you how stupid Bernie is.
Well, for today I will just take your word for it because I am not as deep into the topic as I could be.
With that being said, I think we can agree on saying that the focus of this discussion being on how presidents handle the topic of "money" can be taken as a hint that finances are too much of an factor when it comes to politics.
I don't find that healthy.
Well money is a tool. It is there for a universal mechanism of exchange. The truth about tools is they can all be used for good or bad purposes. You can build things with a hammer, but you can also bash someone in the head with a hammer.
Words are a tool. We can use them for good, or bad purposes. We are tool users. We certainly are not innocent and often can be quite malevolent towards other people.
Essentially money is pretty much the primary thing about which governments focus on, or things related to it somehow.
It is sad.
Yet ultimately we'd need to get away from the need for government and instead go to crowdsourcing or something like that before we could remove what you stated.
Even in socialist and "communist" countries it still revolves around money or property.
I would usually agree with you on the "tool" part, but I feel like money has become something more, especially over the recent years.
We could start an argument about how some of the "less civilized" tribes that still exist here and there can get by by themselves just famously without money or currency. But we cling too much to our so called civilization with all it's percs and problems that people have a hard time considering that.
And I have too. I'm a man of the civilized world myself after all.
Sure they exchange sheep for eggs, or whatever. Do this work for me and pay me with chicken, etc.
This is easy to do. Yet it is not easy to handle larger value items this way. Currency AKA money is a UNIVERSAL exchange. It is a tool. It is a tool that enables a person to carry something to exchange for something else without needing to carry say 1000 chicken for a house, or whatever is agreed to.
There has never been anything we have invented that does what currency can.
Until we come up with something else then it will exist, and it needs to exist.
As to tribal exchange mechanisms. They work on the small scale, they do not scale well.
Some universal currency tends to be created as civilizations scale, because they are the logical method to handle what they handle. Whether shells, stones, coins, paper currency, credit cards, crypto. It is all something that is easy to move, easy to exchange, and can represent much larger items.
I think that this may be my problem with finances and money. All we ever do is look at the world thinking about profit and exchange. Because it has been like that for a very long time and has been focused on even harder during the last couple decades. And I think that this focus is bad for the evolution we could have in other areas.
Of course, this is highly hypothetical and biased.