If you put a gun to my head and make me choose - which is what the election represented as we're gonna get one or the other for most powerful person on earth - I won't throw a temper tantrum eat the the nails and glass out of spite.

Note this doesn't apply to people like you who truly adore Dear Leader. It applies to people like BMN who acknowledge Trump sucks but just really really don't like Hillary.

If enough people had it in to them to SAY NO TO RANCID CHICKEN, maybe we'd have something better to eat.

Keep slurping up the rotten milk though while calling out support of UBI as selfish bro

If only Meryl Streep and Madonna would just shut up for the next 4 years - then surely Trump will lose.

I think your suzzbot is a little faulty right now.

Sure you can resist the rotten milk right until it comes to the point that you're going to get one or the other like it or not. Then you have to choose. Unless you're a toddler - then you can throw a fit.

It just seems a little coincidental that the only public welfare policy you've ever supported would put $$ directly in your pocket.

Except it wouldn't, but yes amazing coincidence.

What part of Universal doesn't apply to you?

Think it through a little bit more

I'm so sick of these endless loops.

Thayer, is it your position that all "progress" is invalid and silly to advocate for until such point as that "progress" is equivalent to tearing down and rebuilding America from the ground up as an anarcho-socialist, UBI-providing society?

That is what your position appears to be, and it makes talking to you totally pointless.

The best thing you could possibly do for this conversation is clarify what your position actually is. The above is the position you appear to hold. If that's wrong, fix it in a manner that can be understood.

Because right now there is literally no concept that anyone seems able to express that you would support because literally everything fails to go far enough. Right?

My position is that supporting awful candidates yields awful results, and I don't think you particularly disagree.


I posted over a fricking year ago about how Trump was going to win because of how bad Hillary and the Establishment would come across.


#BernieWouldHaveWon

#AnyoneWouldHaveWon

I vehemently agree, but that appears to be a small fraction of a full description of your position.

It's a fallacy that criticism without a perfect solution is useless/pathetic/stupid/heartless.

Criticism is ESSENTIAL for progress. People need to stop ****ing their DNC chicken.

Yes, but see, you often seem to be ADVOCATING for that result. It virtually always seems that you feel able to just discard the lesser of two evils argument, blame everyone, and move on with super good advice about how everyone could have solved the problem. Which is in internet slang a cool story, my bro, but which is also totally irrelevant now.

What troubles me about you right now is that it appears to me that even if I could get elected, compel a majority to pass legislation benefiting the poor, and then demonstrate analytically and sociologically and economically that the legislation had succeeded in improving quality of life for those people without measurably diminishing anyone else's quality of life or economic opportunity AND without damaging the economic integrity of the country, you would still regard that as a good thing only in some technical sense, and practically regard it as irrelevant because it took place within an unpalatable (to you) system.

Am I right?

I would not vote for or support someone who "Has given up on America", but in general I would support someone that you describe.

Because it would fall short of UBI and therefore just be some jerkoff half-measure that only idiots would think was progress. Right?

Hoya-

Hope this helps

I mean what are you even talking about, you're making a huge strawman. If you supported good intentions and good appearances that would harm the people to benefit the elites, I would be against it. I'd probably argue that just giving the people money directly would be better while fighting for an efficient incorruptible/unexploitable government.


But no I wouldn't argue against AnythingButUBI

Remember when Clark banned TuT during Christmas? What a mod!

Yeah we're really getting somewhere here. Position clarified.

...

the entire point is that given that this election, in real life, took place in a circumstance where "fighting for an efficient incorruptible/unexploitable government" was not on the ballot, what is someone like you, who clearly wants to support good intentions without harming the people and without benefiting the elites, supposed to do?

I argued ForBernie despite his ridiculously ignorant view on economics, for example.

**** it.

FTFY