Poll for Trump Supporters: Will you push back if he goes full fascist?

[Robert W]

I didn't forget. I'm not showing you shit. Think whatever you like.

I shot down another Bidenista. LMAO

 

[TruthNotBS]

I gave you my personal proof. You said the above.

Where do the workers get the money to build everything? I am not here to have you instruct me on being a great communist.

Where does the money come from? Magick? It comes from human labor or a government that issues it. Wages are the foundation of capitalism, if you eliminate wages (human labor), you kill the market. How are you going to sell your products if the paying consumer isn't earning a wage? The government can always hire people, and people can form labor cooperatives that work in tandem with their government. Capitalists are today due to our level of technology, nothing more than worthless middlemen. Parasite leeches. The sooner we eliminate the employer (exploiter) - employee (exploitee) relationship the better.

Adam Smith the father of Industrial Age capitalism wrote:

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (To form labor unions) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (In the form of chambers of commerce, industry-specific associations, and guilds, super-PACs, non-profit front organizations/NGOs, armies of lobbyists bribing politicians in the halls of government, think tanks staffed by Ivy league analysts and scholars who write the papers and legislation that they hand to the lobbyists, to give to their cronies in the US Congress) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.

We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is every where a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals." (Wealth Of Nations - Book I, Chapter VIII)

Emphasis mine.

Accountable, elected leadership, YES. Masters, NO.

 

[Robert W]

I think that ship has sailed. It would have been a shitshow, no doubt.

The kamala harris ship sailed, it was sunk, now it is on the bottom.

 

[dblack]

The kamala harris ship sailed, it was sunk, now it is on the bottom.

I think choosing Kamala was basically the Dems giving up. They figured that, as long as they were going to lose, they might as well throw a bone to the dei crowd.

 

[Stann]

Sarcasm.

I'm certain trump thinks of himself as leader of the world , otherwise he wouldn't be threatening everyone in it. Unfortunately he was elected president of the US ( not the world ) and only president ( a public servant ) not our dictator.

 

[Robert W]

Where does the money come from? Magick? It comes from human labor or a government that issues it. Wages are the foundation of capitalism, if you eliminate wages (human labor), you kill the market. How are you going to sell your products if the paying consumer isn't earning a wage? The government can always hire people, and people can form labor cooperatives that work in tandem with their government. Capitalists are today due to our level of technology, nothing more than worthless middlemen. Parasite leeches. The sooner we eliminate the employer (exploiter) - employee (exploitee) relationship the better.

Adam Smith the father of Industrial Age capitalism wrote:

"What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (To form labor unions) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (In the form of chambers of commerce, industry-specific associations, and guilds, super-PACs, non-profit front organizations/NGOs, armies of lobbyists bribing politicians in the halls of government, think tanks staffed by Ivy league analysts and scholars who write the papers and legislation that they hand to the lobbyists, to give to their cronies in the US Congress) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.

We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long-run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him, but the necessity is not so immediate.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and every where in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is every where a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals." (Wealth Of Nations - Book I, Chapter VIII)

Emphasis mine.

Accountable, elected leadership, YES. Masters, NO.

I am a fan of Adam Smith since I own his book.
I am not a fan of communism. I am not a fan of socialism. I am not a fan of nazism. I am not a fan of Fascism.

I am a fan of the rich. Adam Smith was too.

Why can a Democrat crave the authoritarian government yet reject the authoritarian person who created the corporation and treat this job provider as were he was the enemy. Test this. Shut all corporations and tell me how many will then be fully employed???

 

[Stann]

I think choosing Kamala was basically the Dems giving up. They figured that, as long as they were going to lose, they might as well throw a bone to the dei crowd.

I really believe the positive light in which she campaigned was a winning combination. Pessimism won out. Let's see what that brings.

 

[Robert W]

I think choosing Kamala was basically the Dems giving up. They figured that, as long as they were going to lose, they might as well throw a bone to the dei crowd.

Perhaps you are deep in the minds of Democrats. If so who says you are wrong?

 

[Robert W]

I really believe the positive light in which she campaigned was a winning combination. Pessimism won out. Let's see what that brings.

Let's examine her for a moment.

 

[Robert W]

I'm certain trump thinks of himself as leader of the world , otherwise he wouldn't be threatening everyone in it. Unfortunately he was elected president of the US ( not the world ) and only president ( a public servant ) not our dictator.

Here is a dictator.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I am a fan of Adam Smith since I own his book.
I am not a fan of communism. I am not a fan of socialism. I am not a fan of nazism. I am not a fan of Fascism.

I am a fan of the rich. Adam Smith was too.

Why can a Democrat crave the authoritarian government yet reject the authoritarian person who created the corporation and treat this job provider as were he was the enemy. Test this. Shut all corporations and tell me how many will then be fully employed???

I am a fan of Adam Smith since I own his book.

You should read his book more often, and if you would, you'd know that he wasn't a right-wing neoliberal, nor a proponent of Milton Friedman, laissez faire capitalism.

I am not a fan of communism. I am not a fan of socialism. I am not a fan of nazism. I am not a fan of Fascism.

I can see how you're not being that you're 86 years old and completely brainwashed by Western Cold-War, anti-socialist propaganda.

I am a fan of the rich. Adam Smith was too.

Are you rich? I could see why you're a fan of "the rich" if you're rich yourself, otherwise, you're a brainwashed working class slave.

Why can a Democrat crave the authoritarian government yet reject the authoritarian person who created the corporation and treat this job provider as were he was the enemy.

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I've never met a Democrat who is "craving" for an authoritarian government. If anything I've met right-wing conservative Republicans who love to use the government to legislate morality upon everyone else and empower the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

The corporation can easily be replaced by worker-owned cooperatives. Soon, advanced automation and AI are going to make democratic socialism a necessity. Your beloved capitalism is going the way of the Dodo.

 

[dblack]

You should read his book more often, and if you would, you'd know that he wasn't a right-wing neoliberal, nor a proponent of Milton Friedman, laissez faire capitalism.



I can see how you're not being that you're 86 years old and completely brainwashed by Western Cold-War, anti-socialist propaganda.



Are you rich? I could see why you're a fan of "the rich" if you're rich yourself, otherwise, you're a brainwashed working class slave.

View attachment 1064413​

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, but I've never met a Democrat who is "craving" for an authoritarian government. If anything I've met right-wing conservative Republicans who love to use the government to legislate morality upon everyone else and empower the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

The corporation can easily be replaced by worker-owned cooperatives. Soon, advanced automation and AI are going to make democratic socialism a necessity. Your beloved capitalism is going the way of the Dodo.

View attachment 1064418​

I thought Russia and China were on the same side. More or less. Why can't you just get along?

 

[Robert W]

I think choosing Kamala was basically the Dems giving up. They figured that, as long as they were going to lose, they might as well throw a bone to the dei crowd.

My pleasure is those who supported Kamala Harris now admit she was a fraud and they know she was. Telling us that the Dems gave up gives me a chuckle. We will see what democrats gave up shortly.

 

[Robert W]

Milton Friedman, laissez faire capitalism.

Adam Smith was in his grave when Milton Friedman was an expert economist.

AI Overview
Learn more


Adam Smith was an economist who supported the economic philosophy of laissez-faire, which advocates minimal government interference in the economy:

• Beliefs
  Smith believed that people are naturally self-interested and will work to meet their own needs, so the government should not interfere. He viewed the economy as a natural system, and the market as an organic part of that system.
  
  
• Book
  Smith's 1776 book Wealth of Nations is often associated with laissez-faire economics.
  
  
• Policies
  Laissez-faire economists support policies such as:
  • • Eliminating trade barriers
      
    • Eliminating government price controls
      
    • Allowing for near absolute freedom of contract
      
    • Reducing or eliminating government regulation
      

Laissez-faire became mainstream in the United States in the 19th century. However, it soon became apparent that this philosophy had problems, including: Large gaps in wealth distribution, Poor treatment of workers, and Lack of workplace safety.

In response, governments in most advanced countries began to become more involved in protecting the safety and concerns of the general population and workers. This led to the establishment of many factory laws and consumer protection laws

 

[Robert W]

I can see how you're not being that you're 86 years old and completely brainwashed by Western Cold-War, anti-socialist propaganda.

42 years bub. 42 years I was in your club. I was as wild ass wrong then as you are now.
Try reading the great book A Time for Truth by William E. Simon.

I was as brainwashed as a Democrat as you are right now. Only smart people like Tulsi Gabbard broke free as did the Greatest President of all times, Ronald Reagan. I voted for him and he was my first as a changed from Democrat to Republican. Thank god we had him as president.

 

[TruthNotBS]

42 years bub. 42 years I was in your club. I was as wild ass wrong then as you are now.
Try reading the great book A Time for Truth by William E. Simon.

I was as brainwashed as a Democrat as you are right now. Only smart people like Tulsi Gabbard broke free as did the Greatest President of all times, Ronald Reagan. I voted for him and he was my first as a changed from Democrat to Republican. Thank god we had him as president.

You're definitely brainwashed.

 

[Robert W]

You should read his book more often, and if you would, you'd know that he wasn't a right-wing neoliberal, nor a proponent of Milton Friedman, laissez faire capitalism.

Adam Smith certainly was just as Milton Friedman was. Both were great economists.

 

[Robert W]

You're definitely brainwashed.

Holy cow, you are the victim of being brainwashed.

 

[Robert W]

You're definitely brainwashed.

You don't know me at all.

When any talks as you talked to me, clearly you are who is brainwashed.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Adam Smith was in his grave when Milton Friedman was an expert economist.

AI Overview
Learn more


Adam Smith was an economist who supported the economic philosophy of laissez-faire, which advocates minimal government interference in the economy:

• Beliefs
  Smith believed that people are naturally self-interested and will work to meet their own needs, so the government should not interfere. He viewed the economy as a natural system, and the market as an organic part of that system.
  
  
• Book
  Smith's 1776 book Wealth of Nations is often associated with laissez-faire economics.
  
  
• Policies
  Laissez-faire economists support policies such as:
  • • Eliminating trade barriers
    • Eliminating government price controls
    • Allowing for near absolute freedom of contract
    • Reducing or eliminating government regulation

Laissez-faire became mainstream in the United States in the 19th century. However, it soon became apparent that this philosophy had problems, including: Large gaps in wealth distribution, Poor treatment of workers, and Lack of workplace safety.

In response, governments in most advanced countries began to become more involved in protecting the safety and concerns of the general population and workers. This led to the establishment of many factory laws and consumer protection laws

Adam Smith wrote in an era when industrialization was only just emerging, and his views on government intervention can’t be fairly compared to the contemporary strain of laissez-faire championed by Milton Friedman. Smith believed in letting markets work to allocate resources efficiently, but he also considered it the government’s role to provide public goods, prevent monopolies, and ensure basic fairness.

His moral philosophy, as laid out in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, places much more emphasis on empathy, social responsibility, and the importance of maintaining a moral framework than many of today’s self-described free market proponents would acknowledge. To claim that Smith fully endorsed a hands-off approach to every aspect of the economy ignores the nuance that runs through his work. He saw government regulation as necessary to keep competition fair, safeguard society from corporate abuses, and protect those who are most vulnerable. He championed freedom in commerce, but he did not call for an abdication of government responsibility to uphold justice and maintain social welfare.

Milton Friedman, by contrast, emerged in the mid-twentieth century, at a time when industrial capitalism had already produced massive corporations, more complex financial markets, and great concentrations of wealth. His approach to laissez-faire, which has often been described as neoliberal, had to contend with enormous private power, and in practice tended to concentrate more on cutting regulations than on balancing the scales between labor and capital. Friedman’s proposal for a negative income tax indicates he recognized that pure reliance on the market might fail to mitigate the worst effects of poverty. Indeed, he understood that society should provide a minimum standard of living for the poor, which is at odds with the simplistic idea that private enterprise, if simply left alone, would solve all social challenges.

But it’s also true that, in practice, many of the policies influenced by Friedman downplayed labor rights, weakened worker protections, and contributed to rising inequality. Without adequate regulation, capitalism spirals into cycles of exploitation, environmental degradation, and severe inequality. In the nineteenth century, laissez-faire economics left factory workers in horrendous conditions, toiling in unsafe environments for meager pay. Government intervention particularly in the form of labor laws, health and safety standards, and anti-monopoly regulations became necessary to avert social catastrophes and prevent revolutions.