HOME | DD

Freyad-Dryden In reply to VisionCat12345 [2017-10-12 18:54:27 +0000 UTC]

When wizards decide to really go after someone, it goes beyond Nightmare Fuel and into the realm of I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-23 00:43:53 +0000 UTC]

Something like that, yes.  I need to work out the specifics, though.  What did he end up seeing that made him decide to risk . . . well, a lot of really horrible shit (because wizard do nasty things to rebels, in the vein of "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream") to fight what might seem like a hopeless cause.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-23 04:24:13 +0000 UTC]

Have you read the Elminster series?
Long story short, only magic can beat magic because that's how D&D works. Same with Pathfinder and related RPGs.
So yeah, it's hopeless unless you can get equally powerful Clerics (or Druids if you're not going by the RPG rules) on your side.
I get why lots of books set in RPG-verses tend to have mage-purges in their histories or current times.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-23 15:04:30 +0000 UTC]

Nope, never read it.  The only Forgotten Realms books I've actually read are the first two Drizzt series (because everybody's read them, apparently), and the Cleric Quintet.
And as for magic defeating magic, yeah, I said Aldym has some powerful allies by virtue of the wizards making powerful enemies.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-23 18:48:41 +0000 UTC]

It's why I'm surprised non-mages haven't got guns yet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-23 19:52:00 +0000 UTC]

In some areas, they have.  The Republic of Dymacion has flintlock firearms.  And in Adun the military has developed rifles recently, but they keep tight control on who has access to them for fear of letting the enemy have their new tech (which won't last forever).  In Vasellio, though, they've outlawed firearms because they fear them being used against them, which goes to show that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, because they tried to outlaw crossbows for the same reason, a law that was entirely unenforceable and was part of the key to the successful rebellion that allowed Adun to come into existence.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-23 19:56:59 +0000 UTC]

Why would you put firearms in the hands of those who don't work for the government? Unless there's some pressing need it's the same as giving a more lethal version of Magic Missile to whoever can fire a gun.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-23 23:14:33 +0000 UTC]

That is the logic behind the decision in Vasellio, yes.  Don't want to let the citizenry arm themselves with weapons are lethal at a distance and take very little training to become good in, especially not when the citizens don't much care for you and there are a lot more of them than you.
Adun keeps the firearms strictly under military control because they don't want the secrets of their technology to fall into enemy hands.  Having a leg-up technologically is the only thing that gives them enough of an edge to keep from being retaken by the wizards.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-24 00:02:21 +0000 UTC]

Given the choice between "muggle" not that repressive dictatorship and a mageocracy where the only law is if you can cast spells, I'll go with the former.
You'd think the gods without Magic as a domain would be doing more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-26 18:08:16 +0000 UTC]

The only government in my setting that isn't oppressive (so long as you don't engage them in conversation) is Dymacion, and that's mostly because the current government's too bogged down in bureaucracy to really get directly involved in citizens lives.  Of course, that produces a whole host of other problems, but it's still probably the best place in the world to live, provided you either don't live too far north or are okay with incredibly cold and incredibly long winters.
And other gods are doing stuff, but the problem with immortals is that, being immortal, they have a completely different time scale that they're working on.  Also, there's a celestial bureaucracy as well; even gods have rules.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-27 01:20:54 +0000 UTC]

With the world you've built the governmental options include:
1. Small town that will get overrun the moment a mid-level threat turns its way.
2. Autocratic monarchy where you're 1 death away from an incompetent/bad Evil leader.
3. Monarchy with separated powers where the nobility jockey for power at the expense of the kingdom.
4. Guilded merchant city which isn't as defended as it should be and there's likely tons of corruption.
5. Scattered tribes where you're pretty much screwed the moment the local monsters decide they're hungry.
6. Scattered tribes where your options are limited to "raid or be raided."
7. Democracy/democratic republic which is in the wrong place at the wrong time and should do more about its military before one of the stronger nations comes knocking.
8. Dead because Goblins travel in groups and you didn't.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-27 19:24:12 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, that about covers all bases.
In fact, 1 death away from a bad leader is how Vasellio falls, eventually.  Even with enemies knocking at the gates, they're still plagued with little in-fights, secure in the belief that any outside force is a passing thing that won't leave a permanent impact.

Small point, it's not a democratic republic.  Dymacion is a republic, but there's no democracy involved.  There are senators, but they're usually more appointed than elected, and people can (though often don't) just go into the congress during any session and voice their complaints, making them temporary senators.  It's . . . got some foundational elements, but it's also missing some fine details.  The revolution of 1649 (I think, I don't have my world Bible on hand at the moment) was sort of a mess and a proper system wasn't fully hammered out after the overthrow of the previous government and the movement to correct many of the initial failings is . . . caught up in committee.

I'll be honest, I've been kind of playing it loose and fast with Dymacion's government.  The only thing I've ever needed from it specifically was for it to seem like a transitory government that outstayed it's usefulness, but lingered out of inertia and the people being to apathetic to really get it fixed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-27 20:27:48 +0000 UTC]

Appointed senators are basically temporary nobility, so they'd fall under #3.
Even a failing government can keep puttering along as long as the basic bureaucracy is in place, even if the citizens don't like it. Especially when there's no democratic means of removing it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-09-28 19:59:15 +0000 UTC]

And apathy also helps.  The people of Dymacion are basically comfortable with their situation because it's only been a generation and a half since the last revolution and a lot of people remember it being so much worse that, even though it could be better, they're just not ready to go through the steps needed to fix it up again.  Revolution fatigue.
In case it's not apparent, Dymacion's history is very loosely based on Russia.  Very loosely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-29 02:35:55 +0000 UTC]

Interestingly enough, the Russian Revolution actually did increase gender equality. The USSR had a more progressive society when it came to women than America.
Is that reflected in your version?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-10-04 02:36:32 +0000 UTC]

Kinda sorta.  Dymacion on the whole tends to be more "progressive" (in finger quotes because I generally find such terms to be overly broad and weirdly arbitrary) than most of the world on a number of issues.  Or, at least that is the intent, which they are very openly proud about.  In practice this tends to be more complicated, because a large section of their economy is kept afloat by the influence of the International Merchant League, which is controlled by Vaselliano noblemen.  So some of the major powers in the country, oh, yeah, they totally are all progressive and stuff, it's just coincidence that all the bosses are old, white guys (from another country altogether).  Oh, hey, look!  Here's a really nice piece of jewelry you can buy for your wife at a good price.  Very fine piece.  She'll love it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-10-04 03:41:58 +0000 UTC]

That would be a case of entrenched wealth and the inevitable result of a capitalist economy. Wealth is created, but it just goes to those who own the means of production.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-10-12 18:43:34 +0000 UTC]

In this case, it's really more an outside entity taking over the economic functions of another country at a time when that country was in a weak financial situation.  Sort of like what's happened basically all over South America if you dig into things.  The International Merchant League is basically a representation of my criticisms of multi-national corporations that have no loyalty to any specific country and use their wealth to exert damaging influence over other countries for their own benefits.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-10-12 23:11:55 +0000 UTC]

That's how capitalism works. Those with money pervert the system to get more money and it hurts everyone who isn't already secure at the top. It's just more noticeable when it's not happening to your country.
It's like fungus: it exists only to spread, rots whatever it gets its tendrils into, it thrives in dark places, while some kinds may be beneficial most aren't, and if you don't make an effort you'll lose your house.
Actually that gives me an idea for a city infested with a species of mushroom a mushroom that releases hallucinogenic spores that make the inhaler believe they're rich and living in luxury. Created by a Wizard working for a plutocratic city council, these mushrooms were released into the slums to stem discontent. Unfortunately it also made the working class stop working, and by the time the plutocrats realized what had happened the mushrooms had spread to the rest of the city and everyone died of apathy and neglect. People trying to loot the city often fall victim to the mushrooms, providing fertilizer for their spores.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-10-14 15:22:40 +0000 UTC]

No, that's how PEOPLE work.  There is no government style, no economic model that is immune to corruption.  If there's one thing history has made perfectly clear, it's that given enough time (about 200 years at most is my conclusion, based on my studies), every system of governance invented by the hand of man will be turned into a tool for the elite to oppress the common.  People are always looking for ways to place themselves above others and always will be.
Capitalism, socialism, whatever else you want to throw in there; they're all things that exist on borrowed time, like everything else in the world.  That's why Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants."  You can't put your faith in economic models and government systems, because these are human constructs and subject to all the flaws that come along with humanity.

Nice idea about the fungus.  You ought to do something with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-10-15 03:32:43 +0000 UTC]

"No, that's how PEOPLE work."
Which is why the system should have easier workarounds in case of corruption and ideas for change should be encouraged. You don't need the perfect system if it's capable of easy change when faced with a problem. Capitalism is a system that is based on the cause of corruption and creates perverse incentives from the start. Make it people's best interest for everyone to have their needs met and ensure they know that's the case and problems end up solved before they occur.

"Nice idea about the fungus. You ought to do something with it."
I might. At the moment I'm writing a story about an immortal dark lord who decides he'd rather give tours of his castle full of traps and monuments to his greatness in disguise than actually do anything really evil. So far it's going well.
"And this fresco details the moment when he invented sarcasm."
"Yeah right!" the crossbow bolt narrowly missed Jayden's left foot. There was a clicking sound as the trap rearmed itself.
"You get one warning shot."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-10-21 15:46:16 +0000 UTC]

The problem with this argument is that capitalism is an economic model, not a system of government.  The core idea of capitalism is that if you get your hands on some money, you should be able to do with it what you want.  It was meant to be an economic model to oppose the old aristocracy, which legally controlled all means of production.  There's nothing wrong with the core concept of capitalism.  But, like all economic models, it's supposed to be subject to the rule of law, controlled by the people through a representative government (a parliament, a congress, etc).  What we have today is where those models have reversed, where the economic model now dictates the actions of the government instead of the other way around, thus recreating the old aristocracy system.
Like I said, the real problem is a universal one; people are always looking for a way to put themselves above others.  No matter what system you establish, sooner or later it's going to be taken over by those who find a way to profit off of it.  The voting is supposed to be how we resist that, but what can't be helped is a society that has devalued voting to the point that half of us don't vote, and the half that does is composed of unthinking party loyalists who don't question what their party does but never fails to criticize the other party regardless of what it does.  It creates a scenario where the ruling elite can maintain their power through controled opposition.
The democratic system that was originally set in place does have lots of elements of checks on power.  It's really quite a fantastic system at the core, but for the past forty years, those checks have been slowly eroded by officials who feel secure in their position because we keep voting for them no matter what they do.  There was room for improvement, made all the easier now thanks to the development of modern communication methods (especially the internet), which is why you see that the government has been looking for a way to start beating down on the internet since the tail end of the Bush administration.  They don't like how easy it makes ideas to spread - ideas like, "Maybe these wars we're in, where we're killing thousands of innocent people simply because, oh, for example, the Syrian government doesn't want to allow a pipeline to be built through its country, might just be on the unethical side."  In fact, they'd rather we not know why they're pushing for war in the first place.  The internet removes the government's ability to completely control the narrative - an ability that Bill Clinton gave them with the Telecom Act of 1992, which deregulated the media and allowed five giant corporations to gain control of 90% of the media in this country (it is oh so much easier to bribe and buy out five corporations instead of  5000 companies).
See, for any system to work without abusing the people, the people need to be 1) educated; and 2) active participants in the electoral process.  In other words, you have to vote, and you have to know who your voting for.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-10-22 06:50:19 +0000 UTC]

"The internet removes the government's ability to completely control the narrative"
and instead puts it in the hands of anyone able to use a computer. It's how we got Russian tampering, hives of proponents of militant apathy and bigotry, and Facebook being used for social experiments. Your views on history tend to ignore the Razors belonging to Hitchens, Occam, and Hanlon. I'm not trying to insult you, I just don't see how you're making the connections you are.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2017-11-03 16:02:17 +0000 UTC]

It's better for the narrative to be in the hands of more people than less.  When the government controls the narrative, then narrative becomes propaganda.  It is up to people to use discerning judgment about what they read, not the responsibility of the government to tell us what we should believe.  What you are saying is that because you disagree with some speech (bigotry, apathy, etc), that the government should stamp out that speech and control the narrative.  But that doesn't work.

When you allow the tools of censorship to be created, all you are doing is guaranteeing that they will be used against you.  The first amendment is not absolute because all speech is good, it is absolute because the temptation to ban speech is so great that only a blanket forbidden will prevent its abuse.  Those hives of bigotry you refer to have the right to exist because our first amendment guarantees us the right to our own individual beliefs and the right to express them.  As long as they aren't breaking laws, the government has no right to tell them what to say and believe, just as it has no right to tell you to believe other than how you do.

Right now, right this very moment, the government is using this McCarthyist hysteria to go after actual progressives.  Do you support Black Lives Matter?  Well, then you are a Russian troll or were influenced by them.  Did you oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline or the Keystone XL Pipeline?  Russian!  Did you support Bernie Sanders?  RUSSIAN!  Do you support an end to the endless wars instigated by the government in the Middle East over the petrodollar?  RUSSIAN, HOW DARE YOU!!!  This is nothing more than a revival of cold war rhetoric to scare us into shutting down our critical thinking faculties so they can more easily discredit people who disagree with the narrative they want to sell.  Another little fact?  The Saudi Arabian prince is a majority shareholder in Twitter and he has used his position to censor people who try to talk about progressive movements in Saudi Arabia, feminist movements especially.  But hey, Saudi Arabia lets women drive cars now, so that means sexism is over, right?

When you allow the tools of censorship to be created, all you are doing is guaranteeing that they will be used against you.

I am making the connections I have because I have studied different parts of history.  I have seen these patterns before.  Ever since the end of WWII, the United States has been ramping up its imperialistic trends.  Right now, our country is on the verge of collapse because we cannot support our own military and the only thing that has allowed it to last this long is an artificial extension by borrowing money from outside sources.  The moment those sources decide to call those debts in, the US will implode.  And the only ones who benefit from these countless imperial wars are the wealthy elite who use them to strip poor nations of what little wealth they hold.  But even with this artificial extension, it cannot continue.  No empire has ever truly lasted more than three generations (even the Holy Roman Empire never managed it; what people call the thousand years of rule was actually four or five different empires that rose and fell over its history).  Empires do not work because they grow too large to be supported.

And it's not a partisan issue because both parties do it.  Not but a month ago, there was a bill that rushed through Congress that gave President Trump UNLIMITED UNILATERAL POWER to conduct war without congressional approval.  There was no discussion on the floor and only 8 people opposed it.  Four Republicans, three Democrats, and one independent.  That's right, more Republicans opposed giving Trump unlimited war powers than Democrats did.  And among the Democrats who supported this was Elizabeth Warren, someone who Democrats like to think of as a person who stands for what's right.  So, there's your Hashtag-Resistance.

Go further back, to 2013, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which contained in it a provision that grants the military unilateral power to arrest and detain citizens accused of terrorism and hold them indefinitely, without trial.  By signing it, Obama repealed Habeus Corpus (your right to a public trial), a principle in the Magna Carta, setting the state of our government back to the 1100s.

This behavior from the Democrats goes back to at least the tail end of Bush Sr.'s administration.  After the Republicans had won three straight elections, a committee was formed by the old guard Dems who decided that the Democratic party had become too liberal and that, in order to win, they had to move back towards "the center."  What they did was move more to the right.  And the first candidate they threw out was Bill Clinton, who was more like a Republican than any previous Republican candidate in all ways except rhetoric.
Don't believe?  Well, read this article here from what my crazy uncle would call a "liberal rag."  www.currentaffairs.org/2016/04…

It focuses mainly on the way he talked about doing good for black communities while constantly instituting policies that devastated them.  To quote the article itself, "No president in the history of the United States has done more damage to the African-American community while cynically pretending to be its friend."  But it's more than just the way he devastated the black community and created the privatized prison system.  He promised to protect workers, but was every bit as anti-union in his policies as Reagan was, and set in place NAFTA, a bill that highly favors corporations over workers and has in it a provision that allows corporations to sue governments for passing laws that protect workers.  And let's not forget the TPP that Obama tried to push through Congress, which had a provision that allowed corporations to sue governments for passing environmental protection laws.  All of these are direct contradictions to his own promises and the party's stated agenda.

And just recently, the New York Board of Elections admitted that it illegally purged 200,000 voters from the registration during the primaries, which prevented them from voting.  And who were these 200K voters?  They were Bernie Sanders supporters.  During the 2004 election, a nearly equal amount of people had been purged from the voter registration in Florida, swinging the state in favor of Bush.  The NAACP had gathered the evidence to prove it had happened and all they needed was for Congress to sign onto an investigation.  Not only did Al Gore (and every other Democrat in the Senate) refuse to sign it, Al Gore told the NAACP to sit down and shut up, while Congress APPLAUDED.  Why?  Because, in exchange for not pursuing the election fraud case, the major oil companies who backed Bush had promised Al Gore major shares in their companies, ensuring he would become filthy rich.  Yup, the anti-global warming candidate threw the election so he could take money from the fossil fuel industry.

I'll say what I've been saying for years once again: the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is rhetoric.  Policy-wise, they are the same party.  There is no "lesser evil."  There is just evil and its controlled opposition.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-11-03 21:51:41 +0000 UTC]

"What you are saying is that because you disagree with some speech (bigotry, apathy, etc), that the government should stamp out that speech and control the narrative."
I am not.

"The first amendment is not absolute..."
The 1st Amendment is not absolute: Period. There are exceptions because the Supreme Court has recognized that freedoms inevitably clash.

"Those hives of bigotry you refer to have the right to exist because our first amendment guarantees us the right to our own individual beliefs and the right to express them."
No, they exist because bigots have areas where they can seal themselves off from the world. When The Daily Stormer got kicked off the platform it was using there was one less.

Your comment on Russian agents is nonsensical.

"When you allow the tools of censorship to be created..."
They exist regardless. Capitalism is a more powerful silencer than government.

"The moment those sources decide to call those debts in, the US will implode."
But they won't due to their own self-interest.

"And it's not a partisan issue because both parties do it..."
That's not what happened.

"Go further back, to 2013..."
You keep making these sweeping claims and then can't back them up. And the Magna Carta gave more power to the nobility, not the people.

"Bill Clinton, who was more like a Republican than any previous Republican candidate in all ways except rhetoric."
No, I don't believe. And your source does nothing to change that given its hyperbole, sensationalism, and blatant dishonesty. As one counterexample: Reagan.

"And just recently, the New York Board of Elections..."
Unsourced allegations again. I refuse to address any claim of this sort that has no evidence beyond your assertion.

"I'll say what I've been saying for years once again: the only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is rhetoric.  Policy-wise, they are the same party.  There is no "lesser evil."  There is just evil and its controlled opposition."
On Civil Rights, the Democrats are on the right side. On science, they are on the right side. On Economics they are on the right side. On Healthcare. etc, etc, etc. You're a radical centrist, not a realist.

I like you, but I refuse to compromise on truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Freyad-Dryden In reply to 4eyes0soul [2018-01-12 23:19:54 +0000 UTC]

I've been holding off logging on for a while, trying to calm myself down.  It's always bothersome when I have episodes, but nothing is going ot calm me down at this point.  Because constant reminders crop up every day in the news.  I didn't want to come back on until I felt I could handle it without letting myself get upset, but it's clear that just holding off isn't going to make it better.
You aren't the only reason for my long absence, it's just been a minor contributing factor.

You see, you touched a nerve.  "I don't know where you get your research."  I hear that from my mother all the time.  She's a diehard Bush apologist.  No point I can possible bring up will make her admit that Bush was a terrible president. Every time I bring up a fact that is unequivocal, she says, "I don't know where you're getting your research," or "You're just reading the wrong sources."  See, to me, "You're reading the wrong sources" is code for "You're reading sources I disagree with and that makes you wrong."

Like you, she refuses to compromise on truth.  She's used those exact words.

You want sources?  Let me provide some.

Voters purged from the New York elections: www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/… Right there.  They have also admitted that it was illegal for them to do so.  I got the numbers wrong.  It was 126K not 200K.  Bad rounding error on my part.

You claim Reagan as a counter example to Clinton.  That doesn't answer any criticism that the article I linked to levied, nor does claiming hyperbole, becuase everything in that article is something that happened.  So what if Reagan was bad?  My point has always been that there is no difference between the two.  You can try and throw this or that Republican at me, but that's ignoring what I'm getting at.  Don't forget, I LIVE in a conservative state.  I know what conservatives - especially the higher ups in the party - do better than you ever will.  I've been trying for ten years to get the bastard who's our senator booted out for the shit he's pulled - shit like the dumping of nuclear waste in the desert, or neutering the FDA to allow companies to get away with peddling snake-oil by claiming it's a "health supplement," and quite a laundry list of other crimes.  But nope, the guy is finally gone, not becuase the people saw he was not acting in their interest, but because he got old and decided to retire this year.  The guy should be in jail for a couple of bribery cases, but instead he's retiring with full honors.  *spits* Party loyalists.  "He's the lesser evil."  Yeah, sure.  And you've got the a Brooklyn Bridge you want to sell me, too, I bet.

Clinton's record on civil rights is abysmal.  He exploded the prison population, leading the crime against humanity that is our privatized prison system.  A system which the democrats have made no effort to stop.  Let's not forget that BLM movement started under Obama.  The Occupy Wall Street protests started under Obama.  He professed support, but did nothing about it.

While on the subject of the Clintons and civil rights, let's talk about Hillary Clinton's racist 3 AM phone ad that she used agianst Barack Obama in her campaign: www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opi…  Or how about the fact that she spread of photo of Obama in African attire to scare people away from him: www.politico.com/story/2008/02…  Or how about the way she called black youth super-predators: youtu.be/j0uCrA7ePno (and that's a CSPAN clip coming right out of her own mouth).

On economics, you talk about capitalism like it's the source of all the world's evils.  Well, here's right out of Nancy Pelosi's own mouth: www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/n… "We're capitalist."

youtu.be/HOuq5XcVIss Obama's own words: "If this were the 1980s, I'd be a moderate Republican."

Hell, Obama's first act as president was to bail out the criminals who caused our economic collapse using the taxpayers' money.  The bank bailouts were an atrocity, becuase we let criminals off the hook, insuring that they will do it again becuase they know they can get away with it.  And the laws on the books have solutions to this.  What you do, when the banks declare bankruptsy, the president orders an asset freeze, so that all the money in the banks remains there.  Nobody can access it.  Then, you break the banks up and auction them off to the highest bidder (with the stipulation that no single person can buy up a bank outside of a limited region - the legal language on that needs to be worked out, but it can be done).  Once the banks are auctioned off, you open the banks again.  That way the banks are broken up (like they need to be) and then you're free to prosecute the criminals who caused the collapse as a warning to anyone who might think of doing that again.  President FDR did something very similar during the Great Depression (minus the prosecution, but that was a somewhat different situation).  But nope, gotta bail out those banks.  And then, not a month after he's out of office, those same banks pay him $100K to speak.  But that's not bribery, obviously, that's just what all presidents do (Nevermind that Jimmy Carter has never done it).  And if all presidents do it, it can't be bribery becuase that would mean all presidents are bribed (incidentally, that's exactly my point).

Not to mention that Obama made the Bush-era tax cuts permanent, just as the next president of this country (who will be a Democrat if that party does not collapse due to its own incompetance before then (fingers crossed)) will make Trump's tax cuts permanent.  Becuase that is what the corporate lobbyists pay the democrats to do.  Republicans NEVER negotiate, but Democrats ALWAYS do, just as their corporate owners desire.

observer.com/2017/05/kimberly-… and observer.com/2017/08/lobbyists…

^ In California - supposedly the bastion of liberal politics - the superdelegates used their influence to boot the candidate that the people voted for and installed a lobbyist from the pharmaseutical industry.

Health care?  Do you know why health costs are so high?  It's because the insurance giants basically have pressured hospitals and medical institutions into raising the prices to match discounts they've demanded.  It's a scheme designed to keep the price rising.  Obama's health care bill does nothing to reverse that problem.  Instead, it acts as if the problem was that not everyone has insurance, ignoring the fact that it is the insurance industry's bullshit that's made health care costs so high that they require insurance - oh, and it's a boon to the insurance giants because it requires everyone to have health insurance or be fined.  I'm leaning onto the idea of medicare for all at the moment as the solution, simply because . . . well, frankly, we've tried several other things and none of them have worked.  Might as well try it.  But the Democrats are as hugely against the idea as the Republicans are.  They argue about the costs - but then unanimously pass a bill increasing the military budget by 80 billion (with a B) over the next few years with no argument at all.

The amount of money the Democrats take from the very corporations you AND I condemn for their abuses is staggering.  But go ahead, just like every other party loyalist, tell me how that's either a lie, or how them taking corporate money doesn't influence their behavior.

And the Russian investigation is Mcarthyist in every sense.  Here's a quick article right here.  This happened just a couple weeks ago: tytnetwork.com/2017/12/27/anyo…  Anyone of Russian decent is an acceptable target to investigate.
youtu.be/noeHv71g9ls Russiagate using media pundits to target BLM and DAPL protestors.  This Mcarthyist scare is being used to target and stigmatize people who dissent from the state department's agenda.  And soon, it will be used to criminalize dissent.

And all of this is at the expense of things that they SHOULD be talking about. Here, NDAA (which Obama signed, that grants the military the power to indefinitely imprison US citizens without trial) www.aclu.org/blog/national-sec… right there from the ACLU.  Well, Trump, with support from several people in congress, is already mulling over sending that guy who ran over a bunch of people in New York to Guantanamo Bay under this provision.  No trial.  I haven't checked back on that one, so I'm not sure if that's actually been done yet.  That's the sort of thing we should be focusing on.  That's the sort of thing we should be beating Trump with, but instead, reporters queued up on Twitter to explain why it's a good thing that we should send American Citizens to Guantanamo Bay.

One more bit, this happened just recently.  A bipartisan bill passed with support of nearly all the democrats authorizing the continued use or warrentless surveilance on all electronic communications: youtu.be/Q_rqWI6N5s8

There IS NO DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats.  Policy-wise, they are the same.  Their rhetoric may be different, but when push comes to shove, they both sign onto the same bills that abuse the citizens of this country for the favor of the megacorporations and the military industrail complex.

And I am not a centrist, for the record.  For starters, I deny that the left-right paradigm has any meaning.  The division of issues between left and right is largely arbitrary and there is no reason why the issues should be linked.  What does abortion have to do with gay rights, for example?  But the left-right paradigm would have you believe that if I vote one way on one of those issues, I must also vote a certain way on the other, as if the two were linked.  They are not.
What I am is independant.  Radical?  I'll give you that.  I'm radical as fuck.  But I spit the left-right paradigm.  I look at each issue individually.  On some issues, I am what you would call left leaning.  On others, you might say I'm right leaning.  On a couple, I lean towards what's called the center.  By your definition of the system, I might lean slightly more to the left.

But at the end of the day, I consider only three issues to be of vital importance.

First and foremost: the dismantaling of the military industrial complex and the reduction of US imperial trends.  The war is bankrupting us.  And yes, our debters will call those debts in.  Do you know why?  Petrodollar.  Right now, international law requires all oil to be traded in US dollars.  That means that there's a lot of US currency floating around in the world.  But the US's irresponsible foreign policy over the last fifty years has reduced trust in our currency.  Several small countries have already broken off with teh practice and sold US dollars back to us.  If our imperialist trends continue, more countries will begin selling US currency back to us just becuase they have lost faith in its value.  When it reaches a certain point, the value of the dollar will begin to drop because there's suddenly so much more cash in circulation.  At that point, everyone's going to start dumping the US currency and it will all come back, leading to hyperinflation.  Our international creditors are watching like hawks and I expect that they'll call in the debts within the next decade just to avoid loosing money when the US dollar inevitably crashes.

Furthermore, our foreign policy has done nothing but create enemies.  Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both trained by CIA.  The current leader of Iran came to power by overthrowing a dictator who had previously overthrown Iran's democratic government with the help of the CIA.  The taliban in Afganistan was put in power and supplied with weapons by the US in an effort to box Russia in.  Our constant "intervention" in the Middle East is directly responsible for the negative public opinion in that region that led to the creation of terrorist groups like Al-Quaeda.  ISIS rose to power in the collapse of Libya (Obama's fault, by the way, he's openly admitted that and called it his biggest mistake).  Every major threat this country has faced is of our own creation, due to acts of sufficiently advanced incompetance on the part of our foreign policy.

Second issue: dismantling the privatized prison system.  Allowing private companies to run prisons for profit has created a scenario where there is incentive to imprison people.  You know what, watch Adam Ruins Everything's episode on the prison system if you need to know all the reasons why this one is important.  It's a solid episode, though it actually misses some of the truly horrible atrocities, like the fact that some of them still have eugenics programs.

Part of this is ending the drug war.  I'm not wholly in favor of legalizing all drugs (certain ones should definitely have criminal penalties attatched to their sale simply becuase of the astounding negative affects they have), but I am fully in favor of decriminalizing use and posession because, as Jimmy Carter said, "The punishment for drug abuse should not be worse than the actual neggative effects of drug use."  Also a part of this, repealing the law that strips felons of their right to vote.  This turns our prison system into a way to disenfranchise people.  And, becuase of the way our prison system works, it mostly disenfranchises blacks and latinos.  I would say that not only should felons have the right to vote, it should be required by law that prisons provide inmates with access to materials to research candidates and that they be required to vote while interred.

We also need a severe overhaul of what constitutes an offense deserving of a prison sentence, but that's more complicated than I care to go into just now.

Third issue: a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on congress and some kind of law imposing criminal penalties on congressmen who retire to become lobbyists.  But that last part is one that I'm not sure how to accomplish, becuase passing such a law requires congress to be on board with a supermajority and you and I both know that congress isn't going to pass a law that takes away benefits from itself.

All other issues are petty social issues and I don't consider them worthy of the attention heaped on them while those three foundational problems remain in place.

And all this out of capitalism, you claim.  My point, initially, was that EVERY system has its problems, becuase they're all invented by human hands.  Capitalism has its problems, but our government isn't capitalism.  That's our economic model.  Our government is a democratic republic and if we didn't vote for predatory capitalists and people who are bought off by them, it wouldn't matter. Proof?  Do you know why FDR was elected four times?  Because when he took office, the unions got together and met with him in the White House and told him straight up, "If you don't do something about the joblessness, and the abuse of the working class, there will be blood in the street."  And so, under pressure from the unions, FDR began an aggressive campaign of job creation, increased taxation of the corporate powers, and the establishment of the social saftey nets of medicare and social security.  He didn't do it because capitalism went away, he did it because his electorate told him straight up that if he did not, the results would be devastating.

Conversely, look at China and Russia.  Both countries that overthrew their essentially capitalist governments to establish communism (it's a bit more complicated in China).  Both turned into horribly abusive governments within a single decade.  And while the purpose of capitalism you may dispute, if you've read ANYTHING at all about communism, then you know that it's purpose was to take away the power of the monetary elite to abuse citizens.  But they still turned into their own dictatorships.  Because that is how all governments go over time, unless there is a concerted effort by the people to keep the government in line.  By social contract philosophy, it is the role of government to secure the rights of its citizens, but in practicality, you can only keep what you keep by force, and the government must be forced by its citizenry to secure its rights.  The ultimate cause of this country's decline is not, in the direct sense, capitalism - though the rampant, unregulated capitalism that has built up over the last 50 or so years has certainly played a role in speeding up the process.  The cause of our decline is that we, the voters, have not taken our reponsibility seriously.  We put our faith in parties, blindly voting for them and coming up with whatever excuse we need to ignore when the party we've attached ourselves to violates the law.  Pary loyalty now trumps all principles.  So what if the Democrats take corporate money, because REPUBLICANS!  So what if Republicans have sponsored war after war, because DEMOCRATS!  And while we were so busy fighting with each other over which was the lesser evil, the corporations bought both.

We could have stopped this with our votes, but we didn't.  Capitalism isn't to blame for this situation.  

WE are.

And if we removed capitalism now, the same people who run the system would still be in charge, but we'll have given the government the power and authority to set prices.  Then, the corporations will use that power to set prices that favor them while crushing small, indepentant businesses and individuals.

Is there a better economic model than capitalism?  Possible.  Capitalism, like every other economic model proposed, was based on theories about how things would work; theories developed by human minds.  There are things about capitalism in its pure theory that, in practice, turn out not to actually work they were expected to.  And many of the measurement tools we use in the capitalist sytem are inadequate to actually measure the state of the economy.  The GDP, for example.  The GDP does not work at all.  AT ALL.  Our GDP was ridiculously high all throughout the recession. Hell, our GDP was still higher than most of the rest of the world during the Great Depression.  I dismiss out of hand any argument made that's based on the GDP because it's never been an accurate predictor of how good an economy is actually doing, how well off the people are, or when trouble is on the horizon.

But you want ot remove capitalism?  Well, what's your alternative?  And how will you impliment it?  And who will you trust to regulate it?  If you ahve no alternative (as many don't), then don't tear something down.  If you don't have a plan for implimenting it, your alternative is useless.  And if you trust the wrong people to regulate it, you are merely hading the crown from one tyrant to the next - and the next one will be even worse.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

4eyes0soul In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2018-01-13 02:34:30 +0000 UTC]

...you do realize the problems you're claiming were caused or exacerbated by capitalism, right? I mean you obviously don't since you're claiming otherwise but it's just weird to see it.
Those Wall Street 'criminals' did it because it made them fat stacks of cash. Which they then used to corrupt the democratic process. Like it's been done for centuries. Private prisons: because it makes money. The War on Drugs: because it makes money. War: money. Fucking idiotic healthcare: because the insurance companies make bank. It's because profit is more important than people. You know what countries don't have these problems? Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the other countries where they tore as much capitalism out of their system as possible.
China was never communist,the USSR used the wrappingbut all it did was move capitalism to the State, what's next, you'll claim North Korea is communist? Here's a hint: applying a label to yourself doesn't work if it doesn't fit. North Korea is communist the same way it's a democratic people's republic. You want to know what I want? Make living comfortably a right rather than a privilege of the wealthy. The idea that private ownership means a capitalist's wealth is earned is a pernicious lie. It's stealing the labor of those who actually do the work and paying them far less than their work is worth. You'd know what estrangement of the worker from his labor was if you'd read the Communist Manifesto.
As for both Parties being the same: nope. One Party ended slavery. One Party passed the Civil Rights Act. One Party has fought with varying levels of ferocity against the Republican effort to Americans of their rights. But like Libertarians always do you only see it in terms of economics. You'll cry over the poor factory owner because the union forced him to pay a living wage without asking yourself why a worker shouldn't be able to live on his work. You'll claim both Parties are the same because the cries of women and minorities fall on deaf ears. Or you believe the myth that each person has the ability to choose their location. The lie that the 'free market' and 'voting with your feet/money' is able to solve anything.
You want to know why I know more than you? It's because I seek more information and refine my knowledge learn more while you scream about your golden hammer and wonder why the free market never seems to fix anything. Capitalism is corrosive to democracy because it puts the power in the hands of the owners. Have you seen Norwegian prisons? Heard about how they solved their drug problem? Wondered why a country like ours that spends more on its military than any other country is so far behind the others? Money. The toxic effects of capitalism because fuck everyone else if you can get a little more green.
Have you even read the platform of the libertarian party? If you've got an hour you'll see why people view Libertarians as nutjobs. www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgXd3r…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Freyad-Dryden In reply to ERA-7 [2017-09-22 15:36:09 +0000 UTC]

Be sure to fave the original artist.  The story is mine, but the art is commissioned.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ERA-7 In reply to Freyad-Dryden [2017-09-22 15:43:01 +0000 UTC]

Already done!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0