Jump to content

laripu

Member
  • Content Count

    3,384
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tampa
  • Interests
    Beer and mead brewing. Making sausages, fresh cheese, lox, limoncello, Scotch eggs, Atholl Brose.

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Democrat

Profile Fields

  • Website URL
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,719 profile views
  1. Can you please share that understanding with us? Because I can't understand about 95% of males. And females. If you know something I don't, I'd like to read about it.
  2. laripu

    Political cartoons

    Just hilarious. ☺️
  3. Zero indictments for Hillary after 4 years of Benghazi investigation, and 2 years of email investigation. And 23 indictments after 14 months of the Mueller investigation. In a normal world, this means that whatever Hillary did (possible carelessness or possible incompetence) didn't sink to the level of crime, while what the Trump people have done is irredeemably corrupt. In Mendacious-Alternate-Facts-In-America world (acronym MAFIA, wouldn't you know?) that means that the government is a deep state conspiracy, totally in the bag for liberals and globalists. Because in the Mendacious-Alternate-Facts-In-America world, the facts are pulled out of someone's ass to support the conclusion they want to reach. You what would fix everything for the denizens of MAFIA world? Get rid of the whole government, elections and all, and have it all run by Don, Don Jr, and Kushner. They should all spend 20 to 30 years at ADX.
  4. laripu

    Political cartoons

    And her first language was French. She immediately learned English, and is now also fluent in Spanish. Canada would treat her with respect. Canadian pigeons would not be so kind.
  5. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    Completely true. Twenty three years ago, living in Canada, I would have been consider a slightly left of center centrist. Like on a scale of [-10,10], in Canada I was -0.1. Here in the US, I've always been a liberal. Say -3.5, roughly. I'm pretty much the same, politically, but the society is much more conservative.
  6. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    I couldn't see your link because it doesn't link to that page, so I copied the URL into a browser and got the NY Times ... but I'm not a subscriber so it wouldn't show me the article. Here's what I think about this. The amount of money made by people as a whole (the whole economy) represents, roughly not exactly, a measure of the robustness and productivity of the economy. Those billions represent value made by the companies. The billions should be there, but possibly taxed to some degree. The question is to what degree. The reason for accumulation of capital is so that it might be used in the creation of value. If there are people with large accumulations, they should be doing great things with that money, either building their companies or starting new ones. Elon Musk is a good example of someone using his money to do great things. (He may not be the perfect person, but the attempt to do great things is certainly there.) If you tax completely away great accumulations of wealth, then only the government can do great things. I think that's a mistake, because government is about safety and procedure and greatness takes imagination, nimbleness and daring. I'm for raising taxes. Maybe a one-time tax on net worth something like 10% for people with un-invested net worth above $50 million (i.e. sitting in a bank account or similar safe vehicle). Maybe more than one time to decrease the debt, which is now over $13 trillion. But I'm not in favor of abolishing billionaires by taxing away their net worth.
  7. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    Can't put anything past Bludog...
  8. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    So let's frame the question: How do you convince a group of smart billionaires that their lives would be better if everyone lived better? I think that between carrot and stick, stick won't work. Stick won't work. Stick is the situation where you bring up horrible past events like the French Revolution, like communism in Russia, China, Cuba, and tell them that if things get bad that could happen here. The reason I think this won't work is that firstly they'll correctly see that things aren't anywhere near as bad as the instances that gave rise to the various revolutions and that the "bread and circuses" situation is much better, and finally that the means of suppressing revolt are vastly improved. Add to that the fact that money is globally transferable and they have private jets, and we can conclude that the billionaire class has absolutely no fear of violent revolutions. Situations don't warrant one, they're more easy to suppress than in the past, and in the last resort you can get away to no-extradition Montenegro. (The ears of individual number 1 prick up at the sound of Montenegro.) Carrot might work. The carrot is harder to sell. It amounts to showing them the ugliness of poverty, and the tragedies that come from living so close to the edge of poverty. Then convincing them what can be done won't seriously hurt them financially. (In any way that makes any kind of difference in their lives. What's the difference in lifestyle between a net worth of $4 billion or a net worth of $3.6 billion? I contend: none.) Finally making it a point of pride and patriotism that they can play a part in a brave new world. Universal healthcare: Their big businesses won't have to be involved in the bureaucracy of health insurance Universal merit-based junior college and university education: Their labor pool will be better trained. The products will be more upscale. More money to be made exporting innovative products. A safer and healthier workplace: less time lost to illness or injury. Cleaner air and water, nationally: again, less time lost to illness. A workforce that makes a living wage: people with money to spend on the goods being produced. And the closer: A feeling of pride that they've done something not only profitable that benefits them, but also good for the country and morally right. So I'm going to disagree with you. The problem isn't how to achieve it. The problem is how do you get enough people with political savvy, idealism, and the technical intelligence they'll need to deal with the billionaires, and most importantly the courage and the will to start it and stick to it as a career. A new Golden Age won't be built in a day.
  9. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    And thus my point in another thread. Long term change in the US can probably not be accomplished through convincing the electorate. You might convince them for an election or two, then the other side wins and the gains revert. If you want long term change, you have to convince the people that really run things: the billionaires. You have to convince them that allowing the general population to have better lives is in their own, the billionaires', interest. I'm talking about universal healthcare, a living wage, safe and clean workplaces, universal merit-based education, environmental protection, clean energy. They will then advocate for those goals from their media. The billionaires will still be billionaires, just somewhat less 'billiony'. Everyone will live a better and more secure life. It's worked elsewhere, and the number of people to convince is much smaller. According to this website, in 2015, 5000 households had a net worth of over $100 million. There were, in 2016, 540 billionaires in the United States says Forbes. It's a lot easier to convince 5000 pretty smart people than it is to convince 250 million registered voters, at least half of whom are genetically predetermined fools.
  10. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    I like the chart. Most tea party supporters of Trump will say that anything to the left of the extreme right of the chart is biased left. They'll tell you for example, that the National Review are traitors that support the deep-state. You can't argue with someone who is simultaneously ill-intentioned and dim. They only time they'll stop supporting Trump will be when his policies directly hurt them, like with taxes. And if they can find a scapegoat, they'll still support him. Potential scapegoats: 1. Mexicans taking jobs 2. Illegal immigrants using tax dollars for welfare, prisons etc 3. Journalism (Trump says they're the lying press, the enemy of the people) 4. Scientists (Trump calls them liars about climate change, about which he knows more than the scientists, he says) 5. Military (Trump says he knows more than the generals) 6. Deep state (slow-walking dangerous Trump whims) 7. Black people, a perennial favorite. 8. Kushner (and by extension an imagined Jewish globalist conspiracy headed by Soros) 9. Adam Schiff (and of course the same imagined Jewish globalist conspiracy) I'm pretty sure he'll soon be throwing Kushner under the bus. I think Ivanka will stick with Daddy, and abandon hubby.
  11. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    Give the man a cigar. No wait, cigars are bad for you. Give the man a chocolate cigar. Godiva chocolate: tastes better than a Medieval naked woman on a horse.
  12. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    Thanks, Barney. Experience is what I was going on when I wrote it too. Since then, I've looked at a few web pages. See above.
  13. laripu

    Next test question for you guys

    You asked what to say to conservatives. I gave your an answer, an answer that I'd give in a similar conversation. I didn't look up sources, and wouldn't do so in a conversation. I'm guessing that if you really wanted sources, you could look them up yourself. But since you didn't, I'm guessing that you want me to do it, and then you'll find fault with them. Here. Have fun. https://slate.com/technology/2010/12/most-scientists-in-this-country-are-democrats-that-s-a-problem.html http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/02/18/why-are-scientists-so-often-liberal-in-political-outlook/#.XGB-PflOk0M https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_beliefs_of_academics https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/psychologists-looked-in-the-mirror-and-saw-a-bunch-of-liberals/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/08/02/surprise-70-of-economists-support-hillary-not-trump-but-70-of-economists-are-democrats-anyway/#50d357ad3fba https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/economists-arent-as-nonpartisan-as-we-think/ http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/43528.html https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-bias-left-study/ https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-other-half-of-america-that-the-liberal-media-doesnt-cover/ https://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/30/why-are-so-many-college-professors-politically-liberal https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/ https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/10/11/corrosion-of-conservatism-republican-gop-max-boot https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/395767-george-will-joe-scarborough-lead-midterm-exodus-from-gop Enough for you? Let the cherry-picking begin!! πŸ˜›πŸ˜„
  14. If it was common that men experienced pain when they didn't ejaculate for long periods, you'd have heard about it. Everything else of a sexual nature has been discussed to death in books and on the internet. From pubic warts to vaginal farts to asexiality to santorum. You also don't hear about men's penises falling off if they didn't ejaculate for long periods. And I don't need a link to support that claim. You know why? Because it doesn't happen with any frequency, and therefore no one talks or writes about it. But don't trust me. You should not trust me. If you experience pain, you should see a doctor. Maybe something is wrong, or maybe not. Let a competent professional determine whether anything is wrong.
×