I suspect it's a third world city in Central or South America. San Diego and Tijuana are close, but not that close.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I suspect it's a third world city in Central or South America. San Diego and Tijuana are close, but not that close.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
No border. Just the usual divide between the rich and the poor. Capitalism creates a few wealthy people and lots of poor. Different degrees in different countries. (I don't know where that picture was taken. Not San Diego/Tijuana which has a very well defined border... check out Google maps.)
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I get it. Sorry I just have a thick skull. Yeah the American Dream is to get from left to right through hard work, dedication and industriousness right?
Brando
Active Member
No, there's actually already a wall between San Diego and Tijuana. I think it is just an illustration of income inequality in action. I would be interested in exactly where it is... my guess is somewhere entirely in Mexico, which is a capitalist democracy.
They are that close, just mostly it isn't houses on the San Diego side.The airport at the bottom is Tijuana International, and San Diego Municipal airport (Brown Field, not Lindburgh which is the main one) is just off the top of the photo. The border appears as a fine yellow line. There is now a pedestrian bridge, you can walk from the US to Tijuana airport.
Well said, as usual. There's a lot of empirical evidence to support policies like Denmark's at the 70% level in polls. Some, particularly on the right complain that Denmark and others have the highest tax rates in the world. The implication being, to a fiscal conservative Dem like myself to ask, "why aren't you willing to pay for what you get?" Apparently, as you show but were too kind to label it, that is why Reps are for deficit spending on tax "expenditures" for the wealthy and for defense, and try to finesse the cost to widely popular programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Some others of the booboisie need leadership (education) to see the light. That's why education, science, a free press are targeted by the right everywhere. Here, voting systems as well. This whole i.d. issue is just a con.
bhtooefr
Active Member
Another factor in all of this, that strengthens your point, is the New Democrats strategy that Clinton used (along with a bit of luck in the form of Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote), which basically boiled down to... be pre-Nixon Republicans.
This just meant that the Republicans had even more control of the narrative, though, because now the Democrats were moving right, to one of their own positions...
This sounds like good news the right turn is correcting.
Democrats Overhaul Controversial Superdelegate System
If memory serves the superdelegate system change came in response to the McGovern loss in 1972.
Democrats Overhaul Controversial Superdelegate System
If memory serves the superdelegate system change came in response to the McGovern loss in 1972.
Brando
Active Member
With modern communication systems [phone, cell, internet] we could easily bye-pass a representative system and have a much more direct participation in our government policies. John Judge - some very very good ideas - the best IMHO. Vote on actual policies NOT representatives. You can NOT afford representatives only the rich can.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Going from right to left would seem the preferred direction in that picture.
Brando
Active Member
I haven't time to view the entire video, the way he starts by going back in time to set the stage resonates with my understanding. I think we've been an imperialistic power for a long time, whether demonstrated by what happened to the original inhabitants of the Continent, aboriginal here and in Hawaii, and with the Mexican-American War, or what he labels the economic imperialism which William Appleman Williams dates to the Open Door Notes leading up to the Spanish-American War. It's not just a phenomenon which starts with national security during World War II. I remember two stories a physics prof told when i was at MIT in the fifties. He told a story about a young physicist at a cocktail party who said something about how we should build an atomic bomb around 1943 or so. The next day he was called into the president's office and met with the FBI. The prof was also doing consulting with Eastman Kodak at about the time of the Alamogordo Tests. He knew what was hurting their film but couldn't tell them what he knew because he was with the Manhattan Project.
I am extremely skeptical about popular vote on policies. Best evidence here is what happens in Proposition votes in California. I remember in graduate school profs worrying about the Referendum power of the French President when the Fifth Republic was formed. Don't know if it has been abused in that country. Finally, what Jefferson believed is probably correct: democracy only works when you have an informed electorate. That's why we need a better educated public. That might happen with a charismatic leader from the left, what Thomas Piketty called for, "a handsome Bernie Sanders." I'm very worried about the 2020 election where the usual suspects may divide the left as so often happens. Hence the recent action changing superdelegate status is encouraging. As with TSLA, however, no guarantees.
Brando
Active Member
"... Jefferson is probably correct: democracy only works when you have an informed electorate. That's why we need a better educated public."
And why we need a truthful news media - or at least competition and NOT government enforced monopolies. And no cross ownership of media outlets. Who benefitted from "removing those regulations"?
And who benefits when getting higher education costs as much as houses and kids need to borrow the money at higher rates than car loans or house loans? How'd did the boomers allow that to happen?
End of Empire seems the logical following step.
Wake up. Khan Academy
Really is no teaching - only learning. Teacher can only mentor/inspire.
OR causing weariness and restlessness through lack of interest - remove curiosity out of kids.
Last edited:
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
It amazes me how much thought time and effort is put into deep discussions about differing types of governing all the while completely ignoring the basics and the heal to toe of what people in governments are actually doing.
Does anyone really think there is that much difference in the motivation of those in power in China, Russia and the US? Sure, there are varying degrees, but the motivations appear similar to me.
People, by their nature, have both good and bad within them. What we collectively value determines who we are. Its kind of a moral thing; not the get it at church from someone on a pulpit moral thing but more an angle on one shoulder devil on the other which do you pick moral thing.
The Dems and Rep both spend money they do not have to buy their base. I've heard the argument that Rep let me keep money I made while Dems give a cell phone to Suzy who does not work. Yea, there is a small distinction there but, ultimately, my daughter gets the bill for what both of them have provided to their constituents. We get the government we deserve and, right now, are values are "what do I get out of it?".
Solutions are easy if not simple.
Curb ilegal immigration by putting rich people in jail for paying illegals. If rich people are being put in jail, those who are not rich will get the hint. No money to live on, illegal immigration goes down.
Reduce corruption in politics by making the third leg of politics illegal. People go into public service for Power (needed as that is what we put them in), a sense of duty (public service which is normally a good motivation) and money. Make money illegal in politics and we will be back to discussing honestly who we want to be.
I could go on an on but, if you do not get the above points, there really is no sense to continuing.
We managed to buy our way out of 2008 without learning the lessons we learned from the great depression. Sooner or later we will get into a situation where we can not buy our way out. We will either recover from that after much pain or we will not. It does not seem we humans are capable of avoiding it.
All the rest of the high minded in depth analysis is spinning your wheels if you neglect the basics.
Does anyone really think there is that much difference in the motivation of those in power in China, Russia and the US? Sure, there are varying degrees, but the motivations appear similar to me.
People, by their nature, have both good and bad within them. What we collectively value determines who we are. Its kind of a moral thing; not the get it at church from someone on a pulpit moral thing but more an angle on one shoulder devil on the other which do you pick moral thing.
The Dems and Rep both spend money they do not have to buy their base. I've heard the argument that Rep let me keep money I made while Dems give a cell phone to Suzy who does not work. Yea, there is a small distinction there but, ultimately, my daughter gets the bill for what both of them have provided to their constituents. We get the government we deserve and, right now, are values are "what do I get out of it?".
Solutions are easy if not simple.
Curb ilegal immigration by putting rich people in jail for paying illegals. If rich people are being put in jail, those who are not rich will get the hint. No money to live on, illegal immigration goes down.
Reduce corruption in politics by making the third leg of politics illegal. People go into public service for Power (needed as that is what we put them in), a sense of duty (public service which is normally a good motivation) and money. Make money illegal in politics and we will be back to discussing honestly who we want to be.
I could go on an on but, if you do not get the above points, there really is no sense to continuing.
We managed to buy our way out of 2008 without learning the lessons we learned from the great depression. Sooner or later we will get into a situation where we can not buy our way out. We will either recover from that after much pain or we will not. It does not seem we humans are capable of avoiding it.
All the rest of the high minded in depth analysis is spinning your wheels if you neglect the basics.
The United States became a regional power prety quickly. The Monroe Doctrine was an announcement of that. It really was the dominant world power by the end of WW I, but didn't want the job so the French and British mucked up the peace. If the League of Nations had listened to Wilson, WW II may not have happened.
World powers have been guilty of some pretty horrendous stuff over time. Ghengis Khan's Mongols, the Romans, even the British had a worse track record as a world power as the US. The likely replacement for the US would probably be worse for the world than the US was. Could the US have done better? Absolutely! But it was the best of a bad list.
The 1st amendment allows anyone free political speech within limits. I think another limit that should be put on that is the definition of "news". If someone is reporting the facts of what's going on as factually as possible and does a fair measure to report corrections when they get that wrong, that's news. The same program or channel can opine on the news if they want, but it has to be labeled as something else. Back in the day when a news anchor opined on the news, they would put a graphic on screen that said "Opinion".
Most people are incapable of telling the difference between a logical argument and a baseless assertion, we need to be able to tell the people who don't understand the difference.
Actual illegal immigration from Mexico has just about dried up because their economy is doing good enough people don't have to go off searching for work. Most of the people crossing the southern border today are refugees fleeing the chaos US drug policies have created in Central America.
If the US legalized and regulated illegal recreational drugs (like some states have done with marijuana), the money driving Central American and South American gang activity would dry up and it would be a hit to those countries' economies, but it would take away those violent gangs' reason for existence and they would fall apart.
Most illegals that do come to the US are looking to do the work native born Americans won't do. If you can get unemployed white people to pick lettuce, then there would be less need for immigrant labor, but they won't. The one thing GW Bush proposed I agreed with was a guest visa program for seasonal workers, but that was less popular than taking all the billionaires' money and handing it out on street corners with the rest of the GOP.
Throughout the history of the US, immigrants have done the jobs nobody else was willing to do. That is the case in a lot of other countries too. I point out to my SO that the Eastern Europeans are the Western European's Mexicans. Many who voted for Brexit in the UK were worked up about Poles coming in and "taking their jobs", even though most of them were doing jobs the native born wouldn't touch.
I do agree with you that the money should be taken out of politics. One major area would be to make paid lobbying illegal. Any person or company leader (primary owner, president, etc.) could lobby Congress on their own behalf, but if they got any kind of compensation for it from someone or something else, that would be a crime.
For purposes of contract law, corporations have to be artificial people. It doesn't really work any other way. That was how corporations got declared as people in the first place. It was only for that purpose (I think it was in the 1840s or something like that) and then it got expanded in the 1880s or 1890s because the corporations who had tremendous influence at the time wanted it. If you take it to its logical conclusion, the government should be able to imprison BP for the Deep Water Horizon disaster, or other crimes corporations commit. How do you lock up a corporation that has no physical body?
Even worse. You're advocating for all lobbying to go underground. Just because you make it illegal doesn't make it to away.
There doesn't seem to be a logical reason why this is the case? Why isn't being a legal entity enough for contract law? That's what they all are anyway, even the shell companies.
- Status
Similar threads
