Message from @Ace K
Discord ID: 520029469558177808
But if you want to say Soros isn't a socialist, fine. Then he is closer to supporting an anarchist position so that he can speed up the destabilization of literally the west so he can replace it.
Exactly, I mean look at what Amazon did in Seattle https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/12/27509559/seattle-city-council-votes-to-repeal-head-tax
He wants the US out of the way, and has no problem collapsing the unstable systems to enact change.
They talk about morals and how we need to raise taxes, but when it comes to stuff that directly impacts them, fuck you. It is mind boggingly infuriating
to be fair, Bezos is more straight up greedy capitalist. He just wants to replace everyone with robots.
No kidding xD
HIS robots, specifically.
then fly wealthily tourists to space.
@Ace K without resorting to "left" or "right" what are your actual general positions?
Socially: Left
Economically/fiscally: centrist-left.
See that doesn't actually tell me shit, which is why I asked for lack of tribal labels
But Soros, soros wants to force change. Which i guess is how he gets his Socialist label. Because he is too much of a Globalist to really be a nazi. But he won't sit back and let things evolve naturally. He is a dictator who claims to not "want" power, but its willing to amass it and use it. I see this as not much different than the communist party leaders who claim to be for true communism, with a stateless society and no ruling class so they can amass power and then never let it go. either because they never planned to, or because they never see things as being "right" yet.
Socially: It is what as I said. As for economics: I'm for markets, that have few but precise regulations to make them more efficient, and don't burden businesses and consumes.
So would you say that, given the current state of the US, that you would be for deregulation? Or do you mean a few precise regulations relative to what we have now?
In addition is probably better than relative
Essentially; there is a lot of regulations that are meaningless and need to be updated and/or removed completely. Problem is that the GOP and Trump are taking a scorched earth positions that sees all regulation period is bad (especially if it's bad for businesses) and hapharzardly cut them down without considering the effects of removing them. I want meaningless regulations to be gone, but keep ones that are still necessary.
To be fair, the illusion of necessity is often only dispelled when the seemingly necessary thing is actually removed. It's just not always clear when it's actually necessary or not before then
how do you determine necessity?
Did everything go to shit?
are environmental regulations needed? IF so, how do you feel about the EPA using numbers incorrectly, which puts undo burden on companies.
Then that obviously needs to stop and having to redo tests, but that isn't my call to make, since I am not an expert in science, envrionmental nor otherwise. Plus, considering Trump's handling of EPA, I don't think companies need to worry about those undo burdens.
Why must the federal government do these things, and not the state?
And I mean just the state.
That will just create a patchwork clusterfuck, plus, many of the biggest violators are national companies that operate in many different states. Individual states can’t effectively take on nationwide operations.
There already is, and was, a "patchwork clusterfuck", because that is the designed structure of the United States. Further, national orgs are already subjected to state laws
@Ace K so then you would be in favor of a world regulatory body?
😠
If done properly (like having all of the world nations be part of the construction of this body, and have it address the unique needs of individual nations, which is nigh impossible), then sure. But as it is nigh impossible, I really don't think a world regulatory body would work as of now.
Bring Back Franco.
I don't care if he's still dead, he'd do a better job running the country, clearly.
What the fuck Spain.
This doesn't say quite what people might assume it says--no one argues women dominate in the health sciences and biology--but it's certainly not the standard narrative.
https://www.aei.org/publication/gender-gap-in-stem-women-are-majority-of-stem-grad-students-and-they-earn-a-majority-of-stem-bachelors-degrees/
Health care is not usually included in STEM statistics. This is an odd take on it.
This reminds me of "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
Take nursing out of the equation and you get the classic numbers batted about showing women underrepresented
As someone working in health care, nursing is not allowed to practice to their potential. If the medical profession as a whole would stop trying to keep nursing down, I might be more inclined to rate nursing at the same level as engineering. There are some dirty secrets in health care and the outrageous power of the AMA is one of them. 😕
what if... army will join yellow vests 😉
That would be awesome. Macron might be done.