Doivid

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-264

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-267

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-269

stick around @ELGainsborough!

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-271

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-271

Men vs. Women Race to 1000

-273

I'm going to become an anarchist

@Vilageidiotx then that definition of anarchy is, per definition of the word, not correct and they should change it. Anarchy =/= super democracy. Though I do think you are right. But again, there are many anarchists that do believe governments should fall and we should return to city-state esque governments.

Furthermore I'd like to highlight that this kind of naive thinking will follow the same chronological order of events as communism. Communism is great and all, but when you give power to the people, people that are good at tyranny and mobilizing people will end up taking power, greed takes over, and you end up with shitty shit.

We're just replacing one set of shitty people (modern politicians) with other shitty people (I mean, lets face it, do we really want an anarchist running the country?) The context for shittiness changes (so instead of shitty economical progress, we'd have shitty cultural progress, FOR EXAMPLE, I'm not sure what the anarchists would suck at but it'd probably be something).

When I was at the 1% protest shits here in The Hague, I ran into some anarchists and they said we should get rid of governments, and every local community should govern themselves. These are the people I understood are the hardcore 'real' anarchism anarchists, where as every other stream of anarchy is more for a removal of governance in a certain area, i.e. economics or private capital and shit.

@Buddha

I think you can hardly call the revolution in Russia a fully realized communist undertaking. And I think it's a structure vs. superstructure issue. When you change the structure of a polity but not the superstructure, you'll find it's not very sustainable.

2016 US Election: Day Zero

I will grant the point that Trump did get more votes among minorities than past republicans, but that's a little like saying 1/3 of a cup is better than 1/4 of a cup. Like yeah, it's a bit more, but not a huge amount. It does mean that his message spoke more to class issues than his rhetoric could harm him, but it wasn't all that effective.

Additionally, he had lower turnout than did Romney, who lost. Are we saying that the outrage and backlash from the right is less than it was 4 years ago? I really don't think so.

Instead, Trump lucked out because of a few factors:

1. No one to split the anti-establishment vote. Sanders would have quashed this by splitting it.
2. People on the left were not enthusiastic about Hillary. This is the main issue. She could not get those extra 5-10 million voters that Obama did, despite substantially similar policies.

So it's difficult to say that Trump has a mandate or is part of some uprising, when it's more due to the failure of Hillary Clinton. Just like if she won, it would be more of a rejection of trump than an acceptance of her.

The truth is, Trump couldn't even muster the full force of the anti-Obama brigade, for someone who arguably garnered much, much more ire before her campaign ever began, compared to a guy who was a literal "who?" before he ran.

And I really, really don't think Trump is going to go against the establishment on trade, interventionism, or any of the issues affecting the working class. That's like expecting Obama to have done the same after he got elected.

If you could change one law in another country, which would you pick?

I'd remove the law in China where you're not allowed to make films about 'alternate realities'

how do you pronounce your name

"Shut up azza"