Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset0

like 0

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying" ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?" ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?" ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options.", ">\n\nBoth Apple and Android have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for an individual will depend on their specific needs and preferences.\nApple's iOS operating system is known for its clean, user-friendly interface and seamless integration of hardware and software. iPhones are also generally considered to be high-quality devices, with premium build materials and advanced features. Apple's App Store is also known for having more stringent app review guidelines, which can lead to fewer bugs and a more consistent user experience. Additionally, Apple's customer service and support options are generally considered to be among the best in the industry.\nOn the other hand, Android devices, which are made by a variety of manufacturers, offer more flexibility and customization options than iPhones. The Android operating system is known for its openness, and users are able to download apps from multiple app stores, not just Google play store. Additionally, Android devices are often more affordable than iPhones, and there are more options available at different price points. Furthermore, Android devices have more various form factors than iPhones, for example, foldable phone or stylus support.\nIn conclusion, it depends on the user's preferences and needs. If you prioritize a clean, user-friendly interface and premium build quality, an iPhone may be the better choice. But if you prioritize flexibility, customization, and affordability, an Android device might be a better option." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options.", ">\n\nBoth Apple and Android have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for an individual will depend on their specific needs and preferences.\nApple's iOS operating system is known for its clean, user-friendly interface and seamless integration of hardware and software. iPhones are also generally considered to be high-quality devices, with premium build materials and advanced features. Apple's App Store is also known for having more stringent app review guidelines, which can lead to fewer bugs and a more consistent user experience. Additionally, Apple's customer service and support options are generally considered to be among the best in the industry.\nOn the other hand, Android devices, which are made by a variety of manufacturers, offer more flexibility and customization options than iPhones. The Android operating system is known for its openness, and users are able to download apps from multiple app stores, not just Google play store. Additionally, Android devices are often more affordable than iPhones, and there are more options available at different price points. Furthermore, Android devices have more various form factors than iPhones, for example, foldable phone or stylus support.\nIn conclusion, it depends on the user's preferences and needs. If you prioritize a clean, user-friendly interface and premium build quality, an iPhone may be the better choice. But if you prioritize flexibility, customization, and affordability, an Android device might be a better option.", ">\n\nThis is such a childish opinion. What do you need the customizability for? It’s just a phone. \nAnd you don’t need the side loaded apps or the paid ones. I’ve had iPhones for years. Never bought a paid app and never had any trouble without them. The phone works fine and I’ve not been disadvantaged in life by not having a compromised phone.\nIf you need your phone to do more than what a bog standard iPhone can then you really are spending way too much time on the phone." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options.", ">\n\nBoth Apple and Android have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for an individual will depend on their specific needs and preferences.\nApple's iOS operating system is known for its clean, user-friendly interface and seamless integration of hardware and software. iPhones are also generally considered to be high-quality devices, with premium build materials and advanced features. Apple's App Store is also known for having more stringent app review guidelines, which can lead to fewer bugs and a more consistent user experience. Additionally, Apple's customer service and support options are generally considered to be among the best in the industry.\nOn the other hand, Android devices, which are made by a variety of manufacturers, offer more flexibility and customization options than iPhones. The Android operating system is known for its openness, and users are able to download apps from multiple app stores, not just Google play store. Additionally, Android devices are often more affordable than iPhones, and there are more options available at different price points. Furthermore, Android devices have more various form factors than iPhones, for example, foldable phone or stylus support.\nIn conclusion, it depends on the user's preferences and needs. If you prioritize a clean, user-friendly interface and premium build quality, an iPhone may be the better choice. But if you prioritize flexibility, customization, and affordability, an Android device might be a better option.", ">\n\nThis is such a childish opinion. What do you need the customizability for? It’s just a phone. \nAnd you don’t need the side loaded apps or the paid ones. I’ve had iPhones for years. Never bought a paid app and never had any trouble without them. The phone works fine and I’ve not been disadvantaged in life by not having a compromised phone.\nIf you need your phone to do more than what a bog standard iPhone can then you really are spending way too much time on the phone.", ">\n\nTbf you don’t know his usecase, and can’t say you don’t need payed or sideloaded apps." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options.", ">\n\nBoth Apple and Android have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for an individual will depend on their specific needs and preferences.\nApple's iOS operating system is known for its clean, user-friendly interface and seamless integration of hardware and software. iPhones are also generally considered to be high-quality devices, with premium build materials and advanced features. Apple's App Store is also known for having more stringent app review guidelines, which can lead to fewer bugs and a more consistent user experience. Additionally, Apple's customer service and support options are generally considered to be among the best in the industry.\nOn the other hand, Android devices, which are made by a variety of manufacturers, offer more flexibility and customization options than iPhones. The Android operating system is known for its openness, and users are able to download apps from multiple app stores, not just Google play store. Additionally, Android devices are often more affordable than iPhones, and there are more options available at different price points. Furthermore, Android devices have more various form factors than iPhones, for example, foldable phone or stylus support.\nIn conclusion, it depends on the user's preferences and needs. If you prioritize a clean, user-friendly interface and premium build quality, an iPhone may be the better choice. But if you prioritize flexibility, customization, and affordability, an Android device might be a better option.", ">\n\nThis is such a childish opinion. What do you need the customizability for? It’s just a phone. \nAnd you don’t need the side loaded apps or the paid ones. I’ve had iPhones for years. Never bought a paid app and never had any trouble without them. The phone works fine and I’ve not been disadvantaged in life by not having a compromised phone.\nIf you need your phone to do more than what a bog standard iPhone can then you really are spending way too much time on the phone.", ">\n\nTbf you don’t know his usecase, and can’t say you don’t need payed or sideloaded apps.", ">\n\nI love Android but most of the phone sucks after 1 year. Even the expensive ones." ]

[ "Obviously lacks any form of punctuation, and ability to make paragraphs and creates massive run on sentences too, what a piece of junk.", ">\n\nwhy are you even trying to do that on an iphone. i. they are very well optimised for an easy streamlined experience. not for trying to use as a development tool.", ">\n\nfirst off, this isn't even an unpopular opinion among most android users. Please learn to use commas or write shorter sentences so people can understand what you're saying", ">\n\nI’m glad that the only period included in this wall of text was for “.apk”. We would’ve totally been confused if that period were not included.", ">\n\nI use an iPhone because I don’t care about 95% of the stuff you just brought up.", ">\n\nGrammar is not overrated, just so you know.", ">\n\nI much prefer Android for the customization, but iOS is far more intuitive which is great for people who aren't the most technologically literate.", ">\n\nYou do know that iPhone keyboards have punctuation, right?", ">\n\nSo you expect people to read that extremely long run on sentence with no punctuation?", ">\n\nFun fact:\nBoth Android and iOS stock keyboards have punctuation options.", ">\n\nBoth Apple and Android have their own strengths and weaknesses, and the best choice for an individual will depend on their specific needs and preferences.\nApple's iOS operating system is known for its clean, user-friendly interface and seamless integration of hardware and software. iPhones are also generally considered to be high-quality devices, with premium build materials and advanced features. Apple's App Store is also known for having more stringent app review guidelines, which can lead to fewer bugs and a more consistent user experience. Additionally, Apple's customer service and support options are generally considered to be among the best in the industry.\nOn the other hand, Android devices, which are made by a variety of manufacturers, offer more flexibility and customization options than iPhones. The Android operating system is known for its openness, and users are able to download apps from multiple app stores, not just Google play store. Additionally, Android devices are often more affordable than iPhones, and there are more options available at different price points. Furthermore, Android devices have more various form factors than iPhones, for example, foldable phone or stylus support.\nIn conclusion, it depends on the user's preferences and needs. If you prioritize a clean, user-friendly interface and premium build quality, an iPhone may be the better choice. But if you prioritize flexibility, customization, and affordability, an Android device might be a better option.", ">\n\nThis is such a childish opinion. What do you need the customizability for? It’s just a phone. \nAnd you don’t need the side loaded apps or the paid ones. I’ve had iPhones for years. Never bought a paid app and never had any trouble without them. The phone works fine and I’ve not been disadvantaged in life by not having a compromised phone.\nIf you need your phone to do more than what a bog standard iPhone can then you really are spending way too much time on the phone.", ">\n\nTbf you don’t know his usecase, and can’t say you don’t need payed or sideloaded apps.", ">\n\nI love Android but most of the phone sucks after 1 year. Even the expensive ones.", ">\n\nLol" ]

[]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses," ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have" ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?" ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed" ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist" ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist", ">\n\nSo just Capitalism? I agree Capitalism is pretty great." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist", ">\n\nSo just Capitalism? I agree Capitalism is pretty great.", ">\n\nExcept for the people for whom it isn’t" ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist", ">\n\nSo just Capitalism? I agree Capitalism is pretty great.", ">\n\nExcept for the people for whom it isn’t", ">\n\n2 points\n1) Regarding healthcare. Wouldn't a much better solution be to make it easier for competition to spring up. Which means reduce the regulatory burden of opening a new healthcare facility. \nIt's very difficult to become a doctor. It's very difficult to become a healthcare professional period. It's very difficult to open a hospital or a clinic.\nI think we'd get a lot farther if we implicitly made it easier.\n2) Same goes with education. Right now you have a choice between very poorly run public schools and few expensive private schools. The choices aren't very good either way.\nOnce again find ways to stimulate supply. Even if you have to privatize a chunk of the public schools. Lord knows they couldn't be run any poorer." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist", ">\n\nSo just Capitalism? I agree Capitalism is pretty great.", ">\n\nExcept for the people for whom it isn’t", ">\n\n2 points\n1) Regarding healthcare. Wouldn't a much better solution be to make it easier for competition to spring up. Which means reduce the regulatory burden of opening a new healthcare facility. \nIt's very difficult to become a doctor. It's very difficult to become a healthcare professional period. It's very difficult to open a hospital or a clinic.\nI think we'd get a lot farther if we implicitly made it easier.\n2) Same goes with education. Right now you have a choice between very poorly run public schools and few expensive private schools. The choices aren't very good either way.\nOnce again find ways to stimulate supply. Even if you have to privatize a chunk of the public schools. Lord knows they couldn't be run any poorer.", ">\n\nIs the most difficult part of healthcare in America the lack of competition or the lack of access?\nCause I have 3 dentist offices nearby. My thought wasn't \"who cleans my plaque the best\" but \"who is in network? Who can I afford?\"\nSo cutting regulation isn't the cure." ]

[ "Concerning socialism, I believe that government intervention is good for healthcare because that industry is monopolistic and exploits the consumers through information asymmetry and the sense of urgency that healthcare has as opposed to other goods and services. \n\nThat's not what socialism is. That's what government intervention is.\nSocialism only requires one thing to be socilist: public ownership of the means of production. That's the distinction between capitalism and socialism. Everything else works the same. The only difference is where the revenue goes - to the public or to a private company.\nI don't think you've described an 'in-between' concept of capitalism and socialism. I think you're just describing an enhanced version of what we already have: a capitalist economy with government support.\nTaxes are not socialism. Taxes have almost nothing to do with socialism. Taxes are a means of redistributing wealth. That can occur in any type of economy. \nI agree with you in principle about the economic issues we face - but you haven't met any requirement of socialism in your solution. And I don't see how you could. \nThe TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) might be the best and closest American example. It can work. But I think you would have to meet a host of necessary variables to suggest that we do something similar with other aspects of the public economy.", ">\n\nWell regulated Capitalism with a Strong Social Safety Net, Socialized Utilities/National Parks/Schools/Health Care is the way.", ">\n\nBut that has a name and is called social democracy and is not socialism.", ">\n\nDemocratic socilism funds programs, but doesn't keep them under the umbrella of government. \nFor example Norway you can get private medicine paid for by government, Sweden every student has access to student vouchers for private school. \nBoth of those countries also privatized airports, retirement funds and postal services. Everyone has access to them but government doesn't run them anymore. \nSo while government funds the above items, they are not truly socialized since government doesn't own the means.", ">\n\nYes? StandbyHydraulic spoke about well regulated Capitalism -> social democracy\nAs longs as the means of production are in private hands it is not socialism. \nDemocratic socalism means using the goverment to transition to socialism but thats not a combination.", ">\n\nyour system won't work because it doesn't take into account the levels a person would stoop to to make money, minimum wage is required because companies exploit workers need for money, doing away with it would create a slave cast that would be easily exploitable.\nbanks don't have strict regulations because of a whim, they have them because someone exploited the loopholes and caused a lot of problems, \nand letting taxes rise when you meet a wealth threshold is a good thing, no one needs a yacht, no one needs multiple mansions, any amount over 50 million in personal wealth should be split, either to the government or to people that person chooses,", ">\n\nThat's one opinion on minimum wage. The other one is more practical. Supply and demand.\nIf you remove minimum wage. You stimulate the demand for labor. Which is good for the person providing the supply (the laborer).\nSome office may not pay as much as Wendy's or McDonalds. But they offer a much more comfortable work environment and teach you valuable skills that you can translate into more $ very quickly. Providing opportunities for people who desperately need them.\nEven if you made the fast food min wage $20 an hour ultimately nobody wants to work in those utter hellholes their entire life.", ">\n\nexcept that requires supply to be lower then demand, with a higher supply the wages go down below livable level and require people to take 2 or more jobs to survive, doesn't matter who offers better environment if you need to work both jobs to make rent. \nalso cheap labor with the premise of skills and opportunities already exists, its called an internship \nyou overestimate the choices people have", ">\n\nYes absolutely a lot of new jobs would open and some of them would pay even less. But it's not really a bad thing.\nMost of the classic shithole min wage places would likely have to raise their wages. To keep their stores staffed. We see that in the real world. I live in Gville Florida where the min wage just switched from $10 to $11 an hour in 2023. But the local McDonalds has been hiring at $12 an hour since May. Why? Cause they need people and they are having to compete with all the other places that offer employment. \nMore jobs = better for the employees\nEven if they pay less. Because ultimately you are forcing the companies to compete for you. \nWhen you have this aritifical floor for how much you can pay. You're pricing out a ton of competition. Which solidifies shitholes like McDonalds and Wendy's. They don't have to try as hard.", ">\n\nOk. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I think almost all of what you've said makes a TON of sense. \nHave you considered that we may be at a cross-roads in which all traditional economies fall apart? If in the next hundred years we create a generalized AI that comes up with novel solutions to pretty much every human labor problem what happens next? \nAre you open to the idea that we should be open to radical change when the value of human labor starts dropping faster than it's already breakneck speed? \nBecause I feel that your view may only be valid for an extremely short historical timeframe from a wide view.", ">\n\nI never thought of that. I actually consider AI to be very beneficial in that as some industries die, others are created and the quality of life rises. For example, the computer has wiped out a huge number of industries and jobs. But the demand for human labor hasn’t died in any way since then. Rather, the demand for human labor has shifted to different industries. As machines replace human labor, the smaller jobs gradually become more sufficient in providing the income we need to live. For example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\nHere’s a classic example from Adam Smith: would an economy be more productive with jobs jobs where hundreds of people have shovels to dig a hole, or where machines enable only a few people to dig a massive hole quickly? The demand for human labor thus shifts and humanity as a whole works less to be able to live and flourish. Back in the 1800s I believe, about 90% of people farmed for a living. Now, less than 10% of people farm yet food is relatively speaking much more abundant and humanity as a whole can work less to survive.", ">\n\n\nFor example, I believe that eventually clerks and fast food jobs will provide enough income to live off of because AI is so much more efficient.\n\nI believe reality is proving the opposite. \nAutomated retail systems have cut labor positions by leaps and bounds and compensation has not improved at all.", ">\n\nCan you just clarify exactly what you think capitalism and socialism are?", ">\n\nWithout looking it up, I’d say capitalism is an economic philosophy of no government intervention in distributing wealth and no centralized figure control the production and distribution of goods and services.\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal. Governments use taxes (typically progressive taxes) to subsidize the poor and provide a stronger central force as well as public goods rather than a totally decentralized economy.", ">\n\n\nSocialism is where the wealth disparity is influenced by reallocating wealth in an economy such that the wealth disparity is smoother, but not equal.\n\nThat's not socialism, that's just capitalism with taxes.", ">\n\nThis is really the Crux here. Basically every country is the world is following the path that OP wants. China is a dictatorship, but even they still have capitalism.", ">\n\nOk well seems like that’s what we have now; might work now for some, but for a lot of others, it isn’t working. You can blame it on them, ok, but that doesn’t really solve the problem\nIn fact I wouldn’t say this is a “middle way” at all. This is just capitalism, as it always has existed", ">\n\nBasically every actual economic policy is 'between socialism and capitalism'. Neither 'full socialism' or 'full capitalism' has actually been tried. Like, you're probably right...but there is still a massive variety in 'economic systems between socialism and capitalism' and that is what people are actually arguing about.", ">\n\nWe already played this game. Corporatism, National Syndicalism, National Bolshevism, Strasserism. That dog don’t hunt. Third positional economics lead to even worse economic outcomes than even socialist regimes. As it turns out planned economies suck and putting random people in charge of sub-structures within society based on their loyalty to the State isn’t a great way to improve economic performance.", ">\n\nI don’t think you need to go that esoteric I think he’s just talking about a capitalist economy with limited state intervention, which with almost no exceptions is basically every capitalist society to ever exist", ">\n\nSo just Capitalism? I agree Capitalism is pretty great.", ">\n\nExcept for the people for whom it isn’t", ">\n\n2 points\n1) Regarding healthcare. Wouldn't a much better solution be to make it easier for competition to spring up. Which means reduce the regulatory burden of opening a new healthcare facility. \nIt's very difficult to become a doctor. It's very difficult to become a healthcare professional period. It's very difficult to open a hospital or a clinic.\nI think we'd get a lot farther if we implicitly made it easier.\n2) Same goes with education. Right now you have a choice between very poorly run public schools and few expensive private schools. The choices aren't very good either way.\nOnce again find ways to stimulate supply. Even if you have to privatize a chunk of the public schools. Lord knows they couldn't be run any poorer.", ">\n\nIs the most difficult part of healthcare in America the lack of competition or the lack of access?\nCause I have 3 dentist offices nearby. My thought wasn't \"who cleans my plaque the best\" but \"who is in network? Who can I afford?\"\nSo cutting regulation isn't the cure.", ">\n\nSo like Canada or other Western European countries?" ]

[]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain.." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all", ">\n\nI can’t wait for the Adam McKay biopic" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all", ">\n\nI can’t wait for the Adam McKay biopic", ">\n\nI wonder who gave him all that campaign money" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all", ">\n\nI can’t wait for the Adam McKay biopic", ">\n\nI wonder who gave him all that campaign money", ">\n\nConsequences? I think not." ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all", ">\n\nI can’t wait for the Adam McKay biopic", ">\n\nI wonder who gave him all that campaign money", ">\n\nConsequences? I think not.", ">\n\nFollow the money" ]

[ "Dude might be a spy, and not a very good one", ">\n\nNaw just an asset, and not a very good one", ">\n\n\nnot a very good one\n\nYou mean excellent if the idea is to sow as much discord and shade on the truth that we focus on that instead of governing, this plays right into Russia disinformation and the troll farms.", ">\n\nRussia’s role in pumping disinformation into the zeitgeist does not get enough press. I have brought this up to many of my republican friends and have completely changed their view of our current state of affairs and how half the country is unknowingly being played by these assholes.", ">\n\nWe need to have a politician who does his research on this and gives a public lecture on national television over it. It won’t convince everyone, but I’m pretty sure it’d convince a lot of people.", ">\n\nOh, that’s ok. The former Presidents wife was a direct link to Russian Oligarchs.", ">\n\nFox: “Biden’s dog is wearing a wire for Venezuela!”", ">\n\nHow about that soccer ball Putin gave Trump?", ">\n\n“Is not ball. Is prize-winning KGB potato.”", ">\n\nI think, by the end of this, we will find out we have been duped by FSB agent Georgy Ivanovych Santov.", ">\n\nRussians are getting sloppy", ">\n\nThey are a little bit distracted. Something about things being harder than they first thought.", ">\n\nThere's no way Mccarthy ever gets rid of him. The constant barrage of outrageous bullshit from Santos is the only thing that has even a slight chance of briefly distracting from the total shit show that he is running.", ">\n\nIt's insane that there's no process to get rid of this guy. Everything about him is suspicious and now he might be an enemy spy.", ">\n\nWhy does this guy look like a James Bond villain..", ">\n\nHe reminds me of this guy from Doom Patrol.", ">\n\nWaiting on his presidential nomination", ">\n\nRight on. \nAlso, your username is the stuff of legends. 🤣", ">\n\nThank you sir", ">\n\nI swear, if I had nothing better to do, I would dress up as him and show up at his office everyday and say I was the real George Santos. If he came in I would follow him around all day, all the while saying, \"I'm the real George Santos...\"", ">\n\nApparently, Santos is just a hologram. Nothing there is real.", ">\n\nA thought: if a democrat wore a “Brazil” or any other country pin to the floor and Republicans caught wind of it we would never stop hearing about it.", ">\n\nThis dude’s story just gets crazier and crazier.", ">\n\nI look forward to absolutely nothing happening to him. As is tradition.", ">\n\nHmm the GOP and Russian links. Didn’t see it coming at all", ">\n\nI can’t wait for the Adam McKay biopic", ">\n\nI wonder who gave him all that campaign money", ">\n\nConsequences? I think not.", ">\n\nFollow the money", ">\n\nWtf" ]

[]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse" ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims." ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??" ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes." ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move." ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move.", ">\n\nYeah, wtf does manly man need with a bodyguard?" ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move.", ">\n\nYeah, wtf does manly man need with a bodyguard?", ">\n\nGetting real \"Steven Seagall\" vibes from Tate." ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move.", ">\n\nYeah, wtf does manly man need with a bodyguard?", ">\n\nGetting real \"Steven Seagall\" vibes from Tate.", ">\n\n“He was a great guy who was just trying to help young men reach their potential.”\nHe needed a bodyguard..." ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move.", ">\n\nYeah, wtf does manly man need with a bodyguard?", ">\n\nGetting real \"Steven Seagall\" vibes from Tate.", ">\n\n“He was a great guy who was just trying to help young men reach their potential.”\nHe needed a bodyguard...", ">\n\nSo he's not a \"Top G\" then? Who knew?" ]

[ "That’s generally what happens when you groom someone for abuse", ">\n\nIt's never too late to gaslight the blame onto the victims.", ">\n\nDid he have a first one??", ">\n\nAccording to this site their lawyer said that neither Tate is married but both have kids. \n\ndo they have family\n\nThey have children. Both have children.\n\nhow many children do they have\n\nI do not know.\n\nSo both Andrew and Tristan Tate are fathers. They are not married but have children.\n\nYes.", ">\n\nHaving some other guy protect your body for you sounds like a pretty beta move.", ">\n\nYeah, wtf does manly man need with a bodyguard?", ">\n\nGetting real \"Steven Seagall\" vibes from Tate.", ">\n\n“He was a great guy who was just trying to help young men reach their potential.”\nHe needed a bodyguard...", ">\n\nSo he's not a \"Top G\" then? Who knew?", ">\n\nIf that's true, then in his own words, they are \"genuinely a moron\"." ]

[]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet..." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ..." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?" ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?", ">\n\nSee the thing is, since literally the first day of the invasion he's been very vocal about condemning this war of aggression so him having been part of this \"friendship group\" isn't an automatic disqualification in my mind but how in the fuck did nobody look at this and say \"mmmh this might send the wrong signal outside of Germany!\"" ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?", ">\n\nSee the thing is, since literally the first day of the invasion he's been very vocal about condemning this war of aggression so him having been part of this \"friendship group\" isn't an automatic disqualification in my mind but how in the fuck did nobody look at this and say \"mmmh this might send the wrong signal outside of Germany!\"", ">\n\nThe concerns of Redditors don't matter that much in regards of choosing a minister of defence" ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?", ">\n\nSee the thing is, since literally the first day of the invasion he's been very vocal about condemning this war of aggression so him having been part of this \"friendship group\" isn't an automatic disqualification in my mind but how in the fuck did nobody look at this and say \"mmmh this might send the wrong signal outside of Germany!\"", ">\n\nThe concerns of Redditors don't matter that much in regards of choosing a minister of defence", ">\n\nYeah, obviously.\nI actually think he's a solid choice but yeah, you can bet your ass that detail will get used to sow discord over and over again." ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?", ">\n\nSee the thing is, since literally the first day of the invasion he's been very vocal about condemning this war of aggression so him having been part of this \"friendship group\" isn't an automatic disqualification in my mind but how in the fuck did nobody look at this and say \"mmmh this might send the wrong signal outside of Germany!\"", ">\n\nThe concerns of Redditors don't matter that much in regards of choosing a minister of defence", ">\n\nYeah, obviously.\nI actually think he's a solid choice but yeah, you can bet your ass that detail will get used to sow discord over and over again.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nImage: Reuters Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was the youngest-ever German Defense Minister, and had to deal with the aftermath of a deadly airstrike in Kunduz, but was cleared of being responsible for the Defense Ministry's inadequate communications policy surrounding the incident.\nImage: picture-alliance/dpa In his attempt to justify Germany's mission in Afghanistan, Peter Struck coined the much-quoted phrase \"Germany will also be defended in the Hindu Kush.\" He oversaw the revamp of the Bundeswehr to become a nimbler fighting force capable of responding to smaller, regional conflicts.\nImage: Kurt Vinion/Getty Images Under Rudolf Scharping, the Bundeswehr participated in NATO air strikes against Serbia, the first time German soldiers had operated outside Germany since World War Two.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Image^#1 Bundeswehr^#2 fight^#3 force^#4 Germany^#5" ]

[ "With a name like that, you know he's good with guns.", ">\n\nJust don't use his toilet...", ">\n\nHoley shit...\n...is exactly what his girlfriend ended up taking.", ">\n\nI don't want holes in my shit, thanks. Especially if it's still inside me.", ">\n\nSome facts for anyone interested:\n\nServed as a conscript\nStrict on internal security (nothing known about foreign policy, because he only served as interior minister)\nAnother focus is cybersecurity\n\nI don't care about his personal life or irrelevant policy views.", ">\n\n\nServed as a conscript\n\nGermany abolished mandatory costrription only in 2011.\nWhile the percentage of actually serving constricts dropped significantly over the years (only around 20% of eligable males served their year of \"mandatory\" service) due to ease of refual (wich wich case you would serve in civil service instead) and low actual constriton rate (less than half were judged \"able to serve\"), Pistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\ntl;dr: he is over 60, when he was 19, where german males would have been conscripted, more or less all males actually served their year of mandatory service.", ">\n\n\nPistorius is from a generation when more or less all males would have actually served their mandatory military service, so this is not very notable.\n\nSorry, but this comment misses the large elephant in the room which was conscientious objection (Kriegsdienstverweigerung). Under the German constitution, nobody can be forced into military service, and if someone that was conscripted, they always, always had the option to object the conscription (someone that objected had to do social work during the same length of time as conscription). Considering that he would have been up for conscription in the late 70's, early 80's, there was already a large anti war movement, meaning that many that would have been conscripted opted for objection.", ">\n\nuntil 1983 a conscientious objectior would have to give a written application to conscientious objection, and would have been called in personally to explain yout Objection in person and would have to \"prove\" that military service was incompatible with your concience and/or religion. There was a brief period in 1977 to 1978 where it was easer, and you had only to have a contract for civily service, bat the law enabling that, was ruled unconstitional.\nSince Pistorius was born 1960, he would have been avaible for service shortly after that brief ease on CO.\nThese comissions where notorious strict and simple arguments of \"I cant bring myself to kill another person\" would not have suffied.\nand to put some statistic to this: in 1960, there were around 1.2 million birth in germany, so we can assume somethign around 600k boys.\nin 1977 tehre were just shy of 70k CO applications in germany, so if we assume that 500k would have called to military checkup and 50% would have beed deemed fit to serve (wich is probably very conservatice during the cold war) only one thirf if that would have tried to object.\nthe number of COs skyrockted after the cold war, and especialyl during the gulf war in the 90s.", ">\n\nNot that his private life matters here, but FYI they split up last year.\nFurthermore, the Petersburg dialogue was frozen in 2021 and dissolved in 2022.\nGet your facts straight before spreading misinformation.", ">\n\nChill down dude, he had a point.\nThe Petersburg dialogue has been frozen since 2021 so whether it was already dissolved or is going to be in q1 this year isn't really that much of a difference.", ">\n\noh crap ...", ">\n\nWhy is that ?", ">\n\nSee the thing is, since literally the first day of the invasion he's been very vocal about condemning this war of aggression so him having been part of this \"friendship group\" isn't an automatic disqualification in my mind but how in the fuck did nobody look at this and say \"mmmh this might send the wrong signal outside of Germany!\"", ">\n\nThe concerns of Redditors don't matter that much in regards of choosing a minister of defence", ">\n\nYeah, obviously.\nI actually think he's a solid choice but yeah, you can bet your ass that detail will get used to sow discord over and over again.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nImage: Reuters Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was the youngest-ever German Defense Minister, and had to deal with the aftermath of a deadly airstrike in Kunduz, but was cleared of being responsible for the Defense Ministry's inadequate communications policy surrounding the incident.\nImage: picture-alliance/dpa In his attempt to justify Germany's mission in Afghanistan, Peter Struck coined the much-quoted phrase \"Germany will also be defended in the Hindu Kush.\" He oversaw the revamp of the Bundeswehr to become a nimbler fighting force capable of responding to smaller, regional conflicts.\nImage: Kurt Vinion/Getty Images Under Rudolf Scharping, the Bundeswehr participated in NATO air strikes against Serbia, the first time German soldiers had operated outside Germany since World War Two.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Image^#1 Bundeswehr^#2 fight^#3 force^#4 Germany^#5", ">\n\nWhy?" ]