US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Dr. Ricearoni]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Boston Tea Party the result of the British government favoring the East India Trading Company?

I was always told it was because of taxation, particularly the stamp act.

 

[FILTH Tourist]

I think it's going to be interesting to see if they ever trust her again, and give her a chance with governor of California.

They won't. California needs to play it safe and run a moderate white guy.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

This always amuses me because the general opposite of capitalism is self employment - your either the labor to someone elses machines, or your own. I cannot imagine 99% of the average end stage capitalist redditors having the faintest idea of how to be a productive self employed individual.

that's nothing more than home depot capitalism. instead of relying on a tradesman you buy your own tools and supplies from home depot and do it yourself. wages for trades go down and jobs go bust you get to be self reliant and home depot rakes in millions regardless.

 

[Cemetery Support]

California needs to play it safe

Lol. Commiefornia turning red would be the greatest comeback since Lazarus. Those cucks will vote for anyone with a (D) next to their name, i.e., whoever the fuck (D)addy tells them to.

 

[Leaf Wage Slave Jr]

This motherfucker is going to annex Canada

Don't tempt me with a good time - please, do it. It legitimately can't make us much worse, and would be worth it solely to watch the rezzies chimp out over the fact being American would mean their special privileges would vanish.

 

[Sammich]

They won't. California needs to play it safe and run a moderate white guy.

They have no one of any real note there, Rick Caruso is the only one that even fits that bill that i know of, and i'm not sure he'd waste his time. Not many good choices out there and kamala would skyrocket to the top if she ran.

 

[Cnidarian]

that's nothing more than home depot capitalism. instead of relying on a tradesman you buy your own tools and supplies from home depot and do it yourself. wages for trades go down and jobs go bust you get to be self reliant and home depot rakes in millions regardless.

Thanks /r/latestagecapitalism, very cool!

 

[Breadbassket]

I was always told it was because of taxation, particularly the stamp act.

Taxes and the whole "taxation without representation" thing. To elaborate on it more, American colonists had to pay taxes on tea due to the Townshend Revenue Act for a few years and instead of dealing with that tea smugglers would bring in cheaper drink. In 1773, the Tea Act was passed and granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies which undercut local merchants by granting the Company a cost advantage. Legally imported tea was made much more cheaper. Samuel Adams, one of the main participants of the Boston Tea Party was a tea smuggler so he had a vested interest in the whole ordeal.

Other issues that concerned colonists at the time was that by buying the tea they were accepting the authority of Parliament to tax them, tea tax revenues were also to be used to pay the salaries of certain royal officials in the colonies, a government-created tea monopoly was being established and that even legitimate tea merchants could be brought to ruin by the Tea Act if they weren't named consignees of the East India Company.

It should be noted that apparently in every colony except Massachusetts, protesters were able to force the tea consignees to resign or to return the tea to England.

 

[Romulus augustulus]

Taxes and the whole "taxation without representation" thing. To elaborate on it more, American colonists had to pay taxes on tea due to the Townshend Revenue Act for a few years and instead of dealing with that tea smugglers would bring in cheaper drink. In 1773, the Tea Act was passed and granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies which undercut local merchants by granting the Company a cost advantage. Legally imported tea was made much more cheaper. Samuel Adams, one of the main participants of the Boston Tea Party was a tea smuggler so he had a vested interest in the whole ordeal.

Other issues that concerned colonists at the time was that by buying the tea they were accepting the authority of Parliament to tax them, tea tax revenues were also to be used to pay the salaries of certain royal officials in the colonies, a government-created tea monopoly was being established and that even legitimate tea merchants could be brought to ruin by the Tea Act if they weren't named consignees of the East India Company.

It should be noted that apparently in every colony except Massachusetts, protesters were able to force the tea consignees to resign or to return the tea to England.

to add on to these points, money was very scarce in the colonies. British gold and silver coinage was banned from export into the colonies. this government imposed shortage cause some colonies to create fiat currencies to fund their operations which led to immediate hyper inflation.

The only British coins that were allowed to circulate in the colonies were the base metal coins made of copper which were in short supply too, any that entered circulation were immediately sucked up in taxes or international trade.

Spanish "dollars" and H.R.E Thalers (both large silver coins weighing roughly 1 ounce) were the most available coins to the colonies though the lack of small change hurt trade. if small change was needed the coins would have to be cut into pieces.

High taxes + scarce money = big problems.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

Thanks /r/latestagecapitalism, very cool!

"punks not dead!"

 

[UnKillFill]

Your impatience is why the Founders made the executive weak. Makes impulse moves far less impactful. Either the system works together or it doesn't. One does not rule them all

Impatience? The country's been fucked for decades longer than I've even been alive how long am I expected to wait? And as I said, we basically live under a monarchy anyway. Why is it any better that we "voted" for the people ruling us? (after they're given enough time to count the votes that is)

I think you think I'm saying that I want an all powerful executive. I'm not. We already pretty much have that, I'm just saying one that was benevolent would be preferable to what we have now.

 

[Post Reply]

Patposters, Planetposters, and politispergs... with your powers combined, I am Captain Kiwi!

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

A monarchy or dictator is better nowadays vs parliament or congress et al, because a Monarch has all of the money and power a man/woman could ever need, making it harder, if not impossible, to bribe or corrupt them. Imagine offering Queen Elizabeth II, £100 million quid for lobbying, she would laugh at such a poultry amount, as The Crown and its traditions are of higher importance than a few quid.

A president, prime minister or congress critter will take the money because it's just a job to them, Monarchy is a life. Sure, you get some wanks like Henry VIII and you get some good guys like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

Monarchies do not like people attempting to have more power, money or influence than themselves. Bezos and Bill Gates would have been hung, drawn and quartered back in the day.

 

[Frostnipped Todger]

Those fuckers should serve a max of 10 years and then get the rope

Ftfy.

 

[FILTH Tourist]

A monarchy or dictator is better nowadays vs parliament or congress et al, because a Monarch has all of the money and power a man/woman could ever need, making it harder, if not impossible, to bribe or corrupt them. Imagine offering Queen Elizabeth II, £100 million quid for lobbying, she would laugh at such a poultry amount, as The Crown and its traditions are of higher importance than a few quid.

A president, prime minister or congress critter will take the money because it's just a job to them, Monarchy is a life. Sure, you get some wanks like Henry VIII and you get some good guys like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

Monarchies do not like people attempting to have more power, money or influence than themselves. Bezos and Bill Gates would have been hung, drawn and quartered back in the day.

It's less about the money and more about forward thinking. A dictator or monarch in an ideal situation is invested in their nation or at least their family. So they have a vested interest to maintain a functional kingdom and groom an appropriate heir to take over. Failure to do so will result in revolts or civil war.

In an elected representative system there is none of that. Congressman and presidents don't usually have heirs so there isn't a worry about the next generation, which means outside of just raw patriotism there isn't any reason not to ruin the country, make bank, and then skip town leaving the next guy voted into that seat to clean up the mess. It wasn't that bad when the representatives were voted in by landowners who did have a vested interest in the nation, but now anyone can vote and the vast majority just want a quick gain at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

A monarchy or dictator is better nowadays vs parliament or congress et al, because a Monarch has all of the money and power a man/woman could ever need, making it harder, if not impossible, to bribe or corrupt them. Imagine offering Queen Elizabeth II, £100 million quid for lobbying, she would laugh at such a poultry amount, as The Crown and its traditions are of higher importance than a few quid.

A president, prime minister or congress critter will take the money because it's just a job to them, Monarchy is a life. Sure, you get some wanks like Henry VIII and you get some good guys like Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria.

Monarchies do not like people attempting to have more power, money or influence than themselves. Bezos and Bill Gates would have been hung, drawn and quartered back in the day.

Slight PL, but I actually have a story about this topic:

When I did volunteering with Habitat for Humanity when I was nineteen years old, we had some college students work with us at one time, and one girl sticks out to me. Her family was from some Mideast country (can't recall which, but I'm leaning Iran or Syria, one of those), and something she said about government stuck out to me. I can't recall the exact quote, but the part that sticks out to me is she said at one point when talking about her family's original country is she said why do you care "who gets to sit in the chair" if the country and its people are doing well?

Because of how human societies have developed across the world, you can't plug in what makes Country A work into Country B and expect it to work. Dictatorship can work in a country that developed a certain way across history; there is a reason why some non-democratic governments, whether they were a Monarchist government or some variant of Fascism or a military dictatorship of some sort, had more success in specific countries but not in others.

 

[tehpope]

I'd say probably at least half of all job postings aren't actually real.

Anyone who's job hunted in the last five years has seen thousands of postings demanding 15 years of experience for entry level that are obvious HB1 bait and have zero intention of hiring an American citizen.

Wanted to bump this discussion up.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cognizant-discrimination-case-highlights-flaws-h-1b-visa-system

 

[babadook]

Ok but who's gonna be the ambassador to Israel?

 

[Rekeita's Kidneys]

Fuck it you have to have at least 425 lb deadlift to be in congress.

2/3/4/5 good enuff?

 

[Nuns with guns]

Slight PL, but I actually have a story about this topic:

When I did volunteering with Habitat for Humanity when I was nineteen years old, we had some college students work with us at one time, and one girl sticks out to me. Her family was from some Mideast country (can't recall which, but I'm leaning Iran or Syria, one of those), and something she said about government stuck out to me. I can't recall the exact quote, but the part that sticks out to me is she said at one point when talking about her family's original country is she said why do you care "who gets to sit in the chair" if the country and its people are doing well?

Because of how human societies have developed across the world, you can't plug in what makes Country A work into Country B and expect it to work. Dictatorship can work in a country that developed a certain way across history; there is a reason why some non-democratic governments, whether they were a Monarchist government or some variant of Fascism or a military dictatorship of some sort, had more success in specific countries but not in others.

Look at Latin America, they all tried to copy the US and failed miserably. One could argue the few times a dictatorship was established were the only times those countries prospered.