Ormond wrote:Please explain to us why the Clintons need to flirt with corruption.
Wilson wrote:Flirting with someone doesn't mean that you're obligated to do the nasty with him or her.
You're dodging my honorable friend. The question was, why do they feel the need to flirt with corruption?
Wilson wrote:The business of corporations is maximizing profit, and they're going to do whatever they can to make a buck. Don't expect them to act otherwise! Change the rules they operate under. The only way to do that is to elect a president and especially Congressmen who will vote that way.
Indeed, which is why I voted for Sanders, who collected all his campaign money in small donations from regular people, thus there is no real or perceived conflict of interest when it comes to regulating Wall Street.
What Sanders proved to me is that there is no need for candidates to rely on superpacs that get tons of money from the big shots. However, to skip that corrupting process a candidate has to be sincere and trustworthy, and they must be able to articulate a bold vision. Clinton is only marginally trustworthy, and she has no bold vision, thus she needed to beg for bucks from the big shots.
The Democratic primary is now over so I will leave it behind from here out, but I do wish to remind readers that...
We had a choice between a candidate indebted to we regular folks, or a candidate indebted to the big shots, and we chose the later. So if Wall Street doesn't get fixed we have only ourselves to blame.
-- Updated July 5th, 2016, 8:58 am to add the following --
Belinda wrote:I like your post, Wilson, and I like Ormond's even more.
You are in violation of Forum Rule #2746b, which forbids the liking of posts other than one's own.
-- Updated July 5th, 2016, 9:09 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:In this spirit of agreement,
You are in violation of Forum Rule #834765c, which specifically forbids agreement of any kind at any time. Shame, shame, shame!
The solution that you mentioned of moving ourselves up the economic food chain using education is now standard wisdom in our governments. But, unless we believe that we are inherently better at learning things than people from poorer countries, presumably even that will only ever be a stop-gap.
Good point, but it's better to be competing on improving ourselves than competing on who can work the cheapest, which I'm sure you'll agree with, rule breaker that you are.
The only lasting solution, as far as I can see, is for the global free market to result in a flow of affluence to previously poorer countries, as we're seeing in China. But, if we assume that the global environment couldn't sustain 7 billion+ people all driving their air-conditioned cars through drive-thru burger joints, that can only mean a significant reduction in our level of consumption and income. Maybe not such a bad thing?
If there is to be any real lasting solution, an admittedly dubious proposition, it will have to come in the form of editing...
Can you guess......?
Yup, that's right, the nature of what we're made of, thought.
As example, it's great that the Chinese Communists (if they can still be called such) have raised many millions out of poverty. But now those many millions have far higher expectations, which will eventually bring political chaos to China most likely. All of us want more, more, more, even in the West where we are far richer than our ancestors could have ever dreamed possible.
Some of the "more" we demand is sustainable, such as switching from oil (limited energy) to solar (unlimited energy). But regrettably the nature of "more" is such that no matter what we achieve it will never be enough.
A lasting solution will come when we can provide for everyone's basic physical needs, which is achieved through thought. And....
When we can sit on the ground all day doing nothing at all, entirely satisfied with the miracle of being alive on this Earth. Which is obstructed by thought.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.