Yeah, maybe.

I am talking about the constitution though. So 18th century, not 20th.

The constitution is trash. It served its purpose, and it’s been shown time and again to be like a malignant 80 y.o. white fucktard—further supported by the fact that all the white fucktards are fighting tooth and nail for their precious document.

How is that not racist AF, when at the time, the life expectancy for people of color was in the low-mid 20s, and for the lucky few that made it past 25, it was late 30s-early 40s. Oh yeah, they weren’t people back then.

And to those who think that the constitution is a set of principles that can apply to any age or era, please explain how this is a principle, or a framework, and what’s the basis:

“the President must be at least 35 years old, and a Senator must be at least 30 years old.”.

Changing/replacing the constitution isn’t giving up, it’s learning. Anyone who thinks the constitution should remain in place in perpetuity is, at best, a moron.

You’re starting to get why originalism, and even conservatism, is stupid.

It’s not about values, it’s about readiness to face issues.

Thanks to these buffoons, the next american soldier captured overseas might end up having a very, very had time,

Why even bring her on the show? Do better. She’s trash. And worst of all, she thinks we are all morons. Fuck Trump. Fuck Elise Stefanik, every day, from here to eternity.

So slavery? Or just the ideas he likes.

What a f-ing disgrace and a waste of organic matter.

And how was your work getting him elected?

You sound a lot like the wasted dude who walks into a party, trashes it, and complains that it was trash and nobody did anything.

Whatch out from massive pardons. These scumbags need to be put in their place, regardless of pardons. If they don’t care about the law, when it comes to them, we shouldn’t either.

The commercial aspect doesn’t—IMO—make it less worthy or spoon fed (although there is some of that, for sure). But it’s largely an individual choice. Nobody can *make you* like something.

I get how it can feel “controlled”.

However, a lot of “culture” happens outside the power systems before it’s absorbed by the masses and—inevitably—becomes commercialized. For example: hip-hop, Basquiat, punk, fashion, nouvelle cuisine, Van Gogh.

I think a better, more reliable measure, would be honesty.

And sure, your equation doesn’t imply “positive”. But it’s also undefined.

So, what is it that you are trying to say? That trust in Trump is nothing—even stupid? Just say it. @mcuban.bsky.social

Cause I could say:

Trust = Times you do what you say / Times you say you’ll do something

Remember, trust isn’t always positive. E.g., I trust Stephen Miller will do some racist shit before the midterms, that doesn’t mean doing racist shit is positive.

And how do you suggest we measure transparency and self-interest? Is that even possible?

Otherwise, this equation is, at best, symbolic—but more likely, shit.

🤣🤣🤣

And after all the vitriol and hate, she only “apologized” for “taking part in the toxic politics”. No, Marge, it’s not that easy. Calling for the death of opponents is not toxic politics. That’s way beyond toxic. At best, it’s hate speech. May you live forever, you cunt.

And yet I have zero sympathy for MTG.

She’s a scumbag that poisoned millions. Redemption is a very hard thing after having been a monster.

She called for Obama and Hillary C. to be hanged, liked a comment calling for a bullet to Nancy Pelosi’s head.

Fuck MTG. She’s trash. She’s a scumbag.

And again, we must be wary of the illusion that no billionaires will improve things. After all, the real lever is power, and that can easily be obtained by bureaucrats in a different system, or land owners in a barter system.

I think it would be terrible to regulate things like arts and culture. That’s what theocratic societies do, and they are anything but free and fair (e.g., Saudi Arabia).

But I think we are in agreement that a market economy should still be part of the equation, together with welfare. It’s a start.

Thanks for the thought put into it and taking the time to respond.

I agree that things need to change, and in some cases, dramatically. And I agree that a mixed solution would prob. be the best approach. A highly regulated system with robust welfare seems like reasonable starting point to me.

You blame everyone and their mothers, but never take responsibility. You were key in the polarization of the electorate. You’ve always been a divisive asshole.

And if you are thinking of a barter system, well, good luck getting your hands on basic stuff. There will always be someone that has more and uses it to their benefit.

It’s simple, we are humans. Very flawed, very imperfect.

The notion that getting rid of capitalism will solve the problems we have is, honestly, moronic. Wealth disparity may be solved (temporarily), but power inequality will balloon to the exosphere. Look at Cuba, China, Venezuela, and pretty much every single socialist, or communist country in history.

Communism doesn’t work—it’s also the most unfair system. Socialism is also unfair, and there’s no single example of true socialism working in history.

I advocate for a social democratic model, with a market economy, complemented by robust welfare (some basic, some based on need).

And do you think it would be different under a different system? Give me 2 examples or ideas of potential solutions.

Complaining is easy. People complain about inequality, but are unwilling to give up comfort. They complain about wealth disparity, but have never donated some of their time.

Well… you’re a bigot.

What else could it be? A baker/fisherman?

I believe in strong regulations that protect employees, high wages, income and wealth inequality controls (not limits), and public welfare (safety, health, education, transportation, housing,among others). But I also believe in private property, private businesses, entrepreneurship, etc.