I suppose I would start by saying “Communism lead to famine in the USSR and China” is like saying “Capitalism lead to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy”.

It’s down to the application of the system. True Communism gives power to the ordinary workers. It is not meant to be concentrated in the hands of an autocrat or an elite. That is precisely what it aims to prevent.

The last two points are just not true. The incentives are, in theory, workers having better standards due to better wealth distribution (if it is managed properly) and they don’t use capitalist products because the products were made under a Communist system, so that’s just ridiculous.

Communism has many flaws. Personally I think it’s more of a pipe dream myself, but the arguments you have stated against it are not good ones.

Not surprising.

Most likely business owners who will be laughing all the way to the bank when they strip our country of worker protection laws and get given huge tax cuts.

Meanwhile us peasants will be left to fend for ourselves.

I truly despise them.

Anyone voting for them is a turkey voting for a trip to the slaughterhouse.

Someone is going to make so much money selling iron lungs when they roll out polio 2.0 in a couple of years.

I had never heard that expression before and had to look it up. Very interesting but they’ve been obsolete for decades now.

The procedure since the 1960s has been to delivery positive pressure ventilation to expand the lungs via tracheotomy, rather than housing the patient in the irong lung (negative pressure chamber).

Did get me reading about Paul Alexander too. The man who used an iron lung for 70 odd years, achieving a degree and a career as an attorney and author. Worth a read!

Not trying to prove you wrong. Just wanted to share info on the subject. Thanks for the comment. Sent me down a rabbit hole!

I’m detecting the presence of some form of personality disorder here.

don’t understand how technology can fuck their tiny brains forever.

Have you heard of the expression “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”?

Because it seems rather appropriate for this.

You make a point. It would need to be comprehensive in it’s reach.

The best way to achieve it in my view would be to strip much of the Presidential powers away. Trump has clearly shown that there is far too much power concentrated in the executive and that many of the unwritten rules are as good as non-existent.

I don’t have enough knowledge to claim to know exactly how to do it. It would require a bipartisan effort and extensive legal work to ensure it’s watertight. Giving Congress more power and giving the executive more accountability would be the way though I believe.

As much as I would personally like to see those responsible held to account I think you’re right in that it would cause untold amounts of harm. It is the right thing to do but there would be huge fallout.

Personally I think America and it’s reputation would benefit much more from putting in place robust laws, even amendments to the constitution to openly and definitively show the world “guys, we’re really sorry. This will absolutely not happen again. Ever”. That’s the only way.

If you prosecute those responsible without changing anything then they will be back with even more vengeance and even more extreme and messed up ideas.

If you’re just going to insult people without contributing to the discussion then go elsewhere.

I’m not going down to your level, just report your behaviour and let the mods deal with it.

There’s no need for it. I came here to talk about politics, not engage with whatever you’re doing.

And for your information there was a misunderstanding that me and the user amicably sorted out. Civil discussion. It’s a good thing. Try it.

I’m not quite sure what it was that I said to trigger that response but I was referring to a leader not accepting a salary to do the job, rather than a leader who doesn’t even have to take bribes which is what the user meant. It was a misunderstanding that was cleared up further in the comments.

I have no idea what part of my comment you’re responding to though. I apologise of this isn’t the case but it looks to me as though you’ve interpreted something in a particular way and used that to go on an angry tirade against Kier Starmer and the rise of right wing politics.

That’s fair enough but not what I was talking about. I’ll leave you to it.

Fair enough. It’s just crossed wires. Thanks for understanding. For what it’s worth I don’t think you’re wrong in many of your points on Starmer. I’m hopeful he’ll improve before he gets the chop but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t.

What’s your point? Other than being insulting.

I’m not shifting anything!

No mention of salary.

Pay. His pay. Another way to describe that is his salary.

I see by pay you meant “taking a bribe”. You didn’t say that until just now. That’s where the confusion is coming from.

I’m not really appreciating the rudeness either. I can’t be arsed with this. Lets just leave it there.

Wait, are you effectively saying that Kier Starmer took the job of Prime Minister because he was too afraid to say “no”?

Surely it would take more of a spine to say “no” to the money being offered than to say nothing and accept it?

I’m sorry I’m not following your logic here at all. I still can’t see why refusing a salary makes someone spineless. I think the opposite is true.

Transparency International highlighted the UK has slipped due to record spending on election campaigning . Labour, Conservatives and Reform have been guilty of this in various instances.

It’s easy to blame a single party, as some commenters in here might, but this is very clearly a systemic issue.

There need to be strict limits on campaign spending and absolute transparency about where that money has come from.

No more overseas donors. No more Think Tanks taking donations for “research”, from opaque sources and funneling it back to the party.

Politics needs to be cleaned up and freed from the grasp of these rich wankers who think because they have more money they can set the rules on how we as a people are governed.

I get it, you think he’s spineless and corrupt. That’s obvious.

My point is only why does it make a leader - any leader - that doesn’t accept payment for their duties spinless?

That’s what I’m interested in. Why you’re conflating the two. Why does not accepting a salary to be a political leader make someone spineless?

You don’t need to repeat that you think he’s spineless and corrupt. I get that. That’s up to you. I’m talking about the broader sense of any leader here.

I was hoping for a discussion around that topic, rather a repeat of of your views on Kier Starmer. You’ve made them clear. Thanks.

Welcome to America.

Anything and everything is susceptible to private wealth and exploitation of the poor.

Doesn’t matter if it’s your health or your property or you name it. It can and will be exploited to take money from you. The plebs.

I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re misinterpreting what I am asking.

I haven’t made an argument as to whether he is spinless or not. I am purely interested in why you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing rather than a good thing.

That’s all I want to discuss. I’m not arguing for or against his actions. You’ve gone off on a tangent.

So why do you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing? Because I personally would view that as a positive as they are not motivated by financial gain. From your point it sounds like a leader should demand to be paid a decent amount?

I didn’t say any of that. I’m simply asking why not having to pay someone is a negative? Or makes them spineless?

a leader so spineless that you don’t even need to pay him? Who’da thought?

Sorry but what do you mean by this? I’m struggling to see how this is bad. Would you rather a leader took all the money they could get their hands on? Because that’s how you end up with Trump.

Sheer opulence.