Biden Out of Race

Started by DirtDocMD
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
Southpaw said:
Look it up
Click to expand...

I'm interested in YOUR definition

Account1 said:
Best I can find is a hyper progressive screed that boils down to “anything I don’t like or is mean in my opinion”

Why don’t you define it for me so we know what we’re even talking about.
Click to expand...

Did you look too hard? It was pretty easy. Per Google AI:

Technofascism is a political concept describing the fusion of corporate technology power—such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and digital monopolies—with authoritarian state control, bypassing democratic oversight. [1, 2, 3]
Discussions on Medium and analyses in publications like The New Yorker break down the core features, history, and modern impact of this concept. [1, 2]

Core Characteristics
    • State and Corporate Merger: Public governance and private tech infrastructure combine, allowing unelected tech leaders to influence or run key government operations. [1, 2]
    • Algorithmic Control: Digital tools, cloud systems, and AI quietly shape and constrain human behavior instead of just serving economic goals. [1]
    • Bypassing Democracy: Traditional checks and balances, public welfare protections, and labor rights are cast aside in favor of top-down, expert-driven efficiency. [1, 2, 3]
    • Mass Surveillance: Ubiquitous data collection tracks populations, making dissent predictable and difficult. [1, 2, 3]

UscGhost said:
Is maga still obsessed with that? It was that obsession that lead us into this current joke of an administration

Are y'all still concerned about checking gender on borth certificates outside of Mens/womens bathrooms?

Hard to keep track of whatever the current culture war obsession is on Fox "News"
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread, but I thought his comment was a bit humorous and sarcastic. Not everything has to be serious all the time.
 
Southpaw said:
You can make excuses for that election buying, doge floundering, tech fascist all you want. You completely ignored the part where he isn’t so ‘free speech’ as you declared him to be.

Learn to work the google. I believe in you.
Click to expand...
There's almost nothing about Elon being anti free speech in that entire wikipedia article. The closest I found was this:

"Despite claiming to be a non-biased "digital town square" and a champion for freedom of speech. Twitter delivers little or no search results, when searching for topics that are in opposition of the company or Elon's values and interests."

It's ok if you can't actually define the terms you want to use in an argument, but just be transparent about the fact that you're using a buzzword with no meaning. You called him a techno-fascist, and then didn't elaborate. Onus is on you to tell me what that means, especially to you (there's no standard definition of "techno fascist" out there I can see), or you're just blowing smoke.

No one bought any election either. Democrats LOST it. Stop sounding like Trump.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
arkgal said:
I'm interested in YOUR definition



Did you look too hard? It was pretty easy. Per Google AI:

Technofascism is a political concept describing the fusion of corporate technology power—such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and digital monopolies—with authoritarian state control, bypassing democratic oversight. [1, 2, 3]
Discussions on Medium and analyses in publications like The New Yorker break down the core features, history, and modern impact of this concept. [1, 2]

Core Characteristics
    • State and Corporate Merger: Public governance and private tech infrastructure combine, allowing unelected tech leaders to influence or run key government operations. [1, 2]
    • Algorithmic Control: Digital tools, cloud systems, and AI quietly shape and constrain human behavior instead of just serving economic goals. [1]
    • Bypassing Democracy: Traditional checks and balances, public welfare protections, and labor rights are cast aside in favor of top-down, expert-driven efficiency. [1, 2, 3]
    • Mass Surveillance: Ubiquitous data collection tracks populations, making dissent predictable and difficult. [1, 2, 3]



Maybe I misread, but I thought his comment was a bit humorous and sarcastic. Not everything has to be serious all the time.
Click to expand...
Oh I saw these descriptions on the "Medium" article, but none of it fits within the definition of actual fascism, which is anti-free speech and places the state above everything else. Elon Musk made twitter far less moderated by allowing any opinion on the platform, and has shrunken the power of the American state on his own. Those are anathema to what an actual fascist would do.

It's a meaningless neologism meant to compare people like Elon Musk with Nazis, purely for the emotional impact of doing so. Not because it's a meaningful way to describe what people like Elon do, even when the previous owner of twitter in Jack Dorsey was far closer to something resembling a fascist's use of twitter to suppress political dissent through exile and banning.

The New Yorker and Medium are not reliable sources given their screaming bias to describe things they don't like as "fascist." They don't set the terms of this argument when they can't actually relate the term to the historical definition, and instead shoehorn their dislikes into the neat package of "it's fascist if I don't like it."

These are people who censor films, people, and institutions that go against the orthodoxy of progressivism. They were a major part of "Woke 1", which was the most censorious movement in most of our lifetimes. It's outrageous to swallow their definitions whole when they're freakin included within it.




As for my definition, I don't have one personally. You can't define historical terms on the basis of your own feelings. The historical definition is Mussolini's , as he invented it:

Core Principles:

Supremacy of the State: Mussolini wrote, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." The government guides and controls all human and spiritual values.
  • Anti-Individualism: Individual rights only exist if they serve the State. True freedom means obeying and supporting the State.
  • Rejection of Pacifism: Fascism rejects lasting peace and pacifism, viewing them as cowardly. Mussolini believed that war brings out human energy and proves a nation's worth.
  • Opposition to Socialism and Democracy: Fascism rejects socialism because it focuses on class struggle instead of national unity. It also rejects democracy and liberalism, which it views as weak and outdated.
  • Totalitarian Control: The ruling party or dictator seeks complete control over the economy, politics, and daily life to make the nation strong and united

This is why it's stupid to call everything one doesn't like "fascism." It's essentially non-existent these days, and anything that is applied to one party in the USA inevitably becomes what both parties do, particularly in the surveillance state/free speech suppression, and the desire for armed conflict. Democrats are equally culpable in these two fascistic problems within our history since WW2.
 
Last edited:
Account1 said:
Oh I saw these descriptions on the "Medium" article, but none of it fits within the definition of actual fascism, which is anti-free speech and places the state above everything else. Elon Musk made twitter far less moderated by allowing any opinion on the platform, and has shrunken the power of the American state on his own. Those are anathema to what an actual fascist would do.

It's a meaningless neologism meant to compare people like Elon Musk with Nazis, purely for the emotional impact of doing so. Not because it's a meaningful way to describe what people like Elon do, even when the previous owner of twitter in Jack Dorsey was far closer to something resembling a fascist's use of twitter to suppress political dissent through exile and banning.

The New Yorker and Medium are not reliable sources given their screaming bias to describe things they don't like as "fascist." They don't set the terms of this argument when they can't actually relate the term to the historical definition, and instead shoehorn their dislikes into the neat package of "it's fascist if I don't like it."

These are people who censor films, people, and institutions that go against the orthodoxy of progressivism. They were a major part of "Woke 1", which was the most censorious movement in most of our lifetimes. It's outrageous to swallow their definitions whole when they're freakin included within it.
Click to expand...

Did AI write that? It's one of the more rare, coherent things you've said on this forum.
 
Account1 said:
The punishment is NIMBY
Click to expand...

LMAO! Yeah, Trump is representing the interests of affordable housing advocates by demanding his ballroom have fewer exits. /s

You're thinking mostly about zoning regulations. Not that building codes don't impact housing costs, but the architect in question was alleging that what Trump wanted was unsafe in the event of a fire.
 
rowsdower88 said:
LMAO! Yeah, Trump is representing the interests of affordable housing advocates by demanding his ballroom have fewer exits. /s

You're thinking mostly about zoning regulations. Not that building codes don't impact housing costs, but the architect in question was alleging that what Trump wanted was unsafe in the event of a fire.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking more about Judge Dredd than anything serious. I should've said "The sentence is NIMBY"
 
Account1 said:
There's almost nothing about Elon being anti free speech in that entire wikipedia article. The closest I found was this:

"Despite claiming to be a non-biased "digital town square" and a champion for freedom of speech. Twitter delivers little or no search results, when searching for topics that are in opposition of the company or Elon's values and interests."

It's ok if you can't actually define the terms you want to use in an argument, but just be transparent about the fact that you're using a buzzword with no meaning. You called him a techno-fascist, and then didn't elaborate. Onus is on you to tell me what that means, especially to you (there's no standard definition of "techno fascist" out there I can see), or you're just blowing smoke.

No one bought any election either. Democrats LOST it. Stop sounding like Trump.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of problems with getting news solely, or even mostly, from X. Some of them are detailed in the article. It's okay if you don't feel the same as me. I'm not going through it line by line with you, post after post, page after page, simply to arrive at a point where we don't see eye to eye and don't agree. I can do that right now and save considerable time and energy. 526 pages in now.

I go both ways with X. I also believe in many ways X needs regulation and the free flow of information there is too slick. Too much 'freedom of speech'. Hate speech for example. Ideas that easily spread islamophobic, antisemitic, and any other hate speech ideas.

If you're an Elon defender, that's okay. Again, we can just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I see no need and have no desire to argue page after page only to waste time and energy to arrive at the same conclusion days from now. I'd rather do something more productive and enjoyable with my time, both here at SDN and especially away from it.

Elon has spent $380 million (estimated) on MAGA elections. Over $250 million to Trump. He's apparently leaning in heavy on the Paxton race. You can believe it's to protect the fragileness of our American democracy. That's okay. I certainly believe he has far more nefarious and self-serving intent.

Good day sir.
 
rowsdower88 said:

It's Wednesday in America, so that means it's time for another story about our Republican President declaring authority over building codes in the style of Judge Dredd.
Click to expand...

Are architects even well versed in building code? In my experience building codes are typically handled by contractors. I know Trump has said he's paying for this with private funds. I'm sure year(s) from now we'll find it out was all taxpayer funded and wasted. Just like he said Don Jr. is paying back the Russian oligarch who paid for his wedding (I mean....why??). Sure, sure.
 
Southpaw said:
There are a lot of problems with getting news solely, or even mostly, from X. Some of them are detailed in the article. It's okay if you don't feel the same as me. I'm not going through it line by line with you, post after post, page after page, simply to arrive at a point where we don't see eye to eye and don't agree. I can do that right now and save considerable time and energy. 526 pages in now.

I go both ways with X. I also believe in many ways X needs regulation and the free flow of information there is too slick. Too much 'freedom of speech'. Hate speech for example. Ideas that easily spread islamophobic, antisemitic, and any other hate speech ideas.

If you're an Elon defender, that's okay. Again, we can just agree to disagree and move on with our lives. I see no need and have no desire to argue page after page only to waste time and energy to arrive at the same conclusion days from now. I'd rather do something more productive and enjoyable with my time, both here at SDN and especially away from it.

Elon has spent $380 million (estimated) on MAGA elections. Over $250 million to Trump. He's apparently leaning in heavy on the Paxton race. You can believe it's to protect the fragileness of our American democracy. That's okay. I certainly believe he has far more nefarious and self-serving intent.

Good day sir.
Click to expand...

This isn't even about defending Elon Musk, it's a call out of the continued rhetorical trick of liberal people to refer to anything they don't like as "fascist." Prior to him acquiring twitter, almost no one felt this way about Elon Musk, but in the space of 4 years he's now careening us towards totalitarian rule? And what has he done at twitter? Less moderation. Less censorship.

If you don’t like free speech in public forums, just say so. If allowing a free exchange of ideas on a platform bothers you because it means you may be offended, then say so. Calling twitter "too slick" for flow its of information really betrays what you want here, which is an much more fascist adjacent platform in which people like you are in charge. That's what twitter used to be. It's what reddit, bluesky, instagram, and most other public forums are currently.

The guy has gone bat**** due to a ketamine addiction, among other things, but I don't see him as a supervillain. To me this is pretty run of the mill stuff for a billionaire who wants to be publicly visible, aside from the DOGE program, which again was decidedly the opposite of fascist, as it shrunk an unaccountable state organization.

I think there's some obvious political leanings in the tech billionaire population in some cases. Peter Thiel has been a very conservative person well before Trump was around. Reid Hoffman of linkedin, who is a clear example of what you'd refer to as "techno fascist", is a staunch Democrat with a history of donating to their political cause. The "stakeholder capitalists" are also far more fascist in their attempt to meld the state with corporate interests "for the good of society" (what they think is good for you), and those people are overwhelmingly democratic leaning.

Call whoever you want fascist, but show me some examples of the fascism, and we can have a nice discussion about it.
 
Account1 said:
meant to compare people like Elon Musk with Nazis
Click to expand...

Well, ya know, he does kinda ask for such comparisons ...

15821496_012025-kgo-musk-arm-gesture-img.jpg
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Account1 said:
aside from the DOGE program, which again was decidedly the opposite of fascist, as it shrunk an unaccountable state organization.
Click to expand...

You've made this claim (or similar) a couple times and you keep defending DOGE.

DOGE was an unmitigated failure at achieving it's stated goal (budget reduction).

DOGE was successful at reducing government oversight, which I guess is what you're referring to? They successfully reduced government employment at places like the IRS and CFPB. DOGE made it harder to enforce laws that impact wealthy people and businesses (tax and corporate law).

So in a very loose sense, you are right. DOGE shrunk the government. But it did it in a way that helps concentrate power and reduce oversight.
 
‘Referring to anything they don’t like as fascist’. I’m not real sure I refer to a lot of things as fascist. There’s a lot these days I don’t like in politics and I don’t recall using the term fascist on the daily. I could be wrong.

Elon used doge to fire federal employees (only for them to be rehired days/weeks/months later). He used doge to completely dismantle government agencies in an attempt to consolidate power within the executive. He tried (successfully?) to steal private information of American citizens while he ran doge. If I called him anti-immigration that’d be putting it politely. He wants the executive to hold far more power than in our traditional current 3 equal branches of government, at the expense of the legislative and judiciary. It’s probably more accurate to call him an antisemitic Islamophobic racist.

Sure seems like fascism to me. Fascist tendencies? Fascist actions? Whatever. Take your pick.
 
Last edited:
rowsdower88 said:
You've made this claim (or similar) a couple times and you keep defending DOGE.

DOGE was an unmitigated failure at achieving it's stated goal (budget reduction).

DOGE was successful at reducing government oversight, which I guess is what you're referring to? They successfully reduced government employment at places like the IRS and CFPB. DOGE made it harder to enforce laws that impact wealthy people and businesses (tax and corporate law).

So in a very loose sense, you are right. DOGE shrunk the government. But it did it in a way that helps concentrate power and reduce oversight.
Click to expand...
I'm not here to defend DOGE, merely to clarify what it is/was.

I think DOGE was meant to be an anti-bureaucracy program that largely failed in its goal of reducing federal spending. That it intended to concentrate power in some meaningful way is something I don't see much evidence for. Best I can tell it gave the executive more indirect influence over civil service agency staffing, but I don't think it gave the executive branch any power it didn't have before or take away any power from congress that it used to have.
Southpaw said:
‘Referring anything they don’t like as fascist’. I’m not real sure I refer to a lot of things as fascist. There’s a lot these days I don’t like in politics and I don’t recall using the term fascist on the daily. I could be wrong.

Elon used doge to fire federal employees (only for them to be rehired days/weeks/months later). He used doge to complete dismantle government agencies in an attempt to consolidate power within the executive. He tried (successfully?) to steal private information of American citizens while he ran doge. If I called him anti-immigration that’d be putting it polite. He wants the executive to hold far more power than in our traditional current 3 equal branches of government, at the expense of the legislative and judiciary. It’s probably more accurate to call him an antisemitic Islamophobic racist.

Sure seems like fascism to me. Fascist tendencies? Fascist actions? Whatever. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
What power was he trying to consolidate with DOGE? Oversight of federal employment? It seems like no power was gained or lost by any branch because of DOGE, and I'm not even sure that DOGE itself brushed up against those limits.

This accusation of "stealing" people's information is a misrepresentation from what I can tell. They got access to information, but then seemed to screw up the handling of sensitive information, with little impact. I've had much, much worse done to my information by my local hospital, so this isn't all that concerning in my opinion.

You can call him those things, but that would place him among his own company in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Elon Musk and other tech people seem to shift their opinions on the government as often as the political parties in power change. I don't think that's coincidental, and you'll find a quick resolution if a Democrat becomes president in 2028. As for the cuts to federal agencies, I doubt a Democratically controlled congress has any plans to attempt to fix whatever problems you think have been caused by DOGE or Elon Musk.
 
Account1 said:
Best I can tell it gave the executive more indirect influence over civil service agency staffing, but I don't think it gave the executive branch any power it didn't have before or take away any power from congress that it used to have.
Click to expand...

Then I guess it didn't even "shrink an unaccountable state organization" then, lol.

It reduced the capacity of the government to conduct oversight in ways that benefit the wealthy and corporations. If you want to argue that wasn't their "intent" that's dumb. It was at the very least an acceptable outcome.

~7,000 IRS employees were fired by DOGE (only ~1% of those had performance issues). Since then many have been hired back, but the agency has been hobbled in its ability to conduct audits of the wealthy and investigate tax fraud.

www.cbsnews.com

IRS audit revenue plunged following workforce reductions, Treasury watchdog finds

IRS audits collected $3.5 billion less in fiscal 2025 as the agency shed thousands of auditors and other agency staffers.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

www.nytimes.com

Billions in Taxes Go Unpaid. Under Trump, the I.R.S. Won’t Say How Much.

The absence of the annual estimate on the tax gap could make it more difficult to assess whether more taxes are going unpaid since President Trump took office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

If you want to say this outcome is also the product of other policy decisions by the Trump admin I don't object. Plenty of people in Trump's orbit want reduced government oversight. He made these organizations cost more to do less.

"The agency has fewer revenue agents, who audit the most complicated tax returns, than it has had since the 1950s, when the economy was far smaller and the tax code was far less complex," tax analysts with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank, wrote in a June blog post.
 
Last edited:
UscGhost said:
www.yahoo.com

Six Nobel economists back California wealth tax, while tech billionaires spend $120m to block it

If California voters pass Proposition 40 in November, the measure could establish the first billionaire wealth tax in the United States.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Odd that the only people opposed to the billionaire tax are the billionaires and the recipients of their donations
Click to expand...
I have no problem with this on the face of it. My concern is that there is already so much waste from government spending. How do we know this money will be spent wisely in a state that already has significant waste and overspending. Billions have been spent on a high speed rail project with construction starting 11 years ago. It won't start service before 2031. That's just one example. $24 billion spent to reduce homelessness with questionable results. Medi-cal alone is roughly 2/3 of the state's annual budget of $351 billion for this fiscal year. A one-time tax won't solve this state's fiscal problems, but it does make voters feel good, so there's that.
 
rowsdower88 said:
Then I guess it didn't even "shrink an unaccountable state organization" then, lol.

It reduced the capacity of the government to conduct oversight in ways that benefit the wealthy and corporations. If you want to argue that wasn't their "intent" that's dumb. It was at the very least an acceptable outcome.

~7,000 IRS employees were fired by DOGE (only ~1% of those had performance issues). Since then many have been hired back, but the agency has been hobbled in its ability to conduct audits of the wealthy and investigate tax fraud.

www.cbsnews.com

IRS audit revenue plunged following workforce reductions, Treasury watchdog finds

IRS audits collected $3.5 billion less in fiscal 2025 as the agency shed thousands of auditors and other agency staffers.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

www.nytimes.com

Billions in Taxes Go Unpaid. Under Trump, the I.R.S. Won’t Say How Much.

The absence of the annual estimate on the tax gap could make it more difficult to assess whether more taxes are going unpaid since President Trump took office.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

If you want to say this outcome is also the product of other policy decisions by the Trump admin I don't object. Plenty of people in Trump's orbit want reduced government oversight. He made these organizations cost more to do less.

"The agency has fewer revenue agents, who audit the most complicated tax returns, than it has had since the 1950s, when the economy was far smaller and the tax code was far less complex," tax analysts with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank, wrote in a June blog post.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what point you’re making by citing the irs here. Are you just mad that rich people found another way to pay less in taxes?

Fewer irs agents also means they have less oversight and enforcement against poor and middle income people. I can’t find the numbers on how that portion of the auditing has dropped, but I think it’s likely that regular people are benefitting from irs reductions too.

From what I can find, it looks like 3.5 billion less dollars has been collected from audits since doge came into being. Excuse me for not caring that we can’t fund one day of the Iran war, and not being worried that this is a path to authoritarianism or executive power consolidation 🤷
 
Account1 said:
I’m not sure what point you’re making by citing the irs here. Are you just mad that rich people found another way to pay less in taxes?

Fewer irs agents also means they have less oversight and enforcement against poor and middle income people. I can’t find the numbers on how that portion of the auditing has dropped, but I think it’s likely that regular people are benefitting from irs reductions too.

From what I can find, it looks like 3.5 billion less dollars has been collected from audits since doge came into being. Excuse me for not caring that we can’t fund one day of the Iran war, and not being worried that this is a path to authoritarianism or executive power consolidation 🤷
Click to expand...

Apart from programs that were gutted entirely like USAID (death toll tbd), the IRS was hit especially hard by DOGE. So when you say they "shrunk an unaccountable state org" (as some sort of positive spin) maybe you had another org in mind, but my mind went to the CFPB and the IRS.

The wealthy have disproportionately benefited from this lack of oversight. Policy experts, government watchdogs and Democratic politicians have all said this. Trying to frame DOGE as equal opportunity tax fraud for all, while true in some sense, discounts who the big winners are. From my source:

"The IRS also started fewer audits of wealthy taxpayers. Agency staffers opened about 43,000 examinations of individuals with income over $400,000 in fiscal 2025, down 26% from a year earlier. As of January 2026, the agency's Global High Wealth program had 27% fewer employees than before the fiscal 2025 workforce reductions."

I don't expect you to "care". This benefits folks like you and me the most if we're tax cheats. I do think the narrative you're pedaling about DOGE is dumb.
 
Last edited:
rowsdower88 said:
Apart from programs that were gutted entirely like USAID, the IRS was hit especially hard by DOGE. So when you say they "shrunk an unaccountable state org" maybe you had another org in mind, but my mind went to the CFPB and the IRS.

The wealthy have disproportionately benefited from this lack of oversight. Policy experts, government watchdogs and Democratic politicians have all said this. Trying to frame DOGE as equal opportunity tax fraud for all, while true in some sense, discounts who the big winners are. From my source:

"The IRS also started fewer audits of wealthy taxpayers. Agency staffers opened about 43,000 examinations of individuals with income over $400,000 in fiscal 2025, down 26% from a year earlier. As of January 2026, the agency's Global High Wealth program had 27% fewer employees than before the fiscal 2025 workforce reductions."

I don't expect you to "care". This benefits folks like you and me the most if we're tax cheats. I do think the narrative you're pedaling about DOGE is dumb.
Click to expand...

There hasn’t been a fiscal policy that I’m aware of that didn’t disproportionately benefit wealthy people. Every bit of money printing and inflationary monetary policy benefits wealthy people disproportionately.

What narrative am I peddling? What I’m saying is that DOGE isn’t some fascist dagger into the heart of democracy, and that its actions don’t make Elon musk a “techno fascist”. I think It’s a bureaucracy cut by people who took advantage of Americans distrust of government bureaucracy. A bit corrupt? Sure. Anything extraordinary? I don’t think it is.

The unaccountable state organizations I have in mind are USAID and the department of education.
 
Account1 said:
There hasn’t been a fiscal policy that I’m aware of that didn’t disproportionately benefit wealthy people. Every bit of money printing and inflationary monetary policy benefits wealthy people disproportionately.
Click to expand...

Wut? Medicaid, medicare, SNAP, CHIP, WIC, EITC... Maybe you're thinking recently enacted fiscal policy or something.
 
Account1 said:
What narrative am I peddling? What I’m saying is that DOGE isn’t some fascist dagger into the heart of democracy, and that its actions don’t make Elon musk a “techno fascist”. I think It’s a bureaucracy cut by people who took advantage of Americans distrust of government bureaucracy. A bit corrupt? Sure. Anything extraordinary? I don’t think it is.
Click to expand...

I'll be explicit with what I think the narrative you have is.

You're trying to give Elon/DOGE a whoopsie.*

Exaggerating for effect: "He was just a little bit corrupt, can't get too worked up over that. His heart was in the right place after all, it's not like we KNOW he used government data poorly. He got rid of that government organization I don't like, think of all the positives DOGE accomplished. Even when he cost the government billions in tax revenue... every American probably could take advantage of that if they're tax cheats... right?"

I don't think you have to say he's a techno fascist. But you are downplaying and dismissing misconduct. You're saying he just made a "whoopsie".

*term borrowed from Elephant Graveyard
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
arkgal said:
I have no problem with this on the face of it. My concern is that there is already so much waste from government spending. How do we know this money will be spent wisely in a state that already has significant waste and overspending. Billions have been spent on a high speed rail project with construction starting 11 years ago. It won't start service before 2031. That's just one example. $24 billion spent to reduce homelessness with questionable results. Medi-cal alone is roughly 2/3 of the state's annual budget of $351 billion for this fiscal year. A one-time tax won't solve this state's fiscal problems, but it does make voters feel good, so there's that.
Click to expand...
While true. We are already spending more than we take in...so i dont think taking in more will directly lead to more spending.

The wealth disparity is simply unsustainable and unfair tax policy

Spending is also out of control and needs to be reigned in.

Solving only one will not solve the debt crisis. And make no mistake, we are all currently paying for the debt via higher interest and inflation. Thanks boomers...
 
rowsdower88 said:
I'll be explicit with what I think the narrative you have is.

You're trying to give Elon/DOGE a whoopsie.*

Exaggerating for effect: "He was just a little bit corrupt, can't get too worked up over that. His heart was in the right place after all, it's not like we KNOW he used government data poorly. He got rid of that government organization I don't like, think of all the positives DOGE accomplished. Even when he cost the government billions in tax revenue... every American probably could take advantage of that if they're tax cheats... right?"

I don't think you have to say he's a techno fascist. But you are downplaying and dismissing misconduct. You're saying he just made a "whoopsie".

*term borrowed from Elephant Graveyard
Click to expand...

If you think this is specifically about Elon musk you’re just shadowboxing.

I’m being pedantic over the overuse of the smear of “fascist”, I’d say the same **** if you called Zuckerberg or Peter thiel that.

I think youre inventing this narrative because you believe Elon musk is some sort of supervillain because you want the dramatic fight in your head and you’re obsessed with the people he’s “killing” by turning off usaid, even though a democratic Congress isn’t going to turn it back on and you know it.

I appreciate that you at least are more insightful with your criticism than “he’s a fascist Nazi don’t you see we’re 1 step from the holocaust??!?!” There’s plenty not to like about him. I think he’s a **** guy overall, who abandoned his children and does enough ketamine to kill a horse daily.
 
Last edited:
Account1 said:
you’re obsessed with the people he’s “killing” by turning off usaid, even though a democratic Congress isn’t going to turn it back on and you know it.
Click to expand...

We've been over this.

I think we are responsible for the predictable results of our actions and inaction.
 
Account1 said:

Hanlon's razor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Click to expand...
The man has certain talents, obviously.

I just get exhausted hearing about how smart he is. Virtually every time he opens his mouth about a topic that I know something about, it's nonsense. Sometimes bizarre nonsense. It makes me seriously wonder if, when he's talking about subjects I don't know much about, if he's just as confidently ignorant about them as well.
 
Account1 said:
Fewer irs agents also means they have less oversight and enforcement against poor and middle income people. I can’t find the numbers on how that portion of the auditing has dropped, but I think it’s likely that regular people are benefitting from irs reductions too
Click to expand...

"benefitting"

So just to be clear, you're cool with tax fraud / tax evasion by wealthy people, as long as poor and middle class people can get away with it as well?

And that reducing enforcement is a good thing, or at least an acceptable outcome?

I'm curious, are there other crimes for which you favor reducing enforcement, so long as rich AND poor people can get away with it?

Petty theft? Grand larceny? Assault? DUI? Disposal of used motor oil into the sewers?

Just trying to figure out where your "let them commit crimes" line is.
 
arkgal said:
To those here who said there will never be data centers in space...

Article gifted
Click to expand...

The scam has to have some amount of plausibility theater to keep the gullible investments going.

If you still think data centers in space, at scale, as more than a stunt or novelty, is going to happen, I don't know what else to say.
 
pgg said:
The scam has to have some amount of plausibility theater to keep the gullible investments going.

If you still think data centers in space, at scale, as more than a stunt or novelty, is going to happen, I don't know what else to say.
Click to expand...
I didn't think it would happen, either. It still may not. This is an experiment. This at a minimum costs Google tens of millions of dollars, if not more. If there's no potential return on investment, then this is a pretty expensive novelty. People like my thought Trump would never win the first Republican presidential nomination. Then he did. I didn't think he would destroy our democracy when his first term started. Anything is possible.
 
pgg said:
"benefitting"

So just to be clear, you're cool with tax fraud / tax evasion by wealthy people, as long as poor and middle class people can get away with it as well?

And that reducing enforcement is a good thing, or at least an acceptable outcome?

I'm curious, are there other crimes for which you favor reducing enforcement, so long as rich AND poor people can get away with it?

Petty theft? Grand larceny? Assault? DUI? Disposal of used motor oil into the sewers?

Just trying to figure out where your "let them commit crimes" line is.
Click to expand...

Really just regarding federal taxes. The government has proven for decades that tax in and spend out doesn’t have to match, so I’m unconcerned with the deficit increasing because “oh no we are 20000 trillion short guys, guess we’ll just deficit spend”

Come on dude. We were all alive and paying taxes during covid. The government invented money from thin air in the most brazen manner we’ve seen in history. I wasn’t a fan of federal taxes before then (why am I paying extra Medicare tax if we can just deficit spend out of it and do so anyway), but that was the final blow to me caring about any particular individual or company’s tax evasion.

State taxes and local taxes are drastically different because they can’t just deficit spend in perpetuity. There’s laws to prevent them from doing so.

Grand theft and larceny have a victim. Motor oil into the sewers harms the physical space and ecology of a community. The federal government is NOT a victim. They are unaffected by lower tax receipts and higher spend. See above.

You know why I was so pissed about the Minnesota fraud? Because those criminals took state resources away from people who actually needed them, and Minnesota can’t just print its way out of it. If this was federal money, It would sort of bother me since they’re literally freeloading and creating some economic problems, but not to the same extent. Personally, I happily pay my state and local tax. My federal tax bill is some boomer stealing my money at gunpoint.

I would not give a single **** if you, your mom, and your children evaded every federal tax dollar you owed for the rest of your lives. I hope you can do it and get away with it in fact. What’s another trillion, 5 trillion, 10 trillion to the deficit after all?


I’m sure that the 3.5 billion of lost audit revenue is a real big deal.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Musk, Thiel et al are all about billionaire bunkers and interplanetary life for rich humans because they actually believe that their data centers and other resource intensive endeavors will turn most of the earth into a sh*thole.
 
pgg said:
"benefitting"

So just to be clear, you're cool with tax fraud / tax evasion by wealthy people, as long as poor and middle class people can get away with it as well?

And that reducing enforcement is a good thing, or at least an acceptable outcome?

I'm curious, are there other crimes for which you favor reducing enforcement, so long as rich AND poor people can get away with it?

Petty theft? Grand larceny? Assault? DUI? Disposal of used motor oil into the sewers?

Just trying to figure out where your "let them commit crimes" line is.
Click to expand...
Just because someone thinks the IRS is overstaffed and their work could be greatly simplified does not imply that they condone criminal activity.
I love this depiction of our relationship with the IRS and the tax process:
IRS: You owe us money. It's called taxes.
Me: How much?
IRS: You'll figure it out.
Me: I just pay what I think is right?
IRS: Nope. We know exactly how much. But you have to guess.
Me: What if I'm wrong?
IRS: Fees. Maybe jail. We'll see.
 
pgg said:
The man has certain talents, obviously.

I just get exhausted hearing about how smart he is. Virtually every time he opens his mouth about a topic that I know something about, it's nonsense. Sometimes bizarre nonsense. It makes me seriously wonder if, when he's talking about subjects I don't know much about, if he's just as confidently ignorant about them as well.
Click to expand...
pgg said:
The scam has to have some amount of plausibility theater to keep the gullible investments going.

If you still think data centers in space, at scale, as more than a stunt or novelty, is going to happen, I don't know what else to say.
Click to expand...
You state that you tire of hearing Elon Musk talk as if he knows everything about everything, as if he could never be wrong. Yet, you consistently state your beliefs as infallible when dealing with others on this forum. Even when faced with an obvious example that disproves what you had stated.
I have no idea if you are correct in your assessment or not, but you clearly have no doubt you are correct. Which is the thing you complained about in the post about Elon.
 
cittykat said:
Musk, Thiel et al are all about billionaire bunkers and interplanetary life for rich humans because they actually believe that their data centers and other resource intensive endeavors will turn most of the earth into a sh*thole.
Click to expand...
LOL none of them want to emigrate to Mars!

Its cold and dangerous and boring and space is full of cancer rays and it's cramped and closed cycle life support smells like piss and BO and their yachts can't go with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Vermont Opts-out of supervision of nurses
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
aneftp
A
N
Washington D.C. opts out of CRNA supervision
Replies
5
Views
682
cittykat
cittykat
N
Ohio opts out of crna supervision
2 3
Replies
107
Views
6K
Gern Blansten
Gern Blansten
arkgal
Biden guilty on all counts
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
13K
DocMcCoy
DocMcCoy
A
Anesthesia out of network, facility and surgeon in network
Replies
24
Views
6K
JStarMD
J