It’s right there, you’re replying to the nuance, you dingus. He’s literally adding nuance and you reply “oh well I guess there’s no nuance then!” How stupid are you?

No

They ship with Linux?

Ok, I think we’re miscommunicating. Either my question was’t formulated very clearly, or I misunderstood what you said in the first place. I took what you said (“democracy needs capitalism”) to mean “if you want democracy, you need capitalism”, or alternatively “if you don’t have capitalism, you cannot have democracy”. My question is why you believe this (if you do, that is; I may have misunderstood).

Your answer I completely agree with, but it just argues that capitalism is harmful to democracy and that at best democracy is like a guard rail for capitalism. If anything it shows that capitalism and democracy are kind of incompatible.

And it’s a side track, but the Nordic countries are not a good example of democracy counteracting the excesses of capitalism. They’ve just outsourced the worst of the misery to the global South. And domestically the situation for workers gets worse year by year (although they’re a long way from dropping to American levels).

Yes it was! And please look in folks’ comment histories, the tankies were the first ones to call this out.

Could you walk me through why you think democracy necessitates capitalism?

You too!

No, I don’t think it’s nitpicky, and I think it’s relevant to modern day political discourse. It demonstrates that progressive policies and positions are a viable political strategy for the democratic party. I think it’s important to stress this, because a lot of liberals today feel like courting the right is the only way to possibly win an election for the democrats. Stating “always have been” plays into this delusion, and it’s good to remind ourselves that it’s a complete and utter falsehood.

I don’t think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.

In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.

-Hannah Arendt

A geologist buddy of mine works on analyzing soil for placing wind farms.

A lot of people who studied physics do not end up in the “murder children for money” field. You have a choice, and you chose the deeply, deeply immoral path. You’re not fooling anyone, probably not even yourself.

You’re a very entertaining poster

Sorry but here again you’re just wrong on a factual level. China is not capitalist. Read whatever Cowbee writes, they’re usually good at explaining things.

No, sorry, this is incorrect. There are much more efficient and fair modes of production out there. Case in point would be Cuba, or China. The leaps and bounds they’ve made in spite of the largest and most murderous economic power in the world trying to sabotage them every step of the way should be evidence enough of that.

Bro bro no listen we need to capitalism better

But have you considered iphone?

No no no you don’t get it bro, what we have right now is adjective capitalism, that’s very different from real capitalism. Bro if we had real capitalism things would be so nice

There is no alternative ™

For anyone, like me, confused by the title: no verdict has been reached, and the trial expected to last for about seven more weeks.