What if Donald Trump was President and George Santos was a Cabinet Secretary?
in Close to Politics ·
Michelle Doyle61 said:I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. It's one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start peeling back the layers, it gets complicated fast. I remember sitting in a small coffee shop in Seattle a few years back, just watching people pass by, wondering how much of our daily decisions are actually ours. It’s easy to feel like we’re in control, but there are so many outside forces at play. It’s a heavy thought, honestly. But I suppose that's just life.
Or maybe it was just brainwashing—that people from the nineties were being systematically brainwashed. 😉
It’s easy to just toss an idea aside. It's much harder to actually sit down and try to wrap your head around it. Capitalism—as much as it beats out communism (though that’s a pretty broad brush to paint with since both systems have so many different flavors)—definitely has its flaws. And we aren't talking about minor hiccups; we're talking about massive, systemic failures that we've been trying to fix for over a century. We still haven't cracked the code. Part of the reason, I think, is that we tend to dismiss the deep thinking and the heavy analysis done by those who came before us.
You really have to read Karl Marx. It’s worth sitting down with his work and actually debating it, precisely because he had such a sharp eye for the flaws in our current system. He pointed out specific cracks in the foundation of capitalism that we're still tripping over today. I remember reading some of his theories back in college while sitting in a quiet corner of a library in Chicago, and even then, it felt like he was describing the exact struggles people face in modern America. His warnings about systemic instability aren't just history lessons; they are incredibly relevant right now.
Even the biggest champions of free markets, like Adam Smith, openly admitted that the system comes with its own set of deep-seated flaws. To me, the real divide isn't about whether the problems exist, but rather how you fix them. That’s where the fundamental split between Smith and Karl Marx happens—they saw the same cracks in the foundation, they just had completely different blueprints for the repair work.
I don't have much to add there. Just some food for thought.
Maybe we should just toss every philosophy book ever written into a bonfire. Honestly, I think we're far beyond those old-school fools.
Oh, totally! I mean, look at how many ridiculous theories are floating around—stuff like aliens building the pyramids, or the conspiracy that George W. Bush orchestrated 9/11, or people actually believing homeopathy is legit. Then you've got the moon landing deniers or those folks who think John Edwards can actually chat with the dead.
All that nonsense? It's incredibly easy to debunk.
But then... then you run into those "ideas" that try to hide behind a lab coat, like Deepak Chopra and his whole "scientific" shtick regarding health and quantum physics.
Even Karl Marx's theories get laughed off the stage alongside all that junk because they just don't hold water—they fail logic, they fail rational reasoning, they fail empirical evidence, and honestly, they fail basic human experience. His labor theory of value is a complete wash; even self-proclaimed Marxists don't bring it up anymore because it's just straight-up absurd.
And man, let's talk about his social engineering projects aimed at creating this "new human" who is supposedly free from human nature—that ideology drove over 120,000,000 people to their doom in the 20th century. Those kinds of ideas are dangerous, period. His brand of pseudoscience is arguably the most perilous idea in human history—this notion that an individual doesn't matter, that your life is just a number being moved around on a chessboard by some central planner. It claims your property belongs to everyone, that your life is worthless if a bureaucrat decides it is, and that you have zero right to create or control your own destiny. You're supposed to be subservient to "the collective" and whatever interests a central planner deems necessary for that collective.
The bottom line is, we reject these ideas primarily because they are built on fabrications, manipulations, and flawed assumptions that completely ignore fundamental economic laws and actual human nature.
When you actually put these things into practice, we've all seen the devastation they leave behind—so I categorically and absolutely reject Mark and his followers (Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) in every sense of the word. I do, and every single freedom-loving person with half a brain in their head, too! 👍