-->
@RationalMadman
I can explain the logic if you want.Is banning abortion the only thing you find logical in the conservative stance?
No. Guns, Immigration, Constitutional Issues, Free Speech
Rate the last 8 Presidents
Posts
Total:
85
-->
@Greyparrot
I know. Emotional argument happening right now lmfao
-->
@ILikePie5
Which do you want to debate/discuss first?
Lay out the logic of it.
-->
@RationalMadman
The fundamental idea that a rich person owning many millions and snowballing their advantage at ridiculous rates at the sake of many starving people isn't 'resisting empathy' of the starving and desperate, it's empathising too much with somebody who'd be just as happy/unhappy without quite as extremely much of a chokehold on their respective level of wealth,
This is an example of an emotional reaction. Both the liberal and conservative want good things for poor people, but the liberal is mad at the rich and will make simplistic policies like the following
"Derp, poor good rich bad. We need to punish rich through redistribution of wealth and help the poor"
Meanwhile your average conservative would do an analysis to see what policies would actually help the poor as opposed to the reaction that merely feels good.
It's the reason why when Reagan left office more people had escaped the poverty level in the United States through his supply side economics than in any time throughout American history.
In fact, Reagan made America so wealthy, the left somehow turned it into an insult that the poor in America no longer had to starve to death and could afford basic comforts. Just look at the Hollywood cope for any movie that takes place during the Reagan era.
That's why Reagan's reelection campaign, he asked Americans if he made their life better, to vote for him so he can do it again. He of course was reelected because he improved the lives of a lot of poor and working class people as evidenced by the fact more people left the poverty level than any preceding time in history
-->
@RationalMadman
Which do you want to debate/discuss first?Lay out the logic of it.
Sure let’s talk about guns. There have been studies that defensive gun use incidents range from 500,000 to 1.2 million annually. Gun deaths range from 30-35,000 annually. Most of those are suicide, which is a mental health problem. Second most is gang/cartel violence. I support Law and Order (something a lot of people on the left don’t support). Third comes accidental gun deaths. Towards the bottom is mass shootings. Banning guns is illogical since greater than 10x as many lives are saved/crimes prevented by gun uses than deaths.
Furthermore, the second amendment enshrines the right to own firearms for private and public use if necessary, but I digress since that goes into constitutional theory.
-->
@Incel-chud
There's some sick people on the left that celebrated the destruction of the middle class with the Covid lockdowns saying "the rich" deserved it.
As if destroying upward mobility is ever a good thing for the poor.
-->
@Incel-chud
A Brit can never understand American exceptionalism.
-->
@ILikePie5
USA is also one of the few countries that treats suicide the same as gun violence.
-->
@thett3
Biden: C+
Trump: F-
Obama: B+
Bush: F-
Clinton: C?
Bush: D
Reagan: F
Carter: ???
-->
@Incel-chud
This is an example of an emotional reaction. Both the liberal and conservative want good things for poor people, but the liberal is mad at the rich and will make simplistic policies like the following"Derp, poor good rich bad. We need to punish rich through redistribution of wealth and help the poor"Meanwhile your average conservative would do an analysis to see what policies would actually help the poor as opposed to the reaction that merely feels good.
This isn’t totally fair to say but of course their is a kernel of truth there. One of my pet peeves is when people emotionally react to billionaires spending absurd amounts of money on toys. And I do understand the emotional reaction, seeing a mega yacht while so many people struggle does seem kind of sick. But…building that mega yacht cost money. Hiring the crew for it cost money. The helicopter on the helicopter pad, all the other toys those all cost money and spending that money creates lots and lots of jobs. It’s actually way better for billionaires to be blowing their money instead of dressing up in clothes from Walmart and LARPING as an average joe while their money sits in wealth management accounts
Also there isn’t as much wealth in billionaires hands as people think. Liquidate the net worths of every billionaire in the country and somehow do it without totally collapsing the value of the seized assets and you could give everyone about twelve grand. Cool.
-->
@Incel-chud
It's the reason why when Reagan left office more people had escaped the poverty level in the United States through his supply side economics than in any time throughout American history.
I'm having trouble finding info on this. What was the poverty rate in the country before and after Reagan?
-->
@Greyparrot
USA is also one of the few countries that treats suicide the same as gun violence.
With awe then.
Elements of Christian based Muslim type fanaticism
Sort of based upon Clint Eastwood and all those previous movie gunslingers.
Crazy mixed up Country the U.S......Though in fairness, from a fur trapping anarchy to a global super power in 246 years is no mean feat, so credit where it's due.
We must learn tolerate your occasional Orange Clown type glitches and your pseudo sexual fascination with guns.....NATO and the free World and all that.
-->
@zedvictor4
Orange Clown type glitches
I don't waste time listening to the OrangePsakiBad.
-->
@Greyparrot
You obviously did.
And I only did it for you.
Because I know that you appreciate the challenge.
Jen Psaki....Thinking mans crumpet.
Are you a thinking man?
Or a man at all?......I honestly don't know at this juncture.....But you do have a masculine vibe about you.
Kayleigh McEnany was the drooling mans crumpet.
Do you drool?
-->
@Incel-chud
Meanwhile your average conservative would do an analysis to see what policies would actually help the poor as opposed to the reaction that merely feels good.
Never ever seen this happen ever but ok. Reagan was the worst President other than Nixon for the poor.
-->
@thett3
But…building that mega yacht cost money. Hiring the crew for it cost money. The helicopter on the helicopter pad, all the other toys those all cost money and spending that money creates lots and lots of jobs. It’s actually way better for billionaires to be blowing their money instead of dressing up in clothes from Walmart and LARPING as an average joe while their money sits in wealth management accounts
True but for the last part— money in investment accounts IS being put to work. If I had to think of ways of making money dormant (other than under the mattress), I would say buying precious metals and crypto.
-->
@zedvictor4
Jen Psaki....Thinking mans crumpet.
More like tea for idiots.
-->
@RationalMadman
Why do you think lifting more people out of poverty than any other president in human history is bad for poor people?
-->
@ILikePie5
Sure let’s talk about guns. There have been studies that defensive gun use incidents range from 500,000 to 1.2 million annually. Gun deaths range from 30-35,000 annually. Most of those are suicide, which is a mental health problem. Second most is gang/cartel violence. I support Law and Order (something a lot of people on the left don’t support). Third comes accidental gun deaths. Towards the bottom is mass shootings. Banning guns is illogical since greater than 10x as many lives are saved/crimes prevented by gun uses than deaths.
Let's rewind a little. Firstly, how much do you know about the nations that have successfully cut extremely down on guns to the point that they are like severe anomaly in the crime world?
I can name some.
UK, Japan, South Korea (ignore what you saw in Squid Game, that is just ridiculous in terms of them easily getting hold of guns in South Korea), Australia and NZ (yes, I know there was an incident, UK also had one in plymouth) to name the most significant ones.
The nations have truly cut down on guns, I'd say German is very close behind, the issue is with hunting license leniency at most.
Do you truly believe guns can't be controlled through effective sting operations, anti-gun campaigns and incentives for snitching as well as temporary amnesty perhaps if one hands in all their firearms and even the government buying the firearms from them as a potential burst solution, which helped in Australia's original crackdown?
-->
@Incel-chud
I need some evidence of this, I've heard and read the complete opposite.
It's simple RM. Liberals are like
"Derp poor people don't have money, so like a 5 year old I think the solution is handing them money and support the welfare state"
Where is conservatives study economics and realize a rising water raises all ships. It's a sentiment backed up by a lot of economic science, but liberals are just like "derp, give money to them"
You can always figure out what a liberal policy position is by asking 5 year olds how they would solve a problem. My son is 6. Here are his solutions for each of the following issues, notice their similarities to a democratic platform
How do we improve schools
"Just give them more money"
how do we stop gun violence
"just take away all guns"
how do we stop homelessness
"Give poor people free money"
You see the stupidity here and the emotional response. It's just low IQ thinking. While the conservative is in college actually taking classes in economics, the liberal is going for a gender studies degree and basing his economic policies on this immature attitude.
The only place my 6 year old disagreed with liberals is when I asked him, what he would do if a boy wanted to be a girl, where he just laughed hysterically instead of suggesting they get their dick cut off.
-->
@Incel-chud
Incel -chud, Tear Down This Wall !
The percentage of the total population below the poverty level increased from 13.0% in 1980 to 15.2% in 1983, then declined back to 13.0% in 1988. During Reagan's first term, critics noted homelessness as a visible problem in U.S. urban centers.
-->
@RationalMadman
Of course you read the opposite. The media has just blindly asserted.
"Derp Reagan bad and poor people suffered because rich people got richer under Reagan"
It's just an extremely stupid way to criticize economic policies that they would never attempt with a liberal president, and you just ate it up instead of thinking critically.
Also because of his incredible improvement in the economy, nobody was committing crimes and the crime rate went down significantly.
Honestly though RM. You have to actually look at economics so you can actually understand how to fight policy, rather than the childish stuff of
"Derp hand then money"
-->
@FLRW
First article on Google. Some excellent research skills you have there genius. It doesn't even talk about his presidential term just references the 80s in general LOL
-->
@RationalMadman
@FLRW
He lifted more out of poverty than any prior president and it wasn't with this low IQ approach of
"Derp let's just give poor people free money to fix economy"
Relevant quote
The Reagan boom raised more people out of poverty than any similar boom since World War II,
Here is a portion of the article that shows the liberal hatred of the wealthy is an emotional response. A comment that admits Reagan helped poor people, but spins it as bad because rich people had better lives as well.
. When John F. Kennedy was President, he had supported tax cuts on the theory that "a rising tide lifts all boats." The validity—and limitation—of this belief was demonstrated in Reagan's second term, when millions of poor people, many of them Latino or African American, saw their incomes rise above the poverty line. At the same time, however, wealthiest Americans and corporations benefited most from the economic expansion,
-->
@thett3
Biden: F
Trump: B-
Obama: B+
Bush 43: B
Clinton: D-
Bush 41: A-
Reagan: C-
Carter:F
-->
@Incel-chud
Good article, it states:
The Reagan boom raised more people out of poverty than any similar boom since World War II, but the economic revival of the mid-1980s did not touch all Americans equally. One study revealed that while annual income for American families grew by 3.5 percent during Reagan's first term, middle-class families saw only a 1-percent gain, compared to affluent Americans (those in the top quintile of the income bracket) who saw their incomes rise by 9 percent. In contrast, American families with incomes in the bottom quintile saw their average incomes decline by 8 percent; black families and households headed by women were particularly hard hit by declining incomes. Finally, child poverty increased to levels exceeding those of the mid-1960s.
-->
@FLRW
Raised more people out of poverty was my claim. Thanks for providing context though