Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Essentially what the government is doing is protecting people from themselves.
No, they are providing a service to their people. You could make the exact same argument about education. Some parents, if they had the choice, would choose not to give their child an education. The government decided that no, all children need to have an education. And everyone in society is better off for that decision. Similarly, everyone should have healthcare. And everyone in society will be better off once they do.
That's an elitist oligarchy, not a democracy.
If the majority want something and vote for someone on the basis that they will implement it, that is the definition of democracy. if a small group of officials are dead set against something that the majority want and try to stop it, that is an elitist oligarchy. And right now that is the both the republican party as well as the establishment of the democratic party.
America will always be a high-risk and high-reward nation.
The majority of Americans who want medicare for all would disagree with your assessment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe you have never shopped for insurance, but I can tell you that not everyone wants to pay for the deluxe package like the government is selling.
You're right. Some people want to gamble with their health and financial future. They want to bet they wont get sick and run the risk of being financially ruined if they do. But i don't think there are enough of those people to make a big difference. Medicare for all is hugely popular.
Some people only want to pay to be covered at their local clinic with a high deductible and low premiums. The government takes away those choices and calls people dumb and deplorable for not buying the one size fits all health plan.
Essentially, what that those people are doing is gambling that they won't get sick. And if they lose that bet they may go bankrupt. We can debate whether they should have the right to risk their lives and their family's lives on that, but that is not a good bet to make. The evidence is the 500,000 bankruptcies per year related to medical debt. Those are the people who either couldn't afford health insurance, or who made that bet and lost. If changing the system will save the average family money, save huge numbers of lives and prevent hundreds of thousands of bankruptcies, that seems like a pretty good policy.
But lets be clear. Very few people like their insurance company. Most people understand that their business model is to make you pay as much as possible and then do everything in their power to prevent you getting any benefit from it. As long they continue to get healthcare and the costs don't go up significantly, I think you will find very few people who wouldn't be happy to get rid of their insurance company.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When I say breadlines I mean enforced consumption from the government.
Ok, that is a bit of a weird expression. But even still, that doesn't really happen in Canada or nordic countries and i am not aware of anyone advocating for that in the US. So it is still a straw man argument.
Being forced to buy ONLY government healthcare is what made Obamacare wildly unpopular in the consumer culture of America used to haveing strip malls stocked with hundreds of choices and brands; necessitating the now famous Obama-lie about keeping your healthcare.
That won't be a problem for medicare for all. It removes the private insurance, but it actually gives people more choice where it matters. People will be able to see any doctor, go to any hospital and it will be covered. No more being told a doctor isn't in your network. So people will actually be getting alot more choice for less cost.
This outrage was long before it was proven how inefficient government was at allocating health resources.
I don't believe it has ever been proven that government is inefficient at allocating health resources. I mean the fact that americans pay several times the amount that other countries do for healthcare would suggest they have done a much better job than the private sector which is actively trying to bleed people out of as much money as possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not really. You would have to radically reform our National culture from a consumer society that lives paycheck to paycheck into a frugal society like the Nord's who don't live to spend their money as soon as they get it.
And tax reform along with things like medicare for all would help with that. If your taxes are covering some of the biggest expenses up front, then you don't have as many things to worry about. it's true that you might pay a little more in each paycheck, but you will never be hit with a sudden out of pocket expense if you need to see a doctor or get a prescription. That sort of change would be good for america and actually save alot of money for the average person.
People can't go out to their favorite All-American strip mall at Nordic taxrates.
Of course they will. As I already said, they will be saving more money with a higher tax rate. Therefore they would have more money to spend on things.
Breadlines are never going to happen in the consumer culture of America.
Why would this happen? There are no breadlines in places like sweden or canada. This is another straw man argument the right likes to make.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There will never be a "Hugo Chavez" or a Madura in this country because the people will destroy the government once the government turns on them.
No one is advocating for that. So that is a straw man argument.
Just look at all the people turning on Warren for even suggesting a tax on the middle class.
Alot of the criticism I have seen is that she is trying to hide it. No one likes being taxed, but if you tell people you will get these services and it will cost you this amount, people can respect that. If you try to hide the cost behind complicated math then people just see you as disingenuous. That is why bernie sanders is trusted more to implement healthcare reform. His message of, you will see slightly higher taxes but save even more from no longer paying for healthcare, resonates with people.
Every Socialist nation must tax the poor. Nordic countries tax the poor at 40%.
Pointing to the tax rate is a bit of a distraction tactic. If you are taxed at 25% but spend another 20% on medical costs, then you are better off paying 40% but having no medical costs. Your taxes are higher, but you are saving money. Republicans like to make the argument that taxes are inherently bad, when that simply isn't the case.
People with guns will never allow this to happen in America.
Again, that would be completely contrary to American values. I am sure there are some people crazy enough to try that. But make no mistake, it is treason and the US police and Military would put any such attempt down.
Young people don't have the stomach to lead a Socialist rebellion.
No one is talking about a rebellion. They are talking about reform via democratic elections. It is only you who is talking about using violence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Young people have less guns.
And when the majority of the country elect a government that pushes to reform, you think old people will rise up with guns and enforce their views on the majority using violence? If they did, then they would be traitors who want tyranny. Not to mention they would need to be fighting the US police and Military, and I guarantee you they have more guns than a bunch of right wing nut jobs.
I think you are massively over estimating how many people are that terrible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are too many guns in the hands of the voters to allow the government to grow big enough to implement socialism.
You are misunderstanding though. Socialism is wildly popular among young people. As older people who lived through the cold war (and therefore have alot of internalized fear) die off and are replaced by younger people who see the value of socialism, then you will see socialism become quite popular. I mean it kind of already is. Many people really like socialist policies. Medicare for all is quite popular already. That kind of popularity is only going to grow.
Having lots of guns wont mean anything because the majority will support the implementation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
Between the elections in Kentucky and Virginia and the Impeachment spectacular about to get under way Trump is f(*&kt
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I agree. The kentucky election went Dem because they hated the republican candidate. That isn't likely to affect Trump who, for some reason, is still reasonably popular. I'm hoping it will mean bad things for Mitch McConnell though since he is from kentucky and is also very unpopular.
The polling in main swing states is still pretty close. Trump will almost certainly lose the popular vote, but because of the way the electoral college works, if he wins the swing states he could still win the election.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
So while Biden has certainly been doing iffy in Iowa, it's because 80% of other candidates are spending every nickel and dime they have on the state to try to muscle their way in to the top tier.
Agreed. Butigeg is pushing hard for Iowa because he has little chance of winning anywhere else if he can't get momentum going early. Most of the others are irrelevant. None of them are polling over 4% in Iowa (other than the front runners of course).
Losing in Iowa is excusable from how much candidates are betting all-in on the state, losing in NH is also excusable to a degree since 2 of the 3 best polling candidates have home states near NH in the first place.
It is understandable why he is losing in those states. But it is still bad. The 1st few states set the pace for the rest of the race. Candidates gain or lose their momentum in the 1st few states.
True, absolutely, but how bad does one have to shit the bed to make your campaign not viable? If we go with a double digit loss being the benchmark for losing badly, then that means someone would have to fall into the single digits in Iowa due to the number of candidates who are running right now.
I'm not sure the most important point is when they are not viable. Many campaigns will become not viable in the 1st few states and will drop out. But Biden is obviously not one of them. His campaign is going to be viable at least until super tuesday, probably till much later. The threat he is under is that the shine will come off the apple. His main talking point is that he is the front runner and that he can beat trump. If he loses the 1st two states, he will lose momentum. If he loses momentum going into Nevada, he could potentially lose there too. If he loses the 1st three then he will lose alot of momentum going into South Carolina and super tuesday.
I think if Biden doesn't place in the top 2 in Iowa or New Hampshire, then that is going to hit him. If he only gets 1 of the 1st four states, it will make it much harder to win on super Tuesday.
Biden is betting everything on being able to lose the 1st two, maybe the 1st three, states and then make a comeback on super tuesday. That is certainly possible. But it is an extremely dangerous strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
obama cheated
When you make statements like this you really need to provide an explanation. You just throw statements that, on their own, are ridiculous.
If you think these things are true, tell us why you think that and provide evidence. Otherwise you just sound like a hyper partisan who repeats talking points from right wing conspiracy websites.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Kentuckckys governor race: VOTER FRAUD, INVESTIGATE
It's funny how republicans keep crying voter fraud, but the only voter fraud that I have seen proven was the republicans in North Carolina. Trump even created a group to investigate the "massive fraud" he claimed happened in 2016, but they very quietly disbanded it when they couldn't find any evidence that any significant fraud occurred.
I agree that any credible reports of fraud should be investigated. But more than likely you will find it either didn't happen, or it was in fact republicans behind it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
How in the actual, literal fuck, did Democrats win the governor race for Kentucky?
I'm certainly not an expert, but I read that the governor was quite unpopular. Among other things he attacked teachers when they went on strike to keep their pensions from being slashed. You don't really look like a man looking out for the people when you go after people trying to protect their pensions.
I could see this happening in a state like Arizona or Georgia which is a little bit blue, BUT KENTUCKY????
It certainly makes things interesting. A brash, offensive politician was beaten in the reddest of states. It'll be interesting to see if that dynamic might affect trump. It's also interesting because Mitch McConnell is from Kentucky and he is also very unpopular. I bet he was not happy to see these results.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, I take that back. Minorities can discriminate against the majority. AfFiRmAtIvE aCtIoN
That doesn't even make sense. Affirmative action is used to level the playing field between minorities and the majority. It is also usually done by the majority to protect the minority. So it isn't discrimination and it isn't done by the minority.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No it aint. Money don't buy the election Hillary, sorry, you lose, go back to school.
I didn't say money buys an election. I said money buys politicians. You don't need to raise the most money to win. But if your opponent raises 10x the money you do, you are probably going to lose. They will hire so many more people on the ground and run so many more adds that you will get crushed.
So politicians feel they need their donors in order to win. And once you start owing favors to those donors, then you are compromised. You have to do what they say because if you don't the money dries up and you are screwed. Trump is as compromised as any politician.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's irrelevant. Money isn't important for power.
You can't possibly believe that. So it's just a coincidence that Trump appointed a guy who donated 1 million dollars to his inauguration committee as ambassador to the UN?
It is a coincidence that he appointed Linda McMahon, who gave $7 million to pro-Trump super PACs, to his cabinet as the head of the Small Business Administration?
Or Betsy Devos as the Secretary of Education whose family donated $1.8 million to trump.
Or Deputy Commerce secretary Todd Ricketts, whose family gave $1.3 million to trump
Or Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, the former Goldman Sachs executive who personally contributed $425,000
Money is critically important for Power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
Those are some interesting numbers. I wouldn't say 8 points is "locked down", but it is a strong lead. Biden still has a path to winning. But i would say it is still far from certain. I read somewhere that the last time someone was able to win the nomination after winning 2 or less of the 1st four states was Clinton in 92.
The recent Iowa polls suggest Biden might come in 4th. New Hampshire polling suggests he may come in 3rd. If he gets beaten badly in the 1st two primaries, that is likely to have a negative impact on his performance in the subsequent primaries. The Nevada polls say that one of the highest priorities was someone who could win. If biden gets beaten badly in the 1st two states that could convince some people he isn't the guy who can win.
It will be interesting to see if he can hold onto his lead in Nevada. If he does end up losing the 1st three states, that would be bad and could have serious consequences on super Tuesday.
It's also worth noting that Biden's financials aren't looking great. He has less cash on hand than most of his rivals. Sanders has 33.7 million banked, Warren has 25.7 million, Buttigieg has 23.4 million, Kamela has 10.6, Biden has 9 million. Going into the last 100 days with a smaller war chest is not good news. He will be struggling to keep up with their ground teams and advertising when he is outmatched so badly in funding. That certainly doesn't mean that he can't still win, he can. It is just an important detail to keep in mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hillary tried to buy the presidency with Double the money and lost. The rich have no power here.
You seem to misunderstand the dynamic. The rich bribed both hilary and trump. It didn't matter which candidate won because they were both corrupt. Trump is just as corrupt as the corrupt politicians you hate. He doesn't even hide his corruption. He does it right out in the open and his supporters just ignore it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No I didn't. But it doesn't surprise me that you would lie about what I have said as everything you have said is a lie or just hyper partisan.mmmmmmm yes you did
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
lol everything trump did obama statrted, NOPE
Did i ever say Obama started everything trump did? Please stop straw manning me. But the growth rate today is essentially the same rate trump inherited from Obama. He did not improve the economy. It continued on the same trajectory he inherited for few years. But, in part thanks to trump, a recession is coming.
Trump has had no real positive effect on the economy. He has massively increased the deficit though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The rich have very little influence in the age of Trump.
Are you kidding? Trump ran on being the "outsider" then filled his cabinet with executives and lobbyists. Trump sucks up to the rich as much as any politician.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Economy good under orangr man
Yes, he inherited a strong economy from Obama. After 3 years of trade wars there are warning signs of an imminent recession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Buttigieg. Ar-15's
Communism is about taking the means of production. Banning a specific kind of weapon is nothing like that. Republicans wouldn't support you owning nuclear weapons, so they must be communists too right?
Democrats do not say openly what they would do because they know they'd never get elected if they did.
They do not say it openly, because they aren't communists. There is no evidence that any of them are communists. If you think they are it is probably because you don't know what communist means. Republicans also don't say that they are communists openly, so by your logic they too must be secret communists.
Best unemployment numbers, best minority employment numbers, largest tax cuts, high stock market, soaring middle class under Trump. Hello?
So Barack Obama turned the american economy around from an economic collapse that occurred under the republicans. That growth then continued and you give that credit to trump? There are also signs that a recession is coming in the near future, fed in large part by the destructive trade wars trump started. But i'm guessing when that happens you will find a way for it to be the democrats' fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
A greeat American was elected
Do you have any substantial arguments at all? All you have said so far is hyper partisan statements. When challenged to back up those statements you simply throw out a different hyper partisan statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That is obviously a bit extreme. But a lying, racist, misogynistic suspected sex offender was being elected. There was good reason to be disappointed.
But I noticed that instead of backing up the ridiculous claims you made, you have instead thrown out another distraction that has nothing to do with the discussion. That is basically all republicans have been doing lately. Someone points out trump committed a crime and they yell "look over there" so that they don't have to acknowledge reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you made a claim. When challenged to support that claim, which was obviously false, you just don't respond. That sounds like republicans.
Republkicans made the iddle class
What does this even mean? This is just partisan nonsense. Modern republicans policy is essentially to just give tax breaks to the rich, tear down government programs that help poor people and claim they care about the debt while massively increasing the debt.
If you don't have a net worth over 5 million dollars, then republican policy is not aimed at helping you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can at least agree that people have somewhat of a common experience throughout the ages. I don't likely understand morality the way you do.
Based on your answers, i'm guessing you think that a religious authority should tell you what is moral or immoral. I would strongly disagree with that.
You on the other hand do not even know the church, as you identify schismatics with it. If you take them as being representative of the church when they don't even belong to the church, then you are pretty much saying self declaration is proof of identity.
Many would argue that you are the schismatic. You are certainly a much smaller group than the Catholics.
A good scientist is faithful to the scientific method. Is someone who claims to be a scientist who disregsrds the scientific method even a scientist? Of course they aren't.
I have faith that my computer will work. I have faith that my wife loves me. That doesn't mean that those are religions. Scientists believe in a best practice of their profession, like all professionals should. It is not a religion. You are watering down the definition of religion so much that almost anything could be a religion. If you do that then word loses all meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Eevry democrat in office is a communist.
You tell me which democrats have publicly called for the abolishment of private property. If you can find statements from every democrat in office that say that, then I will accept that. Since literally no elected democrat has ever said that, please stop openly lying.
Republicnas should be in every seat possible
That would be a very good way to destroy the middle class and guarantee that only the richest and most powerful have any influence. If that is your idea of a good plan, then sure. If you are 95% of people who would suffer from that, then no. Absolutely not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What commies are you referring to? Even the furthest left politicians in america aren't really that far left by modern standards. America's "left" is centrist in most of the developed world. America's center is right wing in most of the developed world. America's right is off the deep end.
America doesn't have any "commies" running for office that I am aware of. Republicans need to be removed in as many places as possible so they learn that just feeding tax cuts to the rich is not a winning strategy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The terminology has confused lots of people. But no one is advocating for socialism. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist (for some reason) but all of his plans are social democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Societies come and go, rise and fall. It is no strange thing. It is strange to say that nothing has changed when even now we live in times of great change.
Lots of things change. The nature of humans and their morality does not. What things we consider moral and immoral have always changed over time.
I am an Orthodox Christian, which means there is a pretty good chance I know church history better than anyone you have ever met.
That's like saying I am white so i know white history better than you. It is ridiculous. Just because you belong to a group does not mean you know the history of that group. It also often means that your interpretation of the history of that group is biased and inaccurate.
Sure, these things can be religions if they are heald to with ardor and faith. It would really have to be a way of life. At least, that is how we understand faith, that it is not mere intellectual assent but a living out. An experience.
That is a weird way to look at things. That means that many people have multiple religions. That seems to make issues more difficult to discuss.
For example, a good scientist is adhering to the scientific method with ardor and faith.
There you are wrong. a good scientist has faith in themselves and their practices. They do not have faith in an outside force. That is not a religion. If you are including that kind of faith that would make many professionals having their work be a religion too. You are now talking about people having like 6 or 7 religions simultaneously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes, and idolatry, which is what I am talking about, is just as wrong now as it was then.
But nothing has changed. It is the same as it always was. so your previous point about society falling apart is wrong.
I just put with that post an interview with a real former KGB agent who defected. You might find confirmation there.
I'm not watching an hour and a half video to play into your KGB fantasies.
Yes, I am quite certain I know my own faith better than you.
You might know the doctrine better, but apparently you know very little of the history.
You can be comforted to know that The Church is not intended to be a secular state.
The church is not intended to be a state at all.
"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."Given that definition, socialism could certainly be classified as a religion.
That would make many things a religion. Nationalism, democracy, political parties, conservatism, liberalism etc. If you want to tell me you adhere to multiple religions then I would just see that as odd. But i'm pretty sure your faith has some nasty things to say about false idols. So you probably would limit it to only things you want to believe should be seen as a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lust and passion covers a great deal more ground than the sexual variety. The point is that people place the objects of their lust and passion before reality, and when you have a population that has given itself over to willful defiance of reality, it is natural that both society and the government it chooses to represent it will be corrupt.
This sentiment could describe literally any point in human history. You think Henry the 8th didn't put lust before reality? Or the Popes who had multiple children. The list can go on and on forever. Governments have always been corrupt. People have always been lustful. Nothing has changed.
Are you actually defending the Soviet Union?
no. Where did you get that idea?
most of the type of work the KGB did involved planting ideas that would grow and cause multi-generational change in the country.
what 2nd rate spy novel did you get that idea from?
Socialism is the transitory state on the way to communism in marxist ideology.
Communists certainly thought that. That doesn't make it true. Communism has been pretty thoroughly discredited.
The Church is actually very against forcing religion on people as we see free will as part of what it means to be made in the image of God.
do you actually believe that? Do you know many wars Christians have fought to force their religion onto others? They have killed 10's if not 100's of millions of people to force their version of Christianity on others. The history of Christianity is soaked in blood.
Socialism IS a religion, and it is a religion that can not coexist with the church, because the church is hierarchical, and socialism/communism very much has to do with tearing down of all forms of hierarchy.
Socialism is not a religion. No one is advocating for communism. People are advocating for social democracy. Think Sweden, not Soviet Union.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Scotus disagrees with you. Hate speech is free speech.
SCOTUS decided that a person's right to incite violence is more important than a person's right to not be the subject of violence. I strongly disagree. Amendments to the constitution can be reinterpreted. SCOTUS could decide otherwise tomorrow.
the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
that is freedom for you. It is tyranny for the people who are the subject of the hate. You are not advocating for a free society. You are advocating for a society that can attack minorities at will. That is not what america was supposed to be.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
All of those examples need multiple other components for a criminal conviction. Words by themselves have no meaning.
That sentence has no meaning. Words by themselves, mean exactly what those words mean. The context is of course important, but words in and of themselves can be a crime. If you tell a witness not to testify that is crime. It doesn't need to be threat, it doesn't need to be a bribe. If you try to convince a witness not to testify, it is witness tampering.
If you advocate for violence against a group, that should be illegal. No one should have the right to advocate for violence against a group of people. Allowing that doesn't make a society freer, it makes it more oppressive. But it is usually minorities that the ones being oppressed. And since i'm guessing you aren't in one of those minorities, you don't care if they are oppressed.
Words are not enough for a corrupt authoritarian government to imprison its enemies.
Then america must be a corrupt authoritarian government because you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong words to the wrong person.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
In fact, a 2017 SCOTUS ruling re-affirmed that hate speech is free speech, meaning the rest of the world lives under a blanket of authoritarian censorship where anyone in the government can have you criminally jailed for speaking forbidden words to the wrong people.
You already live in a society where you can be jailed for speaking "forbidden words to the wrong people." Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. If you tell someone not to testify in court, that is witness tampering and is definitely a crime. There are lots of ways to be arrested for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. So please stop pretending like you can just say whatever you want whenever you want in America, it is a lie.
You already have libel laws. If you publish things that aren't true about an individual, that is also against the law.
You pretend like laws against hate speech are different in some way, but they aren't. They are just laws that protect people from being attacked. I would say protecting minorities from calls to violence is more important than an individual's "right" to advocate for violence against minorities.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Canada's 22nd Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, prior to becoming Prime Minister,
Stephen harper is/was a right wing loon whose main goal as prime minister was to weaken the federal government. He had to hide what his actual beliefs were once he ran for leadership because he was seriously further right than the vast majority of the population.
PEN Canada, an organization that assists writers who are persecuted for peaceful expression, has called on "the federal and provincial governments to change human rights commission legislation to ensure commissions can no longer be used to attempt to restrict freedom of expression in Canada."
I went and checked the reference. They were saying that a human rights commission received a complaint about 2 writers. It doesn't say the commission in any way prevented their free speech as it doesn't say the commission did anything other than receive the complaint.
According to Mary Agnes Welch, president of the Canadian Association of Journalists, "[h]uman rights commissions were never intended to act as a form of thought police, but now they're being used to chill freedom of expression on matters that are well beyond accepted Criminal Code restrictions on free speech."
I tried to check this reference but it doesn't exist. I have no way of knowing if that quote is real or what her objection really was.
A group of several dozen professors from the 7,000-member American Political Science Association contend that recent free speech precedents in Canada put academics at risk of prosecution.
In Canada it is illegal to engage in hate speech. So if you publish something that incites violence or hate against a specific group, that is against the law. In my opinion that creates greater freedom, not less. If guarantees that minority groups are free from being targeted. America already has limits on free speech (libel laws, NDAs etc), this is really no different.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You do realize America is the highest-ranked nation in free speech.
As you haven't explained what your comment even meant, I honestly don't know what freedom of speech has to do with anything. Are you suggesting Canada doesn't have freedom of speech?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
America will never be a Soy Nation.
please explain what a "soy nation" is and why america shouldn't be one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wicked people need a totalitarian government to put the fear of God in them.Good people don't need a lot of government.
This is just patently untrue. Enforcing the law is only a small part of what the government does.
The problem is not a governmental one so much as a moral one. The people have given over to every kind lust, passion, and debasement. If left unchecked and there isn't society wide revulsion that reverses course, this trend leads to the dissolution of every type of order that maintains a healthy society.
This kind of argument always makes me laugh because it shows people really don't understand human nature or our history. Humans have always had lust, they have always had passion. The idea that having sex is somehow new or unusual is ridiculous. It has never lead to the collapse of society before, and it won't now. Humans have not become less moral. We have just modernized what is moral and immoral.
We are now several generations deep into a KGB plot that started a long time ago. That is why many young Americans embrace socialism.
What are you even talking about? America completely rejected socialism because of irrational fear spread by the cold war. Now that we are a generation or 2 past the cold war young people don't have the irrational fears that older generations do. There is no KGB plot, people have simply moved past your prejudices.
Whhat does it mean to me? I unfortunately can't help but think of the thousands of bishops, priests, and monastics that were killed and tortured under soviet domination. I can't help but think of the the 20-50 million martyrs who were mercilessly cut down like a disease. I can't help but think of even people I know who were locked up to be tortured and forgotten.
You do know that democratic socialism and communism are not remotely alike, right? No one is advocating for a totalitarian government. This is a ridiculous fear driven by your cold war prejudices.
I can't help but believe socialism is very intolerant towards the church.
Socialism is what is best for everyone, regardless of religion or ethnicity. To people who are used to religion dominating politics and society I can see why they might see this as intolerance because you like the idea of your religion being forced onto people. To people who don't want their lives dominated by a religious group, this is freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
why? they are proobably paid actors like me
You responded to pretty much nothing I said. Your only response is a conspiracy theory. I don't see any reason to continue this discussion.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh I understand. You only think votes matter in regions of the country that agree with you. So essentially, you don't believe in democracy.Fixed that for you.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So because they wanted it, it’s not illegal? You sir are under the assumption that because everyone wanted it, it was ok. The fact of the matter is that no one has the right to influence the judicial system of another country. What Biden did was inherently wrong no matter how you spin it. He knowingly committed quid pro quo with the help of Barack Obama.
Do you even know what a quid pro quo is? If you exchange money for any commercial item, that is a quid pro quo. It just means you give something and you get something. In general a quid pro quo is normal. The reason when trump did it it was illegal was because he was giving something with the power of the presidency in exchange to get something that benefits him personally. That is extremely bad and illegal.
Biden gave something and the US got something. That is normal diplomacy. But Biden didn't do it with any intention of personally profiting. There is also no evidence that he did personally profit. Therefore no, there is no evidence Biden committed a crime. There is clear evidence trump did.
Biden is not above the law.
No, he is not. But since he didn't violate any laws, that statement is irrelevant.
It is the prerogative of the President to investigate corruption whenever it occurred especially in the US government.
No it very much is not. Investigative powers are not granted to the president. If he wanted corruption investigated the correct path would be to either have a law enforcement agency or congress investigate. You do not send your personal attorney to dig up dirt on your rivals.
Just because he’s a possible opponent doesn’t make him go above the law.
What crime do you think biden has broken?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why isn’t Biden in jail?
For what? Other than some vague trump lines, there is no suggestion Biden ever broke a law. He carried out what the US government, the EU, the UK and many others wanted done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Because a bias does skew the statistics, I'm not denying that, but doesn't make them worthless. It was a fairly large sample size.
Sample size means nothing if the sample isn't random. If I went to republican event and asked how popular left wing policies are, is doesn't matter how many people I ask, the population I am sampling is biased. I will not get a representation of the general population. How you get your sample is critically important. If you don't do it correctly then your results are invalid.
Perhaps we were having different conversations. I was talking about how millionaires work hard, and they don't just inherit their wealth.
My apologies, perhaps our terminology simply wasn't clear. Someone who works hard making like 60,000 a year for decades and saves up a million dollars could be classed as rich. But they would never be in the top tax brackets. Therefore they were not who I was referring to. A millionaire should have a higher tax rate than someone making 30,000 per year, but it should be lower than someone making hundreds of thousands or more per year.
Ok, well you are making some claim about them not working. Just because it does happen every once in a while doesn't make it the norm. So, without statistics, I don't see any value in making that claim. Where did you initially get the idea that the rich not working is the norm?
Since we don't have stats either way I think we can drop this point.
I don't appreciate you trying to use abstract concepts as the basis for an arbitrary increase in taxes on the successful people.
I don't understand why you think this is an abstract concept. A poor person uses a road for their own personal transportation. A rich person would use it to transport products and enhance their business. The rich person is profiting much more from public roads. That is in no way abstract. A poor person getting an education is a good thing. It gives them access to more opportunities. But a rich person uses that education to turn a profit. Do you think any of the richest men in the world could have gotten where they are without an educated work force? How you do build Microsoft if you can't find any workers who know how to program? How do build amazon without workers who can design and build a complicated distribution system. The poor befit from government education, the rich make huge amounts of money off of it. It is pretty straight forward.
I've heard those Nordic countries you guys love so much tax the poor quite aggressively.
And they are still the happiest countries in the world. Their government actually tries to work in their best interest rather than in the best interest of billionaires.
But restaurants are a great place for TEENS to work. Should there be no jobs for teens?
I don't believe I ever objected to there being separate minimum wages for teenagers and for adults. I'm fine with a teenage minimum wage being a bit lower so that they can gain experience. But adults need to be able to support themselves and potentially a family. It should be illegal for a company to pay people a wage they cannot live off of.
And you also didn't mention if this wage hike would bring jobs in or ship them out. I'd like your opinion.
Ultimately a minimum wage is a bandaid solution. It is an attempt to prevent souless corporations from paying wages so low that their employees need government help just to survive. I don't believe it is the best way to resolve the issue. Other methods will need to be used to fix the issue. One interesting one I heard was tying the maximum amount a CEO's pay could be to the average pay of the workers at the company. IE if the average pay was 20,000, then the CEO or any execs could not be compensated more than X times more than that. so if the rule were they could only make 20x more than the average then a CEO at a company where the average salary was 20,000 could only be compensated 400,000. I thought that was interesting. It would add a personal motivation for execs to pay their workers a better salary.
We also need much stronger union laws. Unionized workers make much more than non-unionized ones. We need to strengthen unions so that workers actually have some negotiating power.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
She will go down in history as America's first female president.
Your snide comment was about whether she had majority support. She did. The only reason trump was able to win was because of the poor design of the electoral system. The person who got the least votes became president.
Who is "we"?
Anyone who has been paying attention. It is a crime to ask for a thing of value from a foreigner to help you in an election. Trump asked the president of ukraine for dirt on Biden. These facts are publicly available to anyone who cares.
He did not ask for dirt on Biden. He asked that the whole situation, of which Biden was a part, be investigated.
He asked about Biden by name. If it was a general request to look into corruption he wouldn't have named Biden. The moment he asked for that he committed a crime.
Lucky for Trump then that this is America, where it takes more than "statements" to convict a person and people are innocent until proven guilty.
You are clearly quite unfamiliar with how the law works. Statements can very easily be criminal. Threatening a witness for example is just a statement, (IE if you testify I will hurt you) but it is definitely a crime. A statement asking for dirt from a foreigner to help in an election is also a crime.
America isn't buying this nonsense because they see it for what it is. Nonsense.
51% already support impeachment and removal. Where exactly are you getting this delusion that americans "aren't buying" it?
The constitution isn't trying to impeach Trump. But losers who try to hide behind it to play dirty politics are nonsense.
Trump has been proven to have committed 1 crime already. There is substantial evidence he has committed a second including his chief of staff admitting to it in a press briefing. Presidents were never intended to be above the law. Trump is the exact use case that the founding fathers created the impeachment process for. A narcissist who abuses the office of the president for personal gain.
No. But simply calling a normal thing a crime and then trying to impeach is not the law. It's fakery.
You tell me what president has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government into helping him win an election. What trump did is in no way normal. Although I will grant you that abusing the office to try to profit is normal for trump. But that in no way makes it ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
how do you know what you've been told is true, you believe the American media then?
I believe people who have survived Chinese "re-education camps". I believe that the information I have shows a horrifying picture. For example, the majority of young Chinese people don't know what the Tienanmen square incident is. The Chinese government imprisons anyone who talks about it. Parents don't tell their own children for fear of reprisals. The Chinese government literally massacred it's own people and now imprisons anyone who says it ever happened. That is some Orwellian levels of shittiness.
And that doesn't even get into things like the Great Leap Forward, the one child policy, their actions it tibet etc. I mean just in tibet alone their is a huge amount of disgusting behavior. In 1995 the Chinese government kidnapped a 6 year old child name Gedhun Choekyi Nyima because he had been named the new "Panchen Lama" (a religious title). No one has seen the child since. They also claim that only the Chinese government has the power to appoint the next Dalai Lama. It's a bit like saying only the Chinese government can appoint the next pope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If you are going to keep up with this ruckus
I'm not sure why you think pointing out critical flaws is a "ruckus", but ok.
80% of millionaires didn't inherit their wealth
Perhaps we have been having parallel conversations instead of the same one. This study was not done on the people I was talking about. If you worked hard your whole life, saved up, invested well and managed to have 1 million in assets, then you are wealthy. But you are not anywhere near the top. Many of the people in this study are from the upper middle class. They are not the people I was talking about. Most of the people in this study wouldn't reach the top tax brackets and literally none of them would trigger the wealth tax plans of Sanders or warren because they didn't include anyone whose wealth was over 10 million. While these people are wealthy, they wouldn't have the same tax rate as say, Jeff Bezos.
Well, you made a generalization utterly unbased in facts, and when I called you out, you said you had no statistics.
I made a generalization that you acknowledged does happen. When you asked me to provide statistics that cannot possibly exist, I pointed out they cannot possibly exist. Perhaps you want 100% accurate stats about how many millionaires cheat on their wives too. Good luck getting them to admit it.
The Brookings Institute has decent credibility ratings. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/ Can a group not do research itself?
I never said they can't. I said the article you linked to did not provide any. They made claims with no reference to how they got those numbers. Every link you have provided so far had critical details in the notes that invalidated it for your point. Reading about how a study was done and what they are looking for is critically important. If an article doesn't tell you where they got their numbers and how they were created, then you shouldn't trust it.
Most social programs, rich never get anything from, while the poor get all of the benefit.
You missed my point entirely. The poor get a base level of utility from these programs. They get healthcare, food etc. The rich then get the financial benefits from the program. They get a workforce with an education making the employees more valuable. they get a workforce who is healthy, not starving etc. They get to move their products on publicly funded roads. The poor manage to stay alive with these programs, the rich get to profit from them. You are trying to look at the benefit in only the very smallest of scopes. But in the larger picture the wealthy benefit a huge amount from these programs.
Why does it matter how much they can afford? Why is that a good system to follow?
Because if the rich aren't paying their share, then more of the tax burden falls on the poor. IE taxes go up on people who can't afford to pay more taxes. With a progressive tax rate people pay what they can afford to pay. You help to avoid crushing poor people. I would say that makes it a better system to follow.
So you want to get rid of restaurants is what I am hearing. If there was a cheaper way to do things, they would want to do that anyway. If you want to start a family, DON'T FLIP BURGERS!
Jesus, that is a horrifying answer. No one should be able to work 40 hours a week and be unable to live. If a business needs to pay so little to it's employees in order to operate, then it has a bad business model. Capitalism is about constant change. If a business model doesn't work, then find a better one. Subsidizing bad business practices is a terrible plan.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Like the majority of Americans supported Hillery?
The majority did support hillary. She wont the popular vote.
The majority of Americans support impeachment if a president has broken the law.
We already know for certain he has broken 1. He asked for a thing of value that would help him in an election. The moment he asked them for dirt on Biden he committed this crime. The 2nd has now been confirmed in sworn testimony as well as a statement by Trump's chief of staff. So it isn't really a secret he committed that one either.
America isn't buying this nonsense because they see it for what it is. Nonsense.
It is carrying out the constitution. Is the constitution nonsense to you? Do you think the president should be above the law?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
That is a tough one. Yang maybe. Tulsi might be a possibility. I don't really know all that much about castro.
I don't see any of others as even possibly acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It was asking if more than 10% of their wealth was from inheritance. So, obviously the results aren't worthless. Just give it a larger standard deviation.
You aren't understanding me I don't think. The survey has no value. None, like at all. At least in the way you are trying to use it. They meant it to be used as market data for investment bankers, not to draw conclusion about the entire population of millionaires. The fact that the sample was not random makes it unrepresentative of the population. Therefore it is worthless to draw conclusions about the entire population.
I agree, some people get easy jobs because of connections. I'm saying it is rather rare, while you are making a generalization.
You acknowledged that it happens. Then made a generalization. Then criticized me for a generalization....
If you finish high school, work full-time, and wait until at least 21 to get married and have children, you are very unlikely to be poor. 2% of adults that followed that advice are in poverty. 75% of people that followed that are in the middle class.
All that article says is "our research shows". It has absolutely no information on how they came to that conclusion. There are no references for me to check. For all I know they just made those numbers up.
We will switch to Medicaid instead of Medicare because that is more applicable
You are trying to drag this conversation into one trapped in minute details where you might be able to find an example of a social program where they don't directly benefit. That isn't the point. They don't have to massively benefit from every single program. They massively benefit from government funding in most areas.
Well, under my flat tax system, some poor people would still be exempt if they couldn't afford it. That is fair that you pay an equal percentage of your sandwiches. You should be able to enjoy the fruits of your sandwich making labor as much as the less productive people. Also, the rich wouldn't get out of taxes, because as a general rule, I am against deductions. They should pay taxes.
But you would still put the same burden on people who can barely afford to eat as on people who have so much money they don't know what to do with it. That doesn't make any sense. Why do you think people struggling to get by should pay the same rate as millionaires? People's contributions should be weighted by the amount they can afford. A flat tax screws over the poor and helps the rich.
Wal-Mart doesn't pay just above minimum wage. Its average wage is $12.17
And in many parts of the country that is nowhere near enough to live off of.
Also, restaurants can't afford to pay much above minimum wage.
I keep repeating this over and over. If paying their workers enough to live would destroy their business, then their business model is broken. Why do you think it is ok for a business to protect a bad business model by screwing over their employees?
Created: