Those numbers are pretty high. The average income in Zimbabwe per day is $4. To buy a loaf of bread, it is 17.5% of your entire daily work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-bread/zimbabwe-nearly-doubles-bread-price-as-economic-woes-mount-idUSKCN1RS13X
Bet they wish whitey would come back and feed them lol.
Yeah, I'm just shy of a free speech absolutist, myself. I don't think any bans are in order. He makes a fool out of himself, and therefore nobody takes his ridiculous ideas seriously. Exposing his absurd ideas is the best way to deal with him.
Irish built the Eerie Canal, rail roads, New Basin Canal, 150,000 fought in the Union Army. The Empire State building. Contributed a lot more than certain other groups....
I feel as though we can end this here. We have some points we agree on like lobbying being bad. I agree that big corporations can be bad, perhaps to a different degree. Big companies have more efficient supply chains and reach an economy of scale, but I do believe in anti-trust laws because competition is what makes capitalism great! You're right, (I wouldn't use the word 'capitalists') but businesses are to a certain degree anti-capitalism. Competition is pro-consumer and anti-business. We need a lot of competition, which is why I would like to solve our healthcare systems' issues by increasing competition, rather than creating a government monopoly. Parents should choose what plan is best for their family, not the government.
You have to understand that there are a lot of incompatibilities at play here. You say that our products must be competitive to make us a competitive economy. Well, labor unions exponentially drive up costs. GM is losing $50-100 million every day because of the strike. How is that good for us? How has the teacher's union helped our nation's children? You have to understand that, while companies are anti-competition, unions are anti-competition too. They need their business to stay in business to keep their job. They are against immigration, because they would have to compete with them for jobs. Teachers unions are against merit-based pay. Simply paying people more might make the consumer base a bit better off. That can be a good thing, but not if it is at the cost of destroying domestic companies.
I have a lot of classical economic works that I am prepared to read to become more informed. Thanks for the conversation :)
I'll just ignore the fact that you have dropped every point you have made thus far about population control.
Mainly the Irish and Italians built America, at least most lasting infrastructure. I don't know if toiling in fields "built" America, but correct me if I am wrong. Generally slave labor holds countries back because of a lack of innovation. That is why the South only had one factory at the onset of the Civil War. So, if anything, they held America back.
Africans definitely did not build Europe. Until recently, white people have been a super majority of most European countries.
White people all think the same, eh? Is that why we are all such hard workers? :)
European countries(a predominately white continent) and America(a majority white country) are some of the richest countries in the world. Africa on the other hand....
And I am saying that governmental policy can influence supply and make it more expensive. Think of rent control. That create housing shortages and leads to dilapidated infrastructure.
I don't know. I'd like unions to work. That would probably be most efficient, but that would tank our economy and make us super uncompetitive. Minimum wages create unemployment, so that would spur a greater reliance on welfare.
Yeah, progressive taxes are gradual. The fact is that the more you make, the less of your marginal income you get to keep. Why are those additional few hundred thousand less worthy of keeping than the first 10k? Progressive taxes work alright, I'll give you that. Income is very inelastic. That doesn't mean you should pilfer the profits of their labor.
Amazon pays zero in federal taxes. They pay payroll taxes, as well as state and local taxes. I don't think it is okay for buffet to pay less in taxes than his secretary. That is why I am for a flat tax with no deductions for people above the poverty line. Everyone should pay their fair share.
I am looking more critically at my positions. At least in terms of demand side vs supply side economics. I don't see myself flipping, but perhaps becoming a little more moderate.
I might pick a debate such as "People in Red states are better off than those in Blue states"
Deregulation is just a partisan thing. It makes the base happy. I think it is usually good because it reduces costs and any market inefficiencies they may have caused. They cut thousands of regulations, so listing them all out would be rather time-consuming.
I don't see how we are talking past each other about selective regulation. Let us say you make a regulation(that you say is industry-wide). Now lets say a Republican gets rid of that regulation. How would that not also have an industry-wide effect of deregulation?
Hong Kong would be my ideal economic example. They are the freest country in the world according to the economic freedom index. They have a median income that rivals ours, and they hardly have any natural resources to prop up their economy!
The government allows the rich to make the most of their resources. Keyword: their. It is their property that they have a right to. Just because they were more successful doesn't mean they have less of a right to that.
I'm fine with local/state minimum wages because of different costs of living. I'm certain we agree on that. Federal minimum wages are kind of trash. Another big reason that it is expensive to live in blue states is high taxes! Regulations on buying houses in Washington, Oregon, and California make housing much more expensive. Economics is part of the rising costs. However, with stifling regulations, you inhibit producers from making more, affordable housing for the consumers. You create inefficiencies by interfering in the market.
My connection was showing how "wealth inequality" and "helping the poor" are always at the center of Democrats' debates, but the effects of their policies show another story. I can't name one major city in a Blue state that doesn't having overwhelming poverty and high crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, New York are all run by Democrats and the poor there suffer tremendously.
People who vote for Republicans are predominately white. Republicans are against abortion.
Minorities vote Democrat. Democrats like abortion.
Not sure what to tell you. I don't like Margaret Sanger.
1st source debunks your point. You said that vaccines were used for population control. The source says fear mongering about them is population control. The population control is achieved by people NOT taking vaccines.
2nd source direct quote: "However, a preliminary investigation by Pulpit & Pen seems to indicate some ulterior motives for complaints against Bach. The civil prosecution efforts seem to be instigated by a racist group, No White Saviors, which holds anti-Caucasian views and seeks to rid Uganda of American missionaries altogether." Oopsie. Maybe you should read your sources.
Keep changing the goal posts, I see. How about you address the way your sources completely debunk your position. I'll wait.....
I was thinking of a clip of Elizabeth warren calling them "costs" instead of taxes. Let me be clear: I know our health insurance system is trash. I think that a single payer system would be better than what we have now. I just think that solving it through the private sector would be optimal. We need to deregulate and increase competition. I would be fine with offering vouchers for people below the poverty line to use to find a health insurance plan.
You see, I agree the government "helps" the rich become wealthy through the enforcement of laws. That is the role of all governments. However, those laws are applied to everyone equally. It is therefore not the role of the government to then give special treatment to those who didn't fair as well. I have problems with bailing out GM and the banks. That was terrible. That is special treatment that should not have happened.
I am pretty sure that poll was referring to "hate speech". That would be things like racist comments. While I don't support people who speak like that, I support their right to speak.
Blue states, like I said, have some of the highest concentrations of billionaires. When you contrast that with Blue states having some of the highest rates of homelessness, it really makes me begin to question if your party gives a damn about the poor. Also, do you have any proof that rich people both move to Blue states and then fund out of state Republicans? Are you neglecting that state and local laws, taxes, and regulations exist? https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/
I have seen that you said you agree with our grievances and not our solutions. Fine. Difference of opinion. However, you then state that our party is corporatist. You say that we support only deregulating for certain companies, and then you pretend that your party doesn't do the exact same thing! Your party selectively regulates. I know that you personally are against that. I am too. Unfortunately, neo-cons and neo-liberal sellouts exist within our parties. That is not what a conservative supports and I am sure what your party does is quite often against your ideology as well. I don't know much about McConnell to be honest.
I would need proof that right-wing (pro-business) policies are holding us back. There are lots of RINOs and Neo-Cons that are ruining my party. We should find more pro-life, pro-gun leaders who are against lobbying.
I think that, if you pass enough tests you should be able to own darn near any gun. I would have to ponder on how to structure them, but psychological and gun safety tests would be a good start.
Then the HLI article is about how we fight for other countries to legalize abortion to control their population. That has nothing to do with vaccinations.
Lmao. Checked your Bill Gates source. The claim was that he said vaccines are so governments can depopulate the world. The verdict was false. Your own source disproves you.
I'm stuck wondering if you are too lazy to check your sources or if you think I am too lazy to check them.
It seems like you are saying vaccines are used to keep populations low. If that were the case, then why aren't polio and small pox a problem anymore? Man, those blasted terrorists, helping us build an immunity to deadly diseases!
I mean, that kinda comes with having parties. You believe your ideas are best, and therefore you want to rule. You don't intentionally let people you presume have bad ideas take control. That would be irresponsible.
Control over the judicial, executive, and legislative branches maybe. But a small government gives them less power and control over my life. (Not classical) Liberals want to command what types of guns I can buy, what health insurance plan I can use, and want to censor my speech.
I mean, he doesn't trigger me. I get great enjoyment over watching him make a fool out of himself after I realized he probably doesn't believe what he says.
I don't see how this should trigger "conservatives" exclusively. Shouldn't liberals be outraged by racism as well?
If you want to talk about "stealing this nation from the people" and the super wealthy, you should understand that Blue states have some of the highest concentration of billionaires per capita. That is where the oligarchy is coming from.
Also, you want to talk about mischaracterizing the left, what about your representation of the Right? You think we all are these neo-conservatives, and those people are sh*t bags.
It isn't priority #1 because the rest of your policies are terrible in my opinion. If your party adopted good economic policies that won't rob me of my future, I would consider voting for you. Also, social issues like killing babies are a no-no.
"Hell yeah we are going to take your AR-15s and Ak-47s". - Robert Francis O'Rourke
Not all of them are this crazy yet, but we are definitely on our way there. There are calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All authoritarian movements take guns, and that is exactly what will happen.
They want to increase taxes for the middle class, as well. Warren and Sanders try to dance around it, but it is true. I want to be wealthy some day, and people like that want to kill that dream- The American Dream.
They are coming for my speech. Countries all over Europe and Canada have done it. They just need to screw up the Constitution or rig the Supreme Court like Bernie Sanders wants to. When most Democrats are for legislating "hate speech", I think it becomes a legal matter.
Maybe you don't support this, but leaders and large members of their base do.
Also, did you read the entire bill? It also includes a national holiday, automatic voter registration, and more.
Republicans are saying it will subsidize House campaigns.
It is a 500 page bill. Maybe some of it would be passed separately, but we cannot know that. The Democrats want to pass massive bills to load in a lot of stupid provisions, and they know it will not be passed. They just want to make their voters think they are trying so hard to get money out of politics, when they are actually making a crap bill.
I mean yes, I would like some more transparency. There are things the Republican party doesn't or doesn't do that upset me. There are about 5-10 issues I care about most, and the Republicans are more likely to deliver those than Democrats, which is why I vote Red. I would like to get rid of lobbying. I think special interests screw us all. However, I don't want my guns, vast majority of my income, and my free speech taken away. So, while I would like to end money influencing politics, I am not going to be a single issue voter for it.
Those numbers are pretty high. The average income in Zimbabwe per day is $4. To buy a loaf of bread, it is 17.5% of your entire daily work.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-zimbabwe-bread/zimbabwe-nearly-doubles-bread-price-as-economic-woes-mount-idUSKCN1RS13X
Bet they wish whitey would come back and feed them lol.
Nawww... did I hurt your fee fees by pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about? How precious. xD
Hundreds of million dollars can buy food.....unless you're in Zimbabwe and hyperinflation made your money worthless.
Those tobacco crops don't feed families, now do they?
Taxes?
Yeah, I'm just shy of a free speech absolutist, myself. I don't think any bans are in order. He makes a fool out of himself, and therefore nobody takes his ridiculous ideas seriously. Exposing his absurd ideas is the best way to deal with him.
I'm not excusing it, just saying this has been going on for months.
Well Africans still can't farm. Kinda why the Breadbasket of Africa, Rhodesia, ended up becoming starving Zimbabwe. Oops.
Irish built the Eerie Canal, rail roads, New Basin Canal, 150,000 fought in the Union Army. The Empire State building. Contributed a lot more than certain other groups....
https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/the-hands-that-built-america-93287044-237694541
https://www.irishamericanmom.com/us-infrastructure-and-the-extraordinary-legacy-of-irish-american-immigrants/
As long as it is in the debate, it is perfectly fine. I don't want to waste the voters' time looking for something they already know is in there.
This seems to be on par with his other debates.
I feel as though we can end this here. We have some points we agree on like lobbying being bad. I agree that big corporations can be bad, perhaps to a different degree. Big companies have more efficient supply chains and reach an economy of scale, but I do believe in anti-trust laws because competition is what makes capitalism great! You're right, (I wouldn't use the word 'capitalists') but businesses are to a certain degree anti-capitalism. Competition is pro-consumer and anti-business. We need a lot of competition, which is why I would like to solve our healthcare systems' issues by increasing competition, rather than creating a government monopoly. Parents should choose what plan is best for their family, not the government.
You have to understand that there are a lot of incompatibilities at play here. You say that our products must be competitive to make us a competitive economy. Well, labor unions exponentially drive up costs. GM is losing $50-100 million every day because of the strike. How is that good for us? How has the teacher's union helped our nation's children? You have to understand that, while companies are anti-competition, unions are anti-competition too. They need their business to stay in business to keep their job. They are against immigration, because they would have to compete with them for jobs. Teachers unions are against merit-based pay. Simply paying people more might make the consumer base a bit better off. That can be a good thing, but not if it is at the cost of destroying domestic companies.
I have a lot of classical economic works that I am prepared to read to become more informed. Thanks for the conversation :)
I'll just ignore the fact that you have dropped every point you have made thus far about population control.
Mainly the Irish and Italians built America, at least most lasting infrastructure. I don't know if toiling in fields "built" America, but correct me if I am wrong. Generally slave labor holds countries back because of a lack of innovation. That is why the South only had one factory at the onset of the Civil War. So, if anything, they held America back.
Africans definitely did not build Europe. Until recently, white people have been a super majority of most European countries.
How are predominately white countries in Africa?
Bump
I don't even know how to begin judging this. So I won't
Thanks for the grammar tip :D
White people all think the same, eh? Is that why we are all such hard workers? :)
European countries(a predominately white continent) and America(a majority white country) are some of the richest countries in the world. Africa on the other hand....
And I am saying that governmental policy can influence supply and make it more expensive. Think of rent control. That create housing shortages and leads to dilapidated infrastructure.
I don't know. I'd like unions to work. That would probably be most efficient, but that would tank our economy and make us super uncompetitive. Minimum wages create unemployment, so that would spur a greater reliance on welfare.
Yeah, progressive taxes are gradual. The fact is that the more you make, the less of your marginal income you get to keep. Why are those additional few hundred thousand less worthy of keeping than the first 10k? Progressive taxes work alright, I'll give you that. Income is very inelastic. That doesn't mean you should pilfer the profits of their labor.
Amazon pays zero in federal taxes. They pay payroll taxes, as well as state and local taxes. I don't think it is okay for buffet to pay less in taxes than his secretary. That is why I am for a flat tax with no deductions for people above the poverty line. Everyone should pay their fair share.
I am looking more critically at my positions. At least in terms of demand side vs supply side economics. I don't see myself flipping, but perhaps becoming a little more moderate.
I might pick a debate such as "People in Red states are better off than those in Blue states"
Let me know any subjects you are willing to debate on. If they interest me, I would be willing to debate once school gives me a break.
:)
Deregulation is just a partisan thing. It makes the base happy. I think it is usually good because it reduces costs and any market inefficiencies they may have caused. They cut thousands of regulations, so listing them all out would be rather time-consuming.
I don't see how we are talking past each other about selective regulation. Let us say you make a regulation(that you say is industry-wide). Now lets say a Republican gets rid of that regulation. How would that not also have an industry-wide effect of deregulation?
Hong Kong would be my ideal economic example. They are the freest country in the world according to the economic freedom index. They have a median income that rivals ours, and they hardly have any natural resources to prop up their economy!
The government allows the rich to make the most of their resources. Keyword: their. It is their property that they have a right to. Just because they were more successful doesn't mean they have less of a right to that.
I'm fine with local/state minimum wages because of different costs of living. I'm certain we agree on that. Federal minimum wages are kind of trash. Another big reason that it is expensive to live in blue states is high taxes! Regulations on buying houses in Washington, Oregon, and California make housing much more expensive. Economics is part of the rising costs. However, with stifling regulations, you inhibit producers from making more, affordable housing for the consumers. You create inefficiencies by interfering in the market.
My connection was showing how "wealth inequality" and "helping the poor" are always at the center of Democrats' debates, but the effects of their policies show another story. I can't name one major city in a Blue state that doesn't having overwhelming poverty and high crime rates. Detroit, Chicago, New York are all run by Democrats and the poor there suffer tremendously.
I think you meant 'differentiate', but you said 'different'.
I went on Sanger's Wikipedia page and never saw mention of the word "Republican".
I failed to mention the "Nazi" connection to Sanger....probably because you did???
I'm not screaming Ugandan racist group. I am quoting your article.
I guess you're dropping the point about minorities voting for the party of abortion?
People who vote for Republicans are predominately white. Republicans are against abortion.
Minorities vote Democrat. Democrats like abortion.
Not sure what to tell you. I don't like Margaret Sanger.
1st source debunks your point. You said that vaccines were used for population control. The source says fear mongering about them is population control. The population control is achieved by people NOT taking vaccines.
2nd source direct quote: "However, a preliminary investigation by Pulpit & Pen seems to indicate some ulterior motives for complaints against Bach. The civil prosecution efforts seem to be instigated by a racist group, No White Saviors, which holds anti-Caucasian views and seeks to rid Uganda of American missionaries altogether." Oopsie. Maybe you should read your sources.
Keep changing the goal posts, I see. How about you address the way your sources completely debunk your position. I'll wait.....
I was thinking of a clip of Elizabeth warren calling them "costs" instead of taxes. Let me be clear: I know our health insurance system is trash. I think that a single payer system would be better than what we have now. I just think that solving it through the private sector would be optimal. We need to deregulate and increase competition. I would be fine with offering vouchers for people below the poverty line to use to find a health insurance plan.
You see, I agree the government "helps" the rich become wealthy through the enforcement of laws. That is the role of all governments. However, those laws are applied to everyone equally. It is therefore not the role of the government to then give special treatment to those who didn't fair as well. I have problems with bailing out GM and the banks. That was terrible. That is special treatment that should not have happened.
I am pretty sure that poll was referring to "hate speech". That would be things like racist comments. While I don't support people who speak like that, I support their right to speak.
Blue states, like I said, have some of the highest concentrations of billionaires. When you contrast that with Blue states having some of the highest rates of homelessness, it really makes me begin to question if your party gives a damn about the poor. Also, do you have any proof that rich people both move to Blue states and then fund out of state Republicans? Are you neglecting that state and local laws, taxes, and regulations exist? https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/
I have seen that you said you agree with our grievances and not our solutions. Fine. Difference of opinion. However, you then state that our party is corporatist. You say that we support only deregulating for certain companies, and then you pretend that your party doesn't do the exact same thing! Your party selectively regulates. I know that you personally are against that. I am too. Unfortunately, neo-cons and neo-liberal sellouts exist within our parties. That is not what a conservative supports and I am sure what your party does is quite often against your ideology as well. I don't know much about McConnell to be honest.
I would need proof that right-wing (pro-business) policies are holding us back. There are lots of RINOs and Neo-Cons that are ruining my party. We should find more pro-life, pro-gun leaders who are against lobbying.
I think that, if you pass enough tests you should be able to own darn near any gun. I would have to ponder on how to structure them, but psychological and gun safety tests would be a good start.
In Singapore they beat you for littering.
Then the HLI article is about how we fight for other countries to legalize abortion to control their population. That has nothing to do with vaccinations.
Lmao. Checked your Bill Gates source. The claim was that he said vaccines are so governments can depopulate the world. The verdict was false. Your own source disproves you.
I'm stuck wondering if you are too lazy to check your sources or if you think I am too lazy to check them.
It seems like you are saying vaccines are used to keep populations low. If that were the case, then why aren't polio and small pox a problem anymore? Man, those blasted terrorists, helping us build an immunity to deadly diseases!
Let's not forget, people of any race can be a white supremacist ;)
I mean, you can find a source that says vaccines cause autism. That doesn't mean it is right.
I'll simplify the last comment for you: the point of any political party is to get power. Pretty simple.
You posted no links in your argument.
Also, the Black Panther group was a bunch of terrorists.
Dude. Why do you never provide sources? lol
I mean, that kinda comes with having parties. You believe your ideas are best, and therefore you want to rule. You don't intentionally let people you presume have bad ideas take control. That would be irresponsible.
Ok. I knew you weren't going to argue for legality. I just wasn't sure if your stance meant you wouldn't legislate it irl.
I guess a better question would be: Why shouldn't this be considered animal cruelty in your eyes?
+1
Control over the judicial, executive, and legislative branches maybe. But a small government gives them less power and control over my life. (Not classical) Liberals want to command what types of guns I can buy, what health insurance plan I can use, and want to censor my speech.
Conservatives fight for small government. Liberals fight for big government. Yes. Same thing.
Bump for voting purposes. All input is appreciated :)
There is no rhyme or reason to what a troll does.
I know you were upset with his ignorance. I was just asking why him calling white people terrorists was more meant to upset conservatives.
I mean, he doesn't trigger me. I get great enjoyment over watching him make a fool out of himself after I realized he probably doesn't believe what he says.
I don't see how this should trigger "conservatives" exclusively. Shouldn't liberals be outraged by racism as well?
Most shootings may occur in more private environments, but this debate is about "mass shootings".
If you want to talk about "stealing this nation from the people" and the super wealthy, you should understand that Blue states have some of the highest concentration of billionaires per capita. That is where the oligarchy is coming from.
Also, you want to talk about mischaracterizing the left, what about your representation of the Right? You think we all are these neo-conservatives, and those people are sh*t bags.
It isn't priority #1 because the rest of your policies are terrible in my opinion. If your party adopted good economic policies that won't rob me of my future, I would consider voting for you. Also, social issues like killing babies are a no-no.
"Hell yeah we are going to take your AR-15s and Ak-47s". - Robert Francis O'Rourke
Not all of them are this crazy yet, but we are definitely on our way there. There are calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All authoritarian movements take guns, and that is exactly what will happen.
They want to increase taxes for the middle class, as well. Warren and Sanders try to dance around it, but it is true. I want to be wealthy some day, and people like that want to kill that dream- The American Dream.
They are coming for my speech. Countries all over Europe and Canada have done it. They just need to screw up the Constitution or rig the Supreme Court like Bernie Sanders wants to. When most Democrats are for legislating "hate speech", I think it becomes a legal matter.
Maybe you don't support this, but leaders and large members of their base do.
Also, did you read the entire bill? It also includes a national holiday, automatic voter registration, and more.
Republicans are saying it will subsidize House campaigns.
It is a 500 page bill. Maybe some of it would be passed separately, but we cannot know that. The Democrats want to pass massive bills to load in a lot of stupid provisions, and they know it will not be passed. They just want to make their voters think they are trying so hard to get money out of politics, when they are actually making a crap bill.
I mean yes, I would like some more transparency. There are things the Republican party doesn't or doesn't do that upset me. There are about 5-10 issues I care about most, and the Republicans are more likely to deliver those than Democrats, which is why I vote Red. I would like to get rid of lobbying. I think special interests screw us all. However, I don't want my guns, vast majority of my income, and my free speech taken away. So, while I would like to end money influencing politics, I am not going to be a single issue voter for it.
I'd say there would have been at least 30,000 reasons to impeach the other choice.
#MAGA
If you think we are making animals suffer, why wouldn't you want it to go into law?
I feel as though I have seen this before.
Nice rebuttals, my dude.
Good luck, my dude.