Arguments:
R1
Con:Says "facts speak for themselves" without citing a source. States that because another white guy committed a mass shooting that they are now the face of domestic terrorism. Says a travel warning was put in place. Dismisses mental illness as a cause without evidence.
Pro: Gave definition for domestic terrorist. Pro enumerates many good things that white people have done, including ending slavery. Also brings up the infeasibility of labeling all of them in a certain way. This was an important point that Con tried to throw away. Pro also brought up the impossibility of defining white vs black people because there is no huge difference between races of people. This means that all races act the same, so it would be illogical to label just white people as "domestic terrorists". In rebuttals, he once again throws out the claims of Con that not all white men are terrorists despite the fact that this is exactly what they are debating. Con brings up that other groups are committing even larger amounts of terrorism, proving that white people commit proportionally low amounts of terrorism. Pro then also brings up that the travel ban is a farse. It doesn not relate to white people and other groups, such as blacks, even have higher amounts of gun crime, meaning white men are not a group that can be singled out. Pro argued that any mass shooter likely has mental issues. Threw out the RICO suggestion by Con as being an explicit infringement of the 1st Amendment. Brings up moral things the US has done.
Winner: Pro. Provided verifiable points and thoroughly rebutted Con's points.
R2
Con: References four white male domestic terrorists who perpetrated mass shootings. Says people are judged as a collective without substantiating the claim. Made claim about how calling black people "thugs" devalues them. Pro didn't do this, nor did he give evidence of people saying this. While true, it is irrelevant. Says white people built their entire lifestyle via racism
I think that you are neglecting the fact that the vast majority of Americans were religious at that time, so saying that only the Democrats supported "religious voices" is laughably false. I don't know how paying for infrastructure isn't a Republican thing. Trump is talking about a $2 trillion plan right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-trump-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan-cost-funding-problem-2019-4
Higher taxes which paid for higher spending. I don't know if you realize this, but before the 1960s, nearly every president of every political persuasion did everything they could to balance the budget. The only exception was during war time. Yes, he raised taxes because he didn't want to accrue massive debt. Anyone with a triple digit IQ would have raised taxes.
I am not saying that every single issue they believed in is the same as now. I mean, Democrats were the party against illegal immigration not too long ago since they used to care about unions, and union workers didn't want their wages to be undercut. Same with tariffs.
Also, you never proved that Democrats did conservative things, nor did you provide a link with further information.
Give me an exact year for when you are saying the constituencies flipped. Because if you are going to say when segregation ended, I'll ask you: would the entire Republican party flip on everything they believe just so that they could gain a few Deep South States?
They gave pensions to soldiers because, exactly like today, we love our veterans. Those soldiers could have been mangled and not been able to hold jobs because they fought for their country. That is a lot different than current times when states like California pay people to be homeless. In times of war, you may need to subsidize railroads and other things because you need to move troops and supplies to win a war. You also need to tax more to pay for that war. Simple financial responsibility right there.
They did not swap constituencies. After segregation was federally outlawed, Deep South states had to choose another large issue they cared about. That would be Federalism, for which they chose the Republican party. No states went to Blue at that time that were historically red.
If you don't blame for the sins of the father, then why are you bothering to discuss swapping constituencies? The fact is, your party has such evil roots, you have to pretend that the parties swapped in order to justify calling us racists today. It is really pathetic. You pretend to be for the common man. So did Andrew Jackson who started your party. You have always been for big government, and that is what defines the parties.
There are limitations to free speech. Don't call for violence or cause a mass panic.
The reason that the invisible hand fails is when government regulations and taxes create inefficiencies in the market.
Democrats want to limit speech. How about we flip it around and see how you feel about it. Republicans gain a majority. They hate socialism, so they ban any speech supporting it. They base this on the fact that socialism has killed over 100 million people historically, so they want to save us from that. Is that okay? No. It should be outright dismissed because the government shouldn't ban what you can say and therefore think.
Could you mention a few Republican policies that Southern Democrats supported? They were the same Democrat party unless you are saying FDR supported Republican ideas. Some concrete examples would be more convincing than just calling what I said "stupid" and "cliche".
Money in politics is a problem. I just don't see how you can constitutionally amend it. Laws against freedom of expression are unconstitutional. I support anti-lobbying because that is essentially corruption. However, making films and ads shouldn't really be regulated.
The Invisible Hand is not laughable naivety. It is about how prices and supply of products adjust to meet demand. It is about how complex a market is with millions of buyers and sellers: something that central planners couldn't accomplish.
Not sure about what your point is regarding hate speech. The point is most dems support and most reps are against.
Taxes are very important. They allow small businesses and entrepreneurs to succeed. They incentivize innovation, which is the bedrock of our economy.
Could you provide a study that proves firearms make us less safe? I have noticed that almost all gun crimes are committed by gangs. If you ban guns, they will still illegally import them!
Having health insurance is typically a good thing. However, I don't see how forcing people to get any commodity is a good idea. Obama tried and failed to do it. I don't see how rich people advertising influences my beliefs. I don't care how much Dems spend, I believe in limited government. I'm not some sheep that changes my mind based on how many advertisements I see on TV. Are you saying that most people are?
They likely "barely pay it lip service" because it is an issue that is less important to their base than say.... reducing taxes, regulations, limiting abortion, etc?
Tell me why banning hate speech is a good idea. Can you provide any quantifiable claim as to how it is harmful? It is a good thing that we are the last developed nation to not have banned it. We promote freedom here in the US, not partisan banning of speech(and therefore ideas).
Lmao, it is a treat talking to you. Fredo's freak out was a joke because I didn't hear about the tranny freak out you mentioned. Freedom of speech is muy bien.
No righty calls for race wars. It seems like just yesterday that Democrats were segregating schools and running the KKK.....
They accused him of gang rape. No denying that. He wasn't sent to trial because the FBI couldn't find enough evidence to send it to trial.
It wasn't a ruling that only favored "rich people". It was turning over a rule that only applied to corporations concerning speech that denigrades a different candidate close to an election. I can do it. You can do it, too.
The raising money point was referring to your party having lots of donors. Donors that will want a return on their investment. I don't believe Obama got money out of politics when he was president for eight years. He owned Congress for at least half of that.
The market will right itself. It is called the invisible hand. Point to a market failure, and the government was likely involved. It is so naive to think that wealth redistribution is a good idea. Riddle me this, if Republicans are the party of the wealthy few, then why do BLUE states have the highest concentration of millionaires? https://www.financial-planning.com/slideshow/blue-states-vs-red-states-which-has-the-most-millionaires
Why do you also have such high homelessness rates? https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate-in-the-us-by-state/
Gee, with all those billionaires and homeless people in BLUE states, it is hard to believe much of what you are saying.
Didn't see your response. Thanks! This is a topic that I recently became passionate about, and I do feel much better facing such a skilled debater, rather than someone who forfeits/trolls/sucks.
I don't know what trans guy freak out video you are referring to. However... I did see Fredo, I mean Chris Cuomo, freak out.
If half of what you guys said was true about Republicans, I wouldn't like them, either. If Brett Kavanaugh was actually a gang rapists and that whole thing wasn't made up, I would probably be upset he is on the Supreme Court.
I looked at Citizens United. It looked to be an issue about a company that had an anti-Hillary movie. It went to the Supreme Court, which found it constitutional for them to use their freedom of expression. So...
Also, from 2008-2018, the Dems raised and spent more money than Reps.
You want to talk about limiting the power of the people, let us talk about you restricting their freedoms. When you steal their income, regulate what they can and cannot buy, and control what you can say, how is that not limiting the power of citizens? What about limiting what gun that parents wish to defend their family with/women protect themselves with?
51% of Dems support criminalizing hate speech believe it or not https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech
I don't really think that the Democratic party as a whole is trying to get money out of politics. I have seen no such legislation. Provide some if I am wrong, but I have really only heard Bernie talk about it.
The whole point of conservatism is limited government. So, we are trying to take power away from the corrupt institution.
Yes, impoverished governments do have too much power. Check out the economic freedom index. There is pretty good correlation between freedom and prosperity. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
I don't know in which ways Europe and Japan out compete us. Japan's cars are probably better because they don't have unions bankrupting the company with pension plans. Japanese car companies in America are almost all non-union.
I knew it would be a struggle going up against whiteflame, but I am quite proud of my performance. I think a lot of good information was thrown out there.
I thought that in previous discussions you said you were for it. Perhaps not. If you actually are against it, I am excited to see your arguments. Good luck!
I don't necessarily love either party. I just really hate what Democrats stand for and what they do. I sometimes like what Republicans do. I almost never like what Democrats do. You can read my bio to see if any value you will mention would tick with me.
I am for some environmental regulations. Some food/drug ones, but a lot of agencies since the FDA are bought out. Big Pharma essentially owns the FDA, so as little power as possible should be given to politicians, bureaucrats, etc so that they cannot cause harm from their corruption.
I'm also in favor of patents because we need to innovate. Anti-trust regulations are good, too.
Could you mention some of these libertarian 3rd world countries? Most to my knowledge in central America and Africa have huge government oversight. Our automobile market is uncompetitive and so are many of our schools, at least K-12. I blame unions for a lot of that, though.
So... are you referring to actual right-wing ideas and left-wing ideas or just what the parties do? Because your source in the last debate seemed to be all about parties.
So... competition-killing regulation is good. Got it. Because the market isn't self-regulating or anything. Maybe I feel safe walking by a construction site because the company would get a heck of a lawsuit and bad publicity if I got killed by a falling beam? I'm not arguing for no regulation. But the oversimplified stupidity lies in the idea that government bureaucrats know exactly how the market should function and should be given unlimited power to restrict markets that they likely have no experience in.
You wonder why we aren't competitive in many markets worldwide? Because regulations act as a tax. Compliance is expensive, and makes me pay more as a consumer.
Federal Regulations were around 95,000 pages in length at the end of Obama's presidency. Luckily, Trump cut those. Compliance costs were about $2 trillion/year.
https://mises.org/wire/our-huge-hidden-tax-government-regulations
Let me just be more general about an issue: rent control. That is a bad regulation. It leads to housing shortages and dilapidated housing.
Absolutely agree. Lobbying is a big corruption issue.
My point is that this goes both ways. Right-winged people can deregulate to help a company. Left-wing people can help build monopolies by regulating competition. These bootleggers are the exact same as the deregulated companies, just in reverse.
You are referring to neoconservatives, not real conservativism. Here is what conservatives believe: "Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation and free enterprise". Since conservatives want less regulation, that would mean that they would want less regulation for everyone, lower taxes for everyone, etc. You are also very much mistaken saying that liberals always like to equally implement regulation. Ever heard of bootleggers and baptists? It is a phenomena in which companies lobby for more regulation to keep newer competitors out of the market. So, wouldn't they be choosing the winners as those companies in existence rather than potential future competitors? Also, ex-ante regulation is regulation that doesn't apply to companies already in existence. Are you saying that this isn't choosing winners or being corrupt and bought? If you think so, then I don't think this conversation can go much further. You really need to stop listening to ultra-biased news sources and realize that anyone from any party can be corrupted and when that occurs, they are no longer true to their values and can be corporatists.
I didn't argue for GDP and unemployment because I know they are flawed. I have no clue what disability benefits have to do with anything. The only explanation for that would be liberals expanding SS broadly to get more people dependent on them for income. Also, I used cost of living because that isn't a flawed statistic.
Average number of applicants for jobs? Which way are you saying that would be good, more or less applications?
I would suggest not using average income because of outliers. I don't believe that "debt slave" is a defined term. Therefore, I don't think you can state that we have the most of something if it doesn't exist.
Well, 95% of the "Indian" continent was wiped out by the same sicknesses. So, I guess whitey is better than them. :)
Also, Africans should have learned to use bug nets for Malaria. Also, eh... I won't mention the rampant spread of AIDS in Africa.... that would just be impolite.
You proved my point when you mentioned Barrack (Saddam) Hussein Obama. Maybe certain groups have bad cultures, economic statuses, etc because their IQs are low. Also, are you saying black culture is bad?
I think you may be a little mistaken about right-wing beliefs. Real conservatives, unlike neoconservatives, believe in free markets and equal treatment. Laissez-faire economics, essentially. You mention corporatism when you say the state supports certain businesses through corporate welfare as opposed to others as a form of central planning. This is what fascists, socialists, etc do. Those are all left-wing groups economically speaking.
Arguments:
R1
Con:Says "facts speak for themselves" without citing a source. States that because another white guy committed a mass shooting that they are now the face of domestic terrorism. Says a travel warning was put in place. Dismisses mental illness as a cause without evidence.
Pro: Gave definition for domestic terrorist. Pro enumerates many good things that white people have done, including ending slavery. Also brings up the infeasibility of labeling all of them in a certain way. This was an important point that Con tried to throw away. Pro also brought up the impossibility of defining white vs black people because there is no huge difference between races of people. This means that all races act the same, so it would be illogical to label just white people as "domestic terrorists". In rebuttals, he once again throws out the claims of Con that not all white men are terrorists despite the fact that this is exactly what they are debating. Con brings up that other groups are committing even larger amounts of terrorism, proving that white people commit proportionally low amounts of terrorism. Pro then also brings up that the travel ban is a farse. It doesn not relate to white people and other groups, such as blacks, even have higher amounts of gun crime, meaning white men are not a group that can be singled out. Pro argued that any mass shooter likely has mental issues. Threw out the RICO suggestion by Con as being an explicit infringement of the 1st Amendment. Brings up moral things the US has done.
Winner: Pro. Provided verifiable points and thoroughly rebutted Con's points.
R2
Con: References four white male domestic terrorists who perpetrated mass shootings. Says people are judged as a collective without substantiating the claim. Made claim about how calling black people "thugs" devalues them. Pro didn't do this, nor did he give evidence of people saying this. While true, it is irrelevant. Says white people built their entire lifestyle via racism
I think that you are neglecting the fact that the vast majority of Americans were religious at that time, so saying that only the Democrats supported "religious voices" is laughably false. I don't know how paying for infrastructure isn't a Republican thing. Trump is talking about a $2 trillion plan right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-trump-2-trillion-infrastructure-plan-cost-funding-problem-2019-4
Higher taxes which paid for higher spending. I don't know if you realize this, but before the 1960s, nearly every president of every political persuasion did everything they could to balance the budget. The only exception was during war time. Yes, he raised taxes because he didn't want to accrue massive debt. Anyone with a triple digit IQ would have raised taxes.
I am not saying that every single issue they believed in is the same as now. I mean, Democrats were the party against illegal immigration not too long ago since they used to care about unions, and union workers didn't want their wages to be undercut. Same with tariffs.
Also, you never proved that Democrats did conservative things, nor did you provide a link with further information.
Give me an exact year for when you are saying the constituencies flipped. Because if you are going to say when segregation ended, I'll ask you: would the entire Republican party flip on everything they believe just so that they could gain a few Deep South States?
America isn't disgusting, the Democrat party is.
Well, thank you! I guess these troll-ish people can shock you. I hope it turns out to be a good debate!
Does your opponent argue for legality or that it is healthy?
BuT tHeY aRe AnTi FaScIsT
Cashing in on the free wins now, too? Lmao
Good luck! I'm excited to see someone who won't forfeit this whole debate.
They gave pensions to soldiers because, exactly like today, we love our veterans. Those soldiers could have been mangled and not been able to hold jobs because they fought for their country. That is a lot different than current times when states like California pay people to be homeless. In times of war, you may need to subsidize railroads and other things because you need to move troops and supplies to win a war. You also need to tax more to pay for that war. Simple financial responsibility right there.
They did not swap constituencies. After segregation was federally outlawed, Deep South states had to choose another large issue they cared about. That would be Federalism, for which they chose the Republican party. No states went to Blue at that time that were historically red.
If you don't blame for the sins of the father, then why are you bothering to discuss swapping constituencies? The fact is, your party has such evil roots, you have to pretend that the parties swapped in order to justify calling us racists today. It is really pathetic. You pretend to be for the common man. So did Andrew Jackson who started your party. You have always been for big government, and that is what defines the parties.
There are limitations to free speech. Don't call for violence or cause a mass panic.
The reason that the invisible hand fails is when government regulations and taxes create inefficiencies in the market.
Democrats want to limit speech. How about we flip it around and see how you feel about it. Republicans gain a majority. They hate socialism, so they ban any speech supporting it. They base this on the fact that socialism has killed over 100 million people historically, so they want to save us from that. Is that okay? No. It should be outright dismissed because the government shouldn't ban what you can say and therefore think.
I was saying they were mainly trolls. Yes, a joke.
His name was CommanderCornJuice, my good sir.
You mean you'll debate someone who isn't commander corn juice, crossed, or billbatard?
I wish our constitution hadn't been reworked since then!
Nice one lol!
Could you mention a few Republican policies that Southern Democrats supported? They were the same Democrat party unless you are saying FDR supported Republican ideas. Some concrete examples would be more convincing than just calling what I said "stupid" and "cliche".
Money in politics is a problem. I just don't see how you can constitutionally amend it. Laws against freedom of expression are unconstitutional. I support anti-lobbying because that is essentially corruption. However, making films and ads shouldn't really be regulated.
The Invisible Hand is not laughable naivety. It is about how prices and supply of products adjust to meet demand. It is about how complex a market is with millions of buyers and sellers: something that central planners couldn't accomplish.
Not sure about what your point is regarding hate speech. The point is most dems support and most reps are against.
Taxes are very important. They allow small businesses and entrepreneurs to succeed. They incentivize innovation, which is the bedrock of our economy.
Could you provide a study that proves firearms make us less safe? I have noticed that almost all gun crimes are committed by gangs. If you ban guns, they will still illegally import them!
Having health insurance is typically a good thing. However, I don't see how forcing people to get any commodity is a good idea. Obama tried and failed to do it. I don't see how rich people advertising influences my beliefs. I don't care how much Dems spend, I believe in limited government. I'm not some sheep that changes my mind based on how many advertisements I see on TV. Are you saying that most people are?
They likely "barely pay it lip service" because it is an issue that is less important to their base than say.... reducing taxes, regulations, limiting abortion, etc?
Tell me why banning hate speech is a good idea. Can you provide any quantifiable claim as to how it is harmful? It is a good thing that we are the last developed nation to not have banned it. We promote freedom here in the US, not partisan banning of speech(and therefore ideas).
Lmao, it is a treat talking to you. Fredo's freak out was a joke because I didn't hear about the tranny freak out you mentioned. Freedom of speech is muy bien.
No righty calls for race wars. It seems like just yesterday that Democrats were segregating schools and running the KKK.....
They accused him of gang rape. No denying that. He wasn't sent to trial because the FBI couldn't find enough evidence to send it to trial.
It wasn't a ruling that only favored "rich people". It was turning over a rule that only applied to corporations concerning speech that denigrades a different candidate close to an election. I can do it. You can do it, too.
The raising money point was referring to your party having lots of donors. Donors that will want a return on their investment. I don't believe Obama got money out of politics when he was president for eight years. He owned Congress for at least half of that.
The market will right itself. It is called the invisible hand. Point to a market failure, and the government was likely involved. It is so naive to think that wealth redistribution is a good idea. Riddle me this, if Republicans are the party of the wealthy few, then why do BLUE states have the highest concentration of millionaires? https://www.financial-planning.com/slideshow/blue-states-vs-red-states-which-has-the-most-millionaires
Why do you also have such high homelessness rates? https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate-in-the-us-by-state/
Gee, with all those billionaires and homeless people in BLUE states, it is hard to believe much of what you are saying.
Didn't see your response. Thanks! This is a topic that I recently became passionate about, and I do feel much better facing such a skilled debater, rather than someone who forfeits/trolls/sucks.
I honestly surprised myself here.
Dude, you just got roasted.
I don't know what trans guy freak out video you are referring to. However... I did see Fredo, I mean Chris Cuomo, freak out.
If half of what you guys said was true about Republicans, I wouldn't like them, either. If Brett Kavanaugh was actually a gang rapists and that whole thing wasn't made up, I would probably be upset he is on the Supreme Court.
I looked at Citizens United. It looked to be an issue about a company that had an anti-Hillary movie. It went to the Supreme Court, which found it constitutional for them to use their freedom of expression. So...
Also, from 2008-2018, the Dems raised and spent more money than Reps.
You want to talk about limiting the power of the people, let us talk about you restricting their freedoms. When you steal their income, regulate what they can and cannot buy, and control what you can say, how is that not limiting the power of citizens? What about limiting what gun that parents wish to defend their family with/women protect themselves with?
51% of Dems support criminalizing hate speech believe it or not https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech
I don't really think that the Democratic party as a whole is trying to get money out of politics. I have seen no such legislation. Provide some if I am wrong, but I have really only heard Bernie talk about it.
The whole point of conservatism is limited government. So, we are trying to take power away from the corrupt institution.
Yes, impoverished governments do have too much power. Check out the economic freedom index. There is pretty good correlation between freedom and prosperity. https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
I don't know in which ways Europe and Japan out compete us. Japan's cars are probably better because they don't have unions bankrupting the company with pension plans. Japanese car companies in America are almost all non-union.
I am pleased you enjoyed the debate. :)
I knew it would be a struggle going up against whiteflame, but I am quite proud of my performance. I think a lot of good information was thrown out there.
Oh man! I'll never be able to show my glorious jowls around here anymore!
Lol, are you a mairj 2nd account?
Don't forget about Bernie! That senile commie fiend!
:D
Nordic countries aren't competitive? Interesting. I'm guessing you will go more into that in the debate?
I thought that in previous discussions you said you were for it. Perhaps not. If you actually are against it, I am excited to see your arguments. Good luck!
I was pretending you came to the other side. Another easy dub, my good sir?
Et tu, Omar?
I don't necessarily love either party. I just really hate what Democrats stand for and what they do. I sometimes like what Republicans do. I almost never like what Democrats do. You can read my bio to see if any value you will mention would tick with me.
I am for some environmental regulations. Some food/drug ones, but a lot of agencies since the FDA are bought out. Big Pharma essentially owns the FDA, so as little power as possible should be given to politicians, bureaucrats, etc so that they cannot cause harm from their corruption.
I'm also in favor of patents because we need to innovate. Anti-trust regulations are good, too.
Could you mention some of these libertarian 3rd world countries? Most to my knowledge in central America and Africa have huge government oversight. Our automobile market is uncompetitive and so are many of our schools, at least K-12. I blame unions for a lot of that, though.
No nerves struck. Yes, we did evolve from you people.
Don't be mad because you don't even know the origins of AIDS, which can be found from a single google search.
So... are you referring to actual right-wing ideas and left-wing ideas or just what the parties do? Because your source in the last debate seemed to be all about parties.
Completely agree. We need less disgruntled ex-girlfriends ruining good mens' lives with false accusations. Innocent until proven guilty
I'll get you this weekend, my dude
:)
Ok lol. I was just confused by why "banned by request" was separate. Misread :P
Y'all got it from chimps.
https://www.theaidsinstitute.org/education/aids-101/where-did-hiv-come-0
So, even though almost half of Africans can't read, you're trying to say how they are so smart? Nice one lol.
:O
I agree with Trent on this one. Slime good.
So... competition-killing regulation is good. Got it. Because the market isn't self-regulating or anything. Maybe I feel safe walking by a construction site because the company would get a heck of a lawsuit and bad publicity if I got killed by a falling beam? I'm not arguing for no regulation. But the oversimplified stupidity lies in the idea that government bureaucrats know exactly how the market should function and should be given unlimited power to restrict markets that they likely have no experience in.
You wonder why we aren't competitive in many markets worldwide? Because regulations act as a tax. Compliance is expensive, and makes me pay more as a consumer.
Federal Regulations were around 95,000 pages in length at the end of Obama's presidency. Luckily, Trump cut those. Compliance costs were about $2 trillion/year.
https://mises.org/wire/our-huge-hidden-tax-government-regulations
Let me just be more general about an issue: rent control. That is a bad regulation. It leads to housing shortages and dilapidated housing.
Says he got banned by Virtuoso's request
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2305/site-official-ban-log
Also, since you mentioned the ability to read.... here are some illiteracy rates:
Sub-Saharan Africa: 40.1%
Europe and Central Asia: 1.8%
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262886/illiteracy-rates-by-world-regions/
I said "Indians" as in referring to Native Americans. So.... no.
Also, AIDS comes from monkeys. Maybe stop committing bestiality, and then it wouldn't be a problem.
Absolutely agree. Lobbying is a big corruption issue.
My point is that this goes both ways. Right-winged people can deregulate to help a company. Left-wing people can help build monopolies by regulating competition. These bootleggers are the exact same as the deregulated companies, just in reverse.
You are referring to neoconservatives, not real conservativism. Here is what conservatives believe: "Economic conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation and free enterprise". Since conservatives want less regulation, that would mean that they would want less regulation for everyone, lower taxes for everyone, etc. You are also very much mistaken saying that liberals always like to equally implement regulation. Ever heard of bootleggers and baptists? It is a phenomena in which companies lobby for more regulation to keep newer competitors out of the market. So, wouldn't they be choosing the winners as those companies in existence rather than potential future competitors? Also, ex-ante regulation is regulation that doesn't apply to companies already in existence. Are you saying that this isn't choosing winners or being corrupt and bought? If you think so, then I don't think this conversation can go much further. You really need to stop listening to ultra-biased news sources and realize that anyone from any party can be corrupted and when that occurs, they are no longer true to their values and can be corporatists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#United_States_2
I didn't argue for GDP and unemployment because I know they are flawed. I have no clue what disability benefits have to do with anything. The only explanation for that would be liberals expanding SS broadly to get more people dependent on them for income. Also, I used cost of living because that isn't a flawed statistic.
Average number of applicants for jobs? Which way are you saying that would be good, more or less applications?
I would suggest not using average income because of outliers. I don't believe that "debt slave" is a defined term. Therefore, I don't think you can state that we have the most of something if it doesn't exist.
Well, 95% of the "Indian" continent was wiped out by the same sicknesses. So, I guess whitey is better than them. :)
Also, Africans should have learned to use bug nets for Malaria. Also, eh... I won't mention the rampant spread of AIDS in Africa.... that would just be impolite.
You proved my point when you mentioned Barrack (Saddam) Hussein Obama. Maybe certain groups have bad cultures, economic statuses, etc because their IQs are low. Also, are you saying black culture is bad?
Welcome to the cite!
I think you may be a little mistaken about right-wing beliefs. Real conservatives, unlike neoconservatives, believe in free markets and equal treatment. Laissez-faire economics, essentially. You mention corporatism when you say the state supports certain businesses through corporate welfare as opposed to others as a form of central planning. This is what fascists, socialists, etc do. Those are all left-wing groups economically speaking.
Well, yes. Orange man bad. Conservatives bad. Aborting babies and stealing your income good!