Total posts: 2,799
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Ok, we don't know this percentage, but we will pretend we do for the sake of argument. Let us say one country in the world, China, has a nuke. They have a 20% chance of using it on Laos. Then, let us say Laos builds a nuke. China's chance of using the nuke may go down to 1% or even 0% because they don't want the retaliatory nuke.
Now, let us say all nukes are destroyed. The only people who are likely to use the nuke are going to build more. Then, the other countries don't have them and there is less of a deterrent against using them for those who have built them.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes, but let us say that you have nukes and your enemy does, as well as their allies. You don't want to nuke them because then you'll get wrecked. That is the whole idea of mutually assured destruction: the fact that others have nukes deters you from using them at all.
I don't think there is any realistic way to get rid of all nukes and ensure no more are made, so this is what we have to go with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What Christian killings are you referring to?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
She also handled the questions about raising taxes on some of the 43 percenters to pay for Guvt Healthcare poorly.
No! She is raising "cOsTs".
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You were making a case for denuclearization. I recognize that a nuclear war would be catastrophic, but the alternative, which I provided, is also problematic and leads everyone to build nukes up again to prevent exploitation.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If we lived in an ideal world in which we could get rid of all nuclear weapons and somehow ensure that no one makes any more, then perhaps it would be ideal.
However, if one country builds a nuke after we get rid of them, then they are granted a lot of leverage over every other country and can extort them. Then, other countries build weapons to deter the use of that nuke and we get right back where we are.
Created:
-->
@Alec
1. How do you force other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons?
2. Isn't mutually assured destruction a deterrent to war?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Well, you mentioned that we had the most diverse culture as a good thing.
If anything, it is causing disunity in America and Europe.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
So insightful. Thank you. ^_^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It would likely be obstruction of justice and possibly tampering with evidence. When Hillary was subpoena'd for her emails, she destroyed them.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I can bring up other sources. The fact is, you just showed a slur label written on Wikipedia. Unless you are saying that the National Socialist People's Welfare didn't exist, I don't see what your point is.
Opinionated slur vs saying that something exists
Hmmm....must be same thing, right?
But, if you aren't capable of determining the difference, this article discusses the robust Nazi welfare state.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
They created the National Socialist People's Welfare branch of their government. They followed through on the claim to expand welfare....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
They are. I am just not an expert on corruption law, so I don't know exactly what he would be charged with. I am aware that he committed corruption.So nothing specific? I thought vague charges were "a witch hunt".
If you value the concept of "unbiased" then you should be careful to NOT interfere.Also, if Trump trusts the Ukrainian Government (whom he accuses of faking the Russia investigation) if he trusts these people MORE than he trusts the USDOJ, then (EITHER) the USDOJ is dogshmidt worthless, (OR) Trump is a fool.Please place your bets.
You see, I don't get all of that business. Russia and Ukraine hate each other, but people are saying that he colluded with both. I think the USDOJ should start doing its job. The fact that Hillary wasn't convicted clearly shows they are lacking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Firing that guy did not "end" it entirely. It halted it. Now that Biden is out of power, it is continuing.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Post #42
Read directly off the Nazi platform
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Yes, please keep proving that you lack the ability to respond to actual points. No wonder you never debate on this site.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I suppose you have a god and other fantasies as well, is it nice to imagine whatever you like and decide it's real?
Please cite when I have ever mentioned religion when making an argument. Also, you just employ your blatant belief perseverance and commit odious appeals to authority(if you could call Wikipedia that) fallacies.
How about you actually examine what I am saying instead of blindly parroting what Wikipedia says, eh?
How do you account for democracy in Nth Korea?Just claiming something doesn't make it real in the real world.
I agree, just claiming something doesn't make it real. I provided evidence, while you just claim whatever fits your narrative and expect people to believe it. I would appreciate it if you would practice what you preach instead of providing these pathetic excuses for arguments.
Just a side note, pretty sure that isn't how you spell 'North'.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I don't CARE what Wikipedia says. Use your brain and actually examine their POLICIES. Their POLICIES are almost exclusively LEFT-WING.
Read the Nazi platform.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Now, tell me: is welfare a left-wing or right-wing policy?
Communilization, eh? Seems rather lefty. Leased at low cost? Is that a PRICE CONTROL?
:O
Imagine my shock! The National Socialist party was rather....socialist!
Created:
-->
@disgusted
If anything, Fascists are centrist. Fascists are economically left-wing and socially right-wing. However, they are also huge collectivists, so I would argue that they are more left-wing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Burisma investigation was restarted well AFTER Biden was out of an office of power. He can't stop it now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What is the crime Joe Biden is accused of?And even if there was a credible allegation of an actual crime, why doesn't Trump just order an investigation through the DOJ?
It would probably be some type of corruption charge. Why would it matter whether or not he went through the DOJ? Maybe he thinks they are an unbiased third-party?
Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware.UNLESS IT'S TRUMP.
I want to know when he is corrupt, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay, I was slightly off. He was investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked at, not specifically his son. That would have led to some concerning findings if he dug too deep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean, Biden said during an interview that he forced Ukrainian leaders to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son. His son was getting large payments for serving on the board of a company. This company was a gas company that he had no expertise in and doesn't even speak Ukranian. This big 'ol conflict of interest and use of leverage against another nation is worth looking into.
Democrats were saying that there was undeniable proof of collusion from the beginning for Trump. We never found that proof after years of investigation because it was all started on hearsay and lies. The Biden corruption scandal actually has video proof of Biden admitting to the act.
These two are not the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, then you would agree that there should have been no investigation of Russia collusion with Trump, yes? There was no evidence of that.
On the other hand, there was evidence of Biden having a prosecutor in Ukraine fired because he was looking into Hunter Biden. Seems like there is enough evidence to take a look into that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
True, but you also need to win super tuesday. If black people have 0% support for you, it is pretty much impossible to do. So if he got like 80% support in the 1st three states that might create enough momentum to carry him. But winning by a few points doesn't seem likely to overcome the disdain that people of color seem to have for him.
I still have little hope for him. But one of the biggest things people in Nevada are looking for is a candidate who can win, so winning a big primary like Iowa could give him a necessary boost.
The 2 are heavily intertwined and can't really be separated. The war on drugs, on it's own, is stupid and counter productive. It does literally none of things it is supposed to do. The enforcement of the war on drugs is also super problematic and is a pretty good example of institutionalized racism.
I don't know. It is a pretty good cause to try to prevent people from doing drugs and ruining their lives. I don't think it should be a felony, though, as that also kind of ruins their life. Selling drugs on the other hand should be harshly punished. I don't know about institutionalized racism. Even in majority black precincts, you get roughly the same results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If that was what Trump actually cared about, there are mechanism to to do that. He could have referred it to the FBI or to congress. That would be the lawful way to investigate such claims. Shaking down a foreign country to get them to announce they are investigating is not the lawful way of getting an investigation. That is how you smear a political opponent. Trump never cared if Biden was corrupt or not. He just cared about spreading doubt that he might be corrupt so he could use that in an election.Which is, of course, a crime.
I don't know that that is a crime. Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware. While I would like to think that the FBI would be capable of such an investigation, I have seen nothing but anti-Trump blatant partisanship going on with them. Look at Hillary destroying thousands of emails! She didn't get in trouble for THAT? So, I highly doubt that they would actually investigate a Democrat that they think can beat orange man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If that was what Trump actually cared about, there are mechanism to to do that. He could have referred it to the FBI or to congress. That would be the lawful way to investigate such claims. Shaking down a foreign country to get them to announce they are investigating is not the lawful way of getting an investigation. That is how you smear a political opponent. Trump never cared if Biden was corrupt or not. He just cared about spreading doubt that he might be corrupt so he could use that in an election.Which is, of course, a crime.
I don't know that that is a crime. Either way, I want to know when politicians are corrupt rather than being blissfully unaware. While I would like to think that the FBI would be capable of such an investigation, I have seen nothing but anti-Trump blatant partisanship going on with them. Look at Hillary destroying thousands of emails! She didn't get in trouble for THAT? So, I highly doubt that they would actually investigate a Democrat that they think can beat orange man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't the problem with this that Biden is the most likely candidate to face to Trump and looks good in swing states? Looking at the data I don't think there is anyone else in the democratic that could beat Trump.
So, they only have a problem with Trump looking into him because he is the best candidate to beat Trump?
I would say you are missing a more important question. Is it in Trump's interest to prevent Biden from being a the democratic nominee in order to secure another term?
Why would that be the more important question? If Biden is a super corrupt guy who will likely conduct many corrupt acts as president, shouldn't the American people be informed that he is corrupt? Maybe they don't want to vote for someone like that.
Nothing is above politics unless both parties agree until one of the parties decide to change things.
Since everything is about politics, we get nothing done. Trump undoing everything Obama did because he was a Democrat. The Democrats are opposing things they have historically supported because they hate Trump. How do things need to be changed?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They have some overlap in policies. But they are radically different in their approaches. Warren wants to cozy up to the democratic establishment. Bernie wants their corrupt asses to actually do what the people want. Warren will bend when the establishment refuses to play along. Sanders wont.
Only time will tell.
That's a bit of a catch 22. he needs to win the primary to get any kind of support from black people. but he needs support from black people to win the primary. He can't win unless black people decide to support a small town white mayor whose short political history does not show him doing well for black people.
Yeah, but you mentioned how Iowa is incredibly white, and I said that those who win Iowa typically win the primary.
Making drugs illegal isn't necessarily anti-black. But setting harsh punishments is. White people, and especially white people with money are much less likely to have the harshest penalties enforces on them. Black people, and especially poor black people, are much more likely to have the book thrown at them for drug crimes. So the war on drugs fell disproportionately hard on people of color. It has destroyed alot of lives in those communities. Highlighting Biden's role in pushing for the harshest war on drugs he could get would be really bad for him if he managed to win the primary.
Ok, so your issue is with enforcement and not necessarily the war on drugs?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Read post #22
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Well, Fascists have historically been socialists, so.... there's that. Are you arguing that socialism is right-wing?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Well, we have the strongest economy in the world. If ours is crap, I shudder to think of what yours is.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Are you ignoring the FACT that we have a more competitive economy than most of those countries? The only ones that are more competitive have lower corporate tax rates than us, Hong Kong and Singapore. And your loony lefty Bernie Sanders is intent on raising that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
What do you think of Richard Nixon?
What is your favorite kind of sandwich?
Do you like turtles?
Why are you a liberal?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't know if you have already seen it, but did you hear how the Epstein story was buried years before it eventually came to light? They have no ethics whatsoever. They leave kids to be raped by that monster to protect the Clintons. Coincidence that they hate Trump, Bill Clinton was implicated, and Hillary was running against Trump? NOPE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't see why people have issues with Trump asking about Biden. If they find out that Biden has done very corrupt things(which he has), isn't it in the interest of the American people to know about that corruption? Shouldn't it be a secondary concern that they are political rivals? I
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Why should I take time out of my day to formulate questions for someone who, I not only will never meet, but also have never even spoken to on this site?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That isn't really true. Warren and Sanders are quite different. She has also been fairly inconsistent on issues. She was also a republican for most of her life. Many progressives don't trust her.
They both want a wealth tax, higher taxes on the rich, higher corporate taxes, and ultimately, universal healthcare, loan forgiveness of some sort(Bernie wants all forgiven), and free college. I don't think Warren was ever a Republican. I personally hate both, but I like Bernie a little better. He seems genuine, and I think that he would actually do some good attacking special interests. It is just that I hate about 9/10 of his other policies and therefore couldn't see myself ever supporting him.
Recent polls have put butigieg at less than 1% support among black people. He recently put out a plan for how he would help black people, then sent out a letter showing all the black people who supported the plan. The problem was that half the people on the list were white. And of the 4 headline people they were touting, literally none of them endorsed Pete, 1 had already endorsed Sanders. Only 1 even supported his plan. He outright lied about having black support, to make it look like he had black support. With numbers like that, he has no chance at all.
I mean, if Pete wins the primary, he gets de facto support because of voting demographics. African Americans vote over 90% Democrat since the 1960s. Maybe turnout would be lower, but they wouldn't vote for Trump.
It's also a little weird that so many black people like him. Obama picked him because he was as white as they come. He is also pretty right wing in the democratic party. I mean he pushed Reagan further right in the war on drugs, which was catastrophic for black people. But the media basically wont say a bad word about him. Biden pushed policies for decades that cracked down on black people.
Yeah, he has a really good record on women's rights, I have heard and choppy on supposedly "racist" policies. Why does making drugs illegal necessarily have to be anti-black? Do black people use drugs more often?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Woah woah woah. You're telling me shifty Schiff is corrupt? Imagine my shock :O
I don't really keep up with this impeachment stuff, but it appears to be making the Democrats look a lot worse than Trump.
Would that be a valid assessment?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you look at the 2nd choices of candidates in polls you will see this is not the case. The top 2nd choice for Biden supporters is Bernie. The top 2nd choice for Bernie supporters is Biden, not warren. The top 2nd choice for warren was Bernie though. If warren dropped out, that would probably help Sanders. If sanders dropped out, that wouldn't really help warren.
Ok, that is interesting that Bernie supporters would go for Biden instead of Warren. Biden's policies are much different than Bernie's, while Warren is just a slightly more moderate version of Bernie. Doesn't make much sense to me, but if that is what the polls are saying, I guess that is how it is.
Pete is dumping huge amounts of money into the early states. They are kind of his wheelhouse, IE overwhelmingly white. He might be able to do well in the 1st few states. He will get destroyed on super tuesday though. And with Duval Patrick and Bloomberg jumping in, that might undermine pete and drop him back.
I felt Pete might have a chance if he wins Iowa because historically, that is how it has gone with Democrat primaries. The only anomalies have been Bill Clinton and Howard Dean. I don't feel like the demographics are a big player because this is the trend and the demographics of those states haven't radically changed as they have in Texas, Arizona, and California.
I would agree with that assessment. Her plan to pay for it was a cop out. It relied on savings from immigration reform and a head tax on companies that will obviously fall on workers. But it lets her say the magic words that she won't raise taxes on workers, at least directly. Her implementation plan is also really dumb.
Yeah, I read what you said about her implementation. Two-part plan? Seems really dumb to me because she will miss the initial push you get from the election. Based on the Senate, I don't know if any Democrat could push any plan they want, though. At least Bernie admits that he will raise taxes on the middle class.
Biden's support is tricky. He is kind of the candidate for old people. If you look at his support, it is almost exclusively from people over 50. Basically, people who have already built up their life in the current system and are afraid of change. But there are very few people who are excited about him. If you go to a Sanders or Warren or even a Butigieg rally, you will see lots of people who are excited by their candidate. You see almost none of that from biden supporters. It will be interesting to see what kind of turnout he supporters will have.
Yeah, Obama was the "Change" man. Biden doesn't really act like he wants to deviate from the status quo, so I doubt that he will get Obama's turnout.
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
So, you don't think that higher taxes will have any negative impact?
I showed the costs according to his math.
Your source says we currently pay $500 to $600 billion every year. I showed how it would cost more. $2.5 trillion if every adult can get $1000. If this costs less, I would prefer it to regular welfare programs. But, poor people use drugs a lot. Could we be subsidizing drug addictions of poor people by giving them money?
Supposedly a 10% VAT will cover it. I would have to look into how a VAT influences consumer spending.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I meant that Warren and Sanders have similar platforms. Whoever drops out, the other will likely inherit that base. It may currently be divided socioeconomically and racially right now, but if they care about policy, the base will run to the other.
Yeah, Buttigieg really has no chance. I have heard he is doing well in primary states and the first two are crucial. I heard Warren is falling behind because of her grossly unpopular tax plans to pay for healthcare and other programs. Biden has been falling in the polls, but people still like Obama and most centrist Democrats like him.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
There aren't currently any fascist nations in the world, so.... no?
Plus, fascism isn't right-wing. It you actually knew what it was, you would understand that.
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Sanders has the same base as Warren, so whichever takes the lead in the primary states will take over that radical base.
Yeah, Warren is the most likely in my opinion. Sanders' health isn't helping him.
Biden is dying down, but he basically owns the moderate base.
Yang is just kinda lame. "I'm an Asian, so I know math." Very cringy. Doesn't measure the opportunity cost of the UBI. When you redistribute wealth, how will it affect producers that have to pay for all of that? He keeps talking about automation, but I have yet to hear his plan on how to accommodate those changes.
UBI: $1,000 per adult per month, correct? We have 209,128,094 adults. So, that is $209,129,094,000/month. $2,509,537,128,000 (so $2.5 trillion per year). Seems rather expensive. How will the benefits exceed those costs and how will taxes rise to pay for this?
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
The only people who have a snowball's chance are Warren, Sanders, Biden, and (a huge maybe) Buttigieg(but really really doubt it).
Sanders, Warren, and Harris are utter psychopaths.
Gabbard, Biden, Buttigieg, and maybe Klobuchar can sometimes make a lick of sense.
The rest I don't really care to dignify with a response.
Created:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Now that is just crazy talk. We all know Tupac told future white Michael Jackson to have Aliens hypnotize Lee Harvey Oswald into doing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Miscarriages are completely different from abortions.In both cases there is a growth attached to a woman's body that is expelled. They are the same.
So, is first-degree murder against someone the exact same as that person dying of natural causes? Either way, that person dies, so it is the same, right???
Created: