Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

277 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      114
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      113
    • Indifferent
      44


Recommended Posts

No. Nobody deserves to be provided for carte blanche, but they do deserve the option to try to better their own condition.

So someone doesn't deserve life saving treatment if they can't get it? You realize that this essentially means someone doesn't have the right to life.

Edited by blah the Prussian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody deserves to steal food if they can't afford it either, even if they need to eat to live.

Well, of course. This is what welfare is for. A state that has people legitimately dying of starvation has failed as a state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, of course. This is what welfare is for. A state that has people legitimately dying of starvation has failed as a state.

That's an argument for communism.

Let me rephrase. I saw this great argument that Crowder put up and I really like.

What you are arguing for is that everyone get a slice of the pie. Why not simply create a whole new pie rather than beg for a slice of the original?

Now apply it to a real life scenario. Someone works for 20 years as a cook. His dream is to open up his own diner that he would own. Why not work for that and create his own business? Because it's more work? Because he needs a loan (a bank will lend money in this day and age if you can prove that your business in theory will turn a profit)?

Ambition is key. Welfare kills ambition for the most part.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an argument for communism.

Let me rephrase. I saw this great argument that Crowder put up and I really like.

What you are arguing for is that everyone get a slice of the pie. Why not simply create a whole new pie rather than beg for a slice of the original?

Now apply it to a real life scenario. Someone works for 20 years as a cook. His dream is to open up his own diner that he would own. Why not work for that and create his own business? Because it's more work? Because he needs a loan (a bank will lend money in this day and age if you can prove that your business in theory will turn a profit)?

Ambition is key. Welfare kills ambition for the most part.

No, that's an argument for the system that most civilized countries, including the US, have. The American one is held back by beauraucracy being beauraucracy, but the system itself is still absolutely necessary. Also, welfare food, generally speaking, is shitty. Sure, you could live in it, but your life won't be please t unless you don't have taste buds, which is a different problem, I guess. It remains entirely natural for someone to want to get themselves out of that situation, all welfare serves to do is make that situation not life threatening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an argument for communism.

Let me rephrase. I saw this great argument that Crowder put up and I really like.

What you are arguing for is that everyone get a slice of the pie. Why not simply create a whole new pie rather than beg for a slice of the original?

Now apply it to a real life scenario. Someone works for 20 years as a cook. His dream is to open up his own diner that he would own. Why not work for that and create his own business? Because it's more work? Because he needs a loan (a bank will lend money in this day and age if you can prove that your business in theory will turn a profit)?

Ambition is key. Welfare kills ambition for the most part.

Sometimes you only have enough ingredients for pie, though, and sometimes the baker wants to bake other goods. Said other goods people can't eat, and they are forced to either go without or stomach it only to throw up later. That is the flaw of laizzez faire capitalism, as the baker is blissfully unaware of what's in demand because he doesn't bother to hire a marketer that he thinks he doesn't need. He'll turn a profit whether he makes pies or not, because even though the chocolate cake goes to waste in the end, the few who dare try a slice will, even if they don't finish it or vomit after doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. More often than not being poor is a spending problem rather than an income problem anyway.

Proof?

No. Nobody deserves to be provided for carte blanche, but they do deserve the option to try to better their own condition.

What if they are kids and don't have any means to better their own condition on account of not being able to work?

This is also going to answer the question after this one.

If you are less competant, you will be more poor than those who are more competant overall. Obviously there are the cases of bad luck but those are more outliers.

Careful with the word "deserve". Nobody deserves anything in this world. Nothing should be handed out on a silver platter.

The American Dream is about the idea that your children can always have lives that are more successful than yours (providing that they work for it). Hard work is the cornerstone to American society.

Now the amount of success doesn't need to be proportional to the amount of merit. But generally, CEOs have companies worth billions of dollars to worry about. A mistake at the CEO level with worth much more in losses than at middle management.

Look at Carly Fiorina. She pushed HP through a recession, helped the company expand and was still shit-canned because she didn't make enough for the company. And that's important to note. CEOs might make more money but they also sit on a bigger hot seat. Middle-management doesn't have a worry in the world if the company is strong. CEOs actually get fired if profits dip.

This isn't an argument for why CEOs deserves hundreds of millions of dollars. But what I'm pointing out is the CEOs usually understand business and economics better than the average worker, are usually more hard working on their path to the corporate top (because capitalism does not believe in nepotism) and once there, shoulder more responsibility than Steve on Floor 9. And all of that stems from the base of equal opportunity.

Lol

Ambition is key. Welfare kills ambition for the most part.

haha yeah fuck those damn lazy unemployed people theyre a drain on our society b/c yeah they are honestly the worst just go out and get a fuckin job commie

life do you even know what communism and socialism are because you appear to be saying they're the same thing

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ambition is key. Welfare kills ambition for the most part.

Newsflash, it's not cool being on welfare. People don't purposely not work in order to collect these benefits. The vast majority of the time, they are either unable in a mental or physical capacity to hold a job. So if you prefer to have a system that lets the homeless starve to death on the streets in front of you, be my guest. Considering that the government's job is to look after ALL citizens and not just you, welfare is actually in line with being a moral human being.

Forgive me if I don't take seriously someone who is inconsistent. It's like your past self is arguing with yourself now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working in an office at 5 x what I earned in my retail job is far, far less stressful and easier than retail work. There's a misconception that minimum wage workers are not as hard working or as skilled, but it's really not true. About the only thing you can say that comes with higher paying jobs is more responsibility - but even then responsibility varies. The CEO of the Bank of Scotland was paid 8 million pounds in a year in which the bank lost more than a billion - and that came after even heavier losses, bailouts by the taxpayers and a loss of several thousand jobs. How much responsibility was really apportioned to him, then? Nursing is a fairly low paid profession yet they make a mistake and it could cost a life (as it nearly did the life of a friend's baby).

And there are socialist practices almost everyone benefits from - free public education for under-18s, road maintenance, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I don't take seriously someone who is inconsistent. It's like your past self is arguing with yourself now.

Opinions change. If past me saw what present me has to say about Monarchy, why he'd throw a fit! It isn't inconcistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I don't take seriously someone who is inconsistent. It's like your past self is arguing with yourself now.

I changed my opinion.

Welfare was one of my last changes. Then I looked into the statistics and realized that I was wrong.

Remember, you're quoting me from 6 months ago. And I will happily admit that A) I was wrong and B) I wasn't as educated as I am now since I have taken personal time to read into political science.

I was always slowly leaning right my entire life but certain events and knowledge in the last few months have really changed and cemented my opinions on the right.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions change. If past me saw what present me has to say about Monarchy, why he'd throw a fit! It isn't inconcistency.

I wouldn't say otherwise if it didn't just seem like a latching on to an ideology, through right-wing critics like Crowder, Milo, Carly Fiorina, etc that seem to be the primary sources. Maybe in another six months he will be a socialist.

I also question the assertion that we don't understand economics, when he has made claims in the past that are simply not true.

The problem is that Obama is going to sink the USA into a financial and diplomatic hole. A lot of people who voted for him only did so because they can't connect with Romney and don't realize that the harm that he (Romney) will do to the social policies of the country is nothing compared to what the economy will look like in another 4 years.

Basically, if none of you think that the economics apply to you, tell me that again when a loaf of bread costs $15.

(this hasn't happened)

I understand that it was probably an exaggeration and more of an emotional response, but I can't really take someone seriously when they continually assert their position firmly (often implying others opposed don't know what they're talking about) and yet change it.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that it was probably an exaggeration and more of an emotional response, but I can't really take someone seriously when they continually assert their position firmly (often implying others opposed don't know what they're talking about) and yet change it.

And this is where I beg to differ. I don't mind if someone changes their position, in light of new information. I'm more worried if someone sticks to their position no matter what information comes their way.

Hence why I have issues with taking presidential candidates seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where I beg to differ. I don't mind if someone changes their position, in light of new information. I'm more worried if someone sticks to their position no matter what information comes their way.

With the notion that the person changes position but has always strongly pushed it (you could draw comparisons to Hillary and the flip of being adamantly against and then for gay marriage because it was the popular opinion at the time), both are bad in my opinion.

But that's it, really. Responding to "welfare kills ambition" by itself has killed my ambition.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say otherwise if it didn't just seem like a latching on to an ideology, through right-wing critics like Crowder, Milo, Carly Fiorina, etc that seem to be the primary sources. Maybe in another six months he will be a socialist.

I also question the assertion that we don't understand economics, when he has made claims in the past that are simply not true.

(this hasn't happened)

I understand that it was probably an exaggeration and more of an emotional response, but I can't really take someone seriously when they continually assert their position firmly (often implying others opposed don't know what they're talking about) and yet change it.

Obviously parts of it was an exaggeration but let's look at what's happened.

Diplomatically? Hole's happened. The USA is not respected in world politics. Russia annexed Crimea without a peep from the USA, Iran now has a route to nuclear weapons and there are world leader who openly curse Obama (Duterte for one). So yes, diplomatic hole.

Economically? Well, shit hasn't gotten any better. Detroit is now officially a shithole due to liberal bailouts. And then there are the pure numbers themselves.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/grading-the-obama-economy-by-the-numbers.html

So no. I wasn't wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's it, really. Responding to "welfare kills ambition" by itself has killed my ambition.

yeah same because i realize my parents were government moochers for like a year while they were legitimately searching for jobs and business opportunities as a result of their restaurant randomly burning down to an electric fire

no sense of ambition how dare they drain our society's cash capitalism requires you to work 100 hours a week through cancer and heart problems and shit while paying 1/3 of your salary for said issues

buncha cucks

thanks for your fact and rhetoric life i now see the light

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously parts of it was an exaggeration but let's look at what's happened.

Diplomatically? Hole's happened. The USA is not respected in world politics. Russia annexed Crimea without a peep from the USA, Iran now has a route to nuclear weapons and there are world leader who openly curse Obama (Duterte for one). So yes, diplomatic hole.

Economically? Well, shit hasn't gotten any better. Detroit is now officially a shithole due to liberal bailouts. And then there are the pure numbers themselves.http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/15/grading-the-obama-economy-by-the-numbers.html

So no. I wasn't wrong.

And Trump wants to appease Putin even more. That would be an improvement how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Trump wants to appease Putin even more. That would be an improvement how?

No.

I'm not on the Trump train. Never have been. But he appeals to me more and more just as a middle finger to the regressive left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

I'm not on the Trump train. Never have been. But he appeals to me more and more just as a middle finger to the regressive left.

I've changed my viewpoint entirely. If I were American, I would vote for Trump simply as a middle finger to a ruling establishment that has constantly failed me and will continue to do so. The Milo Yiannopoulos way of voting, you might say. We're talking about an educated person who would vote Trump.

are you sure you've never been

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure you've never been

I wake up every day asking myself if I'd really vote for him if I could. This morning? Yes (after the Jimmy Fallon incident). Two days ago? Nope.

That's what so difficult for conservatives in this election.

The Trunp train means that I think he's going to be great. I don't. Notice that I gave the exact same reason why. But I'm slowly coming to the the concrete opinion that Trump is the right vote because of seeing the right heads explode. And you're helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wake up every day asking myself if I'd really vote for him if I could. This morning? Yes (after the Jimmy Fallon incident). Two days ago? Nope.

That's what so difficult for conservatives in this election.

The Trunp train means that I think he's going to be great. I don't. Notice that I gave the exact same reason why. But I'm slowly coming to the the concrete opinion that Trump is the right vote because of seeing the right heads explode. And you're helping.

You aren't really a conservative, then. If you believe in what you are saying, you are an alt-right, not conservative. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't really a conservative, then. If you believe in what you are saying, you are an alt-right, not conservative. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you.

It's YOUR turn to explain what you mean by "alt-right".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You aren't really a conservative, then. If you believe in what you are saying, you are an alt-right, not conservative. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare you.

You're wrong.

I believe in limited government. The alt-right does not. That is a fundamental difference.

Also, the alt-right hates Jews. I'd never be accepted.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...