kirby9612 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) The idea is that the wealth generated through bernie's program would balance out the costs, like the new deal. However, the world economy is starting to slow down again, with low interest rates and china's flagging economy, I feel another recession is imminent, so now might not be the greatest time for that. I always thought 2016 would be a repeat of 2008, made even more similar with a FE game being released around this time in 08' , and now with an imminent recession... Also, the 08' recession, if I recall correctly, was caused by the popping of the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble, I believe, which were INTERNAL factors. I don't know how an internationally caused recession would affect the US. Edited March 3, 2016 by kirby9612 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 (edited) irysa's point is that there isn't anything wrong with the first claim (except to a regressive liberal), but that's not the content of trump's anti-muslim rhetoric. I know, this is not an objection to Irysa. The discussion drifted toward it, so I made a commentary about this. are you really trying to say the united states doesn't have a giant industry that would provide funding for huge social programs? we make much, much more than those two nations combined (1000x more), we have only about 30x as much people, and per capita income is roughly comparable. you're making it sound like we're so poor and we need the super rich to survive as a nation. this isn't true. the 'uuuuuuggee gap in wealth tells us that the rich are simply keeping the wealth among each other. fuck their "investments." https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States you're obviously wrong if we assume bernie's plan would work, which, for the sake of this particular assumption we have to. if we didn't, then bernie wouldn't be a good candidate worth backing. and so, i'd like to point your attention to my original post to you where i said bernie's plan results in a net positive. check the link i provided and see for yourself. having a net positive in budgets provides a relief of debt. Yes, overtax said industries, I am very sure that they won't mind at all and won't search for better places to open their business on. Yes, include a higher taxation on Wall Street investors, I am very sure that they won't mind at all and won't find better places to invest their money on. Both ideas came from Bernie's site's chart. I think I don't need to say that scaring businessmen and investors away means less contribution to the budget and lowers the GDP that this miraculous plan needs, but, OH, it just works, the section on Bernie's site that says it works says it works, fuck the logic. No one thought about this, no one addressed this. I give up on pressing the same key again; so be it. Also yeah, the average rich person that just sit their asses on a chair all day and produce nothing are worthless, but those who do are important for the economy. See what happens when you say "fuck those people" toward people who actively contribute to and injects resources on the country's economy. Disregarding them like this is failproof and totally economically responsible, I swear! Guess what, I'll just stand aside as socialists mess with the country's economy with wishful thinking and faith in overmirabolant plans, I'm ok with it. I'm coming back when I'm competent enough to elegantly destroy those ideas and refute those parroted cliches, none of them will remain standing when I do. Edited March 3, 2016 by Rapier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irysa Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) Yes, overtax said industries, I am very sure that they won't mind at all and won't search for better places to open their business on. More realistically, they will use tax loopholes to avoid paying as much tax as they should. You can't really be a large corporation and not do business in America at all. Much of Social Democracy's biggest problem is that it leads to crony capitalism which undermines the benefits of a free market. Even in European countries, these problems of tax loopholes and backdoor agreements with companies such as Google are a large problem. I will never stop believing in Free At The Point Of Delivery Healthcare, but I grow ever more weary of Third Way politics by the day here. Assuming laissez-faire will save us all seems equally foolish though. Fundamentally, I think there's a core issue with how people in society view their role and importance within it. Conservatives and Libertarians often espout that ending the welfare state and relying on charity will be fine, but if companies already take large measures to avoid contributing to current policies designed to fund welfare, it seems hard to envision this being sufficient. Social Liberalism and Social Democracy offset this problem onto the Government to actually handle the enforcement of policies correctly, but because Governments are highly flawed, they do not. What we ideally want is a society where basically everyone feels morally obligated to help others. Only that can really make either solution work. Edited March 4, 2016 by Irysa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 damn that debate was a beatdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 criticizing judaism quickly earns you the label of anti-semite and invites rhetoric about disregarding US interests in the middle east. Can I point out that criticizing Judaism isn't actually seen as a negative thing because of the idea of being "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Israel" makes it seem good to many people? A lot of people (Jews included) make the mistake that being Jewish automatically means support for Israel and therefore permits/limits shots at the religion itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 um being anti-israel is certainly more of a negative than a positive in US politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Also, this. I don't see what is wrong with the first claim, although the latter claim is a bad generalization for considering that all Muslims are terrorists even if said terrorists are a minority. It's also bullshit that there is a stigma and even censorship for anyone who criticizes Islam (or any other ideology). I do realize that some islamic cultural elements are not compatible with western culture, very few islamic countries are secular enough to employ or even tolerate the idea of free will and personal freedom from forced religious commandments, and those detrimental religious values are rooted on their culture to be carried wherever they go. The result of this is the same bullshit that's making Muslims protest against or even attack women who do not dress as they think they should because of their unimportant cultural beliefs, as happened in Germany, among other cases. Does Bernie's program also consider balancing out the costs while including America's current trillionaire debt, or did he merely consider the costs of his program alone? I don't remember. As I said previously, the only countries that are really like that are Iran and Saudi Arabia. There are other countries that are hellholes, to be sure, but that isn't because of Islam, it's because in many cases they're fascist. Also, name one time that a government in a western society has actively engaged in censorship due to critisism of Islam (not of Muslim people, but of the religion itself). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) I know, this is not an objection to Irysa. The discussion drifted toward it, so I made a commentary about this. Yes, overtax said industries, I am very sure that they won't mind at all and won't search for better places to open their business on. Yes, include a higher taxation on Wall Street investors, I am very sure that they won't mind at all and won't find better places to invest their money on. Both ideas came from Bernie's site's chart. I think I don't need to say that scaring businessmen and investors away means less contribution to the budget and lowers the GDP that this miraculous plan needs, but, OH, it just works, the section on Bernie's site that says it works says it works, fuck the logic. No one thought about this, no one addressed this. I give up on pressing the same key again; so be it. Also yeah, the average rich person that just sit their asses on a chair all day and produce nothing are worthless, but those who do are important for the economy. See what happens when you say "fuck those people" toward people who actively contribute to and injects resources on the country's economy. Disregarding them like this is failproof and totally economically responsible, I swear! Guess what, I'll just stand aside as socialists mess with the country's economy with wishful thinking and faith in overmirabolant plans, I'm ok with it. I'm coming back when I'm competent enough to elegantly destroy those ideas and refute those parroted cliches, none of them will remain standing when I do. were you aware that for a time (1944) the income tax was 94% on those that earned over $200,000? i didn't; i was gonna point out high tax rates under eisenhower. anyway, these tax rates don't actually leave people running for the hills. this nation is paradise for big business anyway, where are they going to run to instead lol your claims are baseless, and your childlike argumentation strategies serve as proof to me Edited March 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 To Mexico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 damn that debate was a beatdown drumpf got politically jumped tonight lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achelexus Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I'm having the feeling that Trump will win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alertcircuit Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 First debate I've seen where the frontrunner had to tell the audience he doesn't have a small penis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 drumpf got politically jumped tonight lol https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/705727745385435136 The polls would happen to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 These polls only show Trump's standing among GOP voters though, right? Not worth a lot if he's alienating everybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 damn that debate was a beatdown Did he seriously talk about his dick size on a presidential debate? Someone please wake me up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) Rubio was the one that alluded to him being "small" this past weekend, to be fair. Yesterday was quite a ride. Pretty much the whole GOP is ganging up to stop Trump, including Fox News judging from how they focused on Trump while letting Rubio dodge questions. We'll find out Saturday how effective the opening phase of their operation was. Edited March 4, 2016 by CyborgZeta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 (edited) https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/705727745385435136 The polls would happen to disagree. it wasn't a comment at all on how the candidates did. trump was characteristically an asshole and didn't talk about anything, rubio was a robot, cruz was something, and kasich was ignored for the most part. it was a terrible debate. however, it served to be as entertaining and of the same level (intellectually) as you'd find in a reality tv show. so there's that. kasich did a good job of acting with a level head. but the point is trump got jumped last night. that's all i was saying. Edited March 4, 2016 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Aaaand Ben Carson just dropped out. Didn't seem to endorse anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 So I took a mosey over to isidewith, and apparently I should support Jill Stein (Green Party). For Democrats, it would be Sanders, and for Republicans. . .Cruz (which doesn't surprise me, since his stance on government surveillance is surprisingly sane). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) Apparently I'm 95% Hillary versus 94% Sanders, but not every stance is known so whatever. Trump is at the bottom of my list at 25%, Kasich is the top Republican on mine at 64%. Not surprised. EDIT: Re-did it with more specific stances (I was lazy the first time through) and got the same Bernie score but an 88% Hillary score which seems more accurate imo. Jill was bumped to second place at 90%. Edited March 5, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 I took that a while back and got 98 Bernie. Stein wasn't far behind. The highest Republican was Rand Paul at 33. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solrocknroll Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 93% Sanders 91% Clinton 90% Stein About what I was expecting. highest Republican is somehow Trump at 33%, but it says we side on no major issues lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClevelandSteve Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) 98% Sanders 96% tie between Stein and Clinton. Seems a little high for Clinton, but whatever. Highest Republican is Kasich with 37% (ironic considering he's the only one who I've personally voted against in the past, and would've done so twice if I still lived in Ohio during the 2014 Election. Granted, I would've voted against the rest too if I had the opportunity). Edited March 5, 2016 by ClevelandSteve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anacybele Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) I took that just a little while ago. I got Trump at 84% for who I most agree with out of everybody. And I fairly recently started supporting him anyway since it doesn't look like any of the other Republicans are going to beat him and I like how he's honest with his opinions and thoughts, despite being blunt and harsh. And I'm tired of idiot Democrats. I can understand how some find him rather rude and offensive. But personally, I'd rather have a president that's rude, but can fix this country's issues than a goody-two-shoes president who can't do squat to help things. Not that I think Trump will do a whole lot, probably just a little. But I don't think any of the other candidates are as likely to not make the country worse. Edited March 5, 2016 by Anacybele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted March 5, 2016 Author Share Posted March 5, 2016 (edited) why doesnt isidewith have an "indifferent to" option? also 74% sanders and 54% with trump which i thought was odd. Edited March 5, 2016 by :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.