PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton Fan Club



Frog
January 13th, 2016, 07:33 PM
You go girl.

Graduated from Wellesley first in her class.
Graduated from Yale Law School.
Partner of prestigious law firm for over 20 years.
Created and chaired countless charitable legal councils and foundations.
In '93 created the same healthcare plan that was again proposed by Obama virtually unchanged (later majorly changed to get passed as affordable health care act)
First female senator from New York.
Served as Secretary of State.

Most overqualified candidate.

First future female POTUS.

MattZed
January 13th, 2016, 07:46 PM
Served as Secretary of State.

Thanks, Obama.

DarknessB
January 13th, 2016, 07:50 PM
I, for one, would be interested in hearing who Davis Thompson and Taylor Clark support.

Orpz
January 13th, 2016, 07:52 PM
I'm voting for Bernard in the primaries but still open to Hillary if she goes on to the general election.

Trump has to be stumped, and it's pretty clear that he's immune to self-stumping.

DarknessB
January 13th, 2016, 07:53 PM
I'm voting for Bernard in the primaries but still open to Hillary if she goes on to the general election.

Trump has to be stumped, and it's pretty clear that he's immune to self-stumping.

Statistically speaking, voting is one of the least American things you can do. :)

Orpz
January 13th, 2016, 07:54 PM
Statistically speaking, voting is one of the least American things you can do. :)

I'm going for the refreshments provided at my voting center

DarknessB
January 13th, 2016, 07:56 PM
I'm going for the refreshments provided at my voting center

Makes more sense then. I like to trot out the following on any election-related topics:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

thedougler
January 13th, 2016, 08:13 PM
You have got to be trolling, frog. Real liberals must hate her even more than real conservatives hate Jeb Bush.

She's a washed up limousine liberal with more skeletons in her closet than an anthropology department. I'm honestly surprised "My Turn" isn't her official campaign slogan, seeing as it's her most legitimate claim to any office. That photo of Ambassador Stevens being sodomized to death in Benghazi is the most stinging indictment possible of her term as Secretary of State. But that's the least of the blood on her hands, I'm certain.

She and her crook husband have been on the convenient side of every issue. She was for (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/911-bernie-sanders-iraq-hillary-clinton_b_8121026.html) the Iraq war when it was fashionable. She was against gay marriage (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/) when it was fashionable. She was pro-deportation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxASD4jHgCk) and immigration law enforcement in the 1990s, but is against it now that she needs on the Latino vote. Who even knows where she stands on free trade (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/17/tracking-the-many-hillary-clinton-positions-on-trade/)?

Hillary has always been all ambition and no principle. She (and her husband) are disgusting people not at all like you and me, who will say or do anything to gain money and (especially) power. I just hope she loses and goes back to making millions with ludicrous speaker's fees (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-earn-more-than-25-million-in-speaking-fees-since-january-2014/2015/05/15/52605fbe-fb4d-11e4-9ef4-1bb7ce3b3fb7_story.html) so the rest of us can be spared of her.

Yukitaka Oni
January 13th, 2016, 08:14 PM
Woman become the president? She gonna need a heartless mind if she want to be the president lol.....
- Send more troop to killzone....
- Accepted to become a puppet of pentagon
- Much more bloody political.....
v)o.o)v....

Klingoncelt
January 13th, 2016, 08:53 PM
Woman become the president? She gonna need a heartless mind if she want to be the president lol.....
- Send more troop to killzone....
- Accepted to become a puppet of pentagon
- Much more bloody political.....
v)o.o)v....

This ain't 1910, women aren't all fainting girly-girls.

Shenmue
January 13th, 2016, 08:57 PM
This ain't 1910, women aren't all fainting girly-girls.

With how easily triggered and offended Feminazis are, you could have fooled me.

Yukitaka Oni
January 13th, 2016, 09:02 PM
This ain't 1910, women aren't all fainting girly-girls.
-send troops to killzone: does she really want to kill people?
-accepted to become a puppet of pentago: EVERY president is a puppet
Much more bloody political: she's old, it's she still want to handle this job? Healthy enough?

Klingoncelt
January 13th, 2016, 09:07 PM
With how easily triggered and offended Feminazis are, you could have fooled me.

You don't have any experience with women, do you.

Shenmue
January 13th, 2016, 09:08 PM
Well, I mean I play Starcraft so... duh.

Klingoncelt
January 13th, 2016, 09:09 PM
-send troops to killzone: does she really want to kill people?
-accepted to become a puppet of pentago: EVERY president is a puppet
Much more bloody political: she's old, it's she still want to handle this job? Healthy enough?

She's younger than Ronnie Ray-Gun was.

Lots of Presidents are on the old side.

MattZed
January 13th, 2016, 09:15 PM
She's younger than Ronnie Ray-Gun was.

Lots of Presidents are on the old side.
She'll be 9 months younger than Reagan was and still be the second-oldest president. Many historians have expressed concern that Reagan suffered from age-related problems that impaired his ability as president.

Shenmue
January 13th, 2016, 09:20 PM
It was well documented that Reagan's age was a concern, especially during his second term. Obviously he lived for quite a long time until after his presidency but that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a somewhat valid concern.

Frog
January 13th, 2016, 09:31 PM
Lol.
Hillary Clinton - 68
Donald Trump - 69
Bernie Sanders - 74

Women live longer than men. Hillary is good to go.

Shenmue
January 13th, 2016, 09:39 PM
It'd only be a very mild concern, I mainly don't like her policies, I couldn't give much of a fuck about her age but I can see why someone might be a little worried I reckon.

Orpz
January 13th, 2016, 09:47 PM
Yeah, I don't think Hillary's age is a big deal. Even my man Bernard should be good for the next few years if doctors clear him for good health.

There's a professor emeritus at my school who's almost 90 years old (he got his PhD in 1955) and just stopped teaching last year. Granted, running a country is significantly more difficult than teaching undergraduates math, but he's a good reason why I believe that the main candidates' age shouldn't be a huge factor.

Yukitaka Oni
January 13th, 2016, 11:09 PM
v)o.o)^ very well, long live feminist
Hillary Clinton

Frog
January 13th, 2016, 11:34 PM
I'm a feminist...

I believe men and women should be treated equally.

That's literally the definition.

-_-

Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?

deathworlds
January 14th, 2016, 12:00 AM
Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?

Because Tumblr and fanatics.

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 12:12 AM
Because Tumblr and fanatics.
Tumblr strike again....

KJS
January 14th, 2016, 01:31 AM
The fact that she's a woman should NOT affect her legitimacy and overall qualification as a candidate. You implied that the fact she's a female senator from NY makes her a more electable candidate than someone who's not a woman.

Voting for someone because of their gender isn't "feminism" - it's discrimination, and people should never settle on a candidate solely because of their gender.

Also, her academic qualifications and contributions are matched, if not surpassed by most other candidates. Sanders went to UChicago, Trump went to UPenn, Cruz went to Harvard, Fiorina went to MIT... the list goes on.

"Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?"

It's unfair to generalize people that are against certain feminist values as "rednecks". I'm a second year at Princeton (an overwhelmingly liberal school - we're certainly not rednecks), and many of my friends have openly voiced arguments against feminism, saying that it promotes aggression and the victimization of women.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't vote for Hillary just because you think it's "feminism". Open your mind and consider other potential candidates, even if they're not women. The United States will likely have a female president in the future, so don't rush. Make your decision without taking gender into account.

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 02:12 AM
Don't get me wrong - I think Clinton would make a fine President.

However, the fact that she's a woman should NOT affect her legitimacy and overall qualification as a candidate. You implied that the fact she's a female senator from NY makes her a more electable candidate than someone who's not a woman.

She broke barriers because she's that damn good.


Voting for someone because of their gender isn't "feminism" - it's discrimination, and people should never settle on a candidate solely because of their gender.

You sound like a misogynist trying not to sound like a misogynist. It's just a random anti-woman comment.


Also, her academic qualifications and contributions are matched, if not surpassed by most other candidates. Sanders went to UChicago, Trump went to UPenn, Cruz went to Harvard, Fiorina went to MIT... the list goes on.

Bernie Sanders:
Started some random college. Transferred to UChicago for Bachelors. That's it.

Trump didn't finish his bachelors at Fordham.
He went to UPenn Wharton to get a bachelors because it was the only school offering a program in real estate.

Point is, you're either purposefully trolling or legitimately brainwashed.

No one outclasses Hillary in relevant education, experience, and honors.

Test. Find one other Rhodes Scholar candidate. Dare you kid. ;-)




"Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?"

It's unfair to generalize people that are against certain feminist values as "rednecks". I'm a second year at Princeton (an overwhelmingly liberal school - we're certainly not rednecks), and many of my friends have openly voiced arguments against feminism, saying that it promotes aggression and the victimization of women.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't vote for Hillary just because you think it's "feminism". Open your mind and consider other potential candidates, even if they're not women. The United States will likely have a female president in the future, so don't rush. Make your decision without taking gender into account.

Nah. I will ONLY vote based on gender. (wtf did I say that?) You seem to downplay the momentous impact electing a female President would elicit, either because you actually are that clueless about the world (turns out you are a kid), are a brainwashed misogynist because you believe it's socially acceptable amongst rednecks, or you think it's funny because you enjoy trolling. I think it's the combo.

I will say this- redneck is a strawman that is always a symbol of regressive policies that serve to impede progress. I'd love to read whatever papers you've put your name to titled, "My Views Against Feminism".

You're a middle schooler who has no grasp of the world, churns out what views are spoon fed, and can't even vote imo.

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 02:17 AM
Seriously, I can get your paper reviewed by The Daily Princetonian. Put your name on the paper. I'll help get your name out there.

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 02:18 AM
She broke barriers because she's that damn good.



You sound like a misogynist trying not to sound like a misogynist. It's just a random anti-woman comment.



Bernie Sanders:
Started some random college. Transferred to UChicago for Bachelors. That's it.

Trump didn't finish his bachelors at Fordham.
He went to UPenn Wharton to get a bachelors because it was the only school offering a program in real estate.

Point is, you're either purposefully trolling or legitimately brainwashed.

No one outclasses Hillary in relevant education, experience, and honors.

Test. Find one other Rhodes Scholar candidate. Dare you kid. ;-)




Nah. I will ONLY vote based on gender. (wtf did I say that?) You seem to downplay the momentous impact electing a female President would elicit, either because you actually are that clueless about the world (turns out you are a kid), are a brainwashed misogynist because you believe it's socially acceptable amongst rednecks, or you think it's funny because you enjoy trolling. I think it's the combo.

I will say this- redneck is a strawman that is always a symbol of regressive policies that serve to impede progress. I'd love to read whatever papers you've put your name to titled, "My Views Against Feminism".

You're a middle schooler who has no grasp of the world, churns out what views are spoon fed, and can't even vote imo.
Gg, Frog is scum hunting :firebringer:

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 02:19 AM
Seriously, I can get your paper reviewed by The Daily Princetonian. Put your name on the paper. I'll help get your name out there.
Get in the game and be my scum partners again v(o.o(^!!!

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 02:29 AM
Gg, Frog is scum hunting :firebringer:

Lol. That post definitely wasn't about Hillary. I'm just hungry for a game.


Get in the game and be my scum partners again v(o.o(^!!!

Probably next week I'll have more free time to pull something together. Need to finish up a deal and hang out in Austin with Helz and Slaol first before I'm settled back in Dubai.

KJS
January 14th, 2016, 02:43 AM
I was going to spend time to type up a response, but you honestly don't deserve one.

If anyone's brainwashed/spoon-fed, it's you. Get off the internet, stop forming your views based off of Tumblr posts, and learn to respect another opinion without trying to belittle others by calling them "kids", "middle schoolers" or "brainwashed misogynists".

I'm guessing you're not like this in real life - or rather, I seriously hope you're not. If so, you might want to end it before you poison people you hold dear and lose people who respect you (although I seriously doubt there are any).

See you.

MattZed
January 14th, 2016, 02:57 AM
Given that Clinton has previously been schlonged by a first-term Senator for the Democratic nomination, how could she possibly hold off a two-term senator like Orpz' buddy Bernard?

SuperJack
January 14th, 2016, 03:41 AM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-090720-Thatcher-OBIT/ss-090720-Thatcher-OBIT-tease.380;380;7;70;0.jpg

http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Margaret-Thatcher.jpg

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 04:02 AM
I was going to spend time to type up a response, but you honestly don't deserve one.

If anyone's brainwashed/spoon-fed, it's you. Get off the internet, stop forming your views based off of Tumblr posts, and learn to respect another opinion without trying to belittle others by calling them "kids", "middle schoolers" or "brainwashed misogynists".

I'm guessing you're not like this in real life - or rather, I seriously hope you're not. If so, you might want to end it before you poison people you hold dear and lose people who respect you (although I seriously doubt there are any).

See you.

This ->


Seriously, I can get your paper reviewed by The Daily Princetonian. Put your name on the paper. I'll help get your name out there.

SuperJack
January 14th, 2016, 04:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC7OBpTsk2E

Calix
January 14th, 2016, 04:12 AM
My life goal is to have a thread pertaining to feminism that doesn't come with a bunch of shit-flinging, polarised opinions and 'witty' comments.

What is it about feminism, of all of the things to worry about, that makes people react like this?

:superjack:

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 04:25 AM
My life goal is to have a thread pertaining to feminism that doesn't come with a bunch of shit-flinging, polarised opinions and 'witty' comments.

What is it about feminism, of all of the things to worry about, that makes people react like this?

:superjack:

Let's start one. Although I can't even comprehend any serious arguments against feminism.

Calix
January 14th, 2016, 04:36 AM
Let's start one. Although I can't even comprehend any serious arguments against feminism.

I feel that there's going to be a lot of room for interpretation with your current responses, considering how many groups can fall under the 'feminism' umbrella. We would be very likely to make assumptions about the other's perspective. What specifically are your views?

I don't mean "I agree men and women should have equal rights" because you will be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees with this viewpoint. I mean what topics do you feel the most strongly about? What issues are women currently facing today that you feel do not receive enough attention? Views on abortion, rape culture (if you think that exists), racism and trans issues, etc etc, since they go together for a lot of people. Just to get a clue as to where you stand.

DarknessB
January 14th, 2016, 06:26 AM
I feel that there's going to be a lot of room for interpretation with your current responses, considering how many groups can fall under the 'feminism' umbrella. We would be very likely to make assumptions about the other's perspective. What specifically are your views?

I don't mean "I agree men and women should have equal rights" because you will be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees with this viewpoint. I mean what topics do you feel the most strongly about? What issues are women currently facing today that you feel do not receive enough attention? Views on abortion, rape culture (if you think that exists), racism and trans issues, etc etc, since they go together for a lot of people. Just to get a clue as to where you stand.

Wow, calling for a civil, thoughtful argument on the topic? I'll bite.

I don't think many people can seriously argue with the premise that "men and women have equal rights". Perhaps, some very traditional religious folks might believe, for example, that women should be subservient to men per the tenets of their beliefs, and therefore, feminism is incompatible with their religious code and for that reason, problematic. Can't really do anything about that, other than hope their beliefs evolve with time or die out with their generation. Moving on.

Second category of anti-"feminists" are those who view current public policy as advantageous to women vs. being equal -- i.e. those who disagree with affirmative action, bemoan the fact that women are typically allowed to have their own groups in society, but most men's groups have been forced to become co-ed, etc. This is at least a little bit of a better argument than #1, in the sense that you can debate this. Another example might be the fact that women are not required in the U.S. to register for Selective Service (which for those not familiar, is how the U.S. would organize a military draft in the extreme unlikelihood it deviates from a volunteer army in the future).

Third, are people who associate feminism with liberalism generally and who may not support the latter in terms of their personal or political beliefs. For example, things like abortion, affirmative action, and the like. This is a bit different from #2 because it's more about the political beliefs vs. their impact on you. In contrast, #2 is more likely some guy who got narrowly rejected from an engineering school and blames affirmative action because there might have been female applicants with lower raw test numbers who got in (whole other discussion there).

Finally, there are just the people uncomfortable with women being in a position of power and view feminism as eroding their advantage or masculinity in some way. This might be the most common reason for posters here. I.e. the whole "it's not cool to be nice to women" mentality among younger males, either because you feel like you don't understand them well or find them threatening for some reason (either in a hostility "stay off my turf" sort of a way or in a "let me pull your hair because I secretly like you" sort of a way). Basically, if you're not comfortable with women in general, you're probably not likely to want them to become more empowered in society.

And yes, I realize this was way too long -- props for anyone who actually reads this, lol.

Toadette
January 14th, 2016, 08:22 AM
I'm voting for Bernard in the primaries but still open to Hillary if she goes on to the general election.

Trump has to be stumped, and it's pretty clear that he's immune to self-stumping.

This 100%. Bernie is the true liberal candidate - Hillary's pretty much half Republican.

But I definitely prefer Hillary over Trump or any other Republican candidate running.


I'm a feminist...

I believe men and women should be treated equally.

That's literally the definition.

-_-

Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?

:)

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 08:24 AM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss-090720-Thatcher-OBIT/ss-090720-Thatcher-OBIT-tease.380;380;7;70;0.jpg

http://tapnewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Margaret-Thatcher.jpg
A...lady Margaret Thatcher, may i ask you how to fly too the moon v)o.o)^?
Because i ask a man name Armstrong and now he step on the moon but the woman didn't step on the moon yet v(o.o(<

Calix
January 14th, 2016, 08:25 AM
Nah mate. GOP is clearly where it's at.

Their debates are way better than the Liberals, lol.

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 08:28 AM
I'm a feminist...

I believe men and women should be treated equally.

That's literally the definition.

-_-

Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?
Join Communism v(x.o(^!!!
We have equality for woman and men v)o.o)>!!!!
We have Red ^(o.o(^
We have ak-47 v(o.o(<
We have patriot v)o.o)^
We have (mother)land ^)o.o)^
But we don't have capitalism v)o.o)v......

Mikecall
January 14th, 2016, 09:11 AM
Join Communism v(x.o(^!!!
We have equality for woman and men v)o.o)>!!!!
We have Red ^(o.o(^
We have ak-47 v(o.o(<
We have patriot v)o.o)^
We have (mother)land ^)o.o)^
But we don't have capitalism v)o.o)v......

Nah, Democracy ftw ;).

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 09:14 AM
Nah, Democracy ftw ;).
Y u no praise the red party v)x.o)>?

Mikecall
January 14th, 2016, 09:18 AM
Y u no praise the red party v)x.o)>?

I just fit a more Democracy overall than a communism type of person, just different opinions overall.

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 09:25 AM
I just fit a more Democracy overall than a communism type of person, just different opinions overall.
M'kay v(x.o(<
If you are democracy then don't forget to praise the money v)x.o)^!!!!

Mikecall
January 14th, 2016, 09:27 AM
M'kay v(x.o(<
If you are democracy then don't forget to praise the money v)x.o)^!!!!

Dont worry about it, I would love to be showered in mass amounts of money ;).

thedougler
January 14th, 2016, 10:41 AM
I find it hilarious that there are still people who unironically support Hillary. You would think her CONSTANT flip-flopping would have made her unelectable by now. Even her own party is abandoning her for Sanders at this point, as the New Hampshire and Iowa polling shows.

Frog, your disdain for "rednecks" whose views differ from yours and your judging the candidates almost solely by their educational achievements shows a deep-seated snobbery that I find slightly hypocritical of a liberal. Not all of us start at the same point in life. Plenty of highly educated people wash up in life and achieve nothing, and plenty of less-educated people take a while to blossom in their careers. Among the U.S. presidents who never held bachelor's degrees: George Washington, Harry Truman, and Abraham Lincoln (he had only one year of formal schooling of any kind, and was almost entirely self-educated). You might recognize those as names that habitually grace the "best presidents of all time" lists.

Cryptonic
January 14th, 2016, 11:51 AM
Hillary would be a good 4 years of nothing new happening, just saying.

Helz
January 14th, 2016, 12:12 PM
I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.

The one thing I like about her is when her husband was elected that was the last presidency that did not blow money like a 16 year old girl with a credit card. Its kind of funny that we can stack the government with loads of educated people yet they have manage its finances with such short term mindsets.

Cryptonic
January 14th, 2016, 12:16 PM
I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.

The one thing I like about her is when her husband was elected that was the last presidency that did not blow money like a 16 year old girl with a credit card. Its kind of funny that we can stack the government with loads of educated people yet they have manage its finances with such short term mindsets.


I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.

Slaol
January 14th, 2016, 12:18 PM
I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.

Which one is it today?

Cryptonic
January 14th, 2016, 12:51 PM
Which one is it today?

?? What do you mean

Yukitaka Oni
January 14th, 2016, 01:03 PM
I didn't really care for her nor dislike her. Then she said she's reveal the truth about aliens and Area 51, and I lost all respect for her.

And you're totally right, there is a self-image that she is struggling so hard to preserve.
v)x.o)>> v(o.o(v Hand Over The Information About Area 51 And No One Get Hurt! This Is Commie Spy!

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 01:43 PM
after New Hampshire and Iowa, Hillary is going to steamroll.

Orpz
January 14th, 2016, 01:48 PM
I wouldn't vote for her because she feels too fake to me. She avoids questions and plays a scripted role. I think a large part of why every presidents approval ratings fall to hell is because whatever fake image they built to get elected falls apart over time and people get to see what they actually elected.



IMO, the reason approval ratings fall is because the average American vastly overestimates the power the president has. Yes, executive orders are a thing, but when it comes to keeping major campaign promises, the President has to run through Congress as well as make sure he doesn't violate constitutional rights. It's a huge obstacle course and candidates willingly exaggerate their promises just for the votes, knowing full well they can't keep them. So yeah, I see what you mean by their personality "falling apart", but I'd say it's more of the checks and balances working as intended

EDIT: I highly doubt Bernard will keep most of his promises, but any minor improvement in the liberal area is a success to me. He also will veto a lot of the Republican Congress's shitty bills, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

secondpassing
January 14th, 2016, 02:54 PM
America is not a democracy. Its a republic. And due to lobbying, Congress does not represent the public's ideas. Can the same be said about the president? Probably.

I read DarknessB's post, props to me.
Lots of good points. Should men and women have the same rights? Yes. Should they be treated equally? No.

Republics were meant to pick the most qualified representatives right? Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean she should get an advantage.

She's also miles deep in the political system just like all of them. Makes me distrust her.

Would have typed more but I can't seem to find the words.

Tossangel
January 14th, 2016, 08:21 PM
She has a fan club? Repubs FTW!

DarknessB
January 14th, 2016, 08:30 PM
America is not a democracy. Its a republic. And due to lobbying, Congress does not represent the public's ideas. Can the same be said about the president? Probably.

I read DarknessB's post, props to me.
Lots of good points. Should men and women have the same rights? Yes. Should they be treated equally? No.

Republics were meant to pick the most qualified representatives right? Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean she should get an advantage.

She's also miles deep in the political system just like all of them. Makes me distrust her.

Would have typed more but I can't seem to find the words.

Wow, you read my post -- nice! That's one more person than I expected to get through it. :)

Slaol
January 14th, 2016, 08:33 PM
She has a fan club? Repubs FTW!

President Trump, amiright guys?

Sen
January 14th, 2016, 09:21 PM
Can't expect good things to come out from such a shitty system.

Orpz
January 14th, 2016, 09:26 PM
Cruz was stumping Trump tonight until he implied New Yorkers were unAmerican and then Trump pulled MUH NINE ELEVEN

Rubio was "B-B-BUT OBUMMER DID THIS!!!"

Jeb had some good points on defending Muslims but pretty much got blown out by Trump's "We don't need a weak leader like Jeb"

Trump remained unstumped after the international trade bit

Carson is still asleep

Tossangel
January 14th, 2016, 09:54 PM
I will vote for him (Trump), if he wins the nomination. However, I will not vote for him in the primary.

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 10:34 PM
Wow, calling for a civil, thoughtful argument on the topic? I'll bite.

I don't think many people can seriously argue with the premise that "men and women have equal rights". Perhaps, some very traditional religious folks might believe, for example, that women should be subservient to men per the tenets of their beliefs, and therefore, feminism is incompatible with their religious code and for that reason, problematic. Can't really do anything about that, other than hope their beliefs evolve with time or die out with their generation. Moving on.

/Thread Finished. Lol.


Second category of anti-"feminists" are those who view current public policy as advantageous to women vs. being equal -- i.e. those who disagree with affirmative action, bemoan the fact that women are typically allowed to have their own groups in society, but most men's groups have been forced to become co-ed, etc. This is at least a little bit of a better argument than #1, in the sense that you can debate this. Another example might be the fact that women are not required in the U.S. to register for Selective Service (which for those not familiar, is how the U.S. would organize a military draft in the extreme unlikelihood it deviates from a volunteer army in the future).

Valid point about progressive social inclusion being seen as unequal. But even that is a very weak argument imo.


Third, are people who associate feminism with liberalism generally and who may not support the latter in terms of their personal or political beliefs. For example, things like abortion, affirmative action, and the like. This is a bit different from #2 because it's more about the political beliefs vs. their impact on you. In contrast, #2 is more likely some guy who got narrowly rejected from an engineering school and blames affirmative action because there might have been female applicants with lower raw test numbers who got in (whole other discussion there).

But you even frame the argument as misguided... :-P



Finally, there are just the people uncomfortable with women being in a position of power and view feminism as eroding their advantage or masculinity in some way. This might be the most common reason for posters here. I.e. the whole "it's not cool to be nice to women" mentality among younger males, either because you feel like you don't understand them well or find them threatening for some reason (either in a hostility "stay off my turf" sort of a way or in a "let me pull your hair because I secretly like you" sort of a way). Basically, if you're not comfortable with women in general, you're probably not likely to want them to become more empowered in society.

^ You hit the nail on the head.


And yes, I realize this was way too long -- props for anyone who actually reads this, lol.

I think you must be an FM player because it seems as though you enjoy arguing for argument's sake. :laugh:

thedougler
January 14th, 2016, 10:38 PM
I will vote for him (Trump), if he wins the nomination. However, I will not vote for him in the primary.

Curious. Are you by any chance a Cruz supporter? The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

Frog
January 14th, 2016, 10:46 PM
Everyone who posts here is officially Pro-Hillary

DarknessB
January 14th, 2016, 10:58 PM
/Thread Finished. Lol.



Valid point about progressive social inclusion being seen as unequal. But even that is a very weak argument imo.



But you even frame the argument as misguided... :-P




^ You hit the nail on the head.



I think you must be an FM player because it seems as though you enjoy arguing for argument's sake. :laugh:

LOL, big time props for actually reading my tome of a post. They weren't arguments for why someone should objectively not agree with feminism (i.e. that men and women shouldn't have equal rights), but why people might subjectively reach that conclusion (that they do not believe in gender equality) for different reasons, albeit specious ones in most cases. In other words, more of an explanation of how people reach that place than a justification of why it is right, given it is obviously isn't.

And yes, you correctly read me as an FM player who approach these posts like putting together a read and forming an argument for argument's sake. :)

Sen
January 14th, 2016, 11:15 PM
The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

I'm in no way trying to say this is Tossangel's case, but from what I gather from the endless internet debate that raises around elections, many will vote for a given party, no matter how bad the candidate might be, and others will simply vote against whoever they dislike the most.
Using your Cruz example, there's many people around who might want to vote Cruz, but will vote Republican regardless of who ends up winning the primaries, and then there will be people who think that Hilary is the worst candidate, and thus will vote for whoever goes against her.

Furthermore, it seems like people vote according to party loyality, and not based on their individual views and needs. This is exemplified when someone tries to belittle others by using their stance on the national political spectrum (Democrat or Republican) as an insult, as if everything was either black or white, and the entirety of a party's voters were an uniform mass with the exact same political views and the same reasons for choosing that party.

This is one of the multitude of things that result from the shitty system I mentioned earlier, and nothing will change as long as the political duopoly and the voting system that feeds it remain unchallenged:
You have people having to pick between a party that doesn't reflect their views and another which is openly against them, others voting for some guy because they agree on one subject, even when they might disagree with their stance on everything else. Independents forcing to become weak followers and eventually devolving into borderline fanatics because of biases, then some more not voting at all because they are only given two options, none of which represent them in any way...

The power of picking the lesser of two evils is no power at all, and it will never cease to amaze me how the American population -who never miss a chance to talk about freedom- don't seem to give a single fuck when every 4 years they're told that their only options are two varieties of the same brand of shit.

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 07:50 AM
Everyone who posts here is officially Pro-Hillary

Thats not how threads work.

Frog
January 15th, 2016, 08:26 AM
A few excerpts I found interesting from the NYT today:

At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.

Much of the country is now more openly intolerant, quick to hate and nasty. One reaction to Obama has been the rise of an opposition party that is a home for xenophobes, defeatists and alarmists. They are the Eeyore Party with a snarl. As we heard again during the Republican debate on Thursday, Obama’s opponents are drawn to the “siren call of the angriest voices,” as Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina artfully put it. If the majority follows those voices, the Obama presidency will shoulder a sizable amount of the blame.

Is that really his fault? Did his presidency give rise to a bigoted billionaire with know-nothing followers? Part of the ugliness seems a reaction to the straitjacket of political correctness, which preceded Obama, and got worse in some corridors, mainly academia. But it may also be that the country was not ready for a transformational president; rather than sweep away the last racial barrier, his years in office showed just how deep-rooted the sentiment behind those barriers remains.

Republicans who would not applaud the creation of 14 million jobs, an unemployment rate cut in half, 17 million people given health care, a global climate change pact, the strongest military in the world and a rousing call for a “moonshot” to cure cancer are incapable of taking a fair measure of Obama’s achievements.

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 08:31 AM
A few excerpts I found interesting from the NYT today:

At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.

Doesn't that really prove nothing, since the GDP is like 3x what is was back then? So 2.5% is much more than 3.4% lol.

Frog
January 15th, 2016, 08:45 AM
Doesn't that really prove nothing, since the GDP is like 3x what is was back then? So 2.5% is much more than 3.4% lol.

I think you're suggesting a non-scaling comparison makes it apples to apples. It doesn't. This is why most economists scale to 2000 when discussing national stats and figures. Others scale to present.

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 09:54 AM
I think you're suggesting a non-scaling comparison makes it apples to apples. It doesn't. This is why most economists scale to 2000 when discussing national stats and figures. Others scale to present.

I just didn't know how the % of which GDP was taken, ect.
If it was % deficit @ the GDP in their time, then Obama had a deficit more than double in value. Not saying anything wrong in that, as a country obviously grows. But it just seems like a faulty argument used to convince people who don't second guess facts given to them.

But if it is % of the current GDP for both of them, ect, then it's a fine argument.

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 09:56 AM
Curious. Are you by any chance a Cruz supporter? The only possible reasoning behind your plan, that I can see, is that you want someone you view as even more of a hardliner on immigration, and would only vote Trump as your second choice.

I haven't decided who I will be voting for in the primary yet. I can say not Trump and not Jeb for sure. Trump is not my 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th choice out of the candidates running for the Republican ticket.

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 09:59 AM
I'm in no way trying to say this is Tossangel's case, but from what I gather from the endless internet debate that raises around elections, many will vote for a given party, no matter how bad the candidate might be, and others will simply vote against whoever they dislike the most.

The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

SuperJack
January 15th, 2016, 10:09 AM
Boris Johnson

SuperJack
January 15th, 2016, 10:12 AM
Reason:
https://youtu.be/8Kr6RGpmxtA

https://youtu.be/HuIfwY_jzz8

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 10:14 AM
The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

Unfortunately, DNC was all-in for Hillary. Then came Bernard, a lifelong Independent who understood that third parties stand virtually no chance, and so he decided to change parties just to have a viable shot. Clearly you wouldn't be eager to welcome someone like that, so they started spending their efforts on pushing Hillary as well as discrediting Bernard.

Basically Bernard cucked Hillary

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 10:15 AM
The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.

As an unbiased Canadian, I can tell you that neither party has any decent candidates lol. I don't see any of them getting a second term unless a major war breaks out.

I have a favorite in the races, but it should be obvious who it is since I'm Canadian lol.

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 10:23 AM
As an unbiased Canadian, I can tell you that neither party has any decent candidates lol. I don't see any of them getting a second term unless a major war breaks out.

I have a favorite in the races, but it should be obvious who it is since I'm Canadian lol.

Is it Cruz?

How is Trudeau being received in Canada right now? I'm a fan but I heard he already reneged on his promise for decriminalized weed

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 10:32 AM
Is it Cruz?

How is Trudeau being received in Canada right now? I'm a fan but I heard he already reneged on his promise for decriminalized weed

No, it's not Cruz. I like Bernie's socialism lol.


Trudeu is a mixed bag in the West. People over here buy into the fear mongering like crazy (aka hating on refugees), and Alberta also changed leadership to NDP recently. NDP + Liberal in combined with low oil prices = everyone who voted the Conservatives out caused global oil prices to drop!!! That's their logic, somehow.

I'm not sure how the East sees him, but I'm guessing they think highly of him as they are always Libs over there. Far East probably despises him.

He's also planning to legalize, not decriminalize. In the Queen's address, he had stated that he will be legalizing it, ect. Problems are arising due to International Treaties that we are a part in that says it needs to remain illegal. We'll see in 4 years, I guess lol.

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 10:35 AM
Also, I just got the Cruz thing XD
He's actually from where I live lol.

Sen
January 15th, 2016, 11:02 AM
The Republicans have a lot of good candidates to consider unlike the Dems who can barely carve out 2.
Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 11:13 AM
Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

I know this wasn't directed to me, but I actually bet you Trump would be decent. The guy is actually very smart, and I truly believe he is just saying shit that he knows will get attention and votes lol. That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.


Also, I never understood party loyalists in USA. I've probably voted for almost every major party at least once for Provincial/National elections.

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 11:21 AM
I haven't decided who I will be voting for in the primary yet. I can say not Trump and not Jeb for sure. Trump is not my 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even 5th choice out of the candidates running for the Republican ticket.

Who are the 5 you put above him? He's my Numero Uno Republican for purposes of entertainment mostly. He gives great speeches, has great hair. Also he'll make us great again and killdeport all the people that follow the religion he doesn't like.

http://adscam.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfa1853ef01b7c7c52d92970b-400wi

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 11:34 AM
Would you say Trump is a good candidate?

You said he's not among your top 5, but will vote him anyway if he's selected as the Republican candidate.
Is that out of party loyalty, or do you think Trump is a good candidate (or at least better than any of the Dem options)?

When I say the Dems have 2 "good" candidates, I mean from their perspective...not mine. Now onto your question...yes, he is better than any of the Dem options.

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 11:38 AM
When I say the Dems have 2 "good" candidates, I mean from their perspective...not mine. Now onto your question...yes, he is better than any of the Dem options.

I understand Hillary but what dont you like about Bernard?

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 11:39 AM
Who are the 5 you put above him? He's my Numero Uno Republican for purposes of entertainment mostly. He gives great speeches, has great hair. Also he'll make us great again and killdeport all the people that follow the religion he doesn't like.



Wow, good reasons ;) I would vote Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Paul and prob a few more before Trump.

Toadette
January 15th, 2016, 11:44 AM
lol Carson and Cruz are both almost as bad as Trump

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 11:47 AM
Wow, good reasons ;) I would vote Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Carson, Paul and prob a few more before Trump.

A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 11:51 AM
A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

I don't vote based on gender or race and you are incorrect about Cruz.

Toadette
January 15th, 2016, 11:52 AM
A black, a woman, a non-citizen. What is this the DNC

Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

Toadette
January 15th, 2016, 11:53 AM
Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

This is not to say that people should vote based on race and gender - but when the racist, sexist one is the one polling higher than anyone else, you know your party has a problem.

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 12:01 PM
I don't vote based on gender or race and you are incorrect about Cruz.

How so?

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 12:02 PM
Nawp, if it was the dems the racist, sexist one wouldn't be winning by such a large margin over them.

Didnt you hear. Hes actually from the future, and is winning the nomination to prevent the aliens, robots, and illuminaughty from taking over America. He is the hero we need, but not the one we deserve.

Sen
January 15th, 2016, 12:05 PM
I know this wasn't directed to me, but I actually bet you Trump would be decent. The guy is actually very smart, and I truly believe he is just saying shit that he knows will get attention and votes lol. That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.
I agre that he is probably pretty smart, but I seriously doubt he'd make a decent president. I'm not even American, but the idea of that guy ruling the world's biggest powerhouse scares me.


Also, I never understood party loyalists in USA. I've probably voted for almost every major party at least once for Provincial/National elections.
The American political system revolves around convincing the voters that the other side is full of idiots who will destroy the country, instead of gaining votes by being a desirable leader.
The result is that the elections look more like fans of a couple of rival football teams, instead of informed individuals doing what they consider best. Now mix that with a lot of people who are entirelly clueless on how politics work (I've had first-hand experience with people who thought that by affiliating to a party, they were forced to always vote them), and you get the real life political equivalent of an OMGUS.

You see people getting into the most idiotic arguments, trying to convince the other side of how stupid they are for being Republican/Democratic, when the truth is that besides a few wackos out there, most of the Americans simply want what's best for the country, and maybe if they stopped focusing so much trying to convince the opposition of how their party and voters are all imbeciles, and convincing themselves of how their choice is the right one, they could see that they have more in common with a voter from the other party than with any of the candidates that this two-headed beast system offers them.

Tossangel
January 15th, 2016, 12:06 PM
How so?

Naturalization Act of 1790

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 12:13 PM
Naturalization Act of 1790

Please go on. First things im seeing says you need to be white for that to count, and his name is Rafael Cruz. Im not one to be sexist, but thats most certainly a hispanic canadian. Then it says that naturlizes, which is seperate feom natural born in that you cant be president.

Also, if were trying to secure borders. Hes hispanic AND canadian. Stopping him would prove our commitment to stopping both borders!

Slaol
January 15th, 2016, 12:30 PM
Times up. The answer we were looking for is- his moms from Delaware.

Sorry it didnt work out this time Toss. Did you have fun? Yu do get to walk away with everything else youve won though

Toadette
January 15th, 2016, 01:09 PM
Please go on. First things im seeing says you need to be white for that to count, and his name is Rafael Cruz. Im not one to be sexist, but thats most certainly a hispanic canadian. Then it says that naturlizes, which is seperate feom natural born in that you cant be president.

Also, if were trying to secure borders. Hes hispanic AND canadian. Stopping him would prove our commitment to stopping both borders!

Heheheheh

yzb25
January 15th, 2016, 01:56 PM
That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.

...


it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.

...........................


lol.

Anyway:


I feel that there's going to be a lot of room for interpretation with your current responses, considering how many groups can fall under the 'feminism' umbrella. We would be very likely to make assumptions about the other's perspective. What specifically are your views?

I don't mean "I agree men and women should have equal rights" because you will be hard-pressed to find someone that disagrees with this viewpoint. I mean what topics do you feel the most strongly about? What issues are women currently facing today that you feel do not receive enough attention? Views on abortion, rape culture (if you think that exists), racism and trans issues, etc etc, since they go together for a lot of people. Just to get a clue as to where you stand.

Beat this DarknessB

Any group of people that put a giant poster across their bodies saying "we're the embodiment of goodness, we are the personification of gender equality and disagreeing with us makes you a disgusting bigot" are always going to look like assholes even when they make the most minor of fuck-ups, because everyone is looking to rip them down.

But there's a lot more to it than psychology. Feminism is simply unsettling, by its nature.

Here, Let me invent a new ideology: yzb25ism. Are you a yzb25ist? We believe that the powerful should always do what's best for humanity. Don't you agree with that? Then surely you're a yzb25ist. After all, you can strengthen our shining ideals by identifying as part of our group. We accept minor donations and highly value imbuing your children with our brilliant ideas.

What's that? "Those yzb25ists over there are churning out lies and propaganda, while other yzb25ists are openly supporting legislation that makes the world a worse place"? Well, obviously those idiots are not actual yzb25ists, as a real yzb25ist follows the dictionary definition of yzb25ism. If those radicals really are yzb25ists, then the fault is with you who has simply failed to understand the nuance of the greater good we work towards. You should be a more understanding and respectful listener.

Besides, have you no appreciation for the history of yzb25ism? Why, just a 100 years ago, yzb25ists made civilization a far better place by bringing in [benefit x]. Are you going to deny that? Of course not. Are you ungrateful, then? Why don't you want to be a yzb25ist? What's that? You say that "the people who brought in [benefit x] never even said they were yzb25ists, and I have a completely different worldview to those people anyway"? My god, you are ignorant. They were first-wave yzb25ists. They seem different because they're a different sub-type. Anyway, the fact they're not around any more doesn't mean the battle is over - no, no, no! Not at all! It's up to us second-wave and third-wave yzb25ists to pick up the great legacy.

What's that? "The very word yzb25ism sounds like it should be bias in favor of yzb25? The word also has a long history of churning out twisted ideas and blaming the powerful for things that are not their fault. Furthermore you also have disagreements with what many yzb25ists say"? So what? Who made you such a picky fucking scholar. None of that matters, all that matters is doing what's right, right now, and not getting in the way of yzb25ists who are doing nothing but trying to make the world a better place by bombarding them with your misguided faux intellectualism. After all, if you really cared so much about this stuff, you'd have joined us by now, and be trying to change us from the inside with your ideas.

Seriously, it's like you're disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing. Noone has any reason to not be a yzb25ist, which completely justifies me judging and trying to deconstruct / psychoanalyze the intentions of people who do disagree. Perhaps they were wronged by a false yzb25ist in the past? Perhaps they have some strange psychological problem that makes them the way they are? After all, noone can ever disagree with the statement "We believe that the powerful should always do what's best for humanity." on a valid level. Perhaps you're simply opposed to progress.

__________________________________________________ __________________

The term "feminism" is completely politicized. It's a stick to beat people with, rather than a real, substantial idea to help the world. Muslims have a book they believe to have been written by god, yet the diversity of beliefs under the term "muslim" is incredibly vast. Feminists don't even have a manifesto, which makes the word less than meaningless. The usage of the word is nothing more than unsettling.

thedougler
January 15th, 2016, 02:01 PM
I know this wasn't directed to me, but I actually bet you Trump would be decent. The guy is actually very smart, and I truly believe he is just saying shit that he knows will get attention and votes lol. That being said, if he followed thru with his platform, it would be fucking terrible and many people would die lol.


Also, I never understood party loyalists in USA. I've probably voted for almost every major party at least once for Provincial/National elections.

How would enforcing current immigration law be "fucking horrible"? Plenty of other nations on earth deport their illegals, and with considerably less hand-wringing from ass-pained leftists. The fact is, there should be consequences for breaking the law and cutting in the immigration queue, and they should be unpleasant. America is long overdue for another Operation Wetback. If a few deportees die in the Sonoran desert because they couldn't get their insulin pills or something, I don't think Americans are to blame.

Also, regarding the ban on Muslim immigration, the Unites States constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country. It is to the president's discretion to ban any non-citizen person or group that he sees fit, for whatever reason (such as Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians). I happen to think assimilation and cultural homogeneity are worthwhile goals, to the point that no one's human rights are infringed upon. Until the passage of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, such views were not controversial, and most people were happy with Northwestern European immigration being favored.

Personally, I think America should just outright issue a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few decades. If I judge Trump correctly, that is what he priming the electorate for.

Frog
January 15th, 2016, 02:08 PM
I'm a yzb25ist and all yzb25ists are feminists.

High Five.

There's a lot of work to be done with race and sex issues because we have institutionally segregated by race and gender for the history of the world. The concept of equal opportunity and treatment amongst all hasn't been applied until relatively recently. The effects of institutional segregation are not only social and cultural, but remain institutional. The tests that masked this disgustingly obvious is income distribution, executive/CEO position distribution, and the fact that Donald Trump grows increasingly popular via intolerant remarks. It's pathetic.

This is why all yzb25ists are feminists. Because it's universally right. Disagreeing and/or not joining feminism would categorically send you to hell with Satan Clause on grounds of being aggressively evil and twisted.

Frog
January 15th, 2016, 02:13 PM
How would enforcing current immigration law be "fucking horrible"? Plenty of other nations on earth deport their illegals, and with considerably less hand-wringing from ass-pained leftists. The fact is, there should be consequences for breaking the law and cutting in the immigration queue, and they should be unpleasant. America is long overdue for another Operation Wetback. If a few deportees die in the Sonoran desert because they couldn't get their insulin pills or something, I don't think Americans are to blame.

Also, regarding the ban on Muslim immigration, the Unites States constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country. It is to the president's discretion to ban any non-citizen person or group that he sees fit, for whatever reason (such as Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians). I happen to think assimilation and cultural homogeneity are worthwhile goals, to the point that no one's human rights are infringed upon. Until the passage of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, such views were not controversial, and most people were happy with Northwestern European immigration being favored.

Personally, I think America should just outright issue a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few decades. If I judge Trump correctly, that is what he priming the electorate for.

Can't tell if joking or aggressively stupid/true evil.

You have no qualms with blissful ignorance of the global economy, nationally sanctioned racism, living a form of life with no humanity.

I'm assuming you're not college educated? I'm assuming you've never left the country?

yzb25
January 15th, 2016, 02:25 PM
I'm a yzb25ist and all yzb25ists are feminists.

High Five.

There's a lot of work to be done with race and sex issues because we have institutionally segregated by race and gender for the history of the world. The concept of equal opportunity and treatment amongst all hasn't been applied until relatively recently. The effects of institutional segregation are not only social and cultural, but remain institutional. The tests that masked this disgustingly obvious is income distribution, executive/CEO position distribution, and the fact that Donald Trump grows increasingly popular via intolerant remarks. It's pathetic.

This is why all yzb25ists are feminists. Because it's universally right. Disagreeing and/or not joining feminism would categorically send you to hell with Satan Clause on grounds of being aggressively evil and twisted.

I 99% agree with you. It's just that while in theory yzb25ism should be great, where people allow themselves to be docile and switch off in an attempt to make others happy, there will always be people trying to corrupt. We'd be far better off if we dropped the yzb25ism and just decided to take people's word for it when they say "I have no issue with the idea that the powerful should help humanity, but I don't like the word yzb25ism."

After all, conditioning the sheep to be loyal to a word or a group won't make them better - real mental stimulation and human connection cannot be replaced with something as shallow as an ideology. This is why I do not like words like 'feminism'.

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 02:40 PM
How would enforcing current immigration law be "fucking horrible"? Plenty of other nations on earth deport their illegals, and with considerably less hand-wringing from ass-pained leftists. The fact is, there should be consequences for breaking the law and cutting in the immigration queue, and they should be unpleasant. America is long overdue for another Operation Wetback. If a few deportees die in the Sonoran desert because they couldn't get their insulin pills or something, I don't think Americans are to blame.

Also, regarding the ban on Muslim immigration, the Unites States constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country. It is to the president's discretion to ban any non-citizen person or group that he sees fit, for whatever reason (such as Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians). I happen to think assimilation and cultural homogeneity are worthwhile goals, to the point that no one's human rights are infringed upon. Until the passage of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, such views were not controversial, and most people were happy with Northwestern European immigration being favored.

Personally, I think America should just outright issue a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few decades. If I judge Trump correctly, that is what he priming the electorate for.

People like to attack illegal immigrants by saying "it's breaking the law", and yes, to be technical, it is breaking the law. But to many people, it's an unjust law that should be restructured. Why do we deny humans the right to pursue a better life, based on nothing more than where they were born? When the choices are your family's life or death, you're going to do whatever it takes to get them to safety, you're not going to say "Oh well damn, the law says I can't run away from these murderers". It's shitty, and it's not the government or citizens' fault that these people are suffering, but I find it unbecoming of a civilized nation to turn away people in need of shelter, especially when we have the resources to do so.

And yes, for Muslim immigrants, there is a concern that some immigrants may well be enemies of the state. But if you're a peaceful Muslim man with a family in search of shelter, and you get denied just because the shitty people who committed mass murders happened to share the same religion as you, how are you going to feel? Maybe you'll understand, maybe you won't. How are you going to feel after your family dies because of the lack of shelter? My guess is you would then truly become an enemy of that state.

They don't have the right to enter the country, sure, but I seriously don't think disallowing them entry is beneficial to anyone in the long run.

Cryptonic
January 15th, 2016, 02:40 PM
How would enforcing current immigration law be "fucking horrible"? Plenty of other nations on earth deport their illegals, and with considerably less hand-wringing from ass-pained leftists. The fact is, there should be consequences for breaking the law and cutting in the immigration queue, and they should be unpleasant. America is long overdue for another Operation Wetback. If a few deportees die in the Sonoran desert because they couldn't get their insulin pills or something, I don't think Americans are to blame.

Also, regarding the ban on Muslim immigration, the Unites States constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country. It is to the president's discretion to ban any non-citizen person or group that he sees fit, for whatever reason (such as Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians). I happen to think assimilation and cultural homogeneity are worthwhile goals, to the point that no one's human rights are infringed upon. Until the passage of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, such views were not controversial, and most people were happy with Northwestern European immigration being favored.

Personally, I think America should just outright issue a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few decades. If I judge Trump correctly, that is what he priming the electorate for.


When did I specify immigration?

I guess I'll focus on it like you did. If you treat immigrants like shit today, 15 years from now you have children grown into adults who hate USA, adults who raise their children to hate USA, and elders who teach others to hate USA. That is how his immigration stance would be "fucking horrible" and breed hatred and disdain towards the USA, and put American lives at risk at home and abroad.

thedougler
January 15th, 2016, 02:43 PM
Can't tell if joking or aggressively stupid/true evil.

You have no qualms with blissful ignorance of the global economy, nationally sanctioned racism, living a form of life with no humanity.

I'm assuming you're not college educated? I'm assuming you've never left the country?

Believe it or not, university is what turned me off modern liberalism and "social justice" in the first place. The first poster I saw demonizing me for my invisible knapsack of white privilege changed me forever. I've felt like an ideological dissident ever since.

I've lived in three countries in my life and travelled to over a dozen. Like most westerners (before WW2 changed notions previously accepted as common sense), I believe it is possible to give preference to my own race while treating others with a measured respect. That respect does not extend to illegal immigrants or zealots who espouse a cult of conversion by violence.

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 02:56 PM
Believe it or not, university is what turned me off modern liberalism and "social justice" in the first place. The first poster I saw demonizing me for my invisible knapsack of white privilege changed me forever. I've felt like an ideological dissident ever since.

I've lived in three countries in my life and travelled to over a dozen. Like most westerners (before WW2 changed notions previously accepted as common sense), I believe it is possible to give preference to my own race while treating others with a measured respect. That respect does not extend to illegal immigrants or zealots who espouse a cult of conversion by violence.

People that unironically think every white person is privileged are not a good indicator of modern liberalism. They're every bit as much of a vocal minority as the "fuck gooks and niggers" conservatives are.

thedougler
January 15th, 2016, 03:08 PM
People like to attack illegal immigrants by saying "it's breaking the law", and yes, to be technical, it is breaking the law. But to many people, it's an unjust law that should be restructured. Why do we deny humans the right to pursue a better life, based on nothing more than where they were born? When the choices are your family's life or death, you're going to do whatever it takes to get them to safety, you're not going to say "Oh well damn, the law says I can't run away from these murderers". It's shitty, and it's not the government or citizens' fault that these people are suffering, but I find it unbecoming of a civilized nation to turn away people in need of shelter, especially when we have the resources to do so.

And yes, for Muslim immigrants, there is a concern that some immigrants may well be enemies of the state. But if you're a peaceful Muslim man with a family in search of shelter, and you get denied just because the shitty people who committed mass murders happened to share the same religion as you, how are you going to feel? Maybe you'll understand, maybe you won't. How are you going to feel after your family dies because of the lack of shelter? My guess is you would then truly become an enemy of that state.

They don't have the right to enter the country, sure, but I seriously don't think disallowing them entry is beneficial to anyone in the long run.


If congress wants to pass a law to the effect that America is a nation with open borders, then let them. I'll get into why I think it's a terrible idea, but the current way of challenging the status quo by selective non-enforcement of federal laws, the establishing of sanctuary cities to skirt those laws, etc., is a very bad precedent to set. If the president can ignore laws he finds inconvenient, America is not a democracy. No one should be above the law because they think the law is dumb. They should abide by it while working to change it.

As to why I think open borders are terrible, just look at Germany. Over a million entered the country last year after Merkel invited the world, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. Some polling shows that half the population of the Third World would migrate to Europe and North America given the opportunity (ciation needed I know, but I'm on mobile right now and can't find it). Africans alone are projected to number 4 billion by 2100. Their continent can't support that number, and neither we.

Malthusian catastrophes will happen regardless of our efforts to stop them. But we can at least avoid dragging our own nations along with them. It's the same principle as why adults should secure their oxygen masks before their children's on a crashing plane. We can't help them if we can't help ourselves.

At the end of the day, your nationality is NOT a mere accident of birth. Generations of people worked hard to build up their own circumstances and that of your country to put you where you are. The least you can do in gratitude is to avoid trashing your country in some misguided fit of patholical altruism.

Orpz
January 15th, 2016, 05:08 PM
If congress wants to pass a law to the effect that America is a nation with open borders, then let them. I'll get into why I think it's a terrible idea, but the current way of challenging the status quo by selective non-enforcement of federal laws, the establishing of sanctuary cities to skirt those laws, etc., is a very bad precedent to set. If the president can ignore laws he finds inconvenient, America is not a democracy. No one should be above the law because they think the law is dumb. They should abide by it while working to change it.

As to why I think open borders are terrible, just look at Germany. Over a million entered the country last year after Merkel invited the world, and it's just the tip of the iceberg. Some polling shows that half the population of the Third World would migrate to Europe and North America given the opportunity (ciation needed I know, but I'm on mobile right now and can't find it). Africans alone are projected to number 4 billion by 2100. Their continent can't support that number, and neither we.

Malthusian catastrophes will happen regardless of our efforts to stop them. But we can at least avoid dragging our own nations along with them. It's the same principle as why adults should secure their oxygen masks before their children's on a crashing plane. We can't help them if we can't help ourselves.

At the end of the day, your nationality is NOT a mere accident of birth. Generations of people worked hard to build up their own circumstances and that of your country to put you where you are. The least you can do in gratitude is to avoid trashing your country in some misguided fit of patholical altruism.

I understand your point, but I have to respectfully disagree with you here. When it comes down to it, politicians/lawmakers are not immune to being out of touch with society. Whether it's their intention or not, it's true that politicians don't always represent their constituents' beliefs (an example of this would be Donald Trump considering his loan of a million dollars "small"). To keep to democratic values, a society should be able to nullify laws it finds unjust. Jury Nullification is a good legal precedent for this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) The principle is that even if a jury believes the defendant is guilty of the crime, they can lawfully acquit the defendant if they believe the law is unjust. No one person is above the law, but if a society believes a law is unjust, then they should be able to choose not to punish people who break that law.

Overpopulation is always a concern, for sure. But when we look at the projected population figures, we also ignore the technological and medicinal advances that are projected as well. Africans might be projected to reach 4 billion in 84 years, but just 84 years ago, we didn't even have sunglasses or the bass guitar. We are far from peaking in agricultural/medicinal technology, and they remain very popular fields of study. (http://www.wired.com/2013/08/the-10-hottest-fields-of-science-research/) In the 1800's, Malthus predicted that a growing population was unsustainable, but he was wrong because he failed to predict the political and technological changes that would promote stability and growth. We live in the most peaceful time in humanity's existence (Better Angels of Our Nature, by Stephen Pinker), as well as the most booming technological age, so there is little reason for me to doubt that we will come up with something.

Going off that, one of the best ways to get advances in technology is to work together. It's cliche, but I do a little bit of work in academia and hope to pursue a career there, and I have seen firsthand how much the smartest professors ask other people for advice. Not just within the department, but across the school, across different universities, even across countries. If we have the resources, taking in people and helping them get an education will do wonders for decreasing global crime and making humanitarian and technological advances. It's as much of us investing in our children and grandchildren's society as it is us being altruistic.

As an American, I can honestly say we have a pretty comfortable life. The closest we get to political instability is the presidential elections. I'm not sure what the situation is for other first world countries, but I know America has the resources to help. I personally don't think it reflects well on me to be accepting of a society that sticks its head in the sand whenever bad things happen to other people.

Can we do anything to solve their crisis? No, it's absurdly unrealistic to think a few normal people can solve a global problem. But the problem can be made less worse by people trying to help the survivors.

Frog
January 15th, 2016, 06:31 PM
Hats off to the Dougler for a calm response. I'll post my real reasoned non-inflammatory views later today.

DarknessB
January 15th, 2016, 06:54 PM
Times up. The answer we were looking for is- his moms from Delaware.

Sorry it didnt work out this time Toss. Did you have fun? Yu do get to walk away with everything else youve won though

Can she still trade it all for what's behind Door #2?

Klingoncelt
January 16th, 2016, 01:48 AM
I'm a feminist...

I believe men and women should be treated equally.

That's literally the definition.

-_-

Why does feminism carry heinous undertones in popular redneck culture?

Because rednecks can't stand the thought of anyone being equal - or better- than themselves. Rather than try to improve themselves they try to degrade others, because personal responsibility doesn't apply to angry, poor, low-info rednecks.

Klingoncelt
January 16th, 2016, 02:08 AM
A few excerpts I found interesting from the NYT today:

At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.

Much of the country is now more openly intolerant, quick to hate and nasty. One reaction to Obama has been the rise of an opposition party that is a home for xenophobes, defeatists and alarmists. They are the Eeyore Party with a snarl. As we heard again during the Republican debate on Thursday, Obama’s opponents are drawn to the “siren call of the angriest voices,” as Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina artfully put it. If the majority follows those voices, the Obama presidency will shoulder a sizable amount of the blame.

Is that really his fault? Did his presidency give rise to a bigoted billionaire with know-nothing followers? Part of the ugliness seems a reaction to the straitjacket of political correctness, which preceded Obama, and got worse in some corridors, mainly academia. But it may also be that the country was not ready for a transformational president; rather than sweep away the last racial barrier, his years in office showed just how deep-rooted the sentiment behind those barriers remains.

Republicans who would not applaud the creation of 14 million jobs, an unemployment rate cut in half, 17 million people given health care, a global climate change pact, the strongest military in the world and a rousing call for a “moonshot” to cure cancer are incapable of taking a fair measure of Obama’s achievements.

Rewritten history is all it is.

Some real bad shit went down during the Bush/Cheney years. Once they were out of office and replaced by a Democrat things started to improve.

Well the neocons couldn't let that happen, they couldn't let the Dems get control of the federal government, because they still had dreams of high profit for themselves and their cronies.

So... they tried to make women look like radical man-haters, they tried to make blacks look like feral thugs, they tried to make latinos look like rapid-breeding job stealers, they tried to make poor people look like lazy bums, they tried to make CEOs using corporate welfare look like innocent victims - they tried to make it all look like it was Obama's doing.

If you tell the same lie often enough, stupid people will start to believe it.

Klingoncelt
January 16th, 2016, 02:17 AM
How would enforcing current immigration law be "fucking horrible"? Plenty of other nations on earth deport their illegals, and with considerably less hand-wringing from ass-pained leftists. The fact is, there should be consequences for breaking the law and cutting in the immigration queue, and they should be unpleasant. America is long overdue for another Operation Wetback. If a few deportees die in the Sonoran desert because they couldn't get their insulin pills or something, I don't think Americans are to blame.

Also, regarding the ban on Muslim immigration, the Unites States constitution provides non-citizens no right to enter the country. It is to the president's discretion to ban any non-citizen person or group that he sees fit, for whatever reason (such as Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians). I happen to think assimilation and cultural homogeneity are worthwhile goals, to the point that no one's human rights are infringed upon. Until the passage of the Hart-Celler act of 1965, such views were not controversial, and most people were happy with Northwestern European immigration being favored.

Personally, I think America should just outright issue a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few decades. If I judge Trump correctly, that is what he priming the electorate for.

You're horrifically uninformed.

The illegals are being deported, but the fact is that there will always be illegals here - and the republicans like them. Why? Because they'll take nasty jobs for shitty pay. The rich and powerful just can't pass up a bargain like that.

oops_ur_dead
January 17th, 2016, 10:31 AM
I understand Hillary but what dont you like about Bernard?

Bernie Sanders is fucking ass when it comes to economics. This is because his platform isn't about equality, it's about spiting the rich at all costs. That's why he's so popular among college kids who think that saying they like communism makes them cool.

Among his stupidest proposed policies are an increase in corporate tax rate (which, in conjunction with closing corporate tax loopholes, means that America's economy will be completely kill), an increase in tax rates on investment, and increasing minimum wage to $15. Not to mention his chief economic advisor is part of some ultra-retarded school of economic thought that says that inflation doesn't exist and isn't taken seriously by anyone.

Sen
January 17th, 2016, 11:30 AM
Among his stupidest proposed policies are an increase in corporate tax rate (which, in conjunction with closing corporate tax loopholes, means that America's economy will be completely kill).
I'm no expert on economy, so I'd like to know how closing loopholes which allow companies like Apple or Facebook to cheat and have a lower tax rate than normal people would kill the economy.

Apple owes 60 billion, while Facebook paid $6,000 in corporate tax in the UK (by using the same loophole and moving their money-earning deparments offshore, then using another loophole ("revenue != profits") to avoid yet more taxes.

Again, I'm no expert, but a few hundreds of extra billions a year in taxes surely sound like something that could help fix a couple roads or buy a box of medicines.

Then there's the fact that closing a loophole simply means making it so the law works as intended, instead of allowing people to commit crimes without being labelled as criminals. It sounds like saying that fixing a loophole that allows murderers to avoid trial would kill the American penal system.

oops_ur_dead
January 17th, 2016, 12:41 PM
I'm no expert on economy, so I'd like to know how closing loopholes which allow companies like Apple or Facebook to cheat and have a lower tax rate than normal people would kill the economy.

Apple owes 60 billion, while Facebook paid $6,000 in corporate tax in the UK (by using the same loophole and moving their money-earning deparments offshore, then using another loophole ("revenue != profits") to avoid yet more taxes.

Again, I'm no expert, but a few hundreds of extra billions a year in taxes surely sound like something that could help fix a couple roads or buy a box of medicines.

Then there's the fact that closing a loophole simply means making it so the law works as intended, instead of allowing people to commit crimes without being labelled as criminals. It sounds like saying that fixing a loophole that allows murderers to avoid trial would kill the American penal system.

It's because America, on paper, has a gigantic corporate tax rate. Because of the loopholes, the effective corporate tax rate is nowhere as high, which is why America's economy has propered. Closing the loopholes and simultaneously increasing the corporate tax rate will suddenly make the effective corporate tax rate collosal, especially in comparison to current rates, and cause businesses to move operations and business elsewhere.

The reason that I dont like Bernie's policies is because he wants to have a social democracy, like in Norway or Sweden, but at the same time he wants to enact policy that harms the economy and makes such a system impossible, simply because those policies are popular among American liberals who want to "spite the system". The Nordic social democracies all have very low corporate tax rates, and low barriers for investment and businesses in general, and that is part of why their economies can prosper and allow them to afford giving all their citizens positive social benefits like what Bernie wants to introduce to America.

Sen
January 17th, 2016, 01:47 PM
It's because America, on paper, has a gigantic corporate tax rate. Because of the loopholes, the effective corporate tax rate is nowhere as high, which is why America's economy has propered. Closing the loopholes and simultaneously increasing the corporate tax rate will suddenly make the effective corporate tax rate collosal, especially in comparison to current rates, and cause businesses to move operations and business elsewhere.
Sounds like a hostage situation; "let me circumvent the law, or I take my money elsewhere".

Sen
January 17th, 2016, 01:54 PM
The reason that I dont like Bernie's policies is because he wants to have a social democracy, like in Norway or Sweden, but at the same time he wants to enact policy that harms the economy and makes such a system impossible, simply because those policies are popular among American liberals who want to "spite the system". The Nordic social democracies all have very low corporate tax rates, and low barriers for investment and businesses in general, and that is part of why their economies can prosper and allow them to afford giving all their citizens positive social benefits like what Bernie wants to introduce to America.

I see. That seems to echo the sentiment that I've seen floating around: Bernie seems to have good intentions, but his methods are lacking, to say the least, and could probably cause more harm than good.

Also, I'm glad that you called social democracies by their name; one of my pet peeves is when people refer to those as socialist countries. A social democracy is one of the many forms of capitalism.

oops_ur_dead
January 17th, 2016, 02:08 PM
Sounds like a hostage situation; "let me circumvent the law, or I take my money elsewhere".

A business, or anyone for that matter, isn't going to intentionally remain in a situation where they're losing more money than necessary. Increasing corporate tax rates by a colossal amount will cause businesses to leave, regardless of whether it's because the rates themselves are increasing or because loopholes are being closed. It isn't a hostage situation, it's just good business sense.

Sen
January 17th, 2016, 02:29 PM
A business, or anyone for that matter, isn't going to intentionally remain in a situation where they're losing more money than necessary.
I think they key here is "losing". Sure, if you are making a business lose money, then there's something terrible with your program, but in some cases -such as my examples of Apple and Facebook-, they wouldn't be losing a thing; they would simply move from having a stupidly obscene ammount of money, to having a slightly less stupidly obscene ammount of money.

Facebook has made more in ad-revenue during the minute it took me to write this than what they paid in corporate taxes last year. Preventing companies from doing that isn't a witch-hunt or an attempt to stick it to the wealthy; it's simply asking them to contribute what they are supposed to. So yeah, this is more a case of a brat threatening to do... something -whatever brats do- because mommy told them to share a dozen of their thousands of toys, than a case of a kid running away because of home abuse.

If a country being prosperous is directly correlated to big companies circumventing the law and doing as they please -and affecting everybody else while doing so-, then there's something awfully wrong at the core of that system.

oops_ur_dead
January 17th, 2016, 04:01 PM
they would simply move from having a stupidly obscene ammount of money, to having a slightly less stupidly obscene ammount of money.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they're losing profits. Regardless of the term you want to use, the point stands that a business is going to try to make as much money as possible.


Preventing companies from doing that isn't a witch-hunt or an attempt to stick it to the wealthy; it's simply asking them to contribute what they are supposed to. So yeah, this is more a case of a brat threatening to do... something -whatever brats do- because mommy told them to share a dozen of their thousands of toys, than a case of a kid running away because of home abuse.

What the company's intention is, what the intention of the government is, and what people think is ethical for companies to do is irrelevant. A large company like Facebook isn't going to be happy with a massive increase in effective corporate tax, and they'll do whatever possible to get out of paying that, including moving operations. Saying that it's only fair and that it's what's "right" doesn't change any of that, and makes it a spiteful decision because the intention is to promote fairness over decisions that actually benefit the economy.


If a country being prosperous is directly correlated to big companies circumventing the law and doing as they please -and affecting everybody else while doing so-, then there's something awfully wrong at the core of that system.

The prosperity of countries in this scenario isn't directly correlated to big companies circumventing the law, it's directly correlated to the effective corporate tax rate. Companies would be just as happy with an ultra-low corporate tax rate with no loopholes, in fact they'd probably be even happier because they don't have to pay accountants and lawyers to figure all that shit out.

Orpz
January 17th, 2016, 05:44 PM
Bernie Sanders is fucking ass when it comes to economics. This is because his platform isn't about equality, it's about spiting the rich at all costs. That's why he's so popular among college kids who think that saying they like communism makes them cool.

Among his stupidest proposed policies are an increase in corporate tax rate (which, in conjunction with closing corporate tax loopholes, means that America's economy will be completely kill), an increase in tax rates on investment, and increasing minimum wage to $15. Not to mention his chief economic advisor is part of some ultra-retarded school of economic thought that says that inflation doesn't exist and isn't taken seriously by anyone.

I agree that some of his proposed economic policies disturb me as well. I do like the direction they are headed, but they are too extreme for me. Still, there are no perfect candidates, and given the choices, I find him the most agreeable.

I support minimum wage rising to $15 (not in one burst though, but in a well spread-out pattern). In my state, a full time worker today is only making around $18000. In others, it's even lower. It's clearly not a living wage in the United States; it's only slightly more than how much a low-income college kid receives from financial aid. Yes, minimum wage wasn't designed to be a living wage, but now that the average age of minimum wage workers is 35, with a quarter of them being parents, it's time to re-examine its purpose. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/upshot/minimum-wage.html?_r=0) What a lot of people don't realize is that if businesses don't pay their workers enough to support their families, then we taxpayers end up picking up their load through welfare programs, etc. I'm not that educated in advanced economics though, but here are over 200 people that are and still support Bernie's plan:

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

Cryptonic
January 18th, 2016, 10:28 AM
Best thing about $15 min wage is that it would reduce the amount of money needed for current social assistance programs, which would free up money for other programs.

Also, I hate so much when people are like "Why should someone who works at mcdonalds make as much as a paramedic????" So retarded, have you ever considered that BOTH of them are underpaid?

Klingoncelt
January 18th, 2016, 07:31 PM
It's because America, on paper, has a gigantic corporate tax rate. Because of the loopholes, the effective corporate tax rate is nowhere as high, which is why America's economy has propered. Closing the loopholes and simultaneously increasing the corporate tax rate will suddenly make the effective corporate tax rate collosal, especially in comparison to current rates, and cause businesses to move operations and business elsewhere.



No.

Corporate taxes are so low that nearly all of them pay nothing at all, and some even get refunds.

If you want a strong USA, or any other country, you MUST have a strong middle class. That's all there is to it.

Tossangel
January 19th, 2016, 03:11 PM
19657




At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent

Cryptonic
January 19th, 2016, 03:36 PM
19657

That number includes children and elderly.

***

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 249.7 million non-institutionalized civilians 16 years of age and older last month. Of those, 148.2 million were employed, leaving 101.7 million not employed.
This figure is not especially meaningful -- because they lump in both the young and the old.

Of the 101.7 million people who are not employed, 37.5 million are age 65 and over -- an age when Medicare kicks in and many Americans head into retirement. Another 11.9 million are between 16 and 19, meaning they’re either high-school-age or starting college. And another 8 million are age 20 to 24, when many are in college or graduate school.

Orpz
January 19th, 2016, 03:49 PM
19657

Irrelevant but I actually like what I've seen in the new common core textbooks.

Frog
January 19th, 2016, 04:10 PM
That number includes children and elderly.

***

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 249.7 million non-institutionalized civilians 16 years of age and older last month. Of those, 148.2 million were employed, leaving 101.7 million not employed.
This figure is not especially meaningful -- because they lump in both the young and the old.

Of the 101.7 million people who are not employed, 37.5 million are age 65 and over -- an age when Medicare kicks in and many Americans head into retirement. Another 11.9 million are between 16 and 19, meaning they’re either high-school-age or starting college. And another 8 million are age 20 to 24, when many are in college or graduate school.

^nice find

Also-

Definition of workforce:
the people engaged in or available for work, either in a country or area or in a particular company or industry.

It excludes those who 'opt out'. Aka, stay at home parents.

This definition is workforce and %unemployed is used globally

oops_ur_dead
January 19th, 2016, 06:33 PM
No.

Corporate taxes are so low that nearly all of them pay nothing at all, and some even get refunds.

If you want a strong USA, or any other country, you MUST have a strong middle class. That's all there is to it.

Did you read what I wrote? The corporate tax rate in the USA is 35%. That's more than most developed countries.

I haven't mentioned a single thing about the middle class.

Klingoncelt
January 19th, 2016, 06:35 PM
Did you read what I wrote? The corporate tax rate in the USA is 35%. That's more than most developed countries.

I haven't mentioned a single thing about the middle class.

You haven't mentioned the middle class because you don't understand how things really work.

And the corporate tax rate is virtually zero. Very few, if any corporations pay any taxes at all. Maybe if the loopholes were closed they'd pay their fair share.

Do not defend the indefensible.

oops_ur_dead
January 19th, 2016, 06:37 PM
You haven't mentioned the middle class because you don't understand how things really work.

And the corporate tax rate is virtually zero. Very few, if any corporations pay any taxes at all. Maybe if the loopholes were closed they'd pay their fair share.

No, I haven't mentioned the middle class because I don't have severe ADHD and I dont talk about everything that pops into my head.

And again, I think you haven't read what I wrote. Here, I'll highlight it to make it easier for you:


It's because America, on paper, has a gigantic corporate tax rate. Because of the loopholes, the effective corporate tax rate is nowhere as high

Bruno
January 19th, 2016, 09:46 PM
oops wins klingon is an autism

TimeTrx
January 20th, 2016, 11:36 PM
I believe that Bernie Sanders will at least try to work with congress and not be a total asshole and veto everything like Obama. Getting Hillary in means Obama 2.0, anything she doesn't like will be veto'ed regardless if they are needed like the national budget.

MattZed
January 21st, 2016, 10:18 AM
I believe that Bernie Sanders will at least try to work with congress and not be a total asshole and veto everything like Obama. Getting Hillary in means Obama 2.0, anything she doesn't like will be veto'ed regardless if they are needed like the national budget.

Obama has by far used fewer vetoes than anyone in your lifetime. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm)

DarknessB
January 21st, 2016, 10:24 AM
Obama has by far used fewer vetoes than anyone in your lifetime. (http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm)

I see your point, but the veto analysis generally is pretty silly, generally speaking. You need 60 votes to get something past the Senate filibuster so unless we're talking about something that went through strictly on party lines (or one party has an overwhelming majority in the Senate), there's rarely going to be the need for the president to veto it. The trend line has also been downward for vetos over the last fifty years or so, so I'd consider invoking it either way to be misleading.

Lastly, presidents with any common sense have their party stop legislation at the Senate level through the filibuster vs. needing to use a veto. There is a stigma about laws being passed by the legislature and vetoed by the president (i.e. that the president is obstructionist) so to avoid that altogether, just get have your party oppose the legislation at the Senate level, which does the trick if you have 40 votes (or can cobble together 40 votes with your coalition and a couple from the other side). If you don't have 40 votes, good luck to you because you're generally not that liked -- i.e. like the Republicans when Obamacare was passed.

Klingoncelt
January 22nd, 2016, 10:45 PM
I believe that Bernie Sanders will at least try to work with congress and not be a total asshole and veto everything like Obama. Getting Hillary in means Obama 2.0, anything she doesn't like will be veto'ed regardless if they are needed like the national budget.

Except that you're wrong.

A small group of far-right reactionaries in Congress blocked everything. They are to blame, not Obama.

Klingoncelt
January 22nd, 2016, 10:46 PM
How many of you are actually able to vote in the US?