Hillary Clinton Fan Club

[Toadette]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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. 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]

Hats off to the Dougler for a calm response. I'll post my real reasoned non-inflammatory views later today.

[DarknessB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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:

https://www.budget.senate.gov/democra...r-minimum-wage

[Cryptonic]

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]

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]

unemploymeme.jpg

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

[Cryptonic]

unemploymeme.jpg

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]

unemploymeme.jpg

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

[Frog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

oops wins klingon is an autism

[TimeTrx]

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]

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.

[DarknessB]

Obama has by far used fewer vetoes than anyone in your lifetime.

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]

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]

How many of you are actually able to vote in the US?