five reasons it's stupid to vote for trump

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 111
#31
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
back to the straw man arguments I see. I have literally never said that government should have full control. That doesn't seem to stop you from lying about it though. 
Communism is everything controlled by government. No private businesses. That isn't a straw man when it did happen. It's factual. Not straw man

So people who do massive damage sometimes give tiny fractions of their wealth back? In most cases it is just a publicity stunt to get people to look over their massive abuses the rest of the time. 
And how much have you donated to Covid 19 reliefs? Certainly less than $8B. Maybe work harder and invent something useful instead of complaining about society? Why don't you donate all your funds to the government so people can be healthy

Also it's not a small portion of their wealth. The net worth is in the company. There bank account is less worth than their net worth. He gave up a huge some. And are you the people donating? How do you know it's all for show. You simply don't
you clearly don't understand what capitolism is. Very few companies are ever "for the consumer". Almost none that listed on a public stock exchange. They are for their own bottom lines. Sometimes that causes them to do nice things. Sometimes they want to buy some good publicity so people think how nice they are, then they go back to royally screwing them over. 
Yes they are. Ofc they want to make money, but they fill a need for the people. And if you don't need the product then don't buy from the companies. They try to help the consumer in their life
#32
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
back to the straw man arguments I see. I have literally never said that government should have full control. That doesn't seem to stop you from lying about it though. 
Communism is everything controlled by government. No private businesses. That isn't a straw man when it did happen. It's factual. Not straw man
True, but since literally no one is advocating for communism, it is a complete straw man argument here. 

And how much have you donated to Covid 19 reliefs? Certainly less than $8B. Maybe work harder and invent something useful instead of complaining about society? Why don't you donate all your funds to the government so people can be healthy
very nice deflection. But utterly worthless in this conversation. 

Also it's not a small portion of their wealth. The net worth is in the company. There bank account is less worth than their net worth. He gave up a huge some. And are you the people donating? How do you know it's all for show. You simply don't
As far as I can tell you are picking numbers out of the air with absolutely no context, then praising people who you don't actually name. Do you honestly think you are making any valid points? I assure you, you are not. 

Yes they are. Ofc they want to make money, but they fill a need for the people. And if you don't need the product then don't buy from the companies. They try to help the consumer in their life
ok, you praise them for doing stuff, then immediately acknowledge it is a scheme to help them make money and is not actually intended to be for the public good. You can't even keep your own arguments straight. 
#33
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok, you praise them for doing stuff, then immediately acknowledge it is a scheme to help them make money and is not actually intended to be for the public good. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.
Making money and helping people aren’t mutually exclusive. Corporations fill niches. Innovation fills a human need. It’s not bad to want to make money off of something that I made and something that can help others.
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 You get the innovation and growth of capitalism, while you have a strong government to keep their evil, greed based decisions kept in check. 

Except it is not the government choosing to keep these corporations existent. You personally make that choice to support them.

You support their greed with your greed. There's no policeman to tell you your greed is evil for purchasing a calculator instead of using a homemade Abacus made out of stones and sticks.

But i don't want that.

I'm not going to justify your greed for you. Think of all the rare earth minerals and pollution you could have avoided by not greedily purchasing a calculator.

Or driving a car.

Or any of the thousands of hypocritical things you choose to purchase to support your greedy lifestyle.

In order for Socialism to actually work, the government doesn't need to go after capitalists. They only have to go after you and dictate what you can spend your money on and curb YOUR greed. (like Obamacare)
#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I do. And I agree it isn't true, yet. That is the point. Rich assholes want people to believe that poor people deserve to get sick and die while the people who profit off those poor people buy their 3rd yacht or 4th mansion. 
The point is, Buff, those yachts are paid for by their money, not yours, not mine. My money isn't yours, either. Make your bloody own.

this doesn't even make sense on the face of it. But as medical technology improves we likely will develop artificial organs and this will become the case. 
So, what of right now. You want the right right now. Can't have right now under my proposed condition, can you? Get it?

You acknowledge they do that anyway, so it makes absolutely no difference whether or not healthcare is a right. Thank you for disproving your own point. 
You've entirely missed my point. My acknowledgment is not contrary to the point, being, specifically, that MTV Jackass stunt is on him, not on me. Let him pay for his idiocy.

You seem to be missing the point. alot of those diseases are treatable early. 
No, I missed nothing. My point was, with control of what goes in the pie hole, which is entirely a personal decision, not anyone else's, 80% and 60% of those diseases don't need early treatment because they would not be contracted in the first place. It's called preventive medicine, Bucko, and that is entirely free with no imposition on anyone else's pocketbook, period. Get it? By your method, everyone still acts like a jackass consuming whatever their little heart desires, until it kills them, No! Not on my dime, thanks. I take of of me; you take care of you. We each pay for ourselves. That way, I act prudently, and I'm responsible for my healthcare. You act like a jackass, expecting everyone else to pay for your actions. Nope. That's robbing my liberty, isn't it? Sorry Buff, no sale.
#36
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
The point is, Buff, those yachts are paid for by their money, not yours, not mine. My money isn't yours, either. Make your bloody own.
most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others. 

So, what of right now. You want the right right now. Can't have right now under my proposed condition, can you? Get it?
lol every modern country on the planet (except the US) has some version of universal healthcare. But yes, it must be impossible to do what everyone else has already done. The only difference between a universal system and a profit driven one is that in the profit version, the rich get the care. In the universal system the people who need it most get them. 

You've entirely missed my point. My acknowledgment is not contrary to the point, being, specifically, that MTV Jackass stunt is on him, not on me. Let him pay for his idiocy.
more deflection. Point to a tiny percentage of healthcare costs, then extend the argument to all healthcare. 

My point was, with control of what goes in the pie hole, which is entirely a personal decision, not anyone else's, 80% and 60% of those diseases don't need early treatment because they would not be contracted in the first place. 
you think 80% of diseases are caused by personal vices? Are you delusional?

 It's called preventive medicine, Bucko, and that is entirely free with no imposition on anyone else's pocketbook, period. Get it?
preventative medicine is giving people medicine to stop deseases getting worse. The for profit system we have now is the exact opposite of that. It is designed to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. Causing them to not seek care early and make their conditions worse in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy. 


#37
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others. 
Both parties agreed to the terms of work. If people felt they were being squeezed of money they could quit.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others. 

It's okay because socialism will stop you from greedily selling your labor to capitalists and stop you from greedily purchasing the goods you desire by making it illegal to do so.

It's far easier for the government to control you than people who have capital.

The government will choose for you who you can and cannot sell your labor to.

That is your idea of a "benevolent" government.

In order for Socialism to actually work, the government doesn't need to go after capitalists. They only have to go after you and dictate what you can spend your money on and curb YOUR greed. (like Obamacare mandates) That is how the Socialist government can destroy capitalism. By destroying the consumer. They didn't need to destroy private healthcare. They only needed to make it illegal to purchase the kinds of healthcare plans that you could afford and would choose to pay for.


#39
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Both parties agreed to the terms of work. If people felt they were being squeezed of money they could quit.
of course they could. Then they can choose to work at one of the corporations that doesn't prioritize money over people, if such a company existed. Sadly, capitalism doesn't work that way. 

Saying people can do things that hypothetically could happen, but in reality cannot happen, is a silly argument. 

#40
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
It's okay because socialism will stop you from greedily selling your labor to capitalists and stop you from greedily purchasing the goods you desire by making it illegal to do so.
and yet more straw man arguments are coming out. Have I, or anyone in this conversation, ever advocated for socialism? No.
\
It's far easier for the government to control you than people who have capital.
true, but I get a say in government. If they decide to take controls i don't like I have a method of preventing it. I have absolutely no control over corporations. No one does. That is the point. They are accountable to no one but their shareholders. And all they are after is your money. 

The government will choose for you who you can and cannot sell your labor to.
Of course they will. They already do in every country on earth. The government decides that companies who don't meet labor laws, or health and safety laws (or any number of other laws) cannot operate. I therefore can't sell my labor to them. That is what governments do. 

That is your idea of a "benevolent" government.
that is my idea of every government. Including america right this very second. 

In order for Socialism to actually work, the government doesn't need to go after capitalists. 
why are you talking about socialism? No one here is advocating for it. 


#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
They squeezed it out of the labor of others. 
That is the most lame, socialist argument there is. Look, Karl Marx proposed the bourgeois system of a factory owner making a product that sold for $5 each. The laborers, the proletariat, were paid $2 per product, each. That's 40%. Marx said the other $3 went into the bourgeois' pocket. So do you. That's nonsense. Who pays for the R&D, the factory facilities, the production tooling and equipment, the process design, purchasing raw materials, production error repair or replacement, marketing, warehousing, shipping, customer service, warranty repair, office labor... Not the proletariat, my friend. The bourgeois. Labor get's $2; the bourgeois is lucky to make 50 cents per product. Marx, and you, forget all of that, but the bourgeois cannot, can he? He pays the bills that come due every month. Get t?

every modern country on the planet (except the US) has some version of universal healthcare. 
And that makes the world right, and we're wrong? You compare you sacrosanct Sweden, like Bernie, as the perfect system. Really? What's their population comparted to ours? 3% of ours. What's their GDP per capita compared to ours? 79% of ours. What's their education expense compared to ours? 4%. Covid-19 death rate compared to ours?  What's their top tax rate compared to ours? 130%. Covid-19 death rate per million compared to ours? 150. Source:  https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/sweden/usa?sc=XE34 Need I continue?

Point to a tiny percentage of healthcare costs,
According to https://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Publication/Viewpoint/PDF/Chronic-Disease-Executive-Summary-r2.pdf of a study in 2016, the total cost of the three chronic diseases I named, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, those three, alone account for 60.2% of the total of $3.7T chronic diseases cost us in the U.S. In what universe is 60%^ a "tiny percentage?" Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.

Are you delusional?

preventative medicine is giving people medicine to stop deseases getting worse. 

Yeah. To a socialist putz.  Preventive medicine is not needing medicine in the first place because you take care of your body by correct eating habits, exercise, and maintaining a prudent lifestyle. Everybody talks about it. Talk is cheap. Talk doesn't do jack-shyte. Instead of shoving anything into your pie hole, being a couch, and living carelessly. Are you deranged?
#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
That is the most lame, socialist argument there is.
blah, blah, blah. socialism bad. How many times can I repeat NO ONE IS ADVOCATING SOCIALISM before you will give up this straw man?

And that makes the world right, and we're wrong?
yes, yes it does. They provide healthcare to their entire population. They don't let the sick go bankrupt or die because they weren't born wealthy enough. Oh, and they spend WAY less per capita despite the fact they are providing care to way of their population.

 the total cost of the three chronic diseases I named, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, those three, alone account for 60.2% of the total of $3.7T chronic diseases cost us in the U.S. In what universe is 60%^ a "tiny percentage?" Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
you were specifically talking about " MTV Jackass stunt". That accounts for a tiny fraction of the total percentage. But nice try to move the goalposts. 

And yes, those kinds of illnesses do make up a big part of healthcare costs. But that doesn;t mean those people did anything wrong. It doesn;'t mean that letting them die or go bankrupt is a good thing financially, societally, or morally. Because it is extremely bad for all of those. 

Yeah. To a socialist putz. 
I will say this again. No one here is talking about socialism. Leave the straw man's out of this. 

Preventive medicine is not needing medicine in the first place because you take care of your body by correct eating habits, exercise, and maintaining a prudent lifestyle. 
And you think that letting people get sicker and die because they can't afford healthy foods, or insulin or any other number of things that are needed for a healthy lifestyle is a sign of a functioning society? You might have enough disposable income to eat lots of balanced meals, you might only have to work a limited number of hours to support your family. A large percent of people don;'t have that ability. You are advocating punishing people for not having the amount of money you have and it is despicable. 
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I have absolutely no control over corporations. 

Stop buying their crap. Make it yourself or buy it from someone who you believe gives a fuck about you.
Why do you insist on giving up your right to choose what to purchase with your own money to establish a benevolent government to make those choices for you?
#44
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
of course they could. Then they can choose to work at one of the corporations that doesn't prioritize money over people, if such a company existed. Sadly, capitalism doesn't work that way. 

Saying people can do things that hypothetically could happen, but in reality cannot happen, is a silly argument. 
Do you have any idea what you’re saying? You claim to not be a socialist but are actively advocating total government control over a business. In your world no good company exists because they want money. With your logic there won’t be any companies. As I mentioned earlier wanting money and taking care of workers are not mutually exclusive. You saying otherwise shows your ignorance or a socialist desire which we know is harmful.
#45
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Stop buying their crap. Make it yourself or buy it from someone who you believe gives a fuck about you. 
Why do you insist on giving up your right to choose what to purchase with your own money to establish a benevolent government to make those choices for you?
I don’t know how he justifies that making money and taking care of workers are mutually exclusive. Any business owner will tell you otherwise including my dad.
#46
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you have any idea what you’re saying? You claim to not be a socialist but are actively advocating total government control over a business.
please point out where i said government should have total control over business. I doubt you will be able to, because i have never said that. 

In your world no good company exists because they want money. With your logic there won’t be any companies. 
this is, more or less, an accurate description of the real world that we currently live in. 

As I mentioned earlier wanting money and taking care of workers are not mutually exclusive. 
not entirely, but largely it is. Every extra dollar you give your employee is one extra dollar you can't funnel into your own pocket, or those of your investors. 

You saying otherwise shows your ignorance or a socialist desire which we know is harmful.
you clearly have no idea what socialism is. You seem to think that if it isn't completely unregulated capitolism, then it must be socialism. The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to be capable of understanding. 
#47
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
please point out where i said government should have total control over business. I doubt you will be able to, because i have never said that. 
“Then they can choose to work at one of the corporations that doesn't prioritize money over people, if such a company existed.” —HB

To fix this you have to control how a business operates, because the government decides the payroll. What say does the business owner have? None. How does a small business owner stay in business? 

this is, more or less, an accurate description of the real world that we currently live in.
So you don’t want as many companies that exist right now? You want to decrease the incentive for innovation. Got it.

not entirely, but largely it is. Every extra dollar you give your employee is one extra dollar you can't funnel into your own pocket, or those of your investors.
Again why is this bad. The worker has the right to quit. The worker agrees to the terms of his own free will. You on the other hand want to force a business owner to pay a certain amount to laborers at their own expense, because the govt sure as hell doesn’t know how my business works.

you clearly have no idea what socialism is. You seem to think that if it isn't completely unregulated capitolism, then it must be socialism. The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to be capable of understanding.
Maybe you should find reality. The more govt puts themselves into other people’s business, the more freedom we lose. You seem to believe that the government is the problem to everything, when it’s not. Companies fill a need. Workers work on their own terms. Controlling payrolls of companies would be the first step into govt control of industry. Unfortunately you cannot see that. If you feel your employer is scamming you, you’re more than welcome to demand a raise. If they say no you’re welcome to quit and search for a location that pays better. Because guess what? In a capitalist economy there’s competition.
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
In your world no good company exists because they want money. With your logic there won’t be any companies. 
this is, more or less, an accurate description of the real world that we currently live in. 
In HB's fantasy world. Slaves simply provide what he desires with no transaction because they are evil for having capital and producing something he must use his money to purchase.
#49
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
In HB's fantasy world. Slaves simply provide what he desires with no transaction because they are evil for having capital and producing something he must use his money to purchase.
As I said earlier he’s too shy to admit he just wants everything for free.
#50
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
NO ONE IS ADVOCATING SOCIALISM 

Someone needs a primer on what socialist ideals are. You're distributing them whether you know it 

They provide healthcare to their entire population.
You entirely missed my point that their population is 10M. Ours is 327M. We're the third largest population in the world. What do the first two largest do via healthcare for their citizens? They don't. God in heaven, I wonder why? MONEY, genius. They don't have it to do that, and neither do we. To do it would collapse us. According to https://www.verywellhealth.com/difference-between-universal-coverage-and-single-payer-system-1738546 "Today, 32 countries offer universal health coverage, in some form: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom." 32 coountries. You claim all but us. Sorry, bud, you're dead wrong. 195 countries in the world. 32 is but 16% of them.

" MTV Jackass stunt"
Yes, I mentioned MTV Jackass stunts, but not as one of the chronic deadly diseases that are high-percentage preventable diseases. You get hung-up on a cvtch phrase and blow the rest of the interpretation. Can't skim read and expect to capture meaning, but this is what you do. Stop it.

Straw man's
It's straw men, professor. They are multiple with no possessive.

You might have enough disposable income to eat lots of balanced meals
Haven't done much grocery shopping, have you? I do the cooking in my family, so I know what costs what. There are options for fresh food: like frozen. And I don't let leftovers rot in the fridge; I freeze dry them while they're still fresh. My freeze dryer paid for itself in 1.5 years. That's a great ROI. Yes, processed foods are cheaper, generally, than fresh foods, but freeze drying fresh foods is cheaper still, and besides,  processed foods generally have three ingredients that pack calories, and resulting waistlines and generally poorer health: salt, sugar, and preservatives. They're all cheap. And you do not consider the subsidies from the government for processed foods, about $300B per year.  https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/13/why-eating-quick-cheap-food-is-actually-more-expensive/  But you also do not consider the back-end costs of eating cheaply: more expensive health care costs because of a poor diet. And, growing your own food is cheapest of all. Don't have a vegetable garden, or fruit tress? Why not? Who told you that a min wage job was sufficient? The Democrats? The Socialists? And you believe them? That's on you. Don't have disposable income? Get it. Put your money to work for you rather than just working for it. The formula is easy, but most people just complain that they're not rich. NHot only are they not rich, they're not working smart. Get smart.
#51
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
back to the straw man arguments I see. I have literally never said that government should have full control. That doesn't seem to stop you from lying about it though. 
Communism is everything controlled by government. No private businesses. That isn't a straw man when it did happen. It's factual. Not straw man
True, but since literally no one is advocating for communism, it is a complete straw man argument here. 
That isn't the point. If you look to the most government controlled countries versus the most company controlled countries, you will clearly see that the company controlled countries will kill more people. Government is naturally evil and did dirty tricks to get in the business. The majority of company owners worked hard to get where they are. 

Therefore, if we go by the spectrum, a government with more control kills more people
And how much have you donated to Covid 19 reliefs? Certainly less than $8B. Maybe work harder and invent something useful instead of complaining about society? Why don't you donate all your funds to the government so people can be healthy
very nice deflection. But utterly worthless in this conversation. 
Not a reflection, but a genuine question. You donated less. Your maybe $5 you donated are minuscule compared to his $8B
Also it's not a small portion of their wealth. The net worth is in the company. There bank account is less worth than their net worth. He gave up a huge some. And are you the people donating? How do you know it's all for show. You simply don't
As far as I can tell you are picking numbers out of the air with absolutely no context, then praising people who you don't actually name. Do you honestly think you are making any valid points? I assure you, you are not. 
You don't know how basic economy works then if you think Mark Zuckerberg net worth is his total.  Your net worth is all your companies revenue plus your total revenue. His bank account is much smaller than his net worth. Basic economy, but I guess you wouldn't know since your arguing for socialism
Yes they are. Ofc they want to make money, but they fill a need for the people. And if you don't need the product then don't buy from the companies. They try to help the consumer in their life
ok, you praise them for doing stuff, then immediately acknowledge it is a scheme to help them make money and is not actually intended to be for the public good. You can't even keep your own arguments straight. 
No you do not understand. There is a need in society. The companies fills the need by providing an item. They set a price for it. If you need it/want it, you buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Business aren't tricking you. Competition within businesses helps the buyer because businesses compete with others to have more people. When a Monopoly takes control, they do what they want and that is when abuse in capitalism happens. As of 2019, only ONE true monopoly occurs, and it's ComEd. And they are HIGHLY regulated by the government.

If you give government the full control, destroying business, the government will screw over the people the same as the monopoly. The thing is you can't find any monopolies in America
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
The thing is you can't find any monopolies in America.

Yes you can. The government is a monopoly. Not a perfect monopoly as we saw in the prohibition era, but it's pretty solid.

#53
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm talking from a corporate standpoint, unrelated to government. We all know that govt is a monopoly
#54
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Vader
Government is naturally evil and did dirty tricks to get in the business. The majority of company owners worked hard to get where they are. 

umm what? Governments are elected by the people to represent the people. if the act against the wishes of the people, they can be replaced. Corporations act for their own best interests only. They don't care at all about the people. There is absolutely no way to remove them if they act against the public interest. Corporations are by far the bigger threat to the people. 

Not a reflection, but a genuine question. You donated less. Your maybe $5 you donated are minuscule compared to his $8B
1st off, whose 8 billion? 2nd, how much damage did this person do to get that money? How many people did they have to kill and how many lives have they ruined. Donating money is fine. But usually it is just to buy some good will so they can go back to screwing people over. It often isn't done with other people's best interests in mind, only their profit. 

You don't know how basic economy works then if you think Mark Zuckerberg net worth is his total.  Your net worth is all your companies revenue plus your total revenue. His bank account is much smaller than his net worth. Basic economy, but I guess you wouldn't know since your arguing for socialism
i have no idea why you went on this tangent. I said I had no idea what you were talking about and that for all i could tell you were picking numbers out of the air. You never said who you were talking about. Now you are ranting about networth vs. bank account, which i also didn't mention. Also, I have never argued for socialism. So all in all, that was a complete waste of time. 

There is a need in society. The companies fills the need by providing an item. They set a price for it. If you need it/want it, you buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Business aren't tricking you.
All of this is absolutely true. I have never argued otherwise. And as long as there is very good government oversight and controls in place to keep companies from being complete assholes, then all that is great. 

If you give government the full control, destroying business, the government will screw over the people the same as the monopoly. The thing is you can't find any monopolies in America
you seriously love straw man arguments. you can't seem to help yourself. NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE FULL CONTROL. If you won't actually read the things I say and just insist on making the same straw man argument over and over and over, then there is no point trying to discuss anything with you. 
#55
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Someone needs a primer on what socialist ideals are. You're distributing them whether you know it 
lol if you think that making laws about whether or not companies can put poison in your food is socialism and therefore evil, you are unreachable. 

You entirely missed my point that their population is 10M. Ours is 327M. We're the third largest population in the world.
So you think americans are too incompetent to manage their own healthcare? You really don't think much of your own people do you?

195 countries in the world. 32 is but 16% of them.
true, america is slightly ahead of alot of 3rd world countries and dictatorships. YAY!! but the US lags behind most of the free world. 

ou get hung-up on a cvtch phrase and blow the rest of the interpretation. Can't skim read and expect to capture meaning, but this is what you do. Stop it.
no, you just fail to articulate your point well. You get side tracked and derail your argument. 

There are options for fresh food: like frozen
umm, frozen food, by definition is not fresh. that is why they froze it....

Get smart.
ok, so your argument is that people who don't have the money to invest in advanced methods of food preparation and storage, or the space available to grow their own food deserve to die. They don't have the disposable income or land enough to live, so as a society we should have them all die. Your argument is fucking awful. Even if we leave morality out of it, letting millions of people get sick, go bankrupt or die is a financial mess that weakens all of us as a society. You may think that you don't pay those costs but you are dead wrong. We all do. 
#56
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you think americans are too incompetent to manage their own healthcare?
To the contrary. We think the govt is too incompetent to manage our healthcare.
#57
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Corporations act for their own best interests only. They don't care at all about the people. There is absolutely no way to remove them if they act against the public interest. Corporations are by far the bigger threat to the people. 
So let me get this straight. You’re advocating for the abolition of corporations? Or you want to control how a corporation spends its money. Where it spends it’s money and where they get their investment from? All from the govt of course.
#58
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Who said anything about making law, but you?

So you think americans are too incompetent to manage their own healthcare
In a word, yes. particularly compared to your precious Swedes.

YAY!! but the US lags behind most of the free world. 
The "free world" according to BusinessInsider,  https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores all of 65 nations of it, the USA ranks 27th in healthcare; the mid point being 33 countrires of then free world behand the US, meaning most countries of the free world rank lower than the US. Facts help an argument, Loser. https://www.businessinsider.com/us-ranks-27th-for-healthcare-and-education-2018-9

 frozen food, by definition is not fresh.
I repeat, as you properly quoted, and then completely misunderstood: "There are options for fresh food: like frozen." What's an option? According to the OED: "Power or liberty of choosing: opportunity or freedom of choice." In this case, a choice of another food type than fresh, i.e., frozen; best of options to retain nutrients. Who is failing to articulate?

ok, so your argument is that people who don't have the money to invest in advanced methods of food preparation and storage, or the space available to grow their own food deserve to die. 

Is death the only option of a poor diet and/or unhealthy lifestyle? Who said? Only you, my friend. You are the one insisting on limitations. I'm offering choices of unfettered freedom simply by a healthy diet, exercise, and prudent lifestyle. What are you offering? Anything but free healthcare [somebody pays; you and me, bud. For everyone else. No thank you. I'll keep my options open and my choices free.
Topic's author
#59
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@HistoryBuff
so if bernie was the nominee, and a woman falsely accuses him of rape, but no one knows it's false and it looks like it could be credible, bernie should have to resign? 
#60
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
To the contrary. We think the govt is too incompetent to manage our healthcare.
The current system lets millions go bankrupt and countless people get sicker and/or die. The current system is broken as hell. But you think the government who is too incompetent to manage healthcare?

So let me get this straight. You’re advocating for the abolition of corporations? Or you want to control how a corporation spends its money. Where it spends it’s money and where they get their investment from? All from the govt of course.
no, i want reasonable regulations of businesses so that we can guarantee that they act in the public good while they also try to earn a profit. For example, companies used to use alot of child labor to earn a profit. As a society we decided that should not be allowed. Companies bitched and moaned about how that limited their ability to make money. But they adapted, and as a society we are all much better off for it. 

If left entirely to their own devices, corporations will do horrible things in pursuit of profit. The government needs to be a check on that greed to ensure that the public good is being maintained.