Total posts: 4,222
-->
@Greyparrot
Going into debt
literally all presidents do that. Trump ran record deficits.
to fund illegals
this doesn't even make sense. Illegals contribute billions in tax revenue and can't collect the benefits. They are a massive net positive, financially speaking.
foreign nations, and lobbyists with corporate welfare
lol you know you're describing the trump administration too right?
while forcing everyone to pay more for food
lol, you know governments don't set food prices right? The government has never forced you to pay anything for food.
Honestly, I truly believe Democrats are happy owning nothing and eating the bugs.
I honestly believe republicans are fully delusional. They believe the government causes all problems while democrats are in power, then they ignore those exact same problems while republicans are in power. It's especially galling when the republicans cause problems, then blame the democrats for them as they fix the problems.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And the answer she delivers is probably the worst thing she ever could have said.
you know you're stuck in a right wing bubble if you think that. she is more trusted on basically every issue. Including the economy in some polls. Biden has done a good job. The main thing he was unpopular for was his age. Also allowing Israel to commit genocide.
Created:
-->
@Mall
So you do believe liberals believe this so it shouldn't even be hard to accept that I heard them
Your statement was that liberalism is " just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports."
You then said that liberals support a couple of those things. I agreed that many liberals support a couple of those things. You then say "well why don't you believe I heard people say this much longer list of stuff". How am I supposed to take you seriously?
You're double talking here. You ought to be in line with just being neutral instead of saying it's my interpretation just flat out.
I don't know how this keeps going over your head. It is not even debatable that it is your interpretation. That is an objective fact. You are repeating back to me what you think they said in your own words. That is, by definition, your interpretation. What are you even arguing about?
Well being that I have 0 evidence that you know
we agree on something. You have provided 0 evidence. I therefore have very good reason to question you about your lack of supporting evidence.
you don't have evidence for the counter either, so why reject ?
because Im not the one making claims. You say X,Y, and Z are true. I say "prove it". It's your job to prove that what you are asserting is true. It's not my job to try to find evidence for you.
Are you asking for my answer or are you just going to say what you think on everything?
you keep repeating that you didn't use the word "all". I was explaining why your sentence didn't need to use the word "all" to imply you were referring to all liberals. I wasn't really asking you a question, I was trying to help you understand.
I keep saying it as I been consistent the whole time not turning loose from it. I go by their exact words.
All I've seen you do is say "liberals said this". And when I ask what liberals? What exactly did they say? You can't or wont answer. You want to paint all liberals with one brush based solely on people you won't name and quotes you won't provide. What If i started saying "conservatives are evil because they said gay people should be killed. I won't tell you which ones said it. But all conservatives must be like that though".
So I can be open to something while not being for it. What would be the point for me to be open for something I'm not for?
is that a real question? Do you really not understand what being open to something, but not for it is? If my wife said "we should but another car" and I'm like "I don't know if we need another car". I'm not for it. I'm willing to hear her out to see why would we need one. Once she makes her case I might agree, I might not.
I didn't say tiny or a lot or any of that. I don't know why you're scared to just leave it non specific.
because this is what intellectually dishonest people do. You have no idea how many people believe what you think "liberals" believe. It could be 100 million, it could be 0. You have no clue. But you want to argue like it's a sizeable group even though you have nothing to support it. Crap like that is how people fall down the conspiracy theory hole.
Also I can say what I have applicable to the topic like everybody else.
of course you can. But what you "have" is nothing. It is your own personal opinion backed up by nothing at all. Oh i'm sorry, there's all those "liberals" you heard, but don't know who they are and can't quote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If I ever start my own site an IQ test will be required to keep retards like you away.
lol I hope you do. It would be hilarious for the site owner to be unable to access his own site. You'd become like elon musk where he has to get engineers to change the product just to force people will listen to him.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
This thread is not so much about the case for trump as it was about analyzing whether the media is being sincere when they state that Trump is a danger.
then there are 2 prongs to this.
1) is he actually a danger. I think any objective person would agree that he is.
2) do the media portray him honestly. I think we can both agree they do not, although we would disagree about what they are dishonest about. They desperately want attention. Portraying him in specific ways helps to drive that attention. This causes them to be hyperbolic. But it also causes them to portray him as better than he actually is. For example, he is well into dementia. He constantly loses track of what he's talking about, repeats himself, gets peoples names or locations wrong etc. The media barely talks about it. But they wouldn't stop saying it about biden. It's because they want trump to look stronger than he is to be scary. But they wanted biden to looker weaker than he is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Bro it's a good ideal to nuke Iran.
oof. The greatest atrocity in generations being a good idea? That's a rough position to take.
They are very close to a nuclear weapon
fear mongers have been saying that for decades.
and we know they will use it
how do we know that? Israel is busy committing atrocities left and right and Iran has been very restrained in their responses so far. how do you know what they would do with a hypothetical nuke?
so we might as well act preemptively
careful, your genocidal bigotry is showing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
He was in office when covid was happening and left with 1% inflation
Do you think inflation happens instantly? Things take time to play out in a large market. There was an initial contraction in spending as lockdowns happened which dampened inflation. By the time Trump was leaving office, the consequences of his choices were starting to appear but Biden got stuck dealing with it.
If your definition of far right is George Bush you are a fucking retard
the entire republican party is "far right" by the standards of anywhere else in the modern world. If you used republican policies to run in Canada, France, Germany etc and you would be a far right candidate. The problem is that outlets like fox news have normalized their horrible, horrible ideas.
You are sincerely a retard if you think everyone on both side of the aisle started panicking because he has the same exact policies as George bush
no, they panicked because he's a sociopathic retard. They had no idea what he might do. If Iran tweeted a mean thing at him he might nuke them (which he did order an act of war on Iran, but called it off at the last second). Or he might, you know steal classified documents and show them to people (which he did). Or he might try to overthrow democracy (which he did). Or he might abuse his office for profit (which he did).
Created:
-->
@Mall
Probably won't accept it regardless. Do you not believe liberals support same sex marriage, abortion, transgender rights?
many do. some don't. saying all liberals believe any specific thing would be a lie.
Prove it. This is bias to say it's my interpretation when you haven't verified what I heard exactly.
I already have. Unless you are quoting someone's words verbatim, then you are giving your interpretation of them. You heard their words. You decided what their words meant. Then you repeated back your interpretation of what their words meant. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I can't know for sure.
"It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing."Ok I acknowledge your opinion. That's all , however bias, ok.
my response isn't opinion. It is describing why your core argument is wrong. You are trying to argue that all liberals believe specific things because you supposedly heard some liberals say it. But you can't quote them. So obviously what you are repeating is not exactly what they said. It is your opinion of what they said.
I've heard liberals say what they believe. At the minimum that means more than one. I've heard these people say what they say. So it's not really much to discuss on the thing. Somebody just telling you what that somebody heard. It's like an "ok" and move on really.
except you make grandiose claims based on what they said. Like if someone said "i support abortion rights" and you go "See! he supports aborting babies after birth!!". those are not the same thing.
but I encourage you to be neutral. Don't have a bias because you haven't heard what I heard or you heard different or know of different things concerning liberalism and therefore just automatically dismiss what I'm saying because it cuts against the grain making it my words against them and them superceding me.
I am being neutral. you are making extreme claims. You have absolutely 0 evidence to back them up. A neutral party would absolutely question you about that.
Where I'm just acting as a messenger.
you aren't though. You are making claims as to what liberalism is. that's not a messenger. And since your claims are extreme and inaccurate, it certainly isn't neutral either.
Again, stop reading the word ALL into things. Get the context, let it fly where it don't apply.
ok, let's clarify. If I said "Dogs are the worst pets". Do you think I mean specific dogs? Or do I mean all dogs? I didn't say the word "all", but my sentence clearly implies it. You didn't say the word all either, but your sentence implied it. And if you didn't mean all, then this whole discussion is pointless. If your point is that there are a few liberals with extreme views, then I agre.
So in a yes or no specific answer, yes, liberalism is for change. Can't be open to it if not for it. It's not a trick question. Yes, liberalism is for change.
you are incorrect. There is a difference between being open to something and being for it. Being willing to change if the circumstances warrant doing it, is not the same thing as being for change.
My friend, do yourself a favor. Stop putting numbers and all into this. I have said no numbers, I have not said all. This is you reading this into this then trying to argue with it. You're arguing with your own interpretation.
ok, so you aren't talking about all liberals, you are only talking about the tiny number you have heard speak? Great! then your point means nothing. Yes there are some extreme liberals. Just like there are some extreme conservatives. If that is all we are talking about, then why are you bothering to say it?
Created:
Posted in:
There is nothing racist about constitutional law where the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is concerned.
when you make up lies about black people not being citizens, that's racist. Why is that confusing?
I already stated as a matter of fact that both parents were here on Student VISAs. Which means when they expire, they return to their respective country. That makes them foreign nationals. And kids birthed by foreign nationals, like diplomats, are NOT entitled US Citizenship. They are all under the jurisdiction of their homeland. Period. Fact. Period.
completely false. That only applies if they are in the country in service of their government, like when a diplomat is stationed in a foreign country. If they are in the country for some other reason like tourism, school etc, then their children automatically get citizenship. Which is exactly what happened in Harris' case.
Thanks for admitting you are a closed-minded ignoramus refusing to do personal research by reviewing facts that will ultimately prove you wrong.
I'm happy to review facts if you provide them. I'm not going to sift through a 45 minute podcast full of racist bullshit. If you want to present evidence, go for it. But i'm not here to do your work for you.
you definitely did not prove me wrong on this subject.
I quoted the exact law that proves you are wrong. I gave you the exact exceptions for birth citizenship. You ignored it and just pretended like you were right for some some reason. I even showed you how the case you specifically cited proved the exact opposite of what you said it did. You ignored that too.
Created:
Posted in:
Prove her wrong then if that's the "likely" answer.
prove what wrong? Her parents were students. That is an objective fact. The rest is just racist bullshit.
And if you think i'm going to wade through a 45 minute, racist diatribe just to try to figure out what you're talking about, you're kidding yourself. Especially since I know that when I prove it wrong, you'll move the goal posts anyway, just like you did the last time I proved you wrong in this exact discussion. It's why you blocked me. You can't handle being so painfully wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Selma is superior
selma alabama lost 2% of it's total population in 1 year. Clearly it's residents would disagree with you.
You know that liberal cities are worse.
so the wealthiest areas of the country are worst? how does that make sense?
Inflation was at 1% when Trump left office
Trump's policies started the trend. Covid shot it through the roof. then biden fixed it. It's now back down to pretty much target levels.
Libtards and their ideological equals the neocons have been in power for the last 75 years
wait, so to you liberals and the far right are the same thing?
other than when Trump was President for 4 years so not sure who you think should be blamed
trump had EXACTLY the same policies as every other republican president. The only difference between trump and other republican presidents is his personality, not his policy. And that is because he's an idiot that knows absolutely nothing about policy. All he cares about is culture war bullshit and lining his own pockets. Everything else he left to the same republican staffers who run every Republican administration.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You know these guys aren't ever going to listen to reason, Musk came out in support of Trump, that makes him a holy man in their eyes....you can't reason with the cult.
I know. The best part to me is going back into their twitter feed from like 2 or 3 years ago where they said nasty things about each other, then compare to today. Elon said trump was too old to be president and Trump said Elon begged him to do him favors and would have gotten down on his hands and knees if he'd asked him.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Am I? The largest hotbeds of crony capitalism exists in all major cities. Nearly none of them run by Republicans.
What? There are lots of cities run by republicans. Also, it's not city governments where the crony capitalists spend the largest part of their money. It's state houses, governors but especially congressmen, senators and presidential candidates. And they love spending on the republicans because the republicans love doing everything they want (cutting already low taxes on the rich and corporations, cutting regulations that keep them from abusing people or polluting etc)
I suppose your answer is testimony to the effectiveness of criminal propaganda.
anyone who thinks trump was a good president is testimony to the effectiveness of criminal propaganda.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
What is your area of focus regarding history?
I studied lots of stuff. Japanese history, China in the 20th century, Cold war history, Ancient greek history, roman history etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Go live in Detroit or Chicago then go live in Jupiter Island and tell me the blue cities are doing better
So are we just picking cities at random? How about LA to Selma Alabama. I can pick cities at random too lol.
Literally everyone can barely afford to eat now due to inflation and you are pointing to stock prices and employment levels LOL.
This is a common thing dumb people do to play games with data. The economy is doing staggeringly well. Far, far better than it did under trump. The inflation issue you are describing (which started under trump and biden had to fix) is just another round of a trend that has been going on for decades. Wages have not kept up to inflation for about 50 years (although wage growth exceeded inflation for the last year and a half). This isn't a new phenomenon. Covid had a big sudden impact so people noticed it acutely, but it is the same trend that people have been experiencing their entire lives. You want to pretend like this is somehow the democrats fault, but that is just ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
After all, isn't it progressives who consistently champion fairness and equality?
for people, yes. The governments job is to make the country better for the people. Companies are not people.
it's stacking the deck in favor of corporations that cozy up to politicians, or worse, cozy up to their flawed and untested ideas of economics.
that is certainly one possible outcome. Another is using public funding to actually make life better for people rather than leave it in the hands of corporations that would literally let you and your whole family die if it saved them a bit of money.
Instead of rewarding innovation or efficiency, these subsidies hand-pick winners, creating an economy where the well-connected thrive, and everyone else, especially small businesses, gets left behind.
you're assuming capitalism rewards efficiency. It doesn't. It rewards those who are willing to be the most cut throat.
Large companies, with their armies of lobbyists, are the real winners here
I agree. All lobbying should be banned. This is not a criticism of public funding, this is a criticism or capitalism being allowed to taint politics.
And don’t even pretend this benefits the public; higher prices, fewer choices, and stifled innovation are hardly what any progressive would call a win for the "people."
Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies. This is the ultimate situation of higher prices, fewer choices and stifled innovation. Every company salivates over the idea of creating a monopoly. And left to their own devices, some companies will succeed. The only method of stopping this is government intervention.
And here’s the kicker—this all edges dangerously close to a fascist-style economy where the state and big business are so intertwined that you can’t tell where one ends and the other begins.
you're just describing the republican party.
When the government uses your tax dollars to control economic outcomes through subsidies, it becomes less about what's best for society and more about who can scratch whose back in the corridors of power.
I agree that the downsides need to be controlled. IE banning lobbying, 100% publicly funded elections, criminal sanctions for accepting bribes etc. But that doesn't diminish the significant value of public funding.
You should dump crony fascism like a hot potato.
absolutely. But subsidies are a tool that can be used for good, or evil. It is only "crony fascism" if we allow it to be. You know, like how Elon Musk is buying trump right now.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
This is this issues with liberalism in general. We understand the goal is to make the country better but economic intervention makes it worse take a look at the eco comic freedom index
Like anything, it is possible to do it well, or badly. If you do it well, everyone is better off. If you do it badly, then everyone is worse off. Take labor laws for example. Companies loved making their workers work as many hours as possible in unsafe conditions. This maximized profits for them. The government slowly forced them the improve worker treatment and ultimately we are all better off for it. If the government hadn't intervened, you would still have children getting their limbs ripped off in machinery, well more than we already do. see the case of Duvan Perez from mississipi as a modern example of children being sent to be killed in unsafe conditions.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Beyond that obvious comprehension error on your part, could you attempt to explain why you value crony capitalism fueled with stolen and printed money?
lol the framing of this question is ridiculous. Why do I value the government investing in making our lives better? maybe because I want our lives to be better.
Capitolism often pushes companies to do things that will improve society. People want a product, therefore they are willing to pay for a product, therefore companies make the product in order to earn a profit. But there are lots of times where this does not track. The thing that is in the best interests of the people and society isn't as profitable as the alternative, so companies are incentivized not to do what is best for society and the people. That is why we have a government.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
how can I know what i'm talking aboutCan't help you there.
of course you can. The reason I don't know is that you aren't telling me what you mean. You could be talking about taxes, tariffs, actual thieves etc. It's hard to know what we're talking about when all you say is vague nonsense.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you even watch the clip? He literally refused to accept tax subsidies for R and D.
Yes, that is my point. He is in the lead, the last thing he wants is a subsidy that would allow other companies to catch up. He wants to wall off the garden. If no improvements were made at all, he wins.
It's not that he doesn't want the money or wouldn't benefit from the money, he's afraid of the competition the money would create.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Elon wants to protect his own little fieffrom thieves
again, that doesn't make any sense. The protection is the government not helping by building infrastructure.
no idea what you're even talking about.You have no idea what you're talking about either.
how can I know what i'm talking about when you aren't saying anything meaningful? You just keep making vague statements about theft without being specific about anything.
Created:
Posted in:
Both her parents worked for their respective governments.
so their governments hired them to go to university? What a strange thing to do. The much more likely answer is that Candace owens is a liar and is pushing a stupid conspiracy theory.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Refusing to accept stolen goods is honorable.
lol no. Trying to block public funding is not "accepting stolen goods". The government wants to spend money to make the country better. Elon wants to protect his own little fief to protect Tesla's share value. Because once that share value starts to really fall, his networth collapses.
Nothing quite as fair and competitive as stealing and giving the money to "competitors", surely an economy based on that practice will bring prosperity to all.
no idea what you're even talking about.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
For example, in the same post, HB claims Blue States run exclusively for over 50 years by Democrats are the richest and most prosperous while also saying most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few.
yes. those are 2 sperate things. Blue sates are richer, which is an objective fact. And that the entire US economy has been screwing the workers for decades.
And then absurdly claiming Democrats are for increasing the wealth of the little worker....has he ever really looked at the massive wealth inequality designed exclusively by 50 years of Democrat fiat working hand in hand with the wealthy elites?
When did I claim the democrats are for "increasing the wealth of the little worker"? They definitely are not. They, just like the republicans, are bought and paid for by rich assholes. The difference is that the democrats at least try to do some stuff for the poor or working class while the republicans exclusively help the rich and fuck over the poor. Choosing between them is like having someone slap you in the face or shoot you in the stomach. One isn't good, the other will kill you.
no support for family women
lol when have the republicans passed support for family women? You can't seriously believe that is something republicans do.
and government "charity" sent toward overseas colonies instead of local hurricane and wildfire victims
It's the republicans who have sapped and undermined local aid, not democrats. for example Trump took 155 million from FEMA's budget in 2019. They also refused to pass an actual budget and play political games with it so FEMA is running on temporary funding.
And if you dare question, you get the Jewish armband of "white supremacists" and sent to Auschwitz.
jesus that was a horrible statement. The white supremacists were the ones running Auschwitz you idiot. A white supremacist sent to Auschwitz is called a guard.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I have gotten the woke chat GPT to admit that Trump is not a dangerous threat.
you tricked an AI. congratulations.
Bottom line, he tried to overthrow democracy. Both before the 2020 election, and afterwards. He did so using illegal methods for which he is awaiting trial. There is no question he is a dangerous threat.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I saw this. It's very honorable on his part and the way real capitalists are supposed to be.
honorable? What about that was honorable? He's trying to protect his walled garden. At the moment, his private charging network is probably the biggest selling feature of Teslas. If the government actually funds a charging network then his leg up on his rivals is gone.
He's not saying "I want a fair race" he's saying "i'm already ahead in the race, so I want to prevent any competitor getting help to catch up". His views are anti-competitive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, make up your mind.
how are those in conflict?
The economy is doing well. IE companies are making tons of money, the stock market is way up, unemployment is down. And the democratic run areas of the country are doing better than the red areas of the country.
Workers have not been doing well for decades. Wages have been stagnant since like the 70's.
"the economy" and "the workers" are different things. The economy can be doing great while workers are getting screwed.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
For more information on midwits go here https://youtu.be/byb3ffrBYgU?si=MM8wvkpryr2IKxgV
I had never heard of this guy so I looked him up. it took me like 30 seconds to figure out why you should never listen to him.
He's a far right, QAnon supporting, racist, white supremacist loon. The fact that you would watch his content, much less cite it is deeply telling about what kind of beliefs you have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Tye problem with this theory is that if Republicans want to keep people poor they keep fucking up and creating prosperity.
prosperity for whom? Wages for CEO's have exploded, wages for workers have been stagnant and in real terms have been falling.
We see what happens to blue cities like Detroit or Chicago,
Democratic ruled areas are the wealthiest and most prosperous areas of the country.
but even in the last 4 years you see how much worse poor people are under Biden than when Republicans were in power.
this is laughably untrue. The economy is the hottest it's been in what, a decade?
Republicans support limited legal immigration while democrats are supporting un lettered immigration.
both of the these statements are false. Republicans love immigration because their rich donors love it. They just also love to demonize immigrants to scare their base.
We have governors being sued for helping secure the border,
you means the ones committing crimes? Border security is not a state power.
sanctuary cities being set up,
it's actually been shown to be much better at reducing crime if people aren't afraid to report crimes to the police or to cooperate with investigations.
Which side would the bleeding be slower under.
i'm not sure there's really any difference. The both have rich donors who make billions off of cheap labor provided by illegals. Neither party has any intention of cutting that off.
By your own admission. The immigration allows hospitals to continue mistreating employees when cutting off the immigration and forcing them to choose between being understaffed and losing money or treating employees well.
You know what works even better? unions. And extremely strong laws protecting workers rights to unionize. Rich assholes will always find ways to skirt any law you put in place to restrict their ability to import cheap labor. The best defense is to empower workers to fight for themselves.
Reread my post for why leftists support minimum wage increases that harm the economy and small businesses.
oof. the idea that minimum wage increases harms the economy is absurd.
Republicans are more about rights anyway.
absolutely they are, the rights of the rich to do whatever they want and to not pay their fair share in taxes. That is the one unassailable belief of the republican party. Everything else is just window dressing to pander for votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
They ccan't get rid of a social safety net in fact they prefer it there because it keeps them safe, they can’t roll back the minimum wage for the same exact reason.
why would this mean they would vote democrat? The republicans don't want to get rid of social safety nets either, they just want to make them worse. They want to keep the poor as poor as possible, but not quite poor enough to literally die of starvation so that they rise up.
The next best thing they can do to is start importing a bunch of cheap labor into the country.
both parties support this. The republicans just support this while also demonizing immigrants to make their supporters afraid.
Another tactic they also use besides importing cheap labor is that they will often pretend there are nursing or doctor shortages. Any time you see a career that pays well, the old money will start flooding your local papers with stories of shortages. It happened with nurses and truck drivers and if you are wondering why it is harder to get 6 figures after studying for a year or 2 to program a computer, it is because the old money has petitioned the government to start flooding the cou try with much cheaper Indian labor.
except there really are shortages. But the causes of the shortages are shitty right wing policies. They treat workers like shit, workers don't want to work in that sector, so they import workers from other countries willing to put up with shit treatment. This is basic righting wing economic policy for the last several decades.
This is the game folks.
where in this did you describe a reason why a rich person would support the democrats? It's just a list of shitty things republicans and democrats do that rich assholes like. But democrats occasionally do things rich people don't like (like giving poor people rights or increase the minimum wage) while the republicans almost exclusively cater to screwing over poor people to help the rich.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
He did not compliment him for it, he complimented his strength.
the quote was "Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!". He didn't say he's my type because he's strong. He said he's my type because he can body slam. He he famously did that to a journalist. IE he praised him for assaulting a member of a group he doesn't like.
I would say this, Trump would not be my friend if I met him, but his success as President (especially compared to Biden and Kamala’s failures) is undeniable. I am not voting in a friend. I am voting for who will be (and has been) better at their job.
we were discussing whether or not republicans praise violence. This is an undeniable case where trump praised a guy for engaging in violence against a group trump doesn't like. It kinda feels like you are hedging. you see he praises violence so you feel the need to state how you don't personally like that, but that you will still vote for the ones praising violence. That's useless. It's basically like saying "I don't like when children attack other children, but I'm going to reward him for it anyway". If you still vote for him despite his calls for violence, then you are endorsing his calls for violence.
There needs to be retribution for criminals, and there will be. On the day of judgment.
And I'm fine if god wants to do that. Trump is not a god. No man is. So calling for it is a call for violence.
no, I am not mistaken. He said that once again, people who are blocking traffic (which is highly illegal) will be removed.
the quote is "If something like this happened in Arkansas on a bridge there, let’s just say I think there would be a lot of very wet criminals that would be tossed overboard". And you are denying that is saying they should be thrown off a bridge? Are you on drugs? What other interpretation of that is there? How are the protestors getting "very wet"? What else does "tossed overboard" mean?
First, I am not a Republican. I am an independent. I loathe both the RNC and the DNC. I like Trump bc he is anti-establishment, but that’s a whole nother topic.
ok. that doesn't change the fact that it is a common republican lie. You are just an independent repeating their lies. Does that make it better?
Article II, Section 4, which states:> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
this describes him being impeached and removed from office. This does not say he cannot be charged with crimes. It only described how he can be removed from the office of the presidency after committing those specific crimes. The only thing that stopped him being charged while in office was a memo from the department of justice.
He isn’t in office currently but the witch hunts started even when he was. If they were real cases, maybe they would be admissable.
they are all real cases. Most of them are pretty much indisputable based solely on public information.
Do we have any evidence that rising surface temperatures are bad for humans? No
yes, we absolutely do. It is already causing massive damage and it is getting worse.
Do more people die from cold or hot temperatures? 8x as many people die from cold
lol that is not what we are talking about. I'm not saying temperature change is going to make people die of heat stroke. That's not the primary problem. the problem is all the other affects it has on us. droughts, hurricanes, increased forest fires etc.
Plants grow better from warm temperatures (carbon dioxide).
but they grow much worse in a drought caused by climate change, or while on fire.
The earth has risen 1 or 2 degrees on average in the last century, not nearly enough to pose any threat.
if you think that, then you don't understand our climate. Even tiny changes can cause significant changes.
We have FAR greater threats in 2024 than climate change, namely, WW3/Nuclear exchange with Russia (google what putin said to USA about nukes)
putin threatens nukes for everything. Them using them is certainly a threat that could happen at any moment. But Putin is all talk.
USA’s illegal border invasion
I agree that is an issue, but the idea that this is more dangerous than climate change is insane. It's not even obvious that this causes more harm than good. Much of the US economy relies on illegal migrants. If it were possible to somehow stop all of them, entire industries would collapse.
historic inflation
inflation is currently at 2.5% in the US. slightly higher than ideal. Absolutely not historic.
this is a common theme for trump. he says things both ways. He calls on his supporters to engage in violence, but then denounces violence. He praises white supremacists, but then condemns white supremacists. He knows his supporters want to ignore any and all shitty things he does and will cling to him denouncing it and ignore him praising it.
The fact is that the BLM protestors were all Democrats.
lol, the large majority of black people are democrats. The republicans are openly racist. So even if it were true that the BLM protestors were democrats, which I don't know if you can prove, it wouldn't mean anything. That wouldn't prove "the democrats" started riots. That would mean specific members of the party did. Just like specific republicans (and white supremacists) started a riot. but most people wouldn't say "the republicans" started it.
any pushback from normal people, like Rittenhouse
lol you say normal people, then give an example of a sociopathic murderer...
By supporting a two-state solution
what other solution is there? seriously. There is putting them into 2 separate states, or there is making them citizens of Israel which would immediately make israel a palestinian state.
by calling Netanyahu a war criminal
he is a war criminal. The israeli's have committed god only knows how many war crimes. There's documented cases of them forcing handcuffed civilians at gunpoint into buildings to clear them of booby traps or ambushes. That's a war crime. According to Israeli soldiers, it is a common practice of the IDF.
by calling Israel an apartheid state,
What else would you call it? They keep millions of people living in squalor and on the verge of starvation. They allow them little to no rights, steal from them whenever they feel like it, cut off food and medicine when it suits them. They are an oppressive apartheid state. They have been for a long time.
Also, I don't care HOW they are doing it, I care THAT they are doing it.
Democrats accurately describe the actions of israel, and that upsets you for some reason...
Created:
-->
@Mall
Nope I go by their exact words which would include their exact words to their meanings and definitions to their words. I don't know if you just don't want to accept that I go by exact words as oppose to other people particularly on this platform.
I don't just accept it because you haven't quoted them. You have given me your interpretation of their words. It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing.
Why would it matter? Are you playing dumb?Have we not been talking about proof?
We have. we have been talking about proof what liberals believe. IE what ALL liberals believe. Even if you can prove to me that 1 or 10 or 100 liberals believe that, it does nothing to prove that this is what liberals believe. It just tells me what those specific individuals believe.
Please quote where I said "all liberals".
"Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new". You are defining what liberalism is. you aren't saying what specific liberals believe. you are trying to say all liberals are like this. That is bullshit.
You say that is a lie in that what liberalism is , then turn around and say "might be what some liberals believe". If that's not what liberalism is, how might there be this is what some believe?
lol I've already done that. Some conservatives believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But that doesn't mean all conservatives believe that. It doesn't mean that is what conservatism is. So why are you trying to define liberalism by the actions or beliefs of a few people? If that is how it works, then I can say conservatism is for pedophiles, anti-semites and misogynists.
o if this not true? This would mean liberalism is not for change.
Liberalism is about being open to change. It does not mean accepting any and all change. I'm open to hearing about how something new might be better that what I have now. But if I decide it isn't an improvement, I will reject it. Conservatism is about rejecting change without bothering to see if it's good or not.
You have to stop reading the word "all" into this . You can't quote it so don't read it.
lol you are defining terms that apply to 10's or 100's of millions of people and saying "stop reading the word all into this". Do you not see how that's dumb? You want to define a broad term that applies to huge numbers of people, but you only want to define that term by a handful of people that you get to pick.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Also missing context. Trump talked about it for literally 60 seconds, and that was it.
so? He was complimenting a republican for assaulting a journalist. That's praising violence.
You are proving my point for me. Trump praised the officers for preventing violence.
saying "there has to be retribution" is not preventing violence. It's saying we need to harm people, we need to take revenge. He didn't say "they need to be arrested" or "they need to be put in prison" he said there needs to be "retribution".
He did not suggest throwing them off the bridge. He suggested that if they are blocking traffic (which is illegal), then perform the functional equivalent of a citizens arrest and just keep driving.
you're mistaken, there were separate quotes. This is the exact quote for the throwing off the bridge:
“If something like this happened in Arkansas on a bridge there, let’s just say I think there would be a lot of very wet criminals that would be tossed overboard, not by law enforcement, but by the people whose road they are blocking. If they glued their hands to the car or the pavement, well … probably pretty painful to have their skin ripped off,”
Still going to stick with "he didn't suggest throwing them off a bridge? lol
Because mainstream democrats (esp. Kamala, who said it before but not tries to avoid it) say they want to confiscate your guns.
specific kinds of guns yes, all guns no. But this is a common lie republicans tell.
She is suggesting resistence to violence, not incitement to violence, which you seem the suggest.
no, that just sounds like violence. If the government passes a law and you use violence to not comply, that is just violence. We don't say it's "resistance to violence" when a drug dealer shoots a cop.
We just don't want Trump to be prosecuted when running for election. Do it before or if he loses, after.
he's been campaigning for president since the moment he lost. Some of these trials would have been over quite some time ago if he hadn't done everything he could to slow them down. One of them finished months ago and he has played every game he could to delay sentencing. So pretending like they didn't try to do it before is weak.
As it says in the constitution, a president shall not be tried for anything other than treason or bribery.
it does not say that. The president is not above the law. If he were, he would be a king.
Not only are their witch hunts malicious, but also unconstitutional.
they are. luckily, these are not witch hunts. I don't understand how anyone could think they are. Many of the crimes are extremely public knowledge. Like the stealing of the classified documents. How could you deny he did that? He took documents he wasn't allowed to. The government spent a year begging him to return them and he refused. That's a crime. That's a whole bunch of crimes.
He is not promoting it, he is merely expressing it as a possibility.
this is the dog whistle though. By saying if we lose a democratic election, we may have to resort to violence to seize power. If you didn't want that outcome, you wouldn't say that.
that word is overused, I agree.
I'm not sure I've ever heard a republican use it correctly. I seriously doubt the vast majority of republicans could even define communism.
Clinton's “basket of deplorables” comment
yeah that was shitty. but she's kind an elitist snob.
Pelosi’s comment that Republicans deny climate change
Most republicans (the elected ones anyway) do deny climate change. Or at a minimum do everything they can to prevent the government from taking steps to address it. Was there a lie or insult here that I am missing?
Warren’s comment that trump embraces white supremacists
this is a factual statement
AOC’s comment that migrant detention centers (used to keep criminals) are really concentration camps, making Trump the Hitler of our southern border
Under trump, they made a concerted effort to intentionally make these centers worse. For example, their policy of separating children from their parents, but not making any plan on how they would reunite them later. the cruelty was the goal. The idea was to make being detained here so bad that no one would want to cross the border.
Dems sparked BLM riots
I am not aware of any facts that would support this statement.
and violent anti-Israel protests
how did the dems do that?
and 2 assassination attempts by calling Trump a fascist and a threat to democracy
the assassins were crazy republicans. The idea that the democrats caused those attempts is just silly.
-the list goes on
your examples are mostly baseless or just shitty comments from old rich elitists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Literally just ask the next wealthy people you see who have been wealthy for several generations. If you know 3 than the likelihood is that two will vote democrat.
so you make an assertion and when asked for proof you say it's my job to go out and poll rich people? That's not how this works. You are making an assertion. Provide supporting evidence or we can just assume you're making it up. Which I suspect you are.
See OP it explains the reasoning and how it benefits the left. For example how I pointed out leftists love regulation to keep out new comers so they can hoard wealth.
lol no. The rich love regulation cuts. It allows them to do whatever they want, like cutting wages or safety standards, using substandard or dangerous materials, dumping toxic byproducts etc. Regulations force them to behave in a way that doesn't harm the public good. They hate that.
It's no longer the 1700s and now old money prefers the left. For the reasons stated in the opening poat
you have provided 0 supporting evidence for this and your "reasons" are super weak.
Created:
-->
@SocraticGregarian96
Can you give an example? I’d like to hear what you mean.
sure. here are some for trump:
- July 2017: During a speech to law enforcement officers in Long Island, New York, Trump seemingly encouraged police officers to be rough with people they were arresting, per ABC News. "Please don't be too nice," he told the audience.
- October 2018: While speaking at a Montana campaign rally, Trump publicly praised Montana's then-Rep. Greg Gianforte (R) — the state's current governor — for previously assaulting a reporter. "Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!" Trump said.
- September 2020: Trump lauded law enforcement officers for killing Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-described Antifa member suspected of killing a right-wing activist the previous month. "That’s the way it has to be. There has to be retribution," Vox reported.
Other republicans:
In april 2024 Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas suggested that if protesters were in his home state they would have been tossed off the bridge by others.
Here is a quote from Tom Cotton on twitter : "I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way."
Kari lake encouraged her supporters to "strap on a glock" to prepare for the election
I've lost track of the number of prominent republicans who have called for or were predicting a civil war. One example is Republican Georgia state Sen. Colton Moore told bannon's war room podcast that if they didn't pass legislation to shield Trump for being prosecuted for his crimes "Because if we don't, our constituencies are gonna be fighting it in the streets.". When Ohio State senator George lang was introducing JD Vance at a rally he said “I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,”
This is just a small sample. Republicans use violent rhetoric all the time. They constantly slander anyone who disagrees with them as "communists" and encourage their followers to see anyone who doesn't support them as less than human, especially immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Allowing none elected people who work for Govt agencies to collectively and publicly endorse a political candidate destroys all trust in that govt agency.
why? Everyone who works for the government has preferences. agencies cannot be partisan. A union can.
This just increases my distrust 100 fold.
again, why? All this does is confirm they know which candidate will be better for them (and the country). Why would that affect your distrust?
The IRS and those who work for it have already proven they cant be trusted to be politicly unbiased towards other peoples political views by denying 501C fillings.
you will need to be clearer what you are talking about. I'm guessing this is big in right wing circles and so you didn't think you'd have to explain what you mean. I get that a 5101C is a non profit. But I don't know what cases you are talking about. If I had to guess, some right wing lobbyist firms applied to be non profit, but lobbying isn't allowed to be a major part of the operations of a non profit so they got denied. And so right wing fake news circles lost their minds about it. but that's just a guess.
Created:
-->
@Mall
You're not acknowledging what I'm saying. I'm not perceiving. I'm listening to the person or persons exact words.
and their exact words were "I believe in accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports."
Because if those weren't their exact words, then you are inferring meaning from their words. Thus what you infer is your perception which could be radically different from what they actually believe or meant.
You make a point about me hearing every single one when you haven't confirmed whom I've heard express their own views.
why would that matter? You are saying all liberals believe specific things. If you haven't heard from all liberals, you obviously cannot know that. The best you can say is the handful of people you've heard talk about it believe those things.
That is not the best because I don't know if there is a tiny percent. You talking about proof but contradict yourself with these statements.
I'm not the one generalizing, you are. you are saying "all liberals believe this". your proof is the tiny sample of people you've heard from on whatever right wing podcast you referenced. If you want to say all liberals believe something, the onus is on you to prove that. And there is no way you could possibly do that because there is vast differences in what different liberals believe.
Nobody said ALL did they? I'm talking about whom I've heard which is more than one making it plural. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't negate what these people believe in.
ok, you said "Liberalism is for evolving and changing...". you didn't say "some liberals believe in". You said that is what liberalism is. that is a lie. That might be what some liberals believe, but you cannot make such sweeping declarations about what liberalism is based on the opinions of a couple of people. there are "conservatives" who don't think women should be allowed to vote. Should I say that Conservatism is for suppressing women?
Created:
-->
@Mall
I don't have to choose how to perceive. I just listen to every word they use and hear them explain it and it's just as definitive as that.
lol you're describing how you perceive them. And unless you have heard every single liberal in the world say that, then you can't say that is what liberals believe. The best you can say is that a tiny percent of liberals believe that.
If people believe in what they do , that's them. I'm not disputing it. If you don't believe me or them, ah well.
and if you told me about specific people who said those things and provided proof, I would believe that's who they are. But that is not "liberals". that is the specific people you are talking about. That's like saying all Republicans are pedophiles because a few of them have been convicted of it. That wouldn't be fair would it?
Created:
-->
@Mall
Definition comes from the liberals themselves and their views.
no, it comes from how you choose to perceive their views. There is a very big difference. Especially if you get all your news from fox news or newsmax.
If you listen to interviews with liberals, particularly the ones that Jesse Lee Peterson has interviewed, you'll know.
it sounds like you've heard a small number of people talk about very specific topics and are using that to define all liberals. That's dumb. The people talking might not have actually been liberals for all you know. Lots of theocratic fascists describe themselves as "conservative", it doesn't make it true.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports.
lol where did you get this definition? The definition of liberalism is "a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
The idea that being liberal means accepting "anything new that comes along like" is just silly.
Created:
-->
@Mall
So republicans can be liberal.
of course. With only 2 real political parties, there are a huge variety of beliefs and opinions inside both parties. There are liberal Republicans and there are conservative Democrats. But the leadership of the republican party lately is mostly fascists and theocrats these days. There are few conservatives leading the republicans any more.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Is republican the opposite of liberal or the same?
neither. republican is a member of specific political party. There are lots of different beliefs within that group. Some of those beliefs are fascist, some of them are theocratic, some of them are libertarian, some of them are liberal. You are kind of comparing apples and oranges.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Oh ok. Well not changing things leaving as is as you believe in is republican policy.
lol no it most certainly is not. Overturning roe v wade is not "leaving things as is". Book bans are not leaving things as is. Shutting down the government in an attempt to make it harder for people to vote is not leaving things as is. Cutting government services for poor people is not leaving things as is.
The republicans are not about leaving things as they are. They are the party of cronyism and theocratic rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Um, why is a govt agency endorsing a fucking political candidate.
they didn't.
The conflict of interest is off the charts.
except that it never happened.
The IRS is now just another weaponized pile of shit just like all the other 3 letter agencies except they aren't even trying to hide it.
nope. the Union representing workers at the IRS endorsed harris, not the IRS. I'll use Moozer's example again since I thought it was good. It's like the UAW endorsing a candidate and someone saying GM has endorsed them. There is a big difference.
The underling issue is tax enforcement on the rich. Doing an audit of a rich person with an army of accountants takes alot of resources. You need alot of time and manpower to prove they are tax cheats. But once you do prove it, you can recoup million and millions of revenue they were illegally avoiding paying. This is much more than the cost of the audit. Doing an audit of a poor person is easy. They don't have swiss bank accounts, tax shelters and an army of accountants and lawyers. You don't need lots of resources to do that. So when you strip the IRS of agents they lose the ability to go after the rich and are forced to focus on the poor, because that's all you can do. This allows the rich to simply not pay their taxes and there is little the government can do about it. This is exactly what republicans want. They want to cripple the IRS so the rich can avoid paying their already low taxes. They then try to sell this as somehow patriotic to their base, when really it's just cronyism.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Executive order 13771
lol that was the most childish and stupid order ever. That's like saying if you want to pass a law making murder illegal, you have to make rape and robbery legal. It's just asinine pandering to stupid people.
- Build a border wall - he built hundreds of miles of border wall
No, not really. the vast, vast majority of the "wall" built during his presidency was replacing existing fencing built by previous administrations. He built a total of 84 miles of new fencing where there had been none before. 47 miles of primary wall, and 33 miles of secondary wall built to reinforce the initial barrier. So if you're talking about areas that now have a fence where before there was none, the grand total is 47 miles. Many presidents have built more than that.
- Mass deportations - his deportation policy was so stringent that illegal immigration plummeted
Trump deported an average of 500,000 per year. Biden deported 740,000 in 2023.
- Repeal Roe v Wade - the SCOTUS ruling from Trump SCOTUS picks accomplished this.
this was a horrible thing that is MASSIVELY unpopular. It will be an albatross around the republicans necks for years.
- Leave the Paris Climate Accord - we left it
lol and? The US rejoined it a couple years later. all that did was show the world that the US was unreliable and couldn't be trusted to keep it's word.
- Drill more oil - America became energy independent and a net exporter of energy for the first time in decades.
US oil production was on the rise before Trump. It is on the rise after he left office. 2022 and 2023 were years of record oil production in the US.
- Tax cuts - everyone under Trump except the upper middle class got a tax break. Only the upper middle class had a worse tax situation
two things here. 1) trump was running record deficits. He was borrowing money for those tax cuts. The party of fiscal conservatism should be appalled by this.
2) the tax cuts for the rich were permanent. The tax cuts for everyone else were temporary and expire soon. The point was the tax cuts for the rich. The threw in temporary tax cuts for everyone else just so that poor people wouldn't get mad about him protecting the rich.
I could go on and on. He DID keep his campaign promises.
please do go on. I would be happy to prove to you why he didn't do the things you think he did or why there were objectively terrible.
It was clearly not what you say it is.
lol, he was asked "are you going to be dictator" his answer was "no, other than on day one". That answer means I will be a dictator on day one. thus proving my statement true.
Not true:
cargill, the 3rd largest beef processor in the US was running record profits until 2023. They have dropped a little bit due to supply issues since then.
- In Maryland you must have EZPass on your car or else you are cited as a lawbreaker for not using it.
I had to look up what this was. My quick search tells me it is a method to pay tolls for roads. My answer would be that this is just a symptom of shitty policy. IE why are there tolls? A public road system shouldn't use them. Therefore they wouldn't need any policy on collecting them. It's right wing policy that is the source of the issue.
- The amount of healthcare providers available in each state has declined by 66% as a response to sweeping healthcare regulations from the Obamacare Act and subsequent continuing regulations under both Biden and Trump.
I will need a source for this one. Your claim is vague enough that it's hard to see what you're talking about. For all I know it could be that 66% of healthcare providers failed basic safety standards and got shut down. In which case it would be a good thing. Your stat alone means nothing.
- Automakers had to stop making whole car lines to meet absurd CAFE fuel regulations.
I would need you to be more specific. Why would you want inefficient cars to be made? what made the regulations absurd?
Ford lost tens of thousands of dollars per EV to meet the quotas of California's no-gas-powered-cars-in-the-future law.
Again, you will need to be more specific. I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to.
The Inflation Reduction Act gave construction contracts only to certain companies in every state
that's how contracts work. is the expectation that all companies should get contracts?
and made useless construction projects that were not needed.
like what?
- SpaceX became the monopoly in space flight due to $400 billion dollars' worth of government grants.
they've had that for years. The US government heavily defunded NASA and the space program. Republicans do love privatization so i'm surprised you think that's a problem.
Governments always create monopolies.
you misspelled capitalism. All capitalists want a monopoly. The only way this is prevented in the long term is with government regulation. If the government doesn't step in, then the big fish eat the little fish until there are only big fish left.
It is why the government exists: to steal from the poor and give to the rich.
again, you misspelled capitolism. The goal of capitolism is to maximize the money of the rich. One of the main ways they do that is by extracting as much wealth and labor from the poor as possible. Look up what the lives of workers were like before labor laws were passed to protect people.
Take away the club, and the rich no longer have their power.
lol no. the power of the rich is their money. They use that money to buy weapons, like the government. If you remove the power of the government then you limit their ability to use it to their advantage. but it is literally the only thing that is capable of keeping the rich in check. Without it, the people are powerless to stop the rich from trampling them.
Kamala Harris will implement price controls
this is an extremely popular position. and lots of governments have done that. It is not a fascist policy.
ramp up investigating the political opposition
1) I don't recall her saying that.
2) republicans commit crimes all the time. Matt gaetz sex trafficked children. Trump has committed god only knows how many felonies, hundreds. Policians are very rarely actually held to account for their crimes. Literally any investigation of politicians would be "ramping up".
continue locking up political prisoners who were not charged of any crime yet are rotting away in jail over J6
What are you even talking about? Anyone who entered the capitol on J6 is a criminal. I would argue they are also a traitor. Saying they are "political prisoners" is a really bad joke.
use the government to force companies out of business
this is just an outright lie.
control Americans' health decisions
nope, that's just the republicans. they are the ones pushing to ban healthcare choices.
and continue the tariffs Biden and Trump put in place
wait, you think she's a fascist because she might continue policies trump started? do you not see the irony of that?
She will also control what we learn about in school
again, that's the republicans. They are constantly trying ban books and pass laws controlling what children are taught.
will censor the media and social media posts
1) when did she say that?
2) trump is constantly saying he wants to censor the media. He says news outlets should be shut down when they say things he doesn't like.
that regulations always lead to inflation, stagnation of innovation, shortages, poverty, and, ultimately, the total default of a country's economy.
ok, so you're a libertarian then. Real question, are you a sociopath? My understanding is that most libertarians are.
Created:
-->
@Mall
"There are lots of things that I believe should not be changed, "Is that evil?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. At the moment, those things are good. If, at some point in the future, society or technology changes and those things no longer serve to be useful, then presumably they should be changed. But I don't know how or when that might happen. Thus I don't have an easy answer to your question.
Created:
-->
@Mall
Is there anything you want to remain as law or in policy never to change?
Hmm that's a tough one. I think that all laws need to be kept up to date to be relevant to the times and people who live now. There are lots of laws that people thought were "perfect" or that would be valid forever, but then times and people change. There are lots of things that I believe should not be changed, but I can't imagine how circumstances might change to make my views outdated.
I think the 2nd amendment is a perfect example of this. The founding fathers could never have predicted assault rifles. In their world weapons could fire very slowly. It would be almost unthinkable for a single gunman to kill dozens of people. Clinging to the idea that there is a virtually unlimited right to bear any arm is just silly. It's clearly not what they intended and it clearly isn't good for society or safety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Printing money is bad idea. Give poor person 100$, it lasts him a few days, but price increase after is forever.
like with everything, the details matter. but no, giving everyone 100 will have no noticeable impact on inflation. The only way that it could is if it prompted everyone to try to buy the same product at the same time. But that's not what people do. Some will buy groceries, some will pay off debts, some will buy drugs etc.
We need to tax the super rich 99% of all they got.
absolutely. The plan is much better if we simply increase revenue by taxing the rich, then giving that money to regular people. That would stimulate economic growth more than any corporate or rich person tax cut. But the republicans just love the idea of taking care of the rich and that will help everyone, somehow....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Printing money and giving it away is actually helpful.
unequivocally, yes. it absolutely is. The problem was that they handed way more money to their rich, crony, asshole friends. Good policy is giving money to people. They use that money at businesses and drive growth. Bad policy is handing money to corporations and rich people. It usually ends up in a swiss bank account, used for stock buybacks etc.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
He has proven this time around he is not for deregulation of the economy
he never was. The fact that you think that proves you believe lies.
is not for getting the government out of our health decisions
again, he never was.
not for many of the other freedom-minded things he ran on in 2016
lol, his platform was almost literally all lies. the only things from his platform he actually did was tax cuts for the rich and racism/xenophobia.
Harris is simply more fascistic than Trump, so I will be choosing Trump.
how do you figure that? Trump has literally said he would be a dictator on day one. He wants to take away people's rights. He wants to use the justice department as a weapon against his enemies. He wants pack every department with sycophantic loyalists who will do anything he says without question. He tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election after he lost, and when that failed he riled up a mob to attack the capitol. I can keep going, but hopefully you are getting the point. I'm not sure there has ever been a candidate for president more fascistic that trump.
he answer to expensive grocerie store prices is to lower the corporate tax rate, gas taxes, and other taxes, remove federal subsidies to food which pick winners and losers in the marketplace,
lol seriously? They didn't raise prices because of taxes. They are making record profits. The issue isn't that their costs went up so they passed it on to their customers. The issue is they wanted your money, so they raised prices. Tax cuts are just another giveaway to the rich.
and deregulate the economy, making it easier for other grocery stores to start up to compete and the competition will drive prices down for all people.
competition isn't lacking due to regulation. It is lacking due to capitalism. Bigger chains buy up smaller ones and drive them out of business. The government isn't preventing you from opening a grocery store. But I guarantee you if you tried one of those big chains would try to crush you if they perceived you to be a threat to them. The solution to multi-national conglomerates crushing competition is not cutting regulations. that just makes their anti-competitive ass hattery even easier. The answer is more regulation and breaking up their monopolistic practices.
Grocery stores are not gouging anyone. They have had 2 straight years of shrinking profit margins. If they were gouging prices then they would have rising profit margins.
have you looked into their suppliers? I don't have the stats in front of me at the moment, but a huge percentage of the meat market in the US is controlled by 2 or 3 companies. Ditto for many other types of food.
The reality is this economy is in the toilet and these companies are likely on the verge of bankruptency
lol what delusions are you living in. The economy is literally bigger than it has ever been. It is going vastly better than when trump was president.
In short, government has caused the terrible situation we are in, so more government will make it worse.
lol no. That's like saying "he's having a drug overdose, so Narcan will only make it worse". Even if it were true the problem is caused by government policy, which it isn't, your argument still wouldn't make sense.
Shitty republican policies cause problems and allow companies to do terrible things. Your "solution" is to allow companies to do whatever they want, thus intensifying the shitty behavior.
Created: