[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 10,343 comments
- 409,086 views
- Status
- 716
what is wrong with Democratic socialism? We have money, we have freedom and if something should happen my health care is basically free. I do not have to be insured for getting health care. I do have insurance but it will basically result in cash. It has nothing to do with the state being the big daddy and trying to dictate how we have to live and behave. I do what I want when I want. It just provide some basic safety net and it is we the citizens that are the owners of the state.
- 716
No, you are confusing it with socialism as in communism.
We have free markets exactly like you have in Usa, nothing would change. Okey, you could not have the big pile of money saved but you would not even need it. You would only loose about 1/3 of it and still have more money over if something bad would happen to you because you are backed up by the large mass of your fellow citizen. But I guess it is the reason, you don't care about any one but your own skin. The thing is that in your current system you maybe don't have enough money to save your own skin if something bad happened to you.
We have free markets exactly like you have in Usa, nothing would change. Okey, you could not have the big pile of money saved but you would not even need it. You would only loose about 1/3 of it and still have more money over if something bad would happen to you because you are backed up by the large mass of your fellow citizen. But I guess it is the reason, you don't care about any one but your own skin. The thing is that in your current system you maybe don't have enough money to save your own skin if something bad happened to you.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I care much more than simply over my own skin, I prefer private charity and general prosperity to government crap spending for one. Two, I am not confused, socialism is still a huge strain on freedom and something I will never get on board with.
Of course we are in a bad way at the moment, I'm telling you that someone like Johnson could actually make a positive difference while your man Bernie would just tank it all.
Of course we are in a bad way at the moment, I'm telling you that someone like Johnson could actually make a positive difference while your man Bernie would just tank it all.
- 716
What strain on freedom? You are less free that I am. Just walk/drive around aimlessly in states and you will know how free you are. Can you just go out with your gear and camp where ever you please in the nature? Can you be away from work if you have a kid? Can you go to a University/collage for free? Do your kid have free meals in school? OK I admit, you can have a fully automatic military grade rifle that fire 30rounds/1.5 sec. But hey do you really need that kind of freedom? A regular hunting rifle or a simple pistol at home is not enough? Do not talk about freedom when you do not know anything about it.
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
I'm glad you like it mate, I do not and neither do my countrymen. Yes we have gone astray, because we let socialists in in the first place, in order to correct it we don't need a socialists to say "see? we created a problem for you, let us show you how to fix it as long as we are in charge" No Thank You.
This is the POTUS thread and I'm telling you right now we are going to have a neocon in a democratic sheepskin because we know that is better than whatever else. I just wish more people would look at Johnson, even you for instance even though your opinion means squat tbh, why would you like Bernie over Gary?
This is the POTUS thread and I'm telling you right now we are going to have a neocon in a democratic sheepskin because we know that is better than whatever else. I just wish more people would look at Johnson, even you for instance even though your opinion means squat tbh, why would you like Bernie over Gary?
- 716
I like Bernie because he seems the only one sane person with proper solutions. I do no understand why you condemn the system that is called democratic socialism. From what I understand you have companies/agencies that have for example monopole over important infrastructure like roads/telephone lines and such. That is precisely what we have nothing more nothing less, the thing that is different is that our countries take more tax from you just to provide better services so that when you get in trouble or have kids or need to get education you will pay instead of 14-18% of income tax maybe have to pay 22-24%. It probably not be more than 70-100 bucks/month in a big country as USA if you have a normal salary.
- 716
Because there is no difference how things are run here. The Wealthy in Usa are simply using the word socialism as if we over here have plague. All they(your elite) simply want is to keep the bad social safety net, low minimum wages and have the country divided in different social classes. That is it. There is nothing really different how you and we run our countries, well we have simply higher taxes and better services and more freedom. Again that is the only difference.
And by the way, I am originally from Poland. It was a real communism state when I lived there and now it is a republic and still it is better here in Scandinavia then there.
Just like in USA, wagers are not that regulated and often very low, you can be fired very easily but they still have good healthcare and some kind of safety net.
And by the way, I am originally from Poland. It was a real communism state when I lived there and now it is a republic and still it is better here in Scandinavia then there.
Just like in USA, wagers are not that regulated and often very low, you can be fired very easily but they still have good healthcare and some kind of safety net.
Last edited:
squadops
(Banned)
- 1,987
- United States
No difference? Oh dear, I will let you have the last word, but I would suggest at least reading the constitution of the u.s., after all the POTUS has to swear to uphold it 👍
What our fathers designed would far surpass what you have if we were a responsible people.
What our fathers designed would far surpass what you have if we were a responsible people.
- 716
It is not about having the last word or anything. It is just about selecting a proper government/head of state that can make lives just/fair for every citizen. You do not need to call it socialism or anything. I mean do you think we are lacking any freedom here? We have our problems too, but they are just about same problems as in Usa just to a lesser degree.
Last edited:
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Private prisions are great, so is lobbying.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Define "fair share". I see this term bandied about quite often but never actually defined.
Automatic weapons are illegal.
Your math is way off. If you increase taxes by 7-8% as you suggest the only way that works out to "70-100 bucks/month" is if you are making $1000 per month in salary. In Canada that is half the minimum wage. I don't think anyone making a full minimum wage here would pay any federal or provincial income tax to begin with so that 7-8% would mostly be paid by working class people at a higher rate.
A typical family in my town earning $60-100,000 per year would see a tax increase of $350-650 per month with an increase of 7-8% in taxes. This is in a community where there is an uproar if the city tries to increase municipal tax rates by 2% in a year, which might cost a typical homeowner here about $40-50 per year.
- 87,651
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
What an interesting comment. Let's look closer at it:
Is that freedom? I mean, it certainly looks like the person going to the university/college is free to do it, but it must be paid for somehow right? So do the people who actually pay for it have freedom? Do the people who have to provide this level of education to you have freedom?
How free do you think they would be if they refused?
Is that freedom? I mean, it certainly looks like the person getting the meals is free to do it, as are their parents, but it must be paid for somehow right? So do the people who actually pay for it have freedom? Do the people who have to provide this food to you have freedom?
How free do you think they would be if they refused?
You seem to think that freedom is the ability to do whatever you want on someone else's dime - but not the ability to refuse to pay for it.
Odd way of saying 20 rounds/second...
Do you really need a car that does 0-60mph in 10s? Do you really need nice food? Do you really need an en suite bathroom, or a garden, or a garage? Do you really need three kids, when two is enough to replace you and whomever you're having kids with?
Of course not. These are things that exceed mere needs - they are wants and desires. They are things that you can do, have and buy if you are free to do so. Who are you to question how much freedom other people need?
When you place limits on freedom, it isn't freedom.
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
@Pillo-san If you're going to try and make a poignant argument, next time do it without general fallacies that many (in my view) people outside (even in) the U.S. hold. Rather next time look it up instead along with many of the other things you said, this is mostly in regard to your characterization of U.S. gun laws.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Bernie is asked to provide an example of one of Clinton's decisions that favoured big banks, can't come up with one so he makes something up and is then schooled on telling the truth and how government actually works. Interesting that people applauded heartily when Bernie mocked Hillary for accepting fees to speak at Goldman Sachs, something not a single audience member would ever turn down if it were offered to them.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Eh I don't follow your logic, I mean I know from what I've seen from you, that you don't stand for Hillary. So is this you saying you stand for Bernie less, because of recent debate in here? Or just in general despite what's been going on? If so why? Cause yet again, I find it hard to see how anyone could defend or stand up for her based on current and former track record. Why anyone would run the risk of putting someone like her in office, just so we can have half the term filled with normal days and the other half marred with gate scandals...is beyond me really.
Just trying to gain perspective is all.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Yet he actually proposed legislation, Clintons response to the banks meanwhile is ''Cut it out".
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I'm not saying I stand for anybody, just offering up a clip and my take on it. But if one was forced to make a choice then it's not a question of standing up for one as a "good" candidate in my mind, it's more the lesser of two evils.
Which has nothing to do with the question asked in the debate. The question was not "what have you done Bernie", it was "can you name one decision she made as Senator that shows she favoured big banks" and he didn't have one because there isn't one. All Bernie has is that Hillary and Bill took large speaking fees from all kinds of corporations and therefore they are evil and bad. Last time I checked it wasn't illegal and if I had to guess, 99.99999% of the population would have happily accepted those same fees given the chance. It's a disingenuous and weak argument. I call it playing the demonization card, similar to playing the race card. "Ermagawd, you accepted money to talk? You evil, money grubbing capitalist, how can you possibly think you are qualified to run this country?
Last edited:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Yeah, but then again when have any of these candidates been very topical and descriptive. I mean some times there speech and debate handler sets them up. Usually it's just broad claims.
Other than then financial perspective of it all, I don't see anything all that horrible about Bernie in comparison to Clinton. In fact I don't see it even in the same realm of lesser of two evils. Now come general election and if he's the choice against Trump or Cruz, then sure I'll re-evaluate that, but in that context which is vastly different than the one currently going on.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Unless Hillary is also proposing $18 Trillion in new taxes, "free" healthcare, "free" tuition, massive tax increases on the most mobile of capital etc. I'd say there were some fairly substantial differences between the two.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
What? I don't think you understood my post at all. I'll give you the tl;dr idea of it. In other words, other than me not liking Sander's ideas on economics domestically. I think he is still years better than Clinton as a candidate.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
You can't separate Sander's domestic, or foreign policy for that matter, from Sanders the candidate. It's like saying, "I like ice cream aside from the fact that it's cold". The policy is the man, they are one and the same.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Once again, not at all what I'm doing. The man doesn't hide what his intentions are, Hillary does and has and it's been documented history over and over and over...
Your analogy was funny though, thanks for the laugh and mischaracterization of my post 👍
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Even you have to admit that Sanders offers no official policy on foreign relations nor other domestic issues aside from anything that is tied to his economic policies.
- Status
Similar threads
