[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Swagger897]

lol free education, are you serious. I'm quite sure none of the people I know who will be voting for him are clinging on because of this. First off there's no way t would happen, but rather bring the to debate that something needs to be done with student loans, when the debt owed is higher than all f America's credit debt.

But hey ho, if you want to continuously and illegitimately label masses of people ignorant , by all means go ahead. You must have some pretty solid evidence to do so, because when I labels my names off, I thought of quite the amount of people who support trump and why I don't associate with those people anymore.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well, I don't know if there would necessarily be that much of a culture shock....


Except for those who are die-hard, open gun totting, N***** calling, jack-*** Trump supporters, then yeah, maybe a little bit.

Stay classy. 👎

Obviously my post was a facetious and over the top parody of the above post by Swagger, but I take it you're ok with his post since you failed to comment on it like you did my response to it. Stay classy:tup:

 

[CodeRedR51]

Obviously my post was a facetious and over the top parody of the above post by Swagger, but I take it you're ok with his post since you failed to comment on it like you did my response to it. Stay classy:tup:

Why would I respond to it? There was no reason for me to do so.

 

[Parker]

Why would I respond to it? There was no reason for me to do so.

So you have no problem with someone classifying all Trump supporters in a negative manner but it is an issue when someone does it to Sanders fans?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Why would I respond to it? There was no reason for me to do so.

Stay classy:tup:

 

[CodeRedR51]

So you have no problem with someone classifying all Trump supporters in a negative manner but it is an issue when someone does it to Sanders fans?

No, I didn't say that. Just because I didn't respond to it doesn't mean I agree with it.

Boy, we're all just full of assumptions today, aren't we?

Stay classy:tup:

Including you.

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, I didn't say that. Just because I didn't respond to it doesn't mean I agree with it.

Boy, we're all just full of assumptions today, aren't we?

Including you.

You couldn't be more obvious if you had a sign on your head. The post in question was quoted in my post which you responded to so it's not possible that you missed it. Not responding to it is a clear acknowledgment that you don't have an issue with it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

You couldn't be more obvious if you had a sign on your head. The post in question was quoted in my post which you responded to so it's not possible that you missed it. Not responding to it is a clear acknowledgment that you don't have an issue with it.

I didn't say that I missed it. I did see it, and I didn't feel the need to respond. And that is NOT any sign of me being ok with it. Again, full of assumptions.

 

[Swagger897]

You couldn't be more obvious if you had a sign on your head. The post in question was quoted in my post which you responded to so it's not possible that you missed it. Not responding to it is a clear acknowledgment that you don't have an issue with it.

Well lets start off with this for beginners, that it wasn't directed to you, or anyone else but @Dennisch, the OP who posted the first response.

What makes you think that it is a requirement for someone to have a direct response to me, you, or anyone else in here of which it is not their nature/belief they have towards said statement?

Issue prevalent or not, is no different than making a sweeping generalization..

 

[huskeR32]

There is nothing wrong with calling the ignorant, ignorant. I suppose I could call them uninformed, but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I don't think Bernie Sanders would have half the support he does if his young followers understood socialism.

After watching conservatives spend the last seven years trying to stick the "socialist" label on Obama, I'm quite sure that the left aren't the ones struggling to understand that term.

Further, Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist. A critical difference being that he doesn't support governmental or social ownership of the means of production in our economy. The modern Social Democrat party is not at all opposed to capitalism - they just want to make sure that working-class Americans share in the benefits of a growing economy too.

The right latching onto the "Social" part of Social Democrat and trying to make Bernie look like the second coming of Marx is misleading, utterly predictable, and yet another example of fear mongering that tends to push ignorant folks to the right, not to the left as you suggest.

 

[Swagger897]

After watching conservatives spend the last seven years trying to stick the "socialist" label on Obama, I'm quite sure that the left aren't the ones struggling to understand that term.

Further, Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist. A critical difference being that he doesn't support governmental or social ownership of the means of production in our economy. The modern Social Democrat party is not at all opposed to capitalism - they just want to make sure that working-class Americans share in the benefits of a growing economy too.

The right latching onto the "Social" part of Social Democrat and trying to make Bernie look like the second coming of Marx is misleading, utterly predictable, and yet another example of fear mongering that tends to push ignorant folks to the right, not to the left as you suggest.

Thank you...👍




@Johnnypenso

 

[Danoff]

After watching conservatives spend the last seven years trying to stick the "socialist" label on Obama, I'm quite sure that the left aren't the ones struggling to understand that term.

Further, Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist. A critical difference being that he doesn't support governmental or social ownership of the means of production in our economy. The modern Social Democrat party is not at all opposed to capitalism - they just want to make sure that working-class Americans share in the benefits of a growing economy too.

The right latching onto the "Social" part of Social Democrat and trying to make Bernie look like the second coming of Marx is misleading, utterly predictable, and yet another example of fear mongering that tends to push ignorant folks to the right, not to the left as you suggest.

Yea, especially when both sides are socialist and the country is socialist. BTW, everyone necessarily benefits in a growing capitalist economy. No need to "make sure".

 

[Omnis]

After watching conservatives spend the last seven years trying to stick the "socialist" label on Obama, I'm quite sure that the left aren't the ones struggling to understand that term.

Further, Bernie is a Social Democrat, not a socialist. A critical difference being that he doesn't support governmental or social ownership of the means of production in our economy. The modern Social Democrat party is not at all opposed to capitalism - they just want to make sure that working-class Americans share in the benefits of a growing economy too.

The right latching onto the "Social" part of Social Democrat and trying to make Bernie look like the second coming of Marx is misleading, utterly predictable, and yet another example of fear mongering that tends to push ignorant folks to the right, not to the left as you suggest.

You realize that what you've written is a complete load of crap, right? You're saying that social democrats don't support government or "societal" ownership, but that they only support making private ownership solely a liability instead of an asset.

 

[Swagger897]

Yea, especially when both sides are socialist and the country is socialist. BTW, everyone necessarily benefits in a growing capitalist economy. No need to "make sure".

That's under the assumption that the labor force participation rate is higher than that of unemployed and non-working population, something we don't have at the moment.

You're saying that social democrats don't support government or "societal" ownership, but that they only support making private ownership solely a liability instead of an asset.

Is that not the agenda of a liberal?

 

[Danoff]

That's under the assumption that the labor force participation rate is higher than that of unemployed and non-working population, something we don't have at the moment.

Nope.

 

[Swagger897]

Nope.

Okay so tell me how 1 person is able to pay off social security for 300 million others.

 

[huskeR32]

You realize that what you've written is a complete load of crap, right?

Well, when you put it that way, yes, I do see the error of my ways.

You're saying that social democrats don't support government or "societal" ownership,

I'm not saying that, they say that. I try this fun thing where I let people actually define for themselves what they stand for, rather than trying to force my own preconceptions upon them.

Bernie, who is probably one of the most consistent politicians we currently have, has said many times throughout his career that he does not favor public ownership of businesses.

If you don't agree with the man, fine, but at least be aware of what he actually believes first.

but that they only support making private ownership solely a liability instead of an asset.

Can you point me to an actual proposal that "they" have made wherein the simple act of owning a business would cause somebody to lose money? If not, let's dispense with the hyperbole, shall we?

 

[Danoff]

Okay so tell me how 1 person is able to pay off social security for 300 million others.

What? I said "[E]veryone necessarily benefits in a growing capitalist economy. No need to 'make sure' ". I did not say "1 person is able to pay off social security for 300 million others." Honestly I'm not sure how you got there.

 

[Swagger897]

What? I said "[E]veryone necessarily benefits in a growing capitalist economy. No need to 'make sure' ". I did not say "1 person is able to pay off social security for 300 million others." Honestly I'm not sure how you got there.

In the capitalist society, it is found that a sixty-five or higher labor participation force is required for successful economical operation. Although 12/15 showed the rate was 62.6%, that factors in those who are registered as unemployed, and actively searching. The rate should more or less be around 55-59 percent (or worse, this is 4 minutes of looking at BLS, and a few other stat heavy sites), accounting for undocumented workers, citizens, illegal aliens, etc... Those of which aren't in the system. The point is, bottom heavy isn't good.

So back to the original statement that "generally everyone benefits in a growing capitalist economy." Although you left room for it to be flawed, there is no way you can define it helping everyone from the 39.6% tax bracket to the 10% bracket.

 

[Danoff]

In the capitalist society, it is found that a sixty-five or higher labor participation force is required for successful economical operation. Although 12/15 showed the rate was 62.6%, that factors in those who are registered as unemployed, and actively searching. The rate should more or less be around 55-59 percent (or worse, this is 4 minutes of looking at BLS, and a few other stat heavy sites), accounting for undocumented workers, citizens, illegal aliens, etc... Those of which aren't in the system. The point is, bottom heavy isn't good.

This is an argument for whether or not the economy will grow, not whether or not a growing economy helps everyone. In my statement, the assumption is that the economy is growing, so none of what you posted above is on point.

So back to the original statement that "generally everyone benefits in a growing capitalist economy." Although you left room for it to be flawed, there is no way you can define it helping everyone from the 39.6% tax bracket to the 10% bracket.

I can. Economic growth causes deflation, which is an increase in the value of all currency in circulation. that benefits all people. The government can turn around and spend that economic growth by growing the budget (which they do) more than the deflation would account for (which they do). But that money still benefits everyone in the form of services, just not as much as if they kept their budget fixed.

 

[Swagger897]

This is an argument for whether or not the economy will grow, not whether or not a growing economy helps everyone.

Economic growth causes deflation, which is an increase in the value of all currency in circulation. that benefits all people.

 

[Tornado]

There is nothing wrong with calling the ignorant, ignorant. I suppose I could call them uninformed, but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I don't think Bernie Sanders would have half the support he does if his young followers understood socialism.

Free education is what many of them see. They just don't understand that nothing is free.

I think half of the support Bernie gets is because he hasn't spent the better part of twenty five years doing whatever it takes politically so he could make a last stab effort at the White House.

So you have no problem with someone classifying all Trump supporters in a negative manner but it is an issue when someone does it to Sanders fans?

Even if that wasn't such a stretch to make a point and R1600Turbo was in fact doing that, it seems alright to me if he did.

 

[Parker]

Even if that wasn't such a stretch to make a point and R1600Turbo was in fact doing that, it seems alright to me if he did.

Why is that?

 

[Tornado]

Because there has never been a point in my life that I didn't think Donald Trump was a self-serving blowhard, a substanceless ego run amok; and six months of "political campaigning" has done nothing to dissuade my thoughts on the matter. I don't like most of Bernie Sanders' political views, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are sincere political beliefs. Trump on the other hand might as well be doing this stuff to start another reality show now that he's lost the one he had before he ran, and I likewise have no problem thinking negatively of the people who are still convinced that he is a legitimate candidate for the presidency of the United States.

People who are talking about voting for Trump might as well do a write in for Kim Kardashian, because at least then we can have someone completely vapid in office for four years who is attractive.

 

[Danoff]

You seem to be having trouble. Where are you lost?

 

[Parker]

I guess that is where we differ, I don't judge people based on their political beliefs or choice of candidate. That said, we're in agreement on Trump.

 

[Swagger897]

You seem to be having trouble. Where are you lost?

In the part where you state my response does not apply to why a capitalistic society generally benefits everyone, yet go on to restate exactly what I said initially.

You said in exactly twenty word, what I said and I'm still wrong? Yeah, I am a bit lost in that.

 

[Omnis]

Can you point me to an actual proposal that "they" have made wherein the simple act of owning a business would cause somebody to lose money? If not, let's dispense with the hyperbole, shall we?

Anyone who has proposed a spending and/or tax increase has added a liability to someone other than himself or herself. That is a politician's MO.

 

[huskeR32]

Anyone who has proposed a spending and/or tax increase has added a liability to someone other than himself or herself. That is a politician's MO.

You're getting off track. Let's revisit your original claim:

they only support making private ownership solely a liability instead of an asset.

You are quite clearly saying here that "they" would enact measures so detrimental to businesses that through the act of simply owning one, a person would lose money.

That's a preposterous statement. Unless, of course, you can point me towards an actual proposal from Bernie (or any member of the Social Democrat party) that would in fact have such an effect.